# The Second Official, Authoritative GHG Thread



## SINC

With the last thread locked, time to start anew and here is some interesting reading that is new to the GHG debate.



> *How Well Do Scientists Understand How Changes in Earth's Orbit Affect Long-Term Natural Climate Trends?*
> 
> ScienceDaily (Feb. 7, 2010) — The notion that scientists understand how changes in Earth's orbit affect climate well enough for estimating long-term natural climate trends that underlie any anthropogenic climate change is challenged by findings just published.
> 
> The new research was conducted by a team led by Professor Eelco Rohling of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science hosted at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton.
> 
> "Understanding how climate has responded to past change should help reveal how human activities may have affected, or will affect, Earth's climate. One approach for this is to study past interglacials, the warm periods between glacial periods within an ice age," said Rohling.
> 
> He continued: "Note that we have here focused on the long-term natural climate trends that are related to changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun. Our study is therefore relevant to the long-term climate future, and not so much for the next decades or century."
> 
> The team, which included scientists from the Universities of Tuebingen (Germany) and Bristol, compared the current warm interglacial period with one 400,000 years ago (marine isotope stage 11, or MIS-11).
> 
> Many aspects of the Earth-Sun orbital configuration during MIS-11 were similar to those of the current interglacial. For this reason, MIS-11 is often considered as a potential analogue for future climate development in the absence of human influence.
> 
> *Previous studies had used the analogy to suggest that the current interglacial should have ended 2-2.5 thousand years ago. So why has it remained so warm?*


Emphasis mine.

How well do scientists understand how changes in Earth's orbit affect long-term natural climate trends?


----------



## FeXL

IPCC-Africagate



> Following an investigation by this blog (and with the story also told in The Sunday Times), another major "mistake" in the IPCC's benchmark Fourth Assessment Report has emerged.
> 
> Similar in effect to the erroneous "2035" claim – the year the IPCC claimed that Himalayan glaciers were going to melt – in this instance we find that the IPCC has wrongly claimed that in some African countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.
> 
> At best, this is a wild exaggeration, unsupported by any scientific research, referenced only to a report produced by a Canadian advocacy group, written by an obscure Moroccan academic who specialises in carbon trading, citing references which do not support his claims.


----------



## FeXL

Further...



> This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035, dubbed 'Glaciergate' by commentators.
> Background
> 
> The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC because they appear not only in its report on climate change impacts but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis Report.


----------



## FeXL

India forms new climate change body.



> The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri.
> 
> The move is a significant snub to both the IPCC and Dr Pachauri as he battles to defend his reputation following the revelation that his most recent climate change report included false claims that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035. Scientists believe it could take more than 300 years for the glaciers to disappear.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL, If you don't stop reporting these damning indictments, you won't get a seat at the global warming table.


----------



## FeXL

NIWA Unable To Justify Official Temperature Record.



> The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been urged by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) to abandon all of its in-house adjustments to temperature records. This follows an admission by NIWA that it no longer holds the records that would support its in-house manipulation of official temperature readings.
> 
> In December, NZCSC issued a formal request for the schedule of adjustments under the Official Information Act 1982, specifically seeking copies of “the original worksheets and/or computer records used for the calculations”. On 29 January, NIWA responded that they no longer held any internal records, and merely referred to the scientific literature.
> 
> “The only inference that can be drawn from this is that NIWA has casually altered its temperature series from time to time, without ever taking the trouble to maintain a continuous record. The result is that the official temperature record has been adjusted on unknown dates for unknown reasons, so that its probative value is little above that of guesswork. In such a case, the only appropriate action would be reversion to the raw data record, perhaps accompanied by a statement of any known issues,” said Terry Dunleavy, secretary of NZCSC.
> 
> “NIWA’s website carries the raw data collected from representative temperature stations, which disclose no measurable change in average temperature over a period of 150 years. But elsewhere on the same website, NIWA displays a graph of the same 150-year period showing a sharp warming trend. The difference between these two official records is a series of undisclosed NIWA-created ‘adjustments’.


----------



## SINC

Global warming opinion and the role of partisan cues II 



> Today’s Neilsen poll, published in the Fairfax press, contains some interesting findings about public opinion on the CPRS and on the climate change policies of the major parties.
> 
> Just under two months ago, I noted that shifts in public opinion about the reality of anthropogenic global warming appeared to be strongly related to partisan cues, in particular the overt expression of denialist opinion by Coalition politicians. More recently, in a comment at Andrew Norton’s blog, I noted that support for the CPRS was declining in recent months even though the level of sceptical public opinion, as measured by Morgan Polls, had plateaud.
> 
> Today’s Neilsen Poll finds that support for the CPRS gas declined from 66 per cent in November to 56 per cent last week. Significantly, it also finds that support for the CPRS has declined as sharply amongst Labor voters (from 79 to 68 per cent) as it has amongst Coalition voters (52 per cent to 42 per cent). Further, whilst 45 per cent of voters prefer the Coalition’s new climate action fund whilst only 39 per cent prefer the CPRS, 43 per cent of voters prefer Labor’s broad approach to climate change compared with just 30 per cent who prefer the Coalition’s broad approach. So what are we to make of it all?  Firstly, whether one thinks climate change is a serious problem requiring a real solution is a separate question from whether one thinks the CPRS is a desirable policy to address it. It should not come as a surprise, then, to find public opinion on the CPRS turning sour even as public opinion on the science of climate change seems to be reaching an apparent point of equilibrium.
> 
> *Media coverage of the CPRS debate (with some honourable exceptions) usually overlooks the fact that opposition to the scheme is not confined to denialists.*


Global warming opinion and the role of partisan cues II at Larvatus Prodeo


----------



## FeXL

Major error found in flagship IPCC WG1 report.



> The UN IPCC is facing more humiliation tonight after revelations that a "peer reviewed' study relied on in its Working Group 1 report contained "worthless" and fake data.
> 
> It's the first time climate skeptics have landed a direct blow via the MSM on the prestigious WG-1 report, which outlines the 'scientific' case for climate change and which was used as the basis for the Summary for Policymakers given to world leaders ahead of Copenhagen. Ironically the fatal stab has come from the warmist-leaning Guardian, based on work by British skeptic Doug Keenan.
> 
> ...
> 
> I should add that although WG-1 does cite a couple of other studies as well as Jones', that Jones later completed a new study, ("Urbanisation effects in large scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China", Jones et al, 2008) cited at page 108 of Air Con, which found that far from being "inconsequential", true UHI in China was increasing by 0.1C a DECADE, outstripping the claimed effect of global warming at only 0.07C a decade.
> 
> In other words, a more honest analysis of UHI shows it is a far bigger influence than the UN IPCC report, based on Jones' false earlier study, showed. It's a fair bet Jones revisted the issue because of his conscience (the false data in the first report had been provided by a Chinese scientist).
> 
> *So whilst the Guardian's Fred Pearce can take the line that this does not negate the science underpinning the IPCC report, I see it differently. This shows the premium climate scientists in the world producing worthless, error-filled studies that nonetheless passed 'peer review' and were treated as gospel by the IPCC and its WG-1 reviewers.*
> 
> That's scary. And they want the world to entrust US$45 trillion of wealth transfer based on their work?


Emphasis mine.


----------



## FeXL

The Chinese 'get it' on climate change



> The blogsite IceCap includes a fascinating article by a Mr. Li Xing published in China Daily under the headline "Do three errors mean breaking point for IPCC?".
> 
> Mr. Li recounts his attendance at the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. He writes of attending a panel featuring various skeptics concerning work done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He came away particularly impressed by a talk given by Dr Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist and founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service, who, as Li reports, "challenged the IPCC findings with his research data."
> 
> Li tells of meeting with IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri and others about skeptic views and seeing those views brushed aside without serious appraisal. He also inquired why IPCC reports included very little data from Chinese researchers.
> 
> _"China is not a small country. Its landmass spans several climate zones and includes the roof of the world. I have to wonder how data from China would affect the IPCC's findings.
> 
> Several Chinese scientists who have gone over the IPCC report believe that the IPCC may have overstated the link between global temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere.
> 
> In a paper published in the December issue of the Chinese language Earth Science magazine, Ding Zhongli, an established environmental scientist, stated that the current temperatures on earth look normal if global climate changes over the past 10,000 years are considered."_
> 
> Li then cites the recent revelations of significant problems in the IPCC work. These include how "some scientists had favored data which supports the case for ‘global warming' in order to enhance their grant proposals," the announcement that an IPCC claim of total glacier melt in the Himalayas by 2035 was based on "sheer speculation" -- not peer-reviewed scientific work, and revelation that the IPCC had misrepresented an unpublished report linking climate change with an increase in natural disasters even when the report's author, Dr Robert Muir-Wood, a researcher in risk management not climatology, had explicitly stated the opposite.
> 
> Mr. Li concludes:
> 
> _"I am particularly troubled by the fact that top IPCC officials do not seem to take these revelations seriously. Interviewed by the BBC, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the IPCC, dismissed the matter as a "human mistake".
> 
> Ancient Chinese considered three a breaking point. They could forgive two errors, but not a third. Now that the IPCC has admitted three "human" errors, isn't it time scientists gave its work a serious review?"_
> 
> 
> It is amazing that Chinese media examine what has recently come out revealing IPCC "mistakes" and conclude more serious examination of its work is in order. Yet the American mainstream media brush aside such concerns seeking to keep an obvious political agenda alive.


----------



## Macfury

> So whilst the Guardian's Fred Pearce can take the line that this does not negate the science underpinning the IPCC report, I see it differently. This shows the premium climate scientists in the world producing worthless, error-filled studies that nonetheless passed 'peer review' and were treated as gospel by the IPCC and its WG-1 reviewers.



Incredibly, some of the "warming" figures these jackasses are braying about fall entirely within the range of statistical variance one might expect of such guesswork.


----------



## FeXL

Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen.



> The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.
> 
> Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.
> 
> The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.
> 
> Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”
> 
> Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn’t in the public sphere.”
> 
> However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”


----------



## SINC

*Global warming may become global cooling this century*



> London, Feb 8 : A leading analyst has claimed that global warming is set to become global cooling this century, with temperatures falling by about 0.5 degree Celsius by the year 2050.According to a report in Daily Express, the analyst in question is Professor Michael Beenstock from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who said that theories of climate change are wrong.  He warned that climatologists have misused statistics, leading them to the mistaken conclusion global warming is *evidence of the greenhouse effect.
> 
> He told London's Cass Business School that the link between rising greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures is "spurious", adding, "The greenhouse effect is an illusion."
> 
> Professor Beenstock said that just because greenhouse gases and temperatures have risen together does not mean they are linked.  He claims that the real cause of *rising temperatures is the sun, which he says is at its hottest for over 1,000 years, but is "beginning to stabilize".   "If the sun's heat continues to remain stable, and if carbon emissions continue to grow with the rate of growth of the world economy, global temperatures will fall by about 0.5C by 2050," Professor Beenstock said.
> 
> Citing predictions by climatologists in the 1970s of a new Ice Age, Professor Beenstock said, "I predict that climatologists will look equally foolish in the years to come. Indeed, it may be already happening."


Global warming may become global cooling this century


----------



## FeXL

IPCC- Amazongate



> The IPCC also made false predictions on the Amazon rain forests, referenced to a non peer-reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF. This time though, the claim made is not even supported by the report and seems to be a complete fabrication


More...



> For an indication of the scale of the damage, we have only the estimates in the Nature paper that "approximately 270,000 km2 of Amazonian forest had completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil by the end of the 1998 dry season," with an additional 360,000 km2 suffering reduced water availability – thereby rendering those trees more susceptible to drought.
> 
> Three points emerge from this. Firstly, these combined areas relate to a total forest area of between 4-6 million square kilometres, and thus represent perhaps as little as ten percent of the total area. Secondly, the effects are observed in relation to severe drought effects arising from an unusually strong El Nino episode, unrelated to climate change. And thirdly, the drought effect is localised. In other areas of the forest, the El Nino brings increased rainfall.
> 
> By any measure, and by any possible construction, the Nature paper cannot be taken to support the assertions made either by Rowell & Moore or the IPCC. As with the assertion on the Himalayan glaciers, the IPCC passage should be withdrawn.


----------



## FeXL

Climategate: How to Hide the Sun



> The Climategate crowd successfully worked to obscure the connection between solar activity and climate. The leaked CRU e-mails reveal how.
> 
> In 2003, two Harvard-Smithsonian Professors, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, published a peer-reviewed paper in the scientific journal Climate Research which identified solar activity as a major influence on Earth's climate. This paper also concluded that the twentieth century was not the warmest, nor was it the century with the most extreme weather over the past thousand years. These two scientists reviewed more than two hundred sources of data. The paper specifically examined climate variations observed to coincide with solar variations. One of the more notable correlations cited in this paper is the well-documented coincidence of the Little Ice Age and a solar quiet period from A.D. 1300 to A.D. 1900. Soon and Baliunas asserted that the lack of solar activity resulted in cooler temperatures across the globe. The evidence they compiled also indicated that as the sun became more active global temperatures began to rise and the Little Ice Age ended.
> 
> ...
> 
> The discussion of solar influences is brought up in an e-mail from Dr. Daly, dated 9 August 1996. Dr. Daly uncovered an eleven-year signal in the temperature data set from the island of Tasmania. He found this signal by using a mathematical signal analysis formula known as a Fourier Transform. It is clear from the tone of his e-mail that he knows this is not welcome news, but he goes on to state the following concerning the temperature data set compiled by the Jones Gang:
> 
> _(I tried the same run [Fourier Transform] on the CRU global temperature set. Even though CRU must be highly smoothed by the time all the averages are worked out, the 11-year pulse is still there, albeit about half the size of Sydneys)._
> 
> *The eleven-year cycle corresponds exactly with the one observed on the sun. This fact was kept secret by the Jones Gang.*
> 
> Correlating the timeline of these proxy data was identified as problematic by Dr. Wigley, another member of the Jones Gang, in an e-mail dated 12 Aug 1996. In his effort to correlate the data, Dr. Wigley concludes that the solar signal is strong enough to convince him that solar forcing is a major factor in climate change:
> 
> _4) Causes. Here, ice cores are more valuable (CO2, CH4 and volcanic aerosol changes). But the main external candidate is solar, and more work is required to improve the "paleo" solar forcing record and to understand how the climate system responds both globally and regionally to solar forcing._
> 
> What is significant about this paragraph is that it identifies the main cause of climate change as "solar forcing," not carbon dioxide (CO2). This fact was also kept secret.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Now, before the snide comments, personal attacks, et al. commence (and they will...), do me just one favor:

Disprove just one of the observations I've posted above. Just one...

-------
Anyone who thinks that the science of GHG, AGW, Climate change, whatever, is settled, then it is truly you who are in denial.

Anyone who thinks that the International Pack of Climate Crooks has a shred of credibility after this is in denial, two.


----------



## eMacMan

Will place this where it rightfully belongs. 



eMacMan said:


> Lacking the global warming thread will just add a minor aside.
> 
> Heard some global warming type on the radio claiming the glaciers in Western Canada had remained unchanged for thousands of years and were now retreating at an alarming rate. Quite intersting as these glaciers made several advances and some retreats from ~1250 AD right up to about the beginning of the twentieth century. Yet as they retreat they are finding trees that were 200 or even 300 years old when the glaciers ran over them.
> 
> Neither glaciers, arctic ice floes or even climate are static. They should not be presented as such, no matter how fervently the presenter wants to advance a particular cause.
> 
> Still the climate will continue to change. Hopefully it will continue to warm during my lifetime as the alternative seems to be a a rather rapid plunge into either a minor a major ice age.


----------



## FeXL

Forgot one:

IPCC-Seagate



> IPCC AR4 reported:
> 
> _The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because *55%* of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and *65%* of its Gross National Product (GNP) is produced._
> 
> Dutch newspaper Vrij Nederland reported today (Google translation):
> 
> _In its last Assessment Report on the impacts of climate change shows that 55% of Netherlands is below sea level in this area and that 65% of the gross national product is produced. These figures are far too high. The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) is only *one fifth* of the Netherlands below sea level and there are only *19%* instead of 65% of the GDP generated._
> 
> Not that 20% is something to be ignored if that’s what they think. But the percentage below sea level is the sort of thing that primary school geography classes should be able to get right.


Bold mine.

So, as a branch of the UN, who monitors these idiots?

Seriously.

What do you suppose will happen to these hacks?

Where's the science?


----------



## MacGuiver

Wow!

Two pages and not a single rebuttal? Could the Global Warmers be loosing their religion? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> FeXL, If you don't stop reporting these damning indictments, you won't get a seat at the global warming table.


Fine. Ain't never been afraid to walk against the current before. 'Sides, now that the excrement has hit the oscillating air displacement device, I don't want to be in splatter range.

I'll be off in a corner, eating popcorn, sipping a cold beer and watching these hacks trying to conduct damage control with more outcries of "taken out of context", "you're twisting my words", etc.

Any bets that corner's gonna be damn crowded?

The sad part is that I haven't even addressed the dozens of other lesser inconsistencies, hypocrisies, lies and outright collusion that have recently come to light.


----------



## Macfury

Well, ya see FeXL, the promponents of AGW are filled to the brim with hogwash, their numbers are faked and their conclusions are pulled out of thin air--but the science is sound.


----------



## adagio

MacGuiver said:


> Wow!
> 
> Two pages and not a single rebuttal? Could the Global Warmers be loosing their religion?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Perhaps they have seen the light? 

I'm waiting for the day Gore is brought up on charges and stripped of his Nobel prize. If that day ever comes I'm having a party with lots of champagne to celebrate.


----------



## eMacMan

adagio said:


> Perhaps they have seen the light?
> 
> I'm waiting for the day Gore is brought up on charges and stripped of his Nobel prize. If that day ever comes I'm having a party with lots of champagne to celebrate.


Seems like a mass strip is in order. We cannot forget BO and Henry Kissinger. beejacon Oh and Yassar and that Israeli proponent of peace via slaughter and theft.


----------



## Vandave

FeXL said:


> The sad part is that I haven't even addressed the dozens of other lesser inconsistencies, hypocrisies, lies and outright collusion that have recently come to light.


And what percent of these things typically come to light? Where there is smoke there is fire.

The IPCC should be dumped.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> BO...


After seeing the IPCC, NOAA and NASA discredited over their mishandling of climate data, BO is pushing hard to create a federal climate monitoring agency to act as a brand new religious body.


----------



## Macfury

I really like this editorial in the _Wall Street Journal _concerning the failure of the IPCC and India's rejection of its authority:

India Should Support a Toothless IPCC - WSJ.com



> The IPCC has been checkmated, as have so many other U.N. institutions before it. This is the inevitable consequence of the desire for global government under the misguided belief that ordinary people do not know what is in their own interest. With the deepening of democratic ideals, people power can no longer be overturned so easily. The failure of the IPCC shows that sovereignty still lies with the people, not with the aspirants for global government.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> I really like this editorial in the _Wall Street Journal _concerning the failure of the IPCC and India's rejection of its authority:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The IPCC has been checkmated, as have so many other U.N. institutions before it. This is the inevitable consequence of the desire for global government under the misguided belief that ordinary people do not know what is in their own interest. With the deepening of democratic ideals, people power can no longer be overturned so easily. The failure of the IPCC shows that sovereignty still lies with the people, not with the aspirants for global government.
> 
> 
> 
> India Should Support a Toothless IPCC - WSJ.com
Click to expand...

Finally the truth is being revealed. :clap:


----------



## Vandave

SINC said:


> Finally the truth is being revealed. :clap:


The tooth has been revealed.


----------



## MacDoc

Meanwhile

_it's getting warmer
we're responsible
the IPCC in most cases has been too conservative...._

But do keep heads buried in oil sands.....


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Meanwhile
> 
> _it's getting warmer
> we're responsible
> the IPCC in most cases has been too conservative...._
> 
> But do keep heads buried in oil sands.....



Just beautiful! It couldn't have been more perfect!


----------



## Vandave

Macfury said:


> Just beautiful! It couldn't have been more perfect!


It could have been a Haiku.


----------



## Vandave

MacDoc said:


> Meanwhile
> 
> _it's getting warmer
> we're responsible
> the IPCC in most cases has been too conservative...._
> 
> But do keep heads buried in oil sands.....


It's not getting warmer. The planet has cooled for ten years now.

The link between anthropogenic activity, CO2 and warming is spurious and not well understood and certainly not proven.

The IPCC has little credibility. They are a political body, not a scientific body. 

A new scientific body with credibility is needed. They need to be objective and look at the current body of literature with a fresh set of eyes. They need to listen to critics and resolve their questions rather than hide data and ignore freedom of information requests.


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> It could have been a Haiku.


Hmmm. 17 syllables and it must invoke a season:



MacDoc said:


> Warm winters
> We're to blame
> Mad dogs at IPCC too tame


----------



## MacDoc

head in sand is always safe....maybe....



> *Climate 'Tipping Points' May Arrive Without Warning, Says Top Forecaster*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I_cebergs breaking off from the Dawes Glacier in the Endicott Arm. (Credit: iStoc_kphoto/Joseph Gareri)
> 
> ScienceDaily (Feb. 10, 2010) — A new University of California, Davis, study by a top ecological forecaster says it is harder than experts thought to predict when sudden shifts in Earth's natural systems will occur -- a worrisome finding for scientists trying to identify the tipping points that could push climate change into an irreparable global disaster.
> 
> "Many scientists are looking for the warning signs that herald sudden changes in natural systems, in hopes of forestalling those changes, or improving our preparations for them," said UC Davis theoretical ecologist Alan Hastings. "Our new study found, unfortunately, that regime shifts with potentially large consequences can happen without warning — systems can ‘tip’ precipitously.
> 
> "This means that some effects of global climate change on ecosystems can be seen only once the effects are dramatic. By that point returning the system to a desirable state will be difficult, if not impossible."
> 
> The current study focuses on models from ecology, but its findings may be applicable to other complex systems, especially ones involving human dynamics such as harvesting of fish stocks or financial markets.
> 
> Hastings, a professor in the UC Davis Department of Environmental Science and Policy, is one of the world's top experts in using mathematical models (sets of equations) to understand natural systems. His current studies range from researching the dynamics of salmon and cod populations to modeling plant and animal species' response to global climate change.
> 
> In 2006, Hastings received the Robert H. MacArthur Award, the highest honor given by the Ecological Society of America.
> 
> Hastings' collaborator and co-author on the new study, Derin Wysham, was previously a postdoctoral scholar at UC Davis and is now a research scientist in the Department of Computational and Systems Biology at the John Innes Center in Norwich, England.
> 
> Scientists widely agree that global climate change is already causing major environmental effects, such as changes in the frequency and intensity of precipitation, droughts, heat waves and wildfires; rising sea level; water shortages in arid regions; new and larger pest outbreaks afflicting crops and forests; and expanding ranges for tropical pathogens that cause human illness.
> 
> And they fear that worse is in store. As U.S. presidential science adviser John Holdren (not an author of the new UC Davis study) recently told a congressional committee: "Climate scientists worry about 'tipping points' ... thresholds beyond which a small additional increase in average temperature or some associated climate variable results in major changes to the affected system."
> 
> Among the tipping points Holdren listed were: the complete disappearance of Arctic sea ice in summer, leading to drastic changes in ocean circulation and climate patterns across the whole Northern Hemisphere; acceleration of ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, driving rates of sea-level increase to 6 feet or more per century; and ocean acidification from carbon dioxide absorption, causing massive disruption in ocean food webs.
> 
> The new UC Davis study was supported by the Advancing Theory in Biology program at the U.S. National Science Foundation.


Climate 'tipping points' may arrive without warning, says top forecaster


----------



## Macfury

Allow me to perform a small precis of the full article that MacDoc posted (in violation of copyright):



> A new University of California, Davis, study by a top ecological forecaster says *it is harder than experts thought to predict* when sudden shifts in Earth's natural systems will occur.


He hit the heart of it right there. It is hard to predict. So hard that he clowns at IPCC have failed to do so at every point in their checkered history.

Shall we go on?



> Scientists widely agree that global climate change is already causing major environmental effects, such as changes in the frequency and intensity of precipitation, droughts, heat waves and wildfires; rising sea level; water shortages in arid regions; new and larger pest outbreaks afflicting crops and forests; and expanding ranges for tropical pathogens that cause human illness.


This sort of thing is at the very heart of Climategate. Most of these so-called proofs are guesses at best, fiction at worst. The Himalayas will become bereft of snow!

Expect a lot more articles of the alarmist sort as the AGW train begins to lose steam.


----------



## SINC

The Chicken Little gang's theories are beginning to look like Swiss cheese.


----------



## chasMac

And this (from the Guardian, no less):

Public loses faith in climate change science after leaked emails scandal | Environment | The Guardian



> A BBC poll, which surveyed 1,000 people, revealed that 25% of adults did not believe in global warming – a rise of 8% since a similar poll in November – and the percentage of those who thought climate change was a reality fell to 75%. Of those who believed, one in three felt climate change had been exaggerated. *Only 26% of people thought climate change was "established as largely manmade*".


(my emphasis)

75% of people polled believe in climate change, fair enough, no one is suggesting climate stasis. The important figure is the (only) 26% who believe that climate change is established and man-made. Keep in mind that those polled were European - our progressive betters. Hope?


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> The important figure is the (only) 26% who believe that climate change is established and man-made. Keep in mind that those polled were European - our progressive betters. Hope?


They couldn't be kept agitated and in a constant state of fear. Saul Alinsky points out that if you want to hijack the democratic process, you need to frighten or agitate the population over the short term, then consolidate your control. The fear and agitation can NOT be maintained. The AGW movement failed to understand this as it delivered doomsday scenario after doomsday scenario, each more dire than the one that preceded it. Even the Europeans, masters of self-doubt and guilt, have become inured.


----------



## MannyP Design

How many more weeks?


----------



## MacGuiver

chasMac said:


> And this (from the Guardian, no less):
> 
> Public loses faith in climate change science after leaked emails scandal | Environment | The Guardian
> 
> 
> (my emphasis)
> 
> 75% of people polled believe in climate change, fair enough, no one is suggesting climate stasis. The important figure is the (only) 26% who believe that climate change is established and man-made. Keep in mind that those polled were European - our progressive betters. Hope?


I think the person that leaked or hacked the CRU emails deserves the next Nobel Prize.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## FeXL

There are certain members on these boards who have openly stated that even the oil companies have come onside & support the theory of AGW.

In the interests of proving credibility (or, lack thereof...), I'd just like to blow a hole in that mindset as well:

ExxonMobil cash supported concerted campaign to undermine case for man-made warming



> Free-market, anti-climate change think-tanks such as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in the US and the International Policy Network in the UK have received grants totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds from the multinational energy company ExxonMobil. Both organisations have funded international seminars pulling together climate change deniers from across the globe.


_____

Once again, I ask: Somebody, anybody, find me some solid science that illustrates how much mankind's activities have affected the climate. One percent? Ten? Fifty?

Please.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Once again, I ask: Somebody, anybody, find me some solid science that illustrates how much mankind's activities have affected the climate. One percent? Ten? Fifty?
> 
> Please.


"Well, it's a matter of faith, and if we go ahead and do everything they ask us to--aren't we better off anyway?"

I love the last bit. Are we better off for moving to expensive alternative fuels and layer upon layer of additional bureaucracy? The answer is a resounding NO! We are worse of economically and competitively as we trash our own freedom to make personal choices.


----------



## MacDoc

in case you were wondering...



> Wednesday, Feb. 10, 2010
> *Another Blizzard: Where's Global Warming?*
> 
> By Bryan Walsh
> 
> As the blizzard-bound residents of the mid-Atlantic region get ready to dig themselves out of the third major storm of the season, they may stop to wonder two things: Why haven't we bothered to invest in a snow blower and, also, what happened to climate change? After all, it stands to reason that if the world is getting warmer — and the past decade was the hottest on record — major snowstorms should become a thing of the past, like Palm Pilots and majority rule in the Senate. Certainly that's what the Virginia state Republican Party thinks: the GOP aired an ad last weekend attacking two Democratic Congressmen for supporting the 2009 carbon-cap-and-trade bill, and using the recent storms to cast doubt on global warming. (See pictures of a massive blizzard hitting Washington, D.C.)
> Brace yourselves now — this may be a case of politicians twisting the facts. There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm. As the meteorologist Jeff Masters points out in his excellent blog at Weather Underground, *the two major storms that hit Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., this winter — in December and during the first weekend of February — are already among the 10 heaviest snowfalls those cities have ever recorded. The chance of that happening in the same winter is incredibly unlikely.*
> But there have been hints that it was coming. The 2009 U.S. Climate Impacts Report found that large-scale cold-weather storm systems have gradually tracked to the north in the U.S. over the past 50 years. While the frequency of storms in the middle latitudes has decreased as the climate has warmed, the intensity of those storms has increased. That's in part because of global warming — hotter air can hold more moisture, so when a storm gathers it can unleash massive amounts of snow. Colder air, by contrast, is drier; if we were in a truly vicious cold snap, like the one that occurred over much of the East Coast during parts of January, we would be unlikely to see heavy snowfall. (See pictures of the effects of global warming.)
> Climate models also suggest that while global warming may not make hurricanes more common, it could well intensify the storms that do occur and make them more destructive. (Comment on this story)
> But as far as winter storms go, shouldn't climate change make it too warm for snow to fall? Eventually that is likely to happen — but probably not for a while. In the meantime, warmer air could be supercharged with moisture and, as long as the temperature remains below 32°F, it will result in blizzards rather than drenching winter rainstorms. And while the mid-Atlantic has borne the brunt of the snowfall so far this winter, areas near lakes may get hit even worse. As global temperatures have risen, the winter ice cover over the Great Lakes has shrunk, which has led to even more moisture in the atmosphere and more snow in the already hard-hit Great Lakes region, according to a 2003 study in the _Journal of Climate_. (Read "Climate Accord Suggests a Global Will, if Not a Way.")
> Ultimately, however, it's a mistake to use any one storm — or even a season's worth of storms — to disprove climate change (or to prove it; some environmentalists have wrongly tied the lack of snow in Vancouver, the site of the Winter Olympic Games, which begin this month, to global warming). Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries. And while our ability to predict the former has become reasonably reliable, scientists are still a long way from being able to make accurate projections about the future of the global climate. Of course, that doesn't help you much when you're trying to locate your car under a foot of powder.
> See TIME's special report about the Copenhagen climate-change conference.


Snowstorm: East Coast Blizzard Tied to Climate Change -- Printout -- TIME

cold continent.....meet warm ocean...


----------



## Macfury

Of course. Cold temperatures... global warming. Warm temperatures... global warming. Snowstorm ...global warming. Drought... global warming. Monsooon... global warming. Hurricane... global warming. Ice Age.... global warming. 

Isn't it nice when all roads lead to Rome and all evidence points to your hypothesis?

Think back to any time that someone has pointed to a single weather event and steam flew out of a certain someone's ears as he declared that individual weather events do NOT disprove AGW. They only prove it.

The article above doesn't make any such claims. Only the poster is drawing the conclusions.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> cold continent.....meet warm ocean...


Cold continent, eh? So the continent really is cooling, right? And that's global warming, right?

Yeah, I get it now.


----------



## MacDoc

_Sow the wind...._

2 U.S. firms wash hands of tar sands - thestar.com

Thin edge of the wedge....maybe the Alberta dinosaurs in gov should have listened to Pembina a few years ago and forced a clean up of the sewer ....ahead of time when it was less expensive...

Keep your head in the tar sands long enough it'll end up compacted in the trash heap soon enough..


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> _Sow the wind...._
> 
> 2 U.S. firms wash hands of tar sands - thestar.com


"Hello, China? We've got some oil to sell..."


----------



## FeXL

*Tar sands, schmar sands...*

Nothing like a good, old-fashioned case of denial. Or, is it merely ignorance?

"Hello, Ontario Refinery Corporation? Where is it that you got your crude oil from in 2005? 28.2 million cubic metres from Europe, 21.6 mcm from OPEC nations and the balance from Equatorial Guinea and other, lesser suppliers... Nope, that's it. Thank you very much."

OK, lemme see...

This pdf tells me that an oceangoing trip from the Middle East to the US Gulf takes about 68 days. I'm going to estimate an additional 5 to get to Ontario, so 73 days.

This  article states:


> In the Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors a typical oceangoing ship produces as much nitrogen oxide in a day as an oil refinery.
> 
> "Two or 3 tons a day," said Sam Atwood of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.


These are pretty big ships, we'll go with 3 tons a day on bunker fuel. OK, where's the pencil... 73 days times 3 tons a day equals 219 tons of, wait, that's just nitrogen oxide. What about sulphur oxides, small particulates, et al? For simplicity sake, let's just look at NO for now.

According to search info, crude oil averages about 0.9 metric tonnes/cubic metre (0.6-1.2) and the above mentioned pdf cites 100,000 tonnes as the average size of the "Aframax" class of tanker (assuming, of course, that draft clearances allow a full ship). So, each tanker will average about 90,000 cubic metres of crude carried. Now, divide that into the total metres imported and you get about 553 full tankers per year. Multiply 553 tankers by 219 tons of NO per trip equals just over 121,000 tons of nitrogen oxide alone emitted into the atmosphere per year, just to fuel Ontario's thirst for crude oil.

But wait! That's just one way. The ship must return and it's not likely to get a return load from Canada. It will have to head somewhere else, load up, and return to Europe or the Arabian Gulf or Venezuela or wherever. That means we have to more than double the numbers, at the bare minimum.

So, that makes a *quarter of a million tons* of nitrogen oxide emitted into the atmosphere on a yearly basis getting crude to Ontario's and Eastern Canadian refineries. That's not even refining the crude yet. That's just freight!

So you want to split hairs. The round trips to Europe and Venezuela aren't going to be as long as round trips to Saudi. Agreed. We are getting less crude from Europe (closer) and more crude from elsewhere (further), according to the StatsCan article. How far do those tankers have to go to find another load? How much should we reduce the numbers by? Twenty percent? Thirty? 

And, as noted above, we haven't even examined the numbers for sulphur oxides, small particulates, _et al_.

Any way you look at it, crude going into Ontario and Eastern Canadian refineries is putting hundreds of thousands of tons of pollutants from tankers burning bunker fuel into the atmosphere every year.

Sowing the wind, indeed.

According to the same StatsCan article, about 38 million cubic metres of crude came from the tar sands in 2005 (136.4x0.67x0.42). How "dirty" would it have to be to compare to the freight numbers alone for the 50 million cubic metres imported and refined elsewhere in Canada?

Don't bother, the question is rhetorical.

Tell ya what MacDoc. Before you go looking over the fence and pointing at the neighbors, mebbe you should check the smell in your own back yard first. 

You tell me my head is buried in the tar sands. What's your head buried in?

As I've noted before, what's happening with the tar sands is far from angelic but, compared to the mess culminating in your neighborhood, it's like clear spring water.


----------



## Macfury

I think MaccyD was "sowing the wind" on the CO2 Express to Bloemfontein and back.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL You did a bit of a disservice by ignoring the various sulphur emissions of that tanker. The trans-oceanic shipping industry saves a bundle by not removing the sulphur from its fuel. The result is that various sulphur emissions from those puppies is far greater than a comparable land based diesel engine. We are talking 1000s of times greater.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> FeXL You did a bit of a disservice by ignoring the various sulphur emissions of that tanker. The trans-oceanic shipping industry saves a bundle by not removing the sulphur from its fuel. The result is that various sulphur emissions from those puppies is far greater than a comparable land based diesel engine. We are talking 1000s of times greater.



I noticed MacDoc didn't mention the impressive list of corporations that had turned their backs on Alberta oil:

Whole Foods Market Inc. _and _
Bed, Bath and Beyond Inc.

What's next, Mighty Taco?


----------



## MacDoc

Some still don't get it... 

Some are beginning to count the cost ....



> *Arctic melt to cost trillions: report*
> 
> Posted Sat Feb 6, 2010 6:24pm AEDT
> 
> *The loss of Arctic Sea ice and snow cover is already costing the world about $US61 billion to $US371 billion annually. *(Reuters/Ho New)
> 
> Related Story: Climate changing faster than expected: scientists
> Related Story: 4 degrees warming 'likely' without carbon cuts
> Related Story: Inuits need cash for freezers in warming Arctic
> Related Story: US navy braces for Arctic resources fight
> 
> Arctic ice melting could cost global agriculture, real estate and insurance anywhere from $US2.4 trillion to $US24 trillion by 2050 in damage from rising sea levels, floods and heat waves, according to a new report.
> 
> "Everybody around the world is going to bear these costs," said Eban Goodstein, a resource economist at Bard College in New York state who co-authored the report, called Arctic Treasure, Global Assets Melting Away.
> 
> He said the report, reviewed by more than a dozen scientists and economists and funded by the Pew Environment Group, an arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts, provides a first attempt to monetise the cost of the loss of one of the world's great weather makers.
> 
> "The Arctic is the planet's air conditioner and it's starting to break down," he said.
> 
> The loss of Arctic Sea ice and snow cover is already costing the world about $US61 billion to $US371 billion annually from costs associated with heat waves, flooding and other factors, the report said.
> 
> The losses could grow as a warmer Arctic unlocks vast stores of methane in the permafrost. The gas has about 21 times the global warming impact of carbon dioxide.
> 
> Melting of Arctic sea ice is already triggering a feedback of more warming as dark water revealed by the receding ice absorbs more of the sun's energy, he said. That could lead to more melting of glaciers on land and raise global sea levels.
> 
> While much of Europe and the United States has suffered heavy snowstorms and unusually low temperatures this winter, evidence has built that the Arctic is at risk from warming.
> 
> Greenhouse gases generated by tailpipes and smokestacks have pushed Arctic temperatures in the last decade to the highest levels in at least 2,000 years, reversing a natural cooling trend, an international team of researchers reported in the journal Science in September.
> 
> Arctic emissions of methane have jumped 30 per cent in recent years, scientists said last month.
> 
> Thin ice over the Arctic Sea this winter could mean a powerful ice-melt next summer, a top US climate scientist said this week.
> 
> And early findings from a major research project in Canada involving more than 370 scientists from 27 countries showed on Friday that climate change is transforming the Arctic environment faster than expected and accelerating the disappearance of sea ice.
> 
> Mr Goodstein's study did not look at worst-case scenarios Arctic melting could have, such as warmer temperatures that trigger massive releases of crystallised methane formations in Arctic soils and ocean beds known as methane hydrates. It also did not look at sea ice erosion troubling people in the Arctic.
> 
> -


Arctic melt to cost trillions: report - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


----------



## Macfury

The above monsterlink doesn't prove anything about AGW. It just describes possible (but unsubstantiated) business fluctuations based on dire unsubstantiated predictions about the year 2050.

The current estimated costs of the current climate (not AGW) are supposedly $US61 billion to $US371 billion annually. Even if we accepted them as accurate (such figures are within the statistical margin of error and don't account for economic benefits of a warmer climate) how would they compare to the price of so-called AGW remedies suggested by the Warmist crowds? A drop in the bucket.

Some people (who fly to South Africa) just don't get it.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> _Sow the wind...._
> 
> Keep your head in the tar sands long enough it'll end up compacted in the trash heap soon enough..


You must be referring to the same oilsands whose environmental record just keeps getting better, are you?



> Oilsands Operations Study Reports Clean Air
> 
> The Wood Buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA), Fort McMurray, Alberta requested that an analysis of air quality monitoring data be undertaken for the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo to assist stakeholders and interested parties in understanding the state of and trends in regional air quality. This report presents results of an investigation of short-term behaviors and long-term trends in continuously-measured ambient air quality data for the WBEA.
> 
> Daily and monthly (seasonal) behaviors and long-term trends in historical data for a number of air pollutants were investigated over the period 1998 to 2007. This period of time represented the most complete set of air quality data that was available in which to perform the investigation. Air pollutants included oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide, particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 μm (PM2.5), ground level ozone, total hydrocarbon, total reduced sulphur or hydrogen sulphide, and carbon monoxide. An objective of the study was to establish whether, and the extent to which, concentrations of air pollutants have changed over this time period in relation to industrial and community development.
> 
> Percentiles values taken from a cumulative frequency distribution of data can be more representative than general average values. Values representing 50th, 65th, 80th, 90th, 95th, and 98th percentile concentrations were identified from frequency distributions for each year and used for trend analysis. One definition of a percentile for a distribution of values is that it is the percentage of values that are smaller than the value at that percentile.
> 
> For example, if the 50th percentile 1-hour concentration for ozone is 20 ppb during a year, 50% of the 1-hour concentrations are smaller than 20 ppb and 50% are larger. For a 98th percentile 1-hour concentration of 40 ppb during the year, 98% of the 1-hour concentrations are smaller than 40 ppb and only 2% are larger. A 50th percentile concentration is a typical concentration experienced on any given day. A 98th percentile concentration is a high-end value, or something that – on average – occurs much less frequently or not at all on any given day.
> 
> Table ES-1 summarizes trends for hourly average concentrations of air pollutants at WBEA monitoring stations. The record for three monitoring stations (AMS 3 – Lower Camp; AMS 14 – Anzac; and AMS 15 – CNRL Horizon) was less than four years. This period is considered too short to offer a meaningful understanding about concentration trends.
> 
> Therefore results for these stations are not shown in Table ES-1.
> 
> Results indicated statistically significant increasing hourly concentrations for oxides of nitrogen (including nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide) at the Fort McMurray Patricia McInnes station and the Fort McKay station.
> 
> In addition, decreasing hourly concentrations were observed for PM2.5 at all of the community air monitoring stations (Fort McMurray, Fort McKay, and Fort Chipewyan). Results for other air pollutant at other stations were mixed; but in most cases indicated negligible or small amounts of change.
> 
> Air quality at the Fort Chipewyan monitoring station was quite unique and separate from air quality observed at the other monitoring stations. It is apparent that the Fort Chipewyan monitoring station is located far enough away from sources and activities that it is only slightly influenced by the regional development and activity that is influencing, to varying degrees, many of the other monitoring stations in the airshed.
> 
> Only a few of the air pollutant datasets analyzed showed statistically significant change – e.g., oxides of nitrogen concentrations at Fort McKay and Fort McMurray, and PM2.5 concentrations at all of the community air monitoring stations. In most cases it was difficult to show change, or change that was large enough to be statistically significant. Given the limits posed by accuracy of monitors for measuring low levels of air pollutants and noise inherent in environmental monitoring data, longer time periods (i.e., longer than the 5- to 10-year periods that were available here) are needed to reliably detect change.
> 
> *In general, what was observed in this analysis was positive as it is apparent that changes to regional air quality in the WBEA airshed – where observed – were either negligible or small for most of the air pollutants at most of the stations.*


Emphasis mine.

Reports - Department of Public Health Sciences - University of Alberta

Now, about those tanker ships hauling crude to Ontario . . .


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Now, about those tanker ships hauling crude to Ontario . . .


He can't see them. His head is buried in the sand.


----------



## Vandave

There are lots of benefits to having a warmer climate, especially when you are the second coldest country in the World. Dummies who only add negative costs need to also factor in the positive costs. It's quite possible that global warming has more economic positives than negatives.


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> It's quite possible that global warming has more economic positives than negatives.


Guess what kills more people--heat or cold? Cold is the biggest killer. In the U.S. alone, cold kills twice as many people as heat, and this is a country with a significantly more temperate climate than Canada's.


----------



## eMacMan

Vandave said:


> There are lots of benefits to having a warmer climate, especially when you are the second coldest country in the World. Dummies who only add negative costs need to also factor in the positive costs. It's quite possible that global warming has more economic positives than negatives.


'Course one side benefit would be using less energy to heat our homes in winter.

Saved this little item for the great GHG thread revival.


----------



## FeXL

eMacMan said:


> FeXL You did a bit of a disservice by ignoring the various sulphur emissions of that tanker. The trans-oceanic shipping industry saves a bundle by not removing the sulphur from its fuel. The result is that various sulphur emissions from those puppies is far greater than a comparable land based diesel engine. We are talking 1000s of times greater.


Point taken. Thank you.


----------



## FeXL

About Arctic ice melts and the associated trillions of dollars that we have absolutely no control over 'cause it's just old Ma Nature at work...



> The notion that scientists understand how changes in Earth's orbit affect climate well enough for estimating long-term natural climate trends that underlie any anthropogenic climate change is challenged by findings just published.
> 
> ...
> 
> The researchers found that the current interglacial has indeed lasted some 2.0-2.5 millennia longer than predicted by the currently dominant theory for the way in which orbital changes control the ice-age cycles. This theory is based on the intensity of solar radiation reaching the Earth at latitude 65 degrees North on 21 June, the northern hemisphere Summer solstice.
> 
> But the anomaly vanished when the researchers considered a rival theory, which looks at the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth the same latitude during the summer months. Under this theory, sea levels could remain high for another two thousand years or so, even without greenhouse warming.


Sonofagun.

Now, we can all biker up, put on our big girl panties and actually do something constructive with our time & money or we can run around like Henny Penny shrieking that the sky is falling and accomplish nothing except line the pockets of the Al Gores of the world.

Your call.


----------



## Macfury

Eating meat in Britain is better for the planet: WWF study.



> Becoming vegetarian 'can harm the environment' - Telegraph
> 
> It has often been claimed that avoiding red meat is beneficial to the environment, because it lowers emissions and less land is used to produce alternatives.
> 
> But a study by Cranfield University, commissioned by WWF, the environmental group, found a substantial number of meat substitutes – such as soy, chickpeas and lentils – were more harmful to the environment because they were imported into Britain from overseas.
> 
> The study concluded: "A switch from beef and milk to highly refined livestock product analogues such as tofu could actually increase the quantity of arable land needed to supply the UK."
> 
> The results showed that the amount of foreign land required to produce the substitute products – and the potential destruction of forests to make way for farmland – outweighed the negatives of rearing beef and lamb in the UK.


----------



## chasMac

I read that Telegraph article too. That the study was commissioned by the WWF, other than say British beef producers, should lend it much weight. Still I find commentary such as this extremely disturbing:



> Lord Stern of Bradford, the climate change economist, claimed last October that a vegetarian diet was beneficial to the planet.
> 
> He told a newspaper: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better."


Wonder when the UK will make this law.


----------



## Macfury

Lord Stern is a discredited old fool who wants to re-create the world in his own puritanical image. Spare me these people who want to recruit others to expiate their own guilt.


----------



## chasMac

This fellow carries a little more clout:

Climate sceptics denounced by Brown as he launches climate change group | Environment | guardian.co.uk



> Gordon Brown has launched a new UN climate fundraising group, and says sceptics go 'against the grain' of science


No dissent allowed I suppose.


----------



## Macfury

chasMac: These guys are like primitives who slaughter pigeons to get the gods to bring rain. If the temperature naturally holds to within 2 degrees Celsius in 25 years, they'll dance around a spiral light bulb wearing war paint, because they were responsible.

Now we have Bill Nye telling people that they are "unpatriotic" if they don't swallow the AGW line:



> Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy’ appeared Wednesday on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show and leveled some serious accusations against global warming skeptics. Nye said that not adhering to a belief in anthropomorphic global warming constitutes unpatriotic behavior and also that skepticism of global warming claims is equivalent to “denying science.”


Bill Nye 'The Science Guy': Denying Climate Change 'Unpatriotic,' 'Inappropriate'


----------



## eMacMan

> Gordon Brown has launched a new UN climate fundraising group, and says sceptics go 'against the grain' of science


As usual GB missed the bulls eye, the target, the door, the side of the barn and the hill behind the barn. 

True scientific research is based on skepticism. Without sceptics science does not exist. When your data and model fails to reflect the past or predict the future then what you have is not science.

However AGW was never about science. Panic and fear has been used to advance the theory. The reasons are clear. Al Gore and other elitists hope to snap up a very large slice of the worlds resources pedaling carbon credits. The UK and other governments hope to further impoverish the general populace via carbon taxes.

As I have stated on many occasions if Gore and Brown believed this so-called "science" their lifestyles would reflect that belief.


----------



## MacDoc

There is a difference between "informed dissent" in the peer review sense and the rabble in the denier sphere dissent....

Even the fossil fuel company's scientists are not "dissenting" - have not for 15 years - Exxon et al just put them on ignore....

Do you really think THAT dissenting approach is warranted or ethical....??

at this point in time and knowledge AGW deniers are akin to evolution deniers,,,,a rather dim subset....

Dissent in what to do about the problem of AGW....which is primarily a political and economic issue with some science involved as to effective measures...that's where it is needed big time....

Otherwise we will end with schemes like cap and trade which in their present form are far too open to abuse and scams.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> There is a difference between "informed dissent" in the peer review sense and the rabble in the denier sphere dissent....
> 
> Even the fossil fuel company's scientists are not "dissenting" - have not for 15 years - Exxon et al just put them on ignore....
> 
> Do you really think THAT dissenting approach is warranted or ethical....??
> 
> at this point in time and knowledge AGW deniers are akin to evolution deniers,,,,a rather dim subset....


That's right MacDoc. Those who disagree with your pet theory are "rabble." Keep it coming because your attitude itself is discrediting the failing movement you embrace.

As has become obvious, the oil companies buy into AGW when they realize it leads to higher oil prices--there is no true acceptance of this. General Mills would agree that Lucky Charms was made with real rainbows if people were willing to pay a premium for them.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> There is a difference between "informed dissent" in the peer review sense...
> 
> (...)
> 
> at this point in time and knowledge AGW deniers...


First, the only reason much of what has passed for research in the past 10 years is currently in the limelight is because it was *never peer-reviewed* in the first place. It is only now, when placed under proper scrutiny, that the data/conclusions are falling apart.

Second, what knowledge? Seriously.

That which is furnished by the IPCC who, over the course of a few weeks, have shown their true colours on peer-reviewed science (Africagate, Glaciergate, Amazongate, Seagate and who knows what other -gate)?

Maybe you're speaking of those fine, upstanding scientists at the CRU and the fear, lies & bullying they've promulgated over the course of what, 10 years?

What about the fact that India is so disillusioned over all the BS being circulated by their own IPCC scientist (the head scientist, nonetheless) that they've created their own climate change body?

What about the fact that this liar, this self same hypocrite, gets chauffeured one mile to work each day instead of walking, riding a bicycle or taking public transit?

What about the NIWA screw ups?

What about the cherry picked Russian data sites?

What about the Chinese appraisal of the IPCC?

What about the removal of Canada's Arctic monitoring sites, save one? A single monitoring site for a span of territory encompassing 4 time zones and nearly 4 million square kilometers.

What about dozens of other examples of lies, collusion, intimidation, poor examples and crappy science that are currently rearing their ugly heads in blogs worldwide because MSM refuses to cover them?

Is that the knowledge you speak of? Is that the science supporting your argument?

If Global Warming is such a proven science, if there is so much evidence, there must be hundreds of opportunities to refute each and every example I've posted.

All I hear is crickets and, from some far off land, the usual name calling.

In addition, thus far you've been been unable to furnish any kind of information, link, proof, whatever as to how much global warming has been caused by mankind. More and more science points to global warming just being part of the normal climate cycle.

Find me a number, then give me some proof. Where is the science?

C'mon, MacDoc, prove me wrong. I've thrown the gauntlet down. Here's your chance to silence the ignorant masses, the non peer reviewed, uninformed "rabble".

All you've been able to come up with in defense is a couple of unrelated links and "Exxon et al just put them on ignore....", all the while they've been shoveling cash to the "deniers" camp. Please...

One more thing... 



MacDoc said:


> Dissent in what to do about the problem of AGW....which is primarily a political and economic issue with some science involved as to effective measures...that's where it is needed big time....


I'd agree, except for one small, tiny, annoying, niggling detail: Because we haven't been able to identify that AGW is a problem. If so, where are the numbers? We don't know how much global warming mankind is responsible for. I quote part of a post of mine from the first thread:



> My question (the key question, I believe) is how much warming is mankind responsible for? 1%? 10%? 50%?
> 
> Guess what: if it's 1%, then there is absolutely nothing we can do. Period. We can eliminate mankind completely and still only remove 1% of the equation. Pointless (with all the codicils about lowering one's environmental footprint intact). 10%? Then I would say mankind can affect change. Small change, nonetheless, but perhaps worth it. Let's look at it. 50%? Even more important to address the problem with all due speed. More? Butter us, 'cause we're toast.


I repeat:
*We don't know how much global warming mankind is responsible for. Period.*

Is it expedient to spend trillions of dollars on something we may have no control over? 

Do you really think that approach is "warranted or ethical"?

Is that due scientific process?

Anyone?

I've got an idea! How about if we take a small fraction of those untold trillions and calmly and rationally conduct some *peer reviewed science*? Eh? How about that? Not the sort of political fertilizer that the IPCC and CRU have been churning out by the bushel but real, honest to goodness, science.

Then, if the situation warrants, we can hand it over to the politicos and econos with our scientific recommendations.


----------



## Macfury

+1. Excellent post, FeXL.


----------



## CubaMark

*Rachel Maddow: Global Warming Isn't the Opposite of Snow*

(VIDEO)


----------



## Macfury

Neither is snow the proof of anthropogenic global warming as we have been told a thousand times during the recent U.S. snowstorm activity.

Global warmists will just have to accept the consequences of screaming like Chicken Little every time there's a hurricane or drought and blaming it publicly on global warming. As MacDoc is wont to say: "Sow the wind..."


----------



## MacDoc

a decent summary ...



> As for the East Coast storm, my home in DC did get 18 inches of snow — although if this had been a true blizzard, I doubt my flight from Copenhagen on Saturday would have been allowed to land in Dulles airport and I wouldn’t of been able to get home 12 hours after I left Denmark. Certainly temperatures in the DC area have been in the normal range over the past week — it’s only the precipitation that has been very anomalous (for actual data on recent warming trend in the U.S., see “Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across U.S.“).
> 
> In any case, I have previously discussed* the scientific literature, which makes clear that we have seen an increase in intense precipitation in this country, just as climate science predicted we would* (see Why the “never seen before” Fargo flooding is just what you’d expect from global warming, as Obama warns).
> Why the “never seen before” Fargo flooding is just what you’d expect from global warming, as Obama warns Climate Progress
> The NOAA-led report by 13 federal agencies Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States issued earlier this year makes the same point.
> Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States - Home
> 
> I’ll review the science shortly, but first, TP points out:
> 
> Even CNN’s Ed Henry piled on, saying “DC snowstorm chills Pelosi’s global warming trip,” calling it a “strange twist.”
> 
> If having snow around the holidays on the East Coast were strange, I doubt the song “White Christmas” would have been written. Ah, but what about record snow? Capital Climate reports that the DC snowstorm has set multiple records (previous in parentheses):
> 
> * National: All-time December daily (11.5″, 12-17-1932) and monthly snowfall (16.2″, 1962)
> * Dulles: All-time December daily record (10.6″, 12-12-1982) and second highest December snowfall (24.2″, 1966)
> * Baltimore: All-time December daily (11.5″, 12-17-1932) and monthly snowfall (20.4″, 1966)
> 
> That may be “strange,” but in fact it is a trend being observed around the country — predicted by climate science — with more extreme weather and a greater fraction of precipitation being generated in extreme events.
> 
> In 2004, the Journal of Hydrometeorology published an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center that found “Over the contiguous United States, precipitation, temperature, streamflow, and heavy and very heavy precipitation have increased during the twentieth century.”
> 
> They found (here) that over the course of the 20th century, the “Cold season (October through April),” saw a 16% increase in “heavy” precipitation events (roughly greater than 2 inches [when it comes as rain] in one day), and a 25% increase in “very heavy” precipitation events (roughly greater than 4 inches in one day)– and a 36% rise in “extreme” precipitation events (those in the 99.9% percentile — 1 in 1000 events).* This rise in extreme precipitation is precisely what is predicted by global warming models in the scientific literature.*
> 
> In fact, the last few decades have seen rising extreme precipitation over the United States in the historical record, according to NCDC’s Climate Extremes Index (CEI):
> 
> *An increasing trend in the area experiencing much above-normal proportion of heavy daily precipitation is observed from about 1950 to the present.*
> 
> Here is a plot of the percentage of this country (times two) with much greater than normal proportion of precipitation derived from extreme 1-day precipitation events (where extreme equals the highest tenth percentile of deluges, click to enlarge):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn’t know that our government kept a Climate Extremes Index? Why would you? The media never writes about it.
> 
> The U.S. Climate Extremes Index was explicitly created to take a complicated subject (”multivariate and multidimensional climate changes in the United States“) and make it more easily understood by American citizens and policy makers. As far back as 1995, analysis by the National Climatic Data Center showed that over the course of the 20th century, the United States had suffered a statistically significant increase in a variety of extreme weather events, the very ones you would expect from global warming, such as more — and more intense — precipitation. That analysis concluded the chances were only “5 to 10 percent” this increase was due to factors other than global warming, such as “natural climate variability.” And since 1995, the climate has gotten much more extreme.
> 
> *Even the Bush Administration in its must-read U.S. Climate Change Science Program report, Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate, acknowledged:
> 
> Many extremes and their associated impacts are now changing…. Heavy downpours have become more frequent and intense….
> *
> It is well established through formal attribution studies that the global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases.… The increase in heavy precipitation events is associated with an increase in water vapor, and the latter has been attributed to human-induced warming.
> 
> And yes, this applies to snow. A 2005 study, coauthored by NCDC, “Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States,” found:
> 
> The temporal distribution of snowstorms exhibited wide fluctuations during 1901–2000, with downward 100-yr trends in the lower Midwest, South, and West Coast. Upward trends occurred in the upper Midwest, East, and Northeast, and the national trend for 1901–2000 was upward, corresponding to trends in strong cyclonic activity.
> 
> Finally, we have the 2009 government report on U.S. climate impacts, which concluded:
> 
> _ – “Cold-season storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent.”_
> 
> – “In winter and spring, northern areas are expected to receive significantly more precipitation than they do now, because the interaction of warm and moist air coming from the south with colder air from the north is projected to occur farther north than it did on average in the last century. The more northward incursions of warmer and moister air masses are expected to be particularly noticeable in northern regions that will change from very cold and dry atmospheric conditions to warmer but moister conditions. Alaska, the Great Plains, the upper Midwest, and the Northeast are beginning to experience such changes for at least part of the year, with the likelihood of these changes increasing over time.”
> 
> _ – “There is also evidence of an increase in the intensity of storms in both the mid- and high- latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere, with greater confidence in the increases occurring in high latitudes. The northward shift is projected to continue, and strong cold season storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent, with greater wind speeds and more extreme wave heights.”_
> 
> So it is inane for anyone in the media to cite this massive DC snowstorm as somehow counterintuitive or ironic against the backdrop of Obama’s Copenhagen deal.
> 
> In fact, this record-breaking snowstorm is pretty much precisely what climate science predicts. Since one typically can’t make a direct association between any individual weather event and global warming, perhaps the best approach is to borrow and modify a term from the scientific literature and call this a “global-warming-type” deluge — see Must-have PPT: The “global-change-type drought” and the future of extreme weather.
> 
> If you are a journalist wondering what is a reasonable way to talk about this, one of the best recent examples comes from a New York Times story on Australia made possible by our friend Andrew Revkin:
> 
> The firestorms and heat in the south revived discussions in Australia of whether human-caused global warming was contributing to the continent’s climate woes of late — including recent prolonged drought in some places and severe flooding last week in Queensland, in the northeast.
> 
> Climate scientists say that no single rare event like the deadly heat wave or fires can be attributed to global warming, but the chances of experiencing such conditions are rising along with the temperature. In 2007, Australia’s national science agency published a 147-page report on projected climate changes, concluding, among other things, that “high-fire-danger weather is likely to increase in the southeast.”
> 
> _The flooding in the northeast and the combustible conditions in the south were consistent with what is forecast as a result of recent shifts in climate patterns linked to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases_, said Kevin Trenberth, a scientist at the United States National Center for Atmospheric Research.
> 
> That’s how it is done.
> 
> And no, I’m not say that the media should link every extreme weather event the way Revkin did. But when we have “worst on record” type events, or 100-year floods — and especially ones that last more than a day and/or hit a broad area — then I think the reporter has an obligation to include the issue.
> 
> Finally, I would note that if we stay on our current emissions path as outlined in the 2009 impacts report — see Our hellish future:
> Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11°F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90°F some 120 days a year — and that isn’t the worst case, it’s busines
> Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11°F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90°F some 120 days a year — and that isn’t the worst case, it’s business as usual! – then indeed these storms will become incredibly rare in the East-Central part of the country, and the lyrics of the classic song will ring all-too-true:
> 
> I’m dreaming of a white Christmas Just like the ones I used to know.


and that was written *BEFORE* this last US storm.....

There are extensive links in the article and surrounds to explore this relationship between weather extremes and climate change


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, please don't waste this much screen real estate with your missives. You're guilty of exactly what is being lambasted in the post above. You yourself, just days ago, tried to tie those snowstorms to "global climate change."



MacDoc said:


> in case you were wondering...
> 
> cold continent.....meet warm ocean...


"Rolleyes" indeed.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> a decent summary ...
> 
> and that was written *BEFORE* this last US storm.....
> 
> There are extensive links in the article and surrounds to explore this relationship between weather extremes and climate change


I don't know if this was in response to my post or not but I'd like to address it anyway.

First of all, I've read portions of the report your "summary" references before. The most telling aspects of the integrity of the data is in the bibliography and the in-text citations. There are multiple references to the IPCC and NOAA.

This is immediately suspect.

As far as the IPCC is concerned, all the reasons I mentioned in my prior post and more:

IPCC's third and fourth climate reports cite the CRU, WWF and Greenpeace. The CRU aspect is self-evident and needs not be addressed (can anybody say "hockey stick"?). Regarding the WWF and Greenpeace as anything other than political bodies with an axe to grind, please. Would you trust a paper endorsing denial authored by an oil company? I wouldn't.

In addition, this small fly in the ointment re: IPCC's AR4:

Hansen's colleague eviscerates AR4



> There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn't the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community - instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.


Yup. Their own guy. 

I wanted to highlight a few of the jewels, but the whole paragraph is like the Hope diamond. It'll stand on its own.

OK, moving on to the NOAA.

This sums it up rather nicely:



> But probably the most damaging report has come from Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology and co-founder of the Weather Channel, and Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and founder of SurfaceStations.org.
> In a January 29 report, they find that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Yes, that's right. They began eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures and drove up the average measured temperature. The eliminated stations had been in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea, as well as more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500.
> 
> D’Aleo and Watts show that the jumps in measured global temperature occur just when the number of weather stations is cut. But there is another bias that this change to more urban stations also exacerbates. Recorded temperatures in more urban areas rise over time simply because more densely populated areas produce more heat. Combining the greater share of weather stations in more urban areas over time with this urban heat effect also tends to increase the rate that recorded temperatures tend to rise over time.
> 
> Their report provides examples of how the systematic elimination of stations and unexplained adjustments in temperature data caused measured temperatures to rise for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. Many adjustments change what would have been a drop in temperatures into an increase. Take New Zealand, where D’Aleo and Watts note: “About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming.”


All the above goes to credibility. You can churn out scientific papers by the dozen. However, the second you start citing political bodies or researchers with a proven record of unreliability your argument goes out the window.

The IPCC and the NOAA are simply not credible sources. Find me some research with integrity, without biases and without citations to political bodies.

To clarify, as I've mentioned before, I don't have any issue acknowledging the existence of climate change. 

The question remains: how much is man-made?


----------



## Vandave

In case you were wondering.... warm ocean meet pirates....


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> In case you were wondering.... warm ocean meet pirates....


Damn. Unless we spend a trillion dollars RIGHT NOW!!! I see a future in which the ocean is completely congested with pirates, and this future is not inconsistent with what might be predicted by climate change.


----------



## Macfury

Arizona abandons Western Regional Climate Action Initiative:

Investors.com - Arizona Quits Climate Pact



> The Grand Canyon State avoids a big economic hole by suspending its participation in a multistate initiative to fight climate change. As climate fraud is exposed, economic reality sets in. Will California follow?
> 
> Not since King Canute have government officials engaged in an exercise as futile as in 2007, when seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces got together to form something called the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative to reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2012.


----------



## SINC

Ah yes, yet another ***** in the amour.


----------



## MacDoc

> *I think I despise anti-environmentalists as much as I do anti-evolutionists*
> Category: Environment • Science
> Posted on: June 10, 2006 6:00 AM, by PZ Myers
> 
> Ah, the libertarian extremists have found my site and are making comments. It's a peculiar pathology that thinks environmentalism is an evil plot, that planning is communism/socialism, and that Jesus was a good capitalist. It is particularly irksome to try and deal with people who are so far gone that they deny science warning them of environmental dangers and impending problems.
> 
> How irksome? Imagine that a scientist and one of these deranged libertarian right-wing anti-environmentalist science deniers go out for a drive one day...
> _
> LIB: Isn't this wonderful? I have a desire to drive, and sufficient surplus income to purchase a vehicle, and the market and technology provide me with one. Praise Jesus! Praise Adam Smith!
> 
> SCI: Uh, yeah, OK...but you know, the way you're driving is neither safe nor economical. Could you maybe slow down a little?
> 
> LIB: I decide what is economical; I can afford the gas. As for safety, I have insurance, and the little whatchamacallit meter in front of me goes all the way up to 140. I haven't exceeded the limit yet.
> 
> SCI: What you can do and what is safe and reasonable to do are two different things. If you want to experience natural selection first hand, that would be OK with me, except for the fact that we're both in the same car.
> By the way, that's a lake a couple of miles ahead, and you're headed straight for it.
> 
> LIB: Lake? We haven't encountered any lakes in our travels so far. We don't have to worry about lakes. History is our guide, and it clearly says, "no lakes".
> 
> SCI: Well, yes, there's a lake right there in front of us. You can see it as well as I can, I hope. It's even marked right here on our map. I suggest you turn left just a little bit and steer clear of it.
> 
> LIB: Oh, you pessimistic doomsayers. You're always gloomily predicting our demise, and you're always wrong. We hit a mud puddle a few miles back, and see? No problems.
> 
> SCI: I'm only predicting doom if you keep driving as foolishly as you have so far. I suggest that we start on this alternate route now, so that we don't have to swerve too sharply at the last minute.
> 
> LIB: There is no lake. I like driving fast and straight. The last thing I want to do is turn left.
> 
> SCI: What do you mean, there is no lake? It's right there! And we are getting closer by the minute! Why are you accelerating?
> 
> LIB: That there is a lake is only your opinion. We need to study this, and get more input.
> (LIB reaches down beneath the seat. His hand reemerges with a sock over it.)
> 
> SOCK: <in a squeaky voice> No lake!
> 
> LIB: Hmmm. We seem to have two opinions here. Since Mr Socky has taken economic considerations into account and you have not, I can judge which is the better and more informed. Sound science says there is no lake. Or if there is, we can accept the compromise solution that it will disappear before we reach it.
> 
> SCI: We are headed for that lake at 80 miles per hour, in a car driven by a lunatic. Slow down and turn left!
> 
> LIB: I am confident that our innovative and technologically sophisticated economy will come up with a solution before we impact any hypothetical lake. Right, Mr Socky?
> 
> SOCK: <squeaks> 's alright!
> 
> SCI: I have been telling you what the solution is for the last 3 miles. Slow down. Turn. Now. How is science going to save you if you insist on ignoring it?
> 
> LIB: Aha! Look! There's a pier extending out into the lake! I told you that technology would be our salvation. You scientists always underestimate the power of the free market.
> 
> SCI: Jebus. That's a rickety 40-foot wooden dock. You can't drive at 90 miles per hour onto a short pier! BRAKE! TURN!
> 
> LIB: You are getting emotional, and can be ignored. Market forces and the science and engineering sector will respond to our needs by assembling a floating bridge before we hit the end. Or perhaps they will redesign our car to fly. Or dispatch a ferry or submarine to our location. We cannot predict the specific solution, but we can trust that one will emerge.
> I've always wanted a flying car.
> 
> SCI: Gobdamn, but you are such a moron.
> 
> (car tires begin rapid thumpety-thump as they go over planks)
> 
> LIB: I love you, Mr Socky.
> 
> SOCK: <squeaks>Ditto![_/QUOTE]
> 
> I think I despise anti-environmentalists as much as I do anti-evolutionists : Pharyngula


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Ah, the libertarian extremists have found my site and are making comments. It's a peculiar pathology that thinks environmentalism is an evil plot, that planning is communism/socialism, and that Jesus was a good capitalist. It is particularly irksome to try and deal with people who are so far gone that they deny science warning them of environmental dangers and impending problems.


That's really feeble stuff. Nobody is accusing them of being part of a conspiracy--just arrogant, greedy, and wrong. 



MacDoc said:


> SCI: What you can do and what is safe and reasonable to do are two different things. If you want to experience natural selection first hand, that would be OK with me, except for the fact that we're both in the same car.
> By the way, that's a lake a couple of miles ahead, and you're headed straight for it.
> 
> LIB: Lake? We haven't encountered any lakes in our travels so far. We don't have to worry about lakes. History is our guide, and it clearly says, "no lakes".
> 
> SCI: Well, yes, there's a lake right there in front of us. You can see it as well as I can, I hope. It's even marked right here on our map. I suggest you turn left just a little bit and steer clear of it.


Except we have no proof that AGW is anything like "THE LAKE." Less so after all of the recent scandals. Nor have we been asked to "Steer just a little bit" but instead asked to change the way we live at significant cost. There is no parallel here.



MacDoc said:


> SCI: I have been telling you what the solution is for the last 3 miles. Slow down. Turn. Now. How is science going to save you if you insist on ignoring it?


Except no solution is required--since the problem has *NOT YET BEEN DEFINED or PROVEN.*

You know what I hate? Really badly written comedy bits that don't even take the trouble to get their reference points right. Having the gags fall flat makes it a little worse.


----------



## Macfury

Why did I waste my time? I checked out the thread MacDoc excerpted. The original post was written in 2006 when Warmists were still on their high horses. It's a whole new world now Maccy D.


----------



## bryanc

What's missing from that dialogue is the argument about wether we made the lake, or if it occurred naturally (or, if as appears to be the case, it is a combination of both).

While I have no interest in participating in a link-fest, what is becoming abundantly clear is that the science is no more or less clear than it was in 2006, and the evidence remains strong that human activity has significant impacts on the climate. Unfortunately, as this issue was politicized, the positions became black-and-white, and the well-funded interests of the fossil fuel industry have succeeded in discrediting the straw man they set-up (albeit with the rather clueless inadvertent assistance of organizations like the IPCC).

Science is complex, and will never provide "proof" that any given hypothesis is true. So asking for proof that AGW is true before doing anything about it is exactly like the creationists saying that evolution has not been proven and therefore should not be taught in schools.

While I think there is plenty of room for reasonable debate about _what_ should be done about anthropogenic impacts on the environment (including the global climate), and there is still obviously lots we need to learn about the climate, it's abundantly clear that reducing our use of and dependence on fossil fuels is desirable and beneficial, and the faster we do it the better. So argue all you want about the relative merits/costs of cap-and-trade, carbon credits, carbon sequestration schemes, etc., but in the mean time we should be doing the obvious; developing alternate energy as fast as possible, getting out of our cars, and using less energy in general.


----------



## Dr.G.

".... it's abundantly clear that reducing our use of and dependence on fossil fuels is desirable and beneficial, and the faster we do it the better. So argue all you want about the relative merits/costs of cap-and-trade, carbon credits, carbon sequestration schemes, etc., but in the mean time we should be doing the obvious; developing alternate energy as fast as possible, getting out of our cars, and using less energy in general." Amen, Brother bryanc. Amen.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> So argue all you want about the relative merits/costs of cap-and-trade, carbon credits, carbon sequestration schemes, etc., but in the mean time we should be doing the obvious; developing alternate energy as fast as possible, getting out of our cars, and using less energy in general.


No, I don't agree. Not "as fast as possible," which may not be economically prudent. 

Look at the disastrous results for such policies in Germany in this report by RWI Essen, one of the leading economic research institutes in Germany:

Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: the German experience



> In the end, Germany’s PV promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per-worker subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000).
> 
> Claims about technological innovation benefits of Germany’s first-actor status are unsupportable. In fact, the regime appears to be counterproductive in that respect, stifling innovation by encouraging producers to lock into existing technologies.
> 
> Although Germany’s promotion of renewable energies is commonly portrayed in the media as setting a “shining example in providing a harvest for the world” (The Guardian 2007), we would instead regard the country’s experience as a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits.


In fact, I think that we should continue to drill for oil and gas to help make Canada more energy independent, while we develop alternative fuels.


----------



## bryanc

From your link:


> In conclusion, government policy has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into Germany’s energy portfolio. To the contrary, Germany’s principal mechanism of supporting renewable technologies through feed-in tariffs imposes high costs without any of the alleged positive impacts on emissions reductions, employment, energy security, or technological innovation.


The issue you are raising is tangential to the issue of wether we should be pursuing alternate energy technologies. The report you are citing shows that the _governmental administration_ of energy policy has been poor, not that the development of alternate energy has been bad for the economy. Indeed, it appears that the German government has artificially driven the industry towards out-dated photovoltaic technologies and stifled innovation.

While I don't think the development and implementation of sound energy policy is trivial, it's not a field in which I have expertise and is therefore something I don't express strong opinions about. In contrast, my understanding of basic thermodynamics and the nature of the carbon cycle in nature is sufficient for me to draw the obvious conclusion that our current practises are simply not sustainable. Therefore from a scientific POV I'm in favour of the development and implementation of technologies that don't use fossil fuels to produce energy. I offer my support and best wishes to those whose expertise is in the development and implementation of social and political policy that supports these changes, but wouldn't presume to offer recommendations.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The issue you are raising is tangential to the issue of wether we should be pursuing alternate energy technologies. The report you are citing shows that the _governmental administration_ of energy policy has been poor, not that the development of alternate energy has been bad for the economy. Indeed, it appears that the German government has artificially driven the industry towards out-dated photovoltaic technologies and stifled innovation.


Not a tangent at all. The Germans did what they could to be leaders in innovative alternative energy projects--*as soon as possible*. They didn't wait for industry to do so in a fashion that made economic sense. That would have taken too long.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Not a tangent at all. The Germans did what they could to be leaders in innovative alternative energy projects--*as soon as possible*. They didn't wait for industry to do so in a fashion that made economic sense.


Ah... I get it... _some_ government intervention is sometimes sub-optimal, therefore _all_ government intervention is always bad.

Quite simple, now that you point it out.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Ah... I get it... _some_ government intervention is sometimes sub-optimal, therefore _all_ government intervention is always bad.
> 
> Quite simple, now that you point it out.



No. Doing something as soon as possible is not a virtue of itself. Germany did so to its detriment.


----------



## Dr.G.

bryanc said:


> Ah... I get it... _some_ government intervention is sometimes sub-optimal, therefore _all_ government intervention is always bad.
> 
> Quite simple, now that you point it out.


"You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Lincoln.

"The business of America is business." Calvin Coolidge.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> No. Doing something as soon as possible is not a virtue of itself. Germany did so to its detriment.


Actually, doing something desirable as soon as possible *is* a virtue in and of itself (especially when not doing so continues to cause damage). Doing it badly, such that the desired consequences are not achieved is not a virtue.


----------



## Macfury

In this case, doing it now isn't warranted by the evidence.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Actually, doing something desirable as soon as possible *is* a virtue in and of itself (especially when not doing so continues to cause damage). Doing it badly, such that the desired consequences are not achieved is not a virtue.


I will agree that reducing our dependence on oil is a desirable goal. However carbon taxes are simply a tax grab by governments whose main impact will be to further impoverish seniors and others who cannot increase their income to offset the increased costs. Carbon credit trading will have a similar impact but in this case it is the Gore Gang that will profit at our expense.

In neither case will there be a major impact on fossil fuel consumption but a sizeable portion of the population will be considerably poorer than they are today.


----------



## Macfury

EMacMan: In the same way, government efforts to shape the energy economy are usually failures. If the market embraces a new energy technology, nothing can stand in its way. If government finances an alternatative technology rejected by the market, nothing can save it.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> EMacMan: In the same way, government efforts to shape the energy economy are usually failures. If the market embraces a new energy technology, nothing can stand in its way. If government finances an alternatative technology rejected by the market, nothing can save it.


Agreed. What will work is a different approach to power and gas billing. Currently there is no incentive to reduce consumption beyond a certain point. For example an average electric bill in Alberta might come in at: 600 KWHx.08/KWH= $48
To this will be added a $40 gouge fee. 
After GST ~$95 or a real cost of .15/KWH

A better idea. Those using roughly the average would pay .15/KWH. Those using say 20% less would pay .12/KWH. and so on. Al Gore using 25x the national average could be billed $3.75/KWH. This way he would have a choice pay half a million a year for electricity or reduce his consumption leaving room for 15-20 new consumers on the grid.

Need to make some exceptions for say people running a small machine shop out of their homes but not for those running a carbon credit trading scam.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Tired of listening to climate changer deniers spout their hot air? 

There's an app for that.


----------



## MacDoc

as we were saying about water vapour 



> Web address:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/
> 100217093258.htm
> *Projection Shows Water Woes Likely Based on Warmer Temperatures*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Keith Cherkauer, an assistant professor of agricultural and biological engineering, surveys the Wabash River, one of many that could experience an increase in winter and spring flooding based on rising temperatures in the next century. (Credit: Purdue Agricultural Communication photo/Tom Campbell)_
> 
> ScienceDaily (Feb. 17, 2010) — Several Midwestern states could be facing increased winter and spring flooding, as well as difficult growing conditions on farms, if average temperatures rise, according to a Purdue University researcher.
> 
> Keith Cherkauer, an assistant professor of agricultural and biological engineering, ran simulation models that show Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan could see as much as 28 percent more precipitation by the year 2070, with much of that coming in the winter and spring. His projections also show drier summer and fall seasons.
> 
> "This was already a difficult spring to plant because of how wet it was. If you were to add another inch or so of rain to that, it would be a problem," said Cherkauer, whose findings were published in the early online version of the Journal of Great Lakes Research. "It could make it difficult to get into fields. There's also a potential for more flooding."
> 
> Cherkauer used three different scenarios based on the amount of carbon that could be emitted into the atmosphere in the coming decades. Carbon calculations were based on assumptions including population, technological advancements, the economy and other factors.
> 
> Those scenarios were used in two climate projection models from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that give climate predictions from the years 1950 through 2099. Cherkauer said in years from 1950 to 2007 where actual climate data differed slightly from projections, the difference was subtracted to give a better projection for the future.
> 
> He calculated that winters in the four states could be between 2.7 degrees to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer by 2077 than today. Summers could be between 3.6 degrees and 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer.
> 
> Those projections were then put into the Variable Infiltration Capacity Model -- which simulates how precipitation moves through land surface environments -- to predict stream flow for six rivers: the Chippewa River, Wisconsin River, Illinois River, Wabash River, Grand River and Rock River.
> 
> Cherkauer estimates that increased precipitation would result in about a 20 percent increase in peak and mean flows for the Wabash River, for instance.
> 
> Daily river flow would be lower during the summer and fall despite an expected increase in thunderstorms and heavy-rain events. Overall precipitation would be down in those seasons, he said, and heavy rains from time to time would still leave prolonged periods without precipitation.
> 
> "This area is not going to be short of water, but we may not have it at the right times," Cherkauer said. "We probably need to figure out how to store the excess water from the spring so we have it in the summer when we need it."
> 
> He said there are several possible avenues for storing spring water, from damming rivers to create reservoirs, to refilling aquifers that are pumped for water in the summer.
> 
> Cherkauer said next he wants to study how climate predictions would affect drought conditions, as well as how the projections on stream flow would impact aquatic life and ecology. NASA funded his research.
> 
> Cherkauer's work is affiliated with the Purdue Climate Change Research Center and the Center for the Environment in Discovery Park.
> 
> Story Source:
> 
> [sub]Adapted from materials provided by Purdue University.
> 
> Journal Reference:
> 
> 1. Cherkauer et al. Hydrologic impacts of projected future climate change in the Lake Michigan region. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 2010; DOI: 10.1016/j.jglr.2009.11.012
> 
> Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats:
> APA
> 
> MLA
> Purdue University (2010, February 17). Projection shows water woes likely based on warmer temperatures. ScienceDaily. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com* /releases/2010/02/100217093258.htm
> 
> Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.[/sub]


----------



## MannyP Design

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Tired of listening to climate changer deniers spout their hot air?
> 
> http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/skeptical-science/id353938484?mt=8


At least you don't have to buy carbon credits to use it. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

Let's take a look at MacDoc's latest volley:



> Several Midwestern states *could* be facing increased winter and spring flooding, as well as difficult growing conditions on farms, *if average temperatures rise,* according to a Purdue University researcher.


Some huge assumptions.



> Those scenarios were used in* two climate projection models from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change* that give climate predictions from the years 1950 through 2099. Cherkauer said in years from 1950 to 2007 where actual climate data differed slightly from projections, the difference was subtracted to give a better projection for the future.


Who supplied the climate projection models? Why, none other than the IPCC. Perhaps the models were supplied by its own discredited head, Rajendra Pachaur.


----------



## MannyP Design

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> What's missing from that dialogue is the argument about wether we made the lake, or if it occurred naturally (or, if as appears to be the case, it is a combination of both).
> 
> While I have no interest in participating in a link-fest, what is becoming abundantly clear is that the science is no more or less clear than it was in 2006, and the evidence remains strong that human activity has significant impacts on the climate. Unfortunately, as this issue was politicized, the positions became black-and-white, and the well-funded interests of the fossil fuel industry have succeeded in discrediting the straw man they set-up (albeit with the rather clueless inadvertent assistance of organizations like the IPCC).
> 
> Science is complex, and will never provide "proof" that any given hypothesis is true. So asking for proof that AGW is true before doing anything about it is exactly like the creationists saying that evolution has not been proven and therefore should not be taught in schools.
> 
> While I think there is plenty of room for reasonable debate about _what_ should be done about anthropogenic impacts on the environment (including the global climate), and there is still obviously lots we need to learn about the climate, it's abundantly clear that reducing our use of and dependence on fossil fuels is desirable and beneficial, and the faster we do it the better. So argue all you want about the relative merits/costs of cap-and-trade, carbon credits, carbon sequestration schemes, etc., but in the mean time we should be doing the obvious; developing alternate energy as fast as possible, getting out of our cars, and using less energy in general.


great post.


----------



## Dr.G.

Labrador, NL, is going through the warmest winter in their recorded history, with an average temp of +6C over their normal winter averages. These normal winter averages are from 0C in late October/early November to -40C during Jan./Feb. It has been colder this winter in Edmonton, AB than in Nain, NL. This week is a good example of the differences -- Rain in Nain is unheard of in Feb. ......... even if it falls mainly on the plain.  

Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador - 7 Day Forecast - Environment Canada

Edmonton, Alberta - 7 Day Forecast - Environment Canada


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Science is complex, and will never provide "proof" that any given hypothesis is true. So asking for proof that AGW is true before doing anything about it is exactly like the creationists saying that evolution has not been proven and therefore should not be taught in schools.


But it still needs to supply _adequate_ proof if it makes a huge claim. It has not done that.



bryanc said:


> While I think there is plenty of room for reasonable debate about _what_ should be done about anthropogenic impacts on the environment (including the global climate), and there is still obviously lots we need to learn about the climate,


No, there is still plenty of reasonable doubt about whether ANYTHING should be done. The case has not been adequately proven. If anything, the case presented by Warmists is in a much worse situation than it was one year ago before people began to carefully examine the data used, methods employed and conclusions they've derived.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> But it still needs to supply _adequate_ proof if it makes a huge claim. It has not done that.
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is still plenty of reasonable doubt about whether ANYTHING should be done. The case has not been adequately proven. If anything, the case presented by Warmists is in a much worse situation than it was one year ago before people began to carefully examine the data used, methods employed and conclusions they've derived.


I don't see anyone -carefully- examining anything. What I see, is a lot of people who post links, headlines, and a whole lot of hot air that essentially accomplishes no more than toe raise the din. Enough already.

I agree with Byranc that debate is essential, and solutions to a problem isn't a done deal by any means. But to call the recent melee 'careful' examination is kinda comical really.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I agree with Byranc that debate is essential, and solutions to a problem isn't a done deal by any means.


The "problem" still needs to be defined. If mankind is supposed to be responsible for GLOBAL WARMING? If so, how much? As FeXL says, if it is 1 per cent, then no action is required.


----------



## Macfury

.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> The "problem" still needs to be defined. If mankind is supposed to be responsible for GLOBAL WARMING? If so, how much? As FeXL says, if it is 1 per cent, then no action is required.


Well as long as people keep screaming at the top of their lungs about every possible scandal/etc., I guess we'll never figure it out.

My perception is the evidence seems quite weighted towards "for", the price for not doing anything, is quite high.

Ironically, doing something (real) about it has the funny effect of possibly, reducing that other possibly fake problem of pollution. However we might need to spend another generation studying the slow death of humans from pollution before maybe, doing something about that too.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The "problem" still needs to be defined. If mankind is supposed to be responsible for GLOBAL WARMING? If so, how much? As FeXL says, if it is 1 per cent, then no action is required.


This does not follow. Firstly, the science is never going to be completely settled; all science is alway open to re-examination in the light of new data. Secondly, we'll never know how much impact we've had on the global climate, because we can't do a controlled experiment. At best we'll have increasingly accurate models that progressively improve the confidence intervals on our estimates. But they will always be estimates, so no one will ever be able to say conclusively that human activity has raised the global temperature by 1%, 5% or any other amount.

Finally, given that the reduction in consumption of fossil fuels indicated as desirable by climate change research is also desirable because it will reduce other types of pollution, reduce economic and social problems, generate new jobs, and, most fundamentally, is an absolute necessity governed by the planet's carbon cycle anyway, to argue that nothing needs to be done because some people (who are mostly unqualified to critique the science) aren't convinced about the climate change research is just absurd.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Ironically, doing something (real) about it has the funny effect of possibly, reducing that other possibly fake problem of pollution. However we might need to spend another generation studying the slow death of humans from pollution before maybe, doing something about that too.


If one can control pollution of real pollutants (i.e., not CO2) at an acceptable cost, while _incidentally_ reducing CO2, I'm all for it.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> This does not follow. Firstly, the science is never going to be completely settled; all science is alway open to re-examination in the light of new data.


I did not say _completely_. I said _adequately_.



bryanc said:


> Secondly, we'll never know how much impact we've had on the global climate, because we can't do a controlled experiment. At best we'll have increasingly accurate models that progressively improve the confidence intervals on our estimates. But they will always be estimates, so no one will ever be able to say conclusively that human activity has raised the global temperature by 1%, 5% or any other amount.


Listen to what you're saying here. You can't determine whether humans have contributed _"any amount"_ to perceived global warming?



bryanc said:


> Finally, given that the reduction in consumption of fossil fuels indicated as desirable by climate change research is also desirable because it will reduce other types of pollution, reduce economic and social problems, generate new jobs...


I would agree only when it reduces some pollutants at an acceptable cost. There is no indication that switching to alternative fuels would create jobs or reduce economic and social problems.



bryanc said:


> ...is an absolute necessity governed by the planet's carbon cycle anyway, to argue that nothing needs to be done because some people (who are mostly unqualified to critique the science) aren't convinced about the climate change research is just absurd.


Accepting the word of social engineers disguised as scientists is just absurd.


----------



## adagio

Instead of worrying about how "green" we are and how much CO2 we have or don't have that may or may not be causing climate change, how about instead we spend money on a *KNOWN* pollutant. 

Let's clean up the "brown".

Quebec is a joke. Oh how they like to point fingers elsewhere and puff out out their chests about being environmentally conscious. All the while they are pumping their poop in the river. What a disgrace. 

Toronto isn't much better. Our idiot mayor wanted fed money for politically correct and sexy new street cars. In the meantime we have an aging sewer system on the verge of collapse. If it goes, all that NDP shiit will head straight down the river and into the lake. All those dedicated street car lines will do squat for our out of control turds.


----------



## Macfury

Adagio, I agree. Some major Canadian cities are currently planning and building sewage treatment plants for the FIRST TIME in their existence. Plenty of low-hanging fruit to clean up before we attempt the esoteric.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> This does not follow. Firstly, the science is never going to be completely settled; all science is alway open to re-examination in the light of new data. Secondly, we'll never know how much impact we've had on the global climate, because we can't do a controlled experiment. At best we'll have increasingly accurate models that progressively improve the confidence intervals on our estimates. But they will always be estimates, so no one will ever be able to say conclusively that human activity has raised the global temperature by 1%, 5% or any other amount.


Interestingly enough (for some, probably), I agree with your statement. I'm not so naive as to go looking for an exact number because I too know it's not possible to get one. I have enough science in my background to understand that. Bearing that in mind, however, I haven't seen any estimates or confidence intervals noted anywhere, either. Have you? 

So far, it's only been 100% (Ahhhhh! The sky is falling!) or none (No, it's not) with a confidence level approaching zero. Pretty big spread, there. I'm not willing to gamble the world's economy on those numbers.



bryanc said:


> Finally, given that the reduction in consumption of fossil fuels indicated as desirable by climate change research is also desirable because it will reduce other types of pollution, reduce economic and social problems, generate new jobs, and, most fundamentally, is an absolute necessity governed by the planet's carbon cycle anyway, to argue that nothing needs to be done because some people (who are mostly unqualified to critique the science) aren't convinced about the climate change research is just absurd.


I disagree with your assumption. Climate change research has indicated nothing of the sort. At the same time, I have no issues with reducing our reliance on fossil fuels nor reducing pollution. Good calls, both.

I do have huge issues with trillions of dollars being flushed down the toilet chasing what may or may not be a real issue. If anyone thinks that a planet bankrupted by ghost chasers is going to have less economic & social problems than we currently do, get real. 

I also believe the job creation aspect is the most illuminating aspect of this whole process. Seeing as my good buddy groovetube doesn't like links and prefers to just jab from the safety of the sidelines with one-liners, I won't bother listing any here. It's pretty easy to find evidence online of masses of wind generators the world over just corroding in the wind, no longer connected to the grid 'cause it just doesn't make economical sense any longer. Government provided massive subsidies to wind farms, a ton of people climbed on board, jobs were created, wind farms built, some people made money, everyone paid for it through tax dollars and what do we have to show for it? Rusting hulks on the horizon or little to no net benefit from the ones that haven't been abandoned (yet) because of the periodicity of the wind. By damn, though, we created jobs. Or was that "make work"?

I want clean energy, too. I'm just not willing to pay more taxes (either front or back loaded) to subsidize dead end projects politicized into action by the Henny Penny's of the world.

One more thing. I don't need to be a climate scientist to detect the errors, screwups, lies, collusion, whatever, in what is currently being passed off as the IPCC's climate "science".

Cheers.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Accepting the word of social engineers disguised as scientists is just absurd.


Before I reply, are you disputing my point that the nature of the carbon-cycle and thermodynamics demands we drastically reduce/eliminate the combustion of fossil fuels, or are you just mirroring my sentence structure to make a completely different point?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Before I reply, are you disputing my point that the nature of the carbon-cycle and thermodynamics demands we drastically reduce/eliminate the combustion of fossil fuels, or are you just mirroring my sentence structure to make a completely different point?


1) I was mirroring your sentence structure.
2) I believe in the sentence I created, regardless of the sentence structure.
3) I don't believe that the nature of the carbon-cycle and thermodynamics demands we drastically reduce/eliminate the combustion of fossil fuels. If we have reached "peak oil" and coal is on its last legs, then the use of fossil fuels will be in precipitous decline regardless of what we choose to do. The choice has been made for us already.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I don't believe that the nature of the carbon-cycle and thermodynamics demands we drastically reduce/eliminate the combustion of fossil fuels.


Do you understand where the energy in fossil fuels comes from (i.e. how did the chemical energy present in the carbon-carbon bonds get there in the first place)?

Do you understand the process that relates oxidized carbon (e.g. CO2) in the atmosphere to reduced carbon compounds (e.g. fossil fuels and other organic molecules)?

Do you have any knowledge of the kinetics of these processes?

If you answered yes to all of these questions, perhaps you'd like to re-examine the sentence I quoted above.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Do you understand where the energy in fossil fuels comes from (i.e. how did the chemical energy present in the carbon-carbon bonds get there in the first place)?
> 
> Do you understand the process that relates oxidized carbon (e.g. CO2) in the atmosphere to reduced carbon compounds (e.g. fossil fuels and other organic molecules)?


Yeah. Organisms such as plants and animals incorporated carbon into their systems through various processes. In many cases, living things contain CO2 that is involved in processes such as photosynthesis which convert it into sugars. The "stuff" of plants and animals also contains carbon. They are carbon-based lifeforms.

Catagenesis of organic matter such as plants and animals took place on a massive scale. Time+ temp + pressure transformed the original organic material into the various fossil fuels, some into peat and coal, some into oil and natural gas. Burning of said fuel releases the energy transferred through the original catagenesis, along with by-products: CO2 and water.


----------



## eMacMan

Here's one area where I have a real problem. 

CO2 makes up less than 4/100th of 1% of the earths atmosphere. Man is responsible for roughly 10% of that or less than 4/1000th of 1% of the earths atmosphere. Yet somehow the Gore Gang would have me believe that if an additional 1/1000th of 1% of the earths atmosphere becomes C02 there will be a cataclysmic climate failure. Worse they want me to believe that the only viable solution is to divert $trillion$ of dollars to the Gore Gang vaults. 

All the science which claims to support this, has been subjected only to internal peer review and the IIPC has fought tooth and nail to avoid releasing any raw data. When they do finally release data and it is reviewed the IIPC conclusions inevitably fail.

Sorry but as I get older I can smell a major league scam and this one is even bigger than the 2008 bankster bailout.

As MF has said there are lots of places we can make a real difference before we start worrying about CO2. We might even start by figuring out how to keep all those CFBs from contaminating our landfills>groundwater>riverwater>seawater; with Mercury, Phosphors, Lead and even radioactive isotopes. Yep the isotopes are used to replace the ballasts in these beasts.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Organisms such as plants and animals incorporated carbon into their systems through various processes. In many cases, living things contain CO2 that is involved in processes such as photosynthesis which convert it into sugars. The "stuff" of plants and animals also contains carbon. They are carbon-based lifeforms.


Close, but to be more precise, _only_ photosynthesis incorporates CO2 into reduced carbon compounds. From the energy stored in carbon-carbon bonds by photosynthesis essentially _all_ other organic molecules are produced. {edit to clarify: this means that every carbon atom in every protein, lipid, carbohydrate or nucleic acid molecule in your body (or the tissue of any other organism, plant, animal, bacteria, fungus, or anything else) came from atmospheric CO2 that was captured and added to more complex carbon compounds by the reducing-power of photosynthesis}



> Catagenesis of organic matter such as plants and animals took place on a massive scale. Time+ temp + pressure transformed the original organic material into the various fossil fuels


Right, but it wasn't some one-time thing... it's a continuos process that sequesters reduced carbon compounds over geological time.



> Burning of said fuel releases the energy transferred through the original catagenesis, along with by-products: CO2 and water.


Not quite... burning the reduced carbon compounds (wether they're recently synthesized things like wood, or ancient things like coal or oil) oxidizes them back to CO2 and water releasing the energy originally trapped by _photosynthesis_ (not catagenesis). Converting the organic material to oil does nothing but move it around... the energy all came from photosynthesis.

The point is that the energy captured and stored by *millions and millions of years* worth of photosynthesis has been burned up effectively instantaneously by human consumption of fossil fuels. This has two important implications: firstly, we've dramatically and suddenly shifted the balance between reduced and oxidized carbon on earth. Ecosystems evolve slowly, and sudden changes are generally bad news. Secondly, there is a finite energy influx on earth, and a small proportion of it has been captured and sequestered over millions and millions of years. This is like an energy savings account the ecosystem has been adding to for millenia. However, humans found the keys to the vault and have been spending that savings at an alarming and obviously unsustainable rate. In other words, we are running an energy deficit. The only reason we've been getting away with it is that we inherited a massive savings account, but that account took millions of years to accumulate, and we've burned through it in a century.

If we don't A) get our energy expenditures under control, and B) develop new technologies for collecting energy (i.e. stop waiting for the plants to do all the work), we're doomed.

Saying "hey there's still lots of oil left... let's keep burning it" is just like the person who says "hey there's still room left on my Visa... let's buy more stuff." The only difference is that there's nowhere to go when we run out of credit - nature does not offer refinancing services.

It's manage your budget or die.


----------



## FeXL

Whoops, just found an estimate by the EPA who, of course, quoted the exalted IPCC. Quite the house of cards...

Of course, it was immediately debunked.



> One of the key statements (from page 2 of the Executive Summary of the EPA’s TSD) is this—a simple mimic the IPCC AR4 finding:
> 
> "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations."
> 
> As I shall show, this statement is no longer tenable.
> 
> ...
> 
> I’ve created a new, simplified chart to show the total effect of all the non-GHG adjustments (that I considered, perhaps there are others) to the “observed” temperature history. The red line in the Figure below is the original warming trend as contained in the most-up-to-date “observed” temperature record, and the blue line is the remaining (“adjusted”) trend after all non-GHG influences have been removed. The remaining trend is just 48% of the original trend. In other words, it can be reasonably argued that anthropogenic GHGs could be responsible for a minority of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.


----------



## MacDoc

> *Permafrost line recedes 130 km in 50 years*, Canadian study finds
> 17 Feb 2010 ... 17, 2010) — The southern limit of permanently frozen ground, or permafrost, is now 130 kilometers further north than it was 50 years ago in .....


Permafrost line recedes 130 km in 50 years, Canadian study finds


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, are you on autopilot? 

I'll do the work for anyne who is interested. From the article:


> While climate change is the most probable explanation for this phenomenon, *the lack of long term climatic data for the area* makes it impossible for the researchers to officially confirm this.


It's science--just minus the data.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It's science--just minus the data.


What do you call the empirical observations of the southern limit of permafrost? Bagels? It's obviously fine science, and any good research discusses limitations of their data.

The reflexive attacks on the validity of published research coming from the Denier camp is easily as irrational as the cherry picking of data to support the hockey stick graph from the Alarmist camp.

By all means critically review the research, but don't just ignore stuff that doesn't fit your preconceived notions.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> By all means critically review the research, but don't just ignore stuff that doesn't fit your preconceived notions.



I mention the limitations of the study because it has been included in the GHG thread. The part of the research that refers to GHGs is the weakest aspect of the study. I'm sure the study of the permafrost is fine science, but I question MacDoc's reasons for posting it here.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I'm sure the study of the permafrost is fine science


Then why did you say it was "Science minus the data"?



> but I question MacDoc's reasons for posting it here.


It's obviously relevant to the topic of global warming. It's one of the many independent, mutually supportive pieces of evidence that global warming is occurring.


----------



## MannyP Design

bryanc said:


> Then why did you say it was "Science minus the data"?


From MacDoc's article: _While climate change is the most probable explanation for this phenomenon, *the lack of long term climatic data for the area makes it impossible for the researchers to officially confirm this*…_


----------



## Macfury

Thanks, Manny. That's exactly what I meant. Note the word "impossible."


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> What do you call the empirical observations of the southern limit of permafrost? Bagels? It's obviously fine science, and any good research discusses limitations of their data.
> 
> *The reflexive attacks on the validity of published research coming from the Denier camp is easily as irrational as the cherry picking of data to support the hockey stick graph from the Alarmist camp.*
> 
> By all means critically review the research, but don't just ignore stuff that doesn't fit your preconceived notions.


I doubt Bryanc this got through.


----------



## FeXL

Czechgate: Climate scientists dump world’s second oldest ‘cold’ climate record



> From plain reading of the Czech data we see that for the past 200 years the temperature in this part of central Europe has warmed by a statistically insignificant 0.25° Centigrade per century.
> 
> The Prague raw temperatures correlate perfectly with those of the world’s oldest climate data set, found in the Central England Temperature Record (CET) that has been running continuously for 351 years.
> 
> Thus, the two oldest and most reliable raw thermometer records in the world are telling us there is not a shred of real world evidence to show any significant global warming. Rather, it the homogenized or faked data created artificially by climatologists in their laboratories that is consistently being shown as the source of such ‘warming.’


Completely irrational...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Completely irrational...


Proxy data suits their philosophical temperaments better.


----------



## SINC

*The Great Global Warming Collapse*

From the Globe And Mail:



> In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.
> 
> These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia's nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, “The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.” To dramatize their country's plight, Nepal's top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.
> 
> But the claim was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.
> 
> “The global warming movement as we have known it is dead,” the brilliant analyst Walter Russell Mead says in his blog on The American Interest.* It was done in by a combination of bad science and bad politics.*
> 
> The impetus for the Copenhagen conference was that the science makes it imperative for us to act. But even if that were true – and even if we knew what to do – a global deal was never in the cards. As Mr. Mead writes, “The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet.” Copenhagen was never going to produce a breakthrough. It was a dead end.
> 
> And now, the science scandals just keep on coming. First there was the vast cache of e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia, home of a crucial research unit responsible for collecting temperature data. Although not fatal to the science, they revealed a snakepit of scheming to keep contradictory research from being published, make imperfect data look better, and withhold information from unfriendly third parties. If science is supposed to be open and transparent, these guys acted as if they had a lot to hide.
> 
> Despite widespread efforts to play down the Climategate e-mails, they were very damaging. An investigation by the British newspaper The Guardian – among the most aggressive advocates for action on climate change – has found that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed, and that documents relating to them could not be produced.
> 
> Meantime, the IPCC – the body widely regarded, until now, as the ultimate authority on climate science – is looking worse and worse. After it was forced to retract its claim about melting glaciers, Mr. Pachauri dismissed the error as a one-off. But other IPCC claims have turned out to be just as groundless.
> 
> For example, it warned that large tracts of the Amazon rain forest might be wiped out by global warming because they are extremely susceptible to even modest decreases in rainfall. *The sole source for that claim, reports The Sunday Times of London, was a magazine article written by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF.* One scientist contacted by the Times, a specialist in tropical forest ecology, called the article “a mess.”
> 
> Worse still, the Times has discovered that Mr. Pachauri's own Energy and Resources Unit, based in New Delhi, has collected millions in grants to study the effects of glacial melting – all on the strength of that bogus glacier claim, which happens to have been endorsed by the same scientist who now runs the unit that got the money. Even so, the IPCC chief is hanging tough. He insists the attacks on him are being orchestrated by companies facing lower profits.
> 
> Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse. *But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they're bailing out.* Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain's Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri's resignation. *India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC.*
> 
> None of this is to say that global warming isn't real, or that human activity doesn't play a role, or that the IPCC is entirely wrong, or that measures to curb greenhouse-gas emissions aren't valid. *But the strategy pursued by activists (including scientists who have crossed the line into advocacy) has turned out to be fatally flawed.*
> 
> By exaggerating the certainties, papering over the gaps, demonizing the skeptics and peddling tales of imminent catastrophe, they've discredited the entire climate-change movement. The political damage will be severe. As Mr. Mead succinctly puts it: “Skeptics up, Obama down, cap-and-trade dead.” That also goes for Canada, whose climate policies are inevitably tied to those of the United States.
> 
> “I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper skepticism,” says John Beddington, the chief scientific adviser to the British government. He is a staunch believer in man-made climate change, but he also points out the complexity of climate science. “Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed.” In his view, it's time to stop circling the wagons and throw open the doors. How much the public will keep caring is another matter.


Emphasis mine.

The great global warming collapse - The Globe and Mail


----------



## MacDoc

ouch....

Insights from earth : article : Nature Reports Climate Change
Quote:


> Research Highlights
> Nature Reports Climate Change
> Published online: 14 January 2010 | doi:10.1038/climate.2010.03
> 
> *Insights from earth*
> Alicia Newton
> 
> Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels during some of the hottest periods of the Earth's past may have been much lower than once thought. An analysis of soils shows that during eras of extreme warming 251–65 million years ago and 55 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentrations were similar to those anticipated for 2100 under a worst-case emissions scenario.
> 
> Daniel Breecker of the University of Texas, Austin, and colleagues looked at modern soils in the United States to determine the conditions that allow formation of the mineral calcite, which is produced in part from carbon dioxide and can be used to estimate atmospheric CO2 concentrations. They found that calcite forms in soils only during the hottest and driest times of year, rather than year-round. Using this information, the team recalculated atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 400 million years. While previous studies point to atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 3,000–4,000 parts per million during ancient greenhouse events, Breecker's team revises this down to around 1,000 parts per million.
> 
> Their findings are in line with estimates from plant fossils, which have previously been regarded as controversial. *The study suggests that a hothouse world may be closer to present-day reality than once believed.*



Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100 ? PNAS



> *Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100*
> 
> D. O. Breecker, Z. D. Sharp, and L. D. McFadden
> Edited by Thure E. Cerling, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, and approved October 22, 2009 (received for review March 5, 2009)
> 
> Abstract
> Quantifying atmospheric CO2 concentrations ([CO2]atm) during Earth’s ancient greenhouse episodes is essential for accurately predicting the response of future climate to elevated CO2 levels. Empirical estimates of [CO2]atm during Paleozoic and Mesozoic greenhouse climates are based primarily on the carbon isotope composition of calcium carbonate in fossil soils. We report that greenhouse [CO2]atm have been significantly overestimated because previously assumed soil CO2 concentrations during carbonate formation are too high. More accurate [CO2]atm, resulting from better constraints on soil CO2, indicate that large (1,000s of ppmV) fluctuations in [CO2]atm did not characterize ancient climates and that past greenhouse climates were accompanied by concentrations similar to those projected for A.D. 2100.




Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100 ? PNAS


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, those studies might mean something if you pre-supposed that increased CO2 content in the atmosphere predicted increased temperatures. Climate science is in such infancy that even this hasn't been proven yet.

In the case of the first study:



> Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels during some of the hottest periods of the Earth's past may have been much lower than once thought.


That would imply that the relationship between CO2 and global temperature has been completely misunderstood, as I've seen so many graphs that orchestrated a very careful correlation between CO2 and temperature. The study works against your position, not for it.

The second study likewise throws doubt on that relationship.


----------



## KC4

...enters the piranha tank cautiously......

This may have already been posted here (so if it's a repeat, I apologize). I found this article interesting:



> Roger Sedjo, a senior research fellow at the US research organisation Resources for the Future who also contributed to the IPCC's latest report, added: "The IPCC is, unfortunately, a highly political organisation with most of the secretariat bordering on climate advocacy.
> "It needs to develop a more balanced and indeed scientifically sceptical behaviour pattern. The organisation tend to select the most negative studies ignoring more positive alternatives."


UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article - Telegraph


----------



## eMacMan

Strange thing is that there are only a handful of weather stations with continuous records going back a reasonable amount of time. So the IIPC keeps rejecting them because they do not support their CO2, climate change driver hypothesis. 

Wish I could find this report. It was an ice study which claimed CO2 levels were 17x higher during at the peak of the last major ice age. 

Truth however is that reliable atmospheric CO2 measurements date back less than a century. Hardly long enough to draw any conclusions whatsoever about the relationship between CO2 and climate. Any other numbers are at best guesses.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> ...increased CO2 content in the atmosphere predicted increased temperatures. Climate science is in such infancy that even this hasn't been proven yet.


And it never will be, because this is science, not math. Science doesn't prove things, and people asking for claims of 'proof' either don't understand science or are trying to spread FUD in an effort to make the jobs of scientists more difficult.



eMacMan said:


> Truth however is that reliable atmospheric CO2 measurements date back less than a century. Hardly long enough to draw any conclusions whatsoever about the relationship between CO2 and climate. Any other numbers are at best guesses.


Estimates based on measurements of carbon isotope from ancient minerals, ice core samples, etc., and our current understanding of chemistry are not 'guesses'... they're data. Consequently they have error associated with them (some of which may be unknown), but they're not guesses any more than scientific theories are 'just ideas.'

A huge component of the problem here is that most people have no idea how science works, and don't know what scientists mean by words like 'estimate' 'model' 'data' 'extrapolation' or 'error'.

It certainly seems that some people (including some scientists) with specific political agendas have been irresponsible with their presentation of what the research says, but it also seems clear that the research provides compelling evidence for climate change mechanism in which human activity plays a role.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> And it never will be, because this is science, not math. Science doesn't prove things, and people asking for claims of 'proof' either don't understand science or are trying to spread FUD in an effort to make the jobs of scientists more difficult.


WE need greater certainty and a clear causal relationship between CO2 and temperature in order to invest any resources in these theories. I agree that even you, bryanc, can't provide ironclad proof that you exist. However, in this case we are dealing with a fundamental plank of Warmism.



bryanc said:


> A huge component of the problem here is that most people have no idea how science works, and don't know what scientists mean by words like 'estimate' 'model' 'data' 'extrapolation' or 'error'.


I certainly know what these mean. Advocacy science doesn't seem to care what they mean. Example: data fed into a model presents a dire outcome, which is then presented as a reason to alter the inputs in the real world. 



bryanc said:


> It certainly seems that some people (including some scientists) with specific political agendas have been irresponsible with their presentation of what the research says, but it also seems clear that the research provides compelling evidence for climate change mechanism in which human activity plays a role.


If we can prove that bryanc's breath contributes to an overall increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, this doesn't mean that we need to eliminate bryanc. Science can easily show that changing any factor can have an infinitesimal effect on even large and complex systems. The degree to which human industrial activity affects climate has not ben demonstrated in compelling fashion.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The degree to which human industrial activity affects climate has not ben demonstrated in compelling fashion.


Compelling to whom? You? Other members of the lay public? Who should be the arbiter of when the scientific evidence is compelling? Pardon me for having the temerity to suggest that people trained in the field should be the ones making this judgement. I certainly agree that anyone who want's to have a look at the data should be allowed to do so, but Joe Sixpack's opinion on what that data means is not really relevant.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Compelling to whom? You? Other members of the lay public? Who should be the arbiter of when the scientific evidence is compelling? Pardon me for having the temerity to suggest that people trained in the field should be the ones making this judgement. I certainly agree that anyone who want's to have a look at the data should be allowed to do so, but Joe Sixpack's opinion on what that data means is not really relevant.


Well if you honestly believe that man increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels from .038% to .039% is going to cause a cataclysmic climate failure. And you honestly believe that diverting massive amounts of cash to the Gore Gang vaults will prevent the disaster. Then I strongly suggest you max your credit cards, take the biggest line of credit you can get on your home, sell the cars and boats and send every dime of that money to the Gore Gang. 

Don't hold back anything for food or heating your home as that would betray the cause.beejacon


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Well if you honestly believe that man increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels from .038% to .039%


You're forgetting two things. Firstly, if the normal range of atmospheric CO2 is 0.0295% - 0.0395%, what you're trivializing may not be so insignificant. Secondly, CO2 is a proxy for many other GHGs. The point is that we are developing an increasingly sophisticated understanding of global climate, and everything we add to that understanding suggests that our impacts on it are having deleterious effects. The magnitude and reversibility of those effects are still open for debate, but given that actions we take to mitigate these effects will help mitigate other problems we're facing as a civilization, it seems silly to argue over wether we should be pursuing these obviously desirable outcomes.



> diverting massive amounts of cash to the Gore Gang vaults will prevent the disaster


I'm not a proponent of any particular political group, but I'm eager to see some leadership in the direction of moving away from fossil fuels. I'm hopeful that a market solution can be found, but I suspect legislation will be required. All I hear from the denier camp is "there's no problem... ignore it an it will go away."


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Compelling to whom? You? Other members of the lay public? Who should be the arbiter of when the scientific evidence is compelling? Pardon me for having the temerity to suggest that people trained in the field should be the ones making this judgement. I certainly agree that anyone who want's to have a look at the data should be allowed to do so, but Joe Sixpack's opinion on what that data means is not really relevant.


That_ is_ temerity. The scientists need to concentrate on their research. It is up to others to decide if they wish to act on it or to form public policy around it.


----------



## groovetube

yes. Just who the hell do those scientists think they are!

Hick!


----------



## SINC

*Climate Alarmists Feeling More Heat*

*But discredited data-fudgers have too much at stake to give up now*



> The empire has begun to strike back.
> 
> It was only a matter of time before the climate alarmists got their feet back under them. There is too much at stake politically, too many careers and reputations on the line, too much grant money for researchers and donations for environmental groups, too much green-tax revenue for governments, too much prestige in academic circles at risk for those who have asserted for more than a decade that man is causing damaging climate change to slink away in defeat.
> 
> So it is of little surprise that in the past couple of weeks many alarmists have begun asserting that despite all the revelations of the past three months about how key climate scientists and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have corrupted the scientific process in an obsessive drive to prove that climate change is real, nothing has undermined the "fact" that the Earth is warming dangerously.
> 
> Since late November, the True Believers have watched in stunned silence as the foundation of the climate-change theory has suffered one body blow after another.
> 
> First it was the revelation that scientists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in England -- perhaps the most influential of the three sources the United Nations relies on for most of its climate data -- were fudging their data to show more warming in recent decades than had actually occurred.
> 
> At the same time, these scientists were doing their best to upend the peer-review process at major scientific journals so scientists who disagreed with them would be unable to get published. And they were withholding their raw data and computer codes from other scientists and government investigators so no one else could validate or debunk their research by attempting to replicate it.
> 
> The alarmists have recently begun to rally around Phil Jones, the discredited head of the CRU. Nearly two week ago, Jones gave an interview to the BBC in which he admitted there had been no "statistically significant" global warming in the past 15 years.
> 
> Some news sources and global-warming skeptics overplayed Jones's exact words. Last Sunday's Daily Mail in Britain, for instance, claimed Jones had performed a "U-turn" in his claims for warming.
> 
> Jones, in fact, continues to insist the Earth is warming. *But what he now admits is that it is not warming that rapidly (just 0.12 C per decade) and not "at the 95-per-cent significance level," the level needed to assert statistical certainty.
> 
> He also now allows that there may have been other periods in the past 1,000 years that were as warm as or warmer than today.*
> 
> While this is not a complete about-face, it is hardly business-as-usual, as the alarmist would have us believe. Even if Jones is still insisting that global warming is happening, there is now a measure of doubt in his claims that never existed before. What makes Jones's words significant is not that they reveal some 180-degree change in his thinking, *but that for the first time he admits significant uncertainty in the so-called settled science of climate change.*
> 
> If leading climate scientists had spent the past 15 years saying the warming they were seeing wasn't all that significant or that there remained many uncertainties about predictions of future climate or that some pre-industrial periods had been warmer, would there have been a Kyoto accord or a Copenhagen Earth summit? Would Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth have made $100 million? Would environmentalists have been asked to write government policy? Would there be any support at all for green taxes and carbon capture and other measures aimed at curbing carbon dioxide emissions?
> Likely not.
> 
> Even though alarmists are correct that Jones has not recanted his earlier belief in the warming theory, he has undergone a significant change.
> 
> Or take the assertion, recently very common among alarmists, that NASA's climate scientists are still finding global warming occurring, so it must still be happening.
> 
> Frankly, NASA's climate scientists have hardly more credibility than the CRUs or IPCCs.
> 
> *NASA is another of the three repositories of climate data relied upon by the UN, but three years ago a significant error was found in its records. In the 1990s, NASA had begun keeping temperature records differently, but it had failed to adjust all its pre-1990s records (about 120 years' worth) to match the new method. When it reconciled its old records to its new method, recent warm years ceased to be as remarkable. For instance, 1934 replaced 1998 as the warmest year. And 1921 became the third-warmest.*
> 
> In 2008, NASA substituted September's global temperatures for October's (they claimed accidentally), thereby distorting upward the worldwide averages for the fall of that year -- an otherwise rather cool year.
> 
> And most recently, NASA has been shown to be cherry-picking the Earth stations it uses to calculate global average. It has been eliminating stations in colder locations (polar, rural, mountainous) and over-relying on warmer ones (mid-latitudes, urban).
> 
> *Alarmists may want to believe this changes nothing, but that simply makes them the new deniers.*


Emphasis mine.

Climate alarmists feeling more heat


----------



## groovetube

And I bet, there's more than 32,000 scientists, who'll stand by anti climate change supporters, and of course, only fox news will report this.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






Even -I- can be a scientist...


----------



## SINC

Yeah, right . . .





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## groovetube

dualling youtube links. 

Any banjo players out there?


----------



## eMacMan

Back to the obvious: Consensus ≠ Science. 

In this case scientists were asked to agree with a hypothesis. They never saw the raw data, nor did they review the computer models. 

As a matter of fact the IPCC is just now getting around to revealing the raw data and it consistently fails to support their hypothesis. 

Earlier someone mentioned that CO2 atmospheric content varies by as much as 30%, yet still wants us to believe that a 2.5% variation will cause a catastrophic climate failure. 

Time to shout STOP. We will not give the Gore Gang one more penny. We will not let our government further impoverish the populace via Carbon Taxation. 

Let's devote our time, money and energy to cleaning up the messes we know are devastating the world around us, rather than wasting it attempting to reduce CO2 emissions.


----------



## CubaMark

_*
Oh dear....*_

*Public losing faith in science*



> Public trust in science as a whole has suffered from recent attacks on climate research, the head of the senior US scientific body admitted at the weekend.
> 
> “There is evidence that the corrosion in the public attitude to climate science has spread over to other areas of science,” said Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, citing public opinion surveys in the US and elsewhere.
> 
> Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in San Diego, Prof Cicerone and other research leaders said scientists must work to regain public trust by being more open about their findings. “We need to be more transparent and provide more access to our research data,” he said.


(Financial Times)


----------



## Macfury

This is a predictable result of their all-too-human failings. They've fallen off their pedestal, and it wasn't too tall a pedestal to begin with.


----------



## SINC

*Snow Job On Global Warming*



> Some 49 of these 50 United States simultaneously laughed at so-called “global warming.” Every state but Hawaii had measurable snow on Feb. 13. An average eight inches covered 68.1 percent of the continental U.S., above January’s more typical 51.2 percent.
> 
> Warmists correctly retort that a cold snap is no pattern. Instead, listen to East Anglia University climatologist Dr. Phil Jones. *This world-famous advocate of so-called “global warming” conceded to the BBC that Earth’s positive temperature trend between 1995 and 2009 is “not significant.*”
> 
> Jones, the chief figure in the “Climategate” e-mails scandal, rejected the oft-stated claim that “warming”-related science is settled. “This is not my view,” Jones said. “There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties.”
> 
> Thus, it has become nearly impossible to hear about “global warming” without giggling. The so-called “global warming” that Al Gore promised has yielded to global cooling.
> 
> *Meanwhile, Gore’s vaunted scientific “consensus” has collapsed, like a roof buckled beneath too much snow:*
> 
> — NASA is fending off charges that it “dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked the locations of weather observation stations it uses to produce the data set on which temperature record reports are based,” according to Weather Channel founder John Coleman. Icecap.us meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, another Weather Channel veteran, says NASA has removed “higher-latitude, high-altitude” locations from its sample. Andean weather gauges, for instance, are overlooked, while regional temperatures now are based on readings “on the coast or in the Amazon.”
> 
> — The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change purports to be for “warming” science what the Congressional Budget Office is to U.S. fiscal policy.
> 
> — In its Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report, IPCC’s Dr. Murari Lal asserts that so-called “global warming” would melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035, first drowning Asians in flash floods, and then dehydrating them beside desiccated rivers. Dr. Lal’s source for this apocalyptic vision was a nonscientific, 2005 World Wildlife Fund report. WWF’s study also featured a massive mathematical mistake. *It stated that a glacier receded at 134 meters (439 feet) annually. The correct distance was 23 meters (75 feet) Oops!*
> 
> — IPCC claimed that African, Alpine and Andean mountain tops had lost ice between 1900 and 2000 “due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming.” One source for this conclusion was an unpublished master’s-degree geography thesis that quoted observations from Swiss mountain guides. “There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense,” Professor Richard Tol of Dublin’s Economic and Social Research Institute, said.
> 
> Such monkeyshines have dominated this issue for four decades. As IPCC author Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine in 1989: “*To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.* Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”
> 
> *These revelations of slipshod and sinister “global-warming science” have crippled cap-and-trade energy taxes, job-killing international “climate-change” treaties and other self-destructive policies.* The fact that America is buried in snow is the icing on the cake.


Emphasis mine.

Snow job on global warming


----------



## groovetube

Hmm. I've read the opposite, that the temperatures have been the warmest on record, 2009 having set a record.

Will my link be more linkier than yours?


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> Hmm. I've read the opposite, that the temperatures have been the warmest on record, 2009 having set a record.
> 
> Will my link be more linkier than yours?


You'll need to post a link if you want to be "linkier" than Sinc.


----------



## groovetube

naw. Sinc can be the linkiest link that ever linked a link.

I'm good wid dat.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> naw. Sinc can be the linkiest link that ever linked a link.
> 
> I'm good wid dat.


When you got nothing, you just keep using it.


----------



## groovetube

it amuses me sinc, that you continue to believe googled links is proof. So what, I post the link to the article, and then you post your link in response. Just like you did to the youtube video I posted.

And this somehow is... *something*?

pfffft.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> pfffft.


Call it not much then.


----------



## groovetube

neither of us sinc. It's interesting to read, have some opinions, but by no means is anything cold hard fact, proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> neither of us sinc. It's interesting to read, have some opinions, but by no means is anything cold hard fact, proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt.


Then submit an opinion instead of always posting with the sniping and smart a$$ remarks.

I made no comments, I simply posted an item which supported my position for others to consider. No sniping. No smart a$$ remarks.

Try it sometime.


----------



## groovetube

Oh Sinc. Come on now. There's a reason for the smartarsed comments now.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Oh Sinc. Come on now. There's a reason for the smartarsed comments now.


If you recall, that is exactly the kind of response that eventually got the first GHG thread closed.


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> If you recall, that is exactly the kind of response that eventually got the first GHG thread closed.


I would assume that is his intent. He hates to admit he was wrong but the only studies backing his viewpoint have been proven corrupt.


----------



## groovetube

You guys are funny. You click links, google for information, find whatever it is that you feel supports your position, and then you fire up the ehmac, and bold'er all up, click that submit button, and rub your hands with glee.

As if a pile of anonymous posters, are going to prove much more than additional hot air. You both act as though it's an open and shut case, the whole thing is a hoax based on some alleged misdeeds somewhere, which is beyond laughable.

Nothing, is proven, beyond any doubt. Nothing. So excuse me, if I'm amused at the sheer silliness.

Sure information is interesting, posting different articles etc., but don't insult everyone's intelligence by acting like it's the end of the story.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Nothing, is proven, beyond any doubt. Nothing


This is exactly the point of these links. To combat the notion that something has been proved. But I find it odd that you see these things as "just links." In most cases the poster explains what he or she finds compelling about the information, and how it supports their own views. It isn't just a battle of bare HTML code.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> *But discredited data-fudgers have too much at stake to give up now*
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> 
> Climate alarmists feeling more heat





Macfury said:


> This is exactly the point of these links. To combat the notion that something has been proved. But I find it odd that you see these things as "just links." In most cases the poster explains what he or she finds compelling about the information, and how it supports their own views. It isn't just a battle of bare HTML code.


Really? That pompous one liner was a compelling explanation?

Puuuulease. You guys just can't take the fact that I'm making fun of the silliness of it all. You all really take the google link game sooo seriously. And I got nothing?
Come... on.


Byranc was quite correct...


bryanc said:


> What do you call the empirical observations of the southern limit of permafrost? Bagels? It's obviously fine science, and any good research discusses limitations of their data.
> 
> *The reflexive attacks on the validity of published research coming from the Denier camp is easily as irrational as the cherry picking of data to support the hockey stick graph from the Alarmist camp.*
> 
> By all means critically review the research, but don't just ignore stuff that doesn't fit your preconceived notions.


right past you.

Continue with the... "linkfest".


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Really? That pompous one liner was a compelling explanation?


No, it was a statement of fact. Data was indeed fudged and they were caught numerous times. No denying that.


----------



## Macfury

> The reflexive attacks on the validity of published research coming from the Denier camp is easily as irrational as the cherry picking of data to support the hockey stick graph from the Alarmist camp.


Reflexive attacks, if they were merely reflexive. The current crop of "denier" ammunition seriously undermines the entire theory of AGW. It isn't as if the hypothesis that climate changes naturally needs support. The AGW crew tried to promulgate an idea that strayed from the normally accepted ideas about the climate. With that in shreds, we merely return to the original position--there is nothing more about it that we need to prove.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> You guys just can't take the fact that I'm making fun of the silliness of it all.


And you couldn't take the fact that some people were making fun of drummers. 

Now that we all know what it's like to have a laugh at someone else's expense and to also be on the receiving end thereof, what say we just all stop it...


----------



## groovetube

Well Fexl, I'm talking about the subject matter. No need to get real personal k? I would think it's pretty easy to figure out.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Well Fexl, I'm talking about the subject matter. No need to get real personal k? I would think it's pretty easy to figure out.


What I don't understand is why you can't stick to the subject matter and make a reasonable comment supporting your position, or post a piece with something in bold to support that position.

Firing cheap shot after cheap shot contributes nothing to the thread and is certainly not "fun" to anyone but you.


----------



## groovetube

I recognize that you're not understanding this sinc. Because I, like a few others have stated here, I'm not going to engage in a linkfest. 

I see it as completely, and utterly useless. You can't say anything in here without someone screeching for a link to back it up. It's almost comical. 

Anyway, I don't mean to upset anyone, that's my opinion, take it for what it's worth, (which may be not much) and do what you do!


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> Well Fexl, I'm talking about the subject matter. No need to get real personal k? I would think it's pretty easy to figure out.


Do we really need to get that pedantic? Fine...



groovetube said:


> You guys are funny. You click links, google for information, find whatever it is that you feel supports your position, and then you fire up the ehmac, and bold'er all up, click that submit button, and rub your hands with glee.


I count six instances of "you" or "yours" in this paragraph. As "you" is a personal pronoun, you are, in fact, talking about people, not the data or the links. Your closing phrase is "rub your hands with glee." Last I checked, data doesn't have hands. You are the one coming across as personal, even if it wasn't your intent.

There are many ways to make fun of the data/links/whatever without including a slew of personal pronouns.

For the record, I wasn't trying to get personal with you. I was trying to illustrate, in my eminently fallible way, that you did come across as addressing something other than the data and other folk may not like it any more than you did.


----------



## groovetube

Oh for the love god. 

Speaking of pedantic, I think you now have the corner on that one it seems.

I'm well aware, that 'other folk' don't like that I see the linkfest as very silly. And, it'll get personal because of it before long I'm sure.

So, don't let me spoil it


----------



## FeXL

Thank you. May I have another...


----------



## groovetube

naw, watch the game. Canada just scored early in the game. Cheers.


----------



## eMacMan

*Scientists find giant plastic rubbish dump floating in the Atlantic*

This is the sort of thing being swept under the rug as the Gore Gang/Big Government consortium looks for more ways to gouge the Joe Sixpack in the name of fighting CO2.



> * SCIENTISTS have discovered a giant rubbish tip made up of plastic bottles, bottletops and toothbrushes floating in the Atlantic Ocean. *
> 
> The discarded plastic, which lies north of the Caribbean, is known to harm seabirds and marine life. Sea Education Association's Dr Karen Lavender Law said that the problem in the Atlantic had been "largely ignored".
> 
> Researchers said the dump has 200,000 pieces of debris per square kilometre but it was impossible to measure the exact size of the patch as much of it floats beneath the surface.
> 
> "That's a maximum that is comparable with the 'great Pacific garbage patch'," Dr Lavender Law said.
> 
> The great Pacific patch lies between Hawaii and California.
> ....


Scientists find giant plastic rubbish dump floating in the Atlantic | News.com.au


----------



## Macfury

This is an are where I could see financially supporting a clean-up. Take some nets and trawl for his junk, instead of tilting at CO2 windmills.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> This is an are where I could see financially supporting a clean-up. Take some nets and trawl for his junk, instead of tilting at CO2 windmills.


As well we could look seriously at ways to reduce the amount of garbage we produce as it has to go somewhere.


----------



## KC4

Macfury said:


> This is an are where I could see financially supporting a clean-up. Take some nets and trawl for his junk, instead of tilting at CO2 windmills.


+1 

I also wonder if it would be possible to determine the main source(s) of this pollution and make the polluters responsible for all or a portion of the clean-up. It would be nice to control/stop it at the source(s).


----------



## Macfury

KC4: I think you could figure out a lot of the companies who are responsible for manufacturing the stuff, since most products are so heavily branded. But it is the actual slob who tossed it into the drink who should pay.


----------



## Dr.G.

KC4 said:


> +1
> 
> I also wonder if it would be possible to determine the main source(s) of this pollution and make the polluters responsible for all or a portion of the clean-up. It would be nice to control/stop it at the source(s).


A scientist here in NL who deals in this sort of pollution said that the size of the plastic is about the size of a pencil eraser, and thus, impossible to accurately trace. The problem is the overall size of this mass of plastic pollution.


----------



## KC4

I was pondering whether these islands of plastic waste were formed by decades of single bottle/wrapper tossing by individuals or by illegal mass dumping of waste at sea...or both? 

While I agree it would be impossible to trace to individuals, I wonder if some large scale dumping (enough of the same kind of debris maybe) could be traceable.


----------



## eMacMan

Certainly dumping at sea illegal or not is a large part of the issue. However much could be done at the manufacturing and packaging level to reduce or eliminate the waste. 

Just one example screws and nails in little plastic boxes. Real hardware store sell them from bins. Customers buy exactly what they need and the only waste is the cardboard shipping box, which could actually be reused if it was redesigned.


----------



## SINC

eMacMan said:


> Certainly dumping at sea illegal or not is a large part of the issue. However much could be done at the manufacturing and packaging level to reduce or eliminate the waste.
> 
> Just one example screws and nails in little plastic boxes. Real hardware store sell them from bins. Customers buy exactly what they need and the only waste is the cardboard shipping box, which could actually be reused if it was redesigned.


Yep, when building we used to buy nails by the pound and took our own pail to carry them home, or a paper bag if it was a small amount.


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> Yep, when building we used to buy nails by the pound and took our own pail to carry them home, or a paper bag if it was a small amount.


We can still do it at four of the five building supply stores in our region. The fifth is Rona and does not get a much of my business.


----------



## Macfury

Pretty hilarious: Google analytics supplied us with ads for plastic parts trays. Context is meaningless.


----------



## KC4

Does anyone ever find themselves deciding against buying something because it has too much packaging or the wrong type of packaging? I do. 

However, I bought a shampoo because it had biodegradable packaging - That's great, but it's biodegrading already in the shower. I doubt that it will survive to contain it's contents until they are finished.


----------



## Dr.G.

I make purchases based on the packaging and from what sorts of materials the product is made. Luckily, we have a pretty good recycling program here in NL and at the university where I teach, so that helps as well.


----------



## Macfury

KC4 said:


> Does anyone ever find themselves deciding against buying something because it has too much packaging or the wrong type of packaging? I do.


Sometimes. I'm never very impressed to see something like arborio rice packed in a vacuum bag shaped like a rectangular prism, then placed inside a box. The package would stand up on its own without the box.


----------



## MacDoc

Urban heat island of course...



> *Permafrost Line Recedes 130 Km in 50 Years, Canadian Study Finds*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Pictured are lichen and shrub--covered palsas surrounded by a pond resulting from melting permafrost in a bog near the village of Radisson, Canada. (Credit: Serge Payette)_
> 
> ScienceDaily (Feb. 17, 2010) — The southern limit of permanently frozen ground, or permafrost, is now 130 kilometers further north than it was 50 years ago in the James Bay region, according to two researchers from the Department of Biology at Université Laval.
> 
> In a recent issue of the scientific journal Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, Serge Payette and Simon Thibault suggest that, if the trend continues, permafrost in the region will completely disappear in the near future.
> 
> The researchers measured the retreat of the permafrost border by observing hummocks known as "palsas," which form naturally over ice contained in the soil of northern peat bogs. Conditions in these mounds are conducive to the development of distinct vegetation -- lichen, shrubs, and black spruce -- that make them easy to spot in the field.
> 
> In an initial survey in 2004, the researchers examined seven bogs located between the 51st and 53rd parallels. They noted at that time that only two of the bogs contained palsas, whereas aerial photos taken in 1957 showed palsas present in all of the bogs. A second assessment in 2005 revealed that the number of palsas present in these two bogs had decreased over the course of one year by 86% and 90% respectively.
> 
> Helicopter flyovers between the 51st and 55th parallels also revealed that the palsas are in an advanced state of deterioration over the entire James Bay area.
> 
> While climate change is the most probable explanation for this phenomenon, the lack of long term climatic data for the area makes it impossible for the researchers to officially confirm this. Professor Payette notes, however, that the average annual temperature of the northern sites he has studied for over 20 years has increased by 2 degrees Celsius.
> 
> "If this trend keeps up, what is left of the palsas in the James Bay bogs will disappear altogether in the near future, and it is likely that the permafrost will suffer the same fate," concludes the researcher affiliated to the Centre d'études nordiques.
> 
> 
> Story Source:
> _
> Adapted from materials provided by Université Laval, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
> Journal Reference:
> 
> Simon Thibault, Serge Payette. Recent permafrost degradation in bogs of the James Bay area, northern Quebec, Canada. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, 2009; 20 (4): 383 DOI: 10.1002/ppp.660_


Permafrost line recedes 130 km in 50 years, Canadian study finds


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, please read the threads before posting. We discussed this study a long time ago.


----------



## groovetube

I think he may have the high fivin' linkfest filtered out. Or the it's all Gore's fault (want to use the "circle" term but may not be appropriate here).

Don't blame him.


----------



## Macfury

Then he would have had no trouble reading the post about the tundra study.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> I think he may have the high fivin' linkfest filtered out. Or the it's all Gore's fault (want to use the "circle" term but may not be appropriate here).
> 
> Don't blame him.


Yeah, blame gt instead for nauseatingly similar posts about posting links. It's growing tiresome and adds nothing to the thread. Other than nothing, that is and he appears to have an endless supply.


----------



## groovetube

nauseatingly similar. tiresome. adds nothing. Endless supply.

You kill me. 
:baby:


----------



## MacDoc

> February 22, 2010 |
> 
> *Despite Climategate, IPPC Mostly Underestimates Climate Change*
> 
> Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, James McCarthy of the Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment noted that *the IPCC usually errs on the conservative side*. Steve Mirsky reports
> 
> Lost in the coverage of the so-called climategate email controversy is a key point about the IPCC’s track record of climate change estimates. James McCarthy is on the faculty of the Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment. He spoke February 21st at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego:
> 
> “If you were to go back and map the IPCC projection for sea level rise and temperature in 1990, look at it in 1995, look at it in 2000. In retrospect you would find that they were conservative. So we talk about errors. If you were to do two ledgers—here are IPCC overestimates, here are IPCC underestimates—over the 20 or so years that these assessments have been running, *the underestimate ledger would be much larger than the overestimate.*
> 
> Even with glitches—clearly erroneous editing or sloppy editing that led to these erroneous statements that got us in trouble recently.”
> 
> —Steve Mirsky


Despite Climategate, IPPC Mostly Underestimates Climate Change: Scientific American Podcast


----------



## Macfury

Well, MacDoc, at least this is a novel excuse: when I was dead wrong in my predictions, I was conservative about them.


----------



## MannyP Design

MacDoc said:


> Despite Climategate, IPPC Mostly Underestimates Climate Change: Scientific American Podcast


Um, do you not see the irony of that article? Making a conservative judgement on the size of bullsh!t doesn't make it any less smelly. :lmao:


----------



## bryanc

So, lemme get this straight. If a conservative economist warns that inflation rates might reach 15% if a liberal government doesn't control it's deficit, and then the economist is criticized for having a political bias and cherry picking some of his data, and it turns out that inflation is really 20%, that's all the more reason to lampoon him?

Because that's exactly what's happening here. Some of the information the IPCC used was politically tainted, but their predictions have been conservative. Reality is looking worse than we thought.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> So, lemme get this straight. If a conservative economist warns that inflation rates might reach 15% if a liberal government doesn't control it's deficit, and then the economist is criticized for having a political bias and cherry picking some of his data, and it turns out that inflation is really 20%, that's all the more reason to lampoon him?
> 
> Because that's exactly what's happening here. Some of the information the IPCC used was politically tainted, but their predictions have been conservative. Reality is looking worse than we thought.


No, it is like having the predictions of the conservative economist bearing little relationship to reality after finding out most of his data was missing and his conclusions fudged--and then being justifiably ridiculed.


----------



## eMacMan

No by conservative, IPCC meant they were predicting catastrophe and things pretty much did not change. 

In other words they were being conservative by predicting the worst possible outcome, the better to get the populace to accept exorbitant carbon taxes and also to promote the carbon credit scam.


----------



## FeXL

> “If you were to go back and map the IPCC projection for sea level rise and temperature in 1990, look at it in 1995, look at it in 2000. In retrospect you would find that they were conservative. So we talk about errors.
> 
> (...)
> 
> Even with glitches—clearly erroneous editing or sloppy editing that led to these erroneous statements that got us in trouble recently.”
> 
> —Steve Mirsky


Good. No problems.

Now that we've confirmed that the estimates were actually on the conservative side of things, where's the raw data? It should be a fairly straightforward task to duplicate the results. The formulae employed obviously used a number set of some sort. Where is it?

Macdoc? Anyone?

Riiiiight, sorry, forgot. The dog ate it.

So, without the original dataset, how can this prediction possibly pass peer review? How about any other conclusions the IPCC has published based on the missing dataset?

Now, let's talk errors. No, clearly...


----------



## MacDoc

the evolution denialist mindset...peas in a pod with AGW deniers...



> March 3, 2010
> *Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets*
> By LESLIE KAUFMAN
> 
> Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools.
> 
> In Kentucky, a bill recently introduced in the Legislature would encourage teachers to discuss “the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories,” including “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.”


continues

Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets - NYTimes.com

climate change deniers now getting into the comedic relief zone....


----------



## Macfury

Fascinating logic. So if :

A. Some people who believe that school should teach both the advantages and disadvantages of the theory of evolution...

Also believe:

B. That schools should teach the advantages and disadvantages of the hypothesis of AGW...

Then:

C. This somehow discredits scientific opposition to the hypothesis of AGW?

You were better off wallpapering the place with outdated charts and graphs.


----------



## Vandave

FeXL said:


> The formulae employed obviously used a number set of some sort. Where is it?
> 
> Macdoc? Anyone?
> 
> Riiiiight, sorry, forgot. The dog ate it.


They also won't release the climate models for public scrutiny. I think Al Gore ate it.


----------



## FeXL

*Yes! Yes! Yes!*

Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate



> Tentatively and grudgingly, they are beginning to engage their critics, admit mistakes, open up their data and reshape the way they conduct their work.
> 
> (...)
> 
> Climate scientists have been shaken by the criticism and are beginning to look for ways to recover their reputation. They are learning a little humility and trying to make sure they avoid crossing a line into policy advocacy.
> 
> (...)
> 
> “I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored,” Willis Eschenbach, an engineer and climate contrarian who posts frequently on climate skeptic blogs, wrote in response to one climate scientist’s proposal to share more research. “I don’t want you learning better ways to propagandize for shoddy science. I don’t want you to figure out how to inspire trust by camouflaging your unethical practices in new and innovative ways.”
> 
> “The solution,” he concluded, “is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science.”
> 
> (...)
> 
> “Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”


And once more: 

*Yesssss!*


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Yesssss!


But FeXL, never mind that the "science" has pretty much been kicked in the ass and the AGW house of cards is crashing down around their ears--MacDoc has an important post about what some elementary school parents are doing in Kentucky.


----------



## KC4

FeXL said:


> Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate
> 
> 
> 
> And once more:
> 
> *Yesssss!*


Hallelujah. 
Finally.


----------



## Macfury

Will we soon have collected enough evidence to put David Suzuki on trial, in the same way he once suggested scientists be put on trial for disagreeing with biologists, such as himself?


----------



## KC4

Macfury said:


> Will we soon have collected enough evidence to put David Suzuki on trial, in the same way he once suggested scientists be put on trial for disagreeing with biologists, such as himself?


That would be evolutionary.


----------



## eMacMan

KC4 said:


> That would be evolutionary.


:clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## MacGuiver

I wonder if the conservative party is wishing now they'd have stuck to their guns and not drank the AGW kool-aid. They'd be looking more like leaders and less like one of the sheep.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube

first of all, they never supported the theory, ever, and, still managed to not look like leaders.


----------



## Macfury

I thought they did a great job of faking it while screwing up all of the social engineers who were calling for "global warming aid" from the "rich countries."


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> first of all, they never supported the theory, ever, and, still managed to not look like leaders.


And thank goodness they didn't. We would have been far worse off.


----------



## groovetube

certainly a highlight post to recall should global warming be be shown to be in fact real.

"Yeah we faked it real good..."


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> "Yeah we faked it real good..."


Yep, with "nothing" all along.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> And thank goodness they didn't. We would have been far worse off.


yeah hell there'd be less pollution. That'd suck.

Oh right, here comes the Gore rants. <plugs ears for the ensuing bellowing>


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Oh right, here comes the Gore rants. <plugs ears for the ensuing bellowing>


Nope, I'm gonna stay with you and stick with nothing.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> yeah hell there'd be less pollution. That'd suck.


No, there'd be the same amount of pollution. Carbon dioxide is not pollution.


----------



## groovetube

oh here we go again.

Go show'em Sinc.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> oh here we go again.
> 
> Go show'em Sinc.


Nope Wouldn't want to see you applauding yourself again. Someone might throw you a fish.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> No, there'd be the same amount of pollution. Carbon dioxide is not pollution.


ah a true real example of internet forum intelligence. Use less fossil fuels = no less pollution.

Brilliant. Well, at least you have... 'something' I guess.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> yeah hell there'd be less pollution. That'd suck.
> 
> Oh right, here comes the Gore rants. <plugs ears for the ensuing bellowing>


You really should pay attention. Almost unanimously those of us that feel that IPCC has failed to prove a connection between CO2 and Global warming, also feel that rather than diverting the planets wealth into the Gore Gang Vaults, we should be devoting our energy to putting a stop to real pollution. You know stuff like Mercury, lead and radioactive isotopes in our light bulbs. Sulphur compounds in diesel fuels. Carbon particles which do greatly accelerate glacial melting. Even just the amount of garbage our population generates. 

Believe me neither Carbon Credits nor Carbon Taxes will do any of those things. As a matter of fact the CO2 myth is directly responsible for more of those poisonous light bulbs landing in the landfills.


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> You really should pay attention. Almost unanimously those of us that feel that IPCC has failed to prove a connection between CO2 and Global warming, also feel that rather than diverting the planets wealth into the Gore Gang Vaults, we should be devoting our energy to putting a stop to real pollution. You know stuff like Mercury, lead and radioactive isotopes in our light bulbs. Sulphur compounds in diesel fuels. Carbon particles which do greatly accelerate glacial melting. Even just the amount of garbage our population generates.
> 
> Believe me neither Carbon Credits nor Carbon Taxes will do any of those things. As a matter of fact the CO2 myth is directly responsible for more of those poisonous light bulbs landing in the landfills.


actually, you should pay attention.

I never suggested putting money into Gore's vault. And, the very fact that the bunch of you continually howl and shriek about it in each and every post, is rather tiring.

You make about as much sense as captain one track, and sergeant you got nothing (and I have so much)


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> And, the very fact that the bunch of you continually howl and shriek about it in each and every post, is rather tiring.


 You are the only one who continually howls and shreiks. "The bunch" you refer to, actually contribute something to the thread that is an opinion, not just cheap shots.


----------



## groovetube

oh. Yours is an opinion. Mine is a cheap shot. 

I'm sorry Sinc but that's just rich.


----------



## Macfury

Take it easy groove, or you'll shut this thread down and we'll have to start a new one.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Take it easy groove, or you'll shut this thread down and we'll have to start a new one.


Hey Sinc was the first out with a cheap shot here with the you got nothing BS. Tell him to take it easy.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> ...
> 
> I never suggested putting money into Gore's vault.


Nor have you suggested any other approach.

We keep pointing out the Gore connection as the entire point of the AGW promotion is to divert huge amounts of capital into the Gore Gang vaults, with the scraps going to Carbon Taxes.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Hey Sinc was the first out with a cheap shot here with the you got nothing BS. Tell him to take it easy.


I've been taking it easy for quite some time. It's you who gets bent out of shape and starts with the chippy stuff, which is usually returned in kind. Why not come back when you have an opinion or a link to some info that will enlighten us all?


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> Nor have you suggested any other approach.
> 
> We keep pointing out the Gore connection as the entire point of the AGW promotion is to divert huge amounts of capital into the Gore Gang vaults, with the scraps going to Carbon Taxes.


pay attention. I have suggested using less fossil fuels.

I personally can't verify if global warming is 100% a sound theory. I do know it is a very real possibility and there are many things that point to it's existence, and, that fossil fuel use is also contributing is a very very serious way to killing us slowly.

I'm not fully convinced that carbon credit schemes as promoted will work either. But constantly throwing up one's hands and repeating the "Gore gang" theory over and over isn't exactly a bowl of solutions either.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> I've been taking it easy for quite some time. It's you who gets bent out of shape and starts with the chippy stuff, which is usually returned in kind. Why not come back when you have an opinion or a link to some info that will enlighten us all?


You started the cheap shots sinc, and getting involved in any sort of banter here with you never results in anything good. I was taking to someone else and you butted in with your usual 'got nothing' crap. 

And no I won't waste my time playing the linkfest game. If you want to go right ahead if you really feel that's real contributions. That's seriously sad.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> That's seriously sad.


Indeed it is:



> In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.
> 
> These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia's nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, “The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.” To dramatize their country's plight, Nepal's top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.
> 
> *But the claim was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. *It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. *But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.*


The great global warming collapse - The Globe and Mail


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> pay attention. I have suggested using less fossil fuels.
> ...


Details?


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> Details?


Turn key... off. Walk.

I know I know, it's not a link, just a very simple bare bones concept. Not to be taken seriously in any way. The only thing the bunch of you understand is a link with a backhanded comment. Apparently, that a contribution! I'm sorry I have neither the time nor inclination to go google links for alternatives, ones which have been discussed have to death, and grade 5 students are including in their school projects on energy alternatives. But, it seems a googled link around here is the only cred around here.

I would think the idea of using less would be pretty simple for the average person to understand. However, it isn't something big oil who wants to protect their cash vaults being stuffed with money at all costs.

As I said, I doubt the effectiveness of the carbon trading schemes suggested, even more so if all it does is stuff other people's vaults with cash, we already have that problem. Once again we have the populace heavily polarized between two factions wanting to fill their boots with our cash.

A carbon tax, could work, but only if the revenue was truly poured directly into the development of newer technologies, but as we all know neither the conservatives, or the liberals are noted for their ability to follow through on such money management promises.

There. a simple opinion, NO links. Let the scoffing, and link demands begin.


----------



## Macfury

So, if fossil fuels are "running out" and we have already passed "peak oil" and if no link can be proven between carbon dioxide and global warming, why not just use up the rest of the fossil fuels and slowly let existing technologies replace fossil fuels as the price of fossil fuels rises?


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> Turn key... off. Walk.
> 
> I know I know, it's not a link, just a very simple bare bones concept. Not to be taken seriously in any way. The only thing the bunch of you understand is a link with a backhanded comment. Apparently, that a contribution! I'm sorry I have neither the time nor inclination to go google links for alternatives, ones which have been discussed have to death, and grade 5 students are including in their school projects on energy alternatives. But, it seems a googled link around here is the only cred around here.
> 
> I would think the idea of using less would be pretty simple for the average person to understand. However, it isn't something big oil who wants to protect their cash vaults being stuffed with money at all costs.
> 
> As I said, I doubt the effectiveness of the carbon trading schemes suggested, even more so if all it does is stuff other people's vaults with cash, we already have that problem. Once again we have the populace heavily polarized between two factions wanting to fill their boots with our cash.
> 
> * A carbon tax, could work, but only if the revenue was truly poured directly into the development of newer technologies,* but as we all know neither the conservatives, or the liberals are noted for their ability to follow through on such money management promises.
> 
> There. a simple opinion, NO links. Let the scoffing, and link demands begin.


Actually with governments around the world hemorrhaging cash the Carbon Tax scam is guaranteed to fail.

The only thing that would work at the individual level is far simpler. Those that consume at less than average levels pay less than now per unit. Those that consume at higher levels pay more. NO Carbon Credits skimmed off the top and less complicated than the current gouge fees we see on our bills. Thus if you use half the national average your bill should be one quarter of the national average. OTH Al Gore who uses 22 times the national average would see his electrical bill rise to about 500 times the national average. He might actually choose to reduce consumption. More likely as half a $million or so is just a drop in the bucket to the Great Gore he would choose to subsidize those of us who do/have reduced consumption. Far different than buying Carbon Credits from himself.

This has many advantages over the promoted scams. No extra paperwork. Seniors and others at the low end of the income spectrum would see reduced not increased bills as they are already doing more than their share to conserve. The heavy users would pay dearly. 

The utilities would be far better off for two reasons, increased income and/or less strain on the supply side. I do see exceptions for things like home based welding or machine shops that do use a lot more power than the typical home.


----------



## groovetube

really. So, who benefits from the extra cash for all the ones using the most carbon fuels? You aren't going to tell me this will resolve all nicely?

What happens when 75% of the population/corporations suddenly start using a whole lot less. Who covers that? The government? Big oil will volunteer to take the hit(Good luck with that).

As long as people can afford it, they'll use it. t's really a question, of where that "surcharge/tax" goes. It becomes a matter of semantics, because what you're suggesting, is simply a tax of sorts.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> why not just use up the rest of the fossil fuels and slowly let existing technologies replace fossil fuels as the price of fossil fuels rises?


Because the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels causes massive environmental damage (regardless of any effects it may have on global climate), and perpetuates an unsustainable energy budget.

This is exactly like saying "we still have a little room on our Visa, why not keep spending until the card is declined?"

One of the things I find most ironic about the fossil fuel debate is that the fiscal conservatives who (correctly) see running a deficit as a problem _in and of itself_ are the same people who can't comprehend why consuming energy faster than it is being stored could be a problem.


----------



## Macfury

It's not a Visa Card. It is a bank balance, and one that seems quite healthy despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth about "peak oil."



bryanc said:


> This is exactly like saying "we still have a little room on our Visa, why not keep spending until the card is declined?"


----------



## groovetube

so then there's no need to be doing the incredibly destructive tar sands nonsense then!


----------



## KC4

groovetube said:


> so then there's no need to be doing the incredibly destructive tar sands nonsense then!


Well, energy prices and consumption aside, _somebody_ needs to be cleaning up Mother Nature's Tar Sands mess. Let BIG OIL do it. They seem to have the tolerance for the extreme risk involved, the technology and skills to do it, the deep pockets to finance it and best of all, the environmental watch dogs to monitor that it is done correctly. 

Unless _you_ want to do it. Let me know. I'd be happy to spin you around three times and point you in the right direction.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It's not a Visa Card. It is a bank balance


Actually, you're quite right about that. The reason my Visa analogy fails is that credit does not exist in nature. And it's worth emphasizing that our expenditures *vastly* exceed our income.

I'd love to be wrong about this, but I think it's going to take decades, if not centuries, for our civilization to bring it's energy budget into balance. And while you might think the balance in the savings account is 'healthy', I'm not so confident. I also think it's better to have money you don't need than to need money you don't have.


----------



## groovetube

KC4 said:


> Well, energy prices and consumption aside, _somebody_ needs to be cleaning up Mother Nature's Tar Sands mess. Let BIG OIL do it. They seem to have the tolerance for the extreme risk involved, the technology and skills to do it, the deep pockets to finance it and best of all, the environmental watch dogs to monitor that it is done correctly.
> 
> Unless _you_ want to do it. Let me know. I'd be happy to spin you around three times and point you in the right direction.


HA HA HA HA HA! 

Are you really serious? Let big oil do it?

Yes those big corporations have such a great track record for doing so now don't they!


----------



## KC4

groovetube said:


> HA HA HA HA HA!
> 
> Are you really serious? Let big oil do it?
> 
> Yes those big corporations have such a great track record for doing so now don't they!


Hee Hee.. Glad you're amused. 
Also glad to know that you must have a better idea. Please elaborate on how best to (and who best to) go about the clean-up and reclamation of the oil sands. 

Just so you know, I'll be terribly disappointed if you suggest that they should have been left as Mother Nature created them, all off-gassing, seeping into our soils and groundwater, occasionally catching fire and burning out of control and other such rude behavior. 

I agree that the O&G industry has a _tar_nished history as far as consistent environmentally sound activity across the board. So do we all, regardless of what industry we work in. 

But thankfully (in North America at least) this is mostly history. Especially for the O&G industry, thanks in part to their past digressions. It's also thanks to the fact that they can make some decent money at it and money always attracts attention (and trolls). 

I wish other industries and practices would have an equal amount of attention paid to them by environmental watch dogs. It's easier to fly under the radar when you don't visibly make as much money. No one is terribly motivated to "bring you down to size" or want a piece of the action.


----------



## SINC

KC4, you really should let the poor guy know your background and experience on which you base that information. Of course it won't count with gt, but go for it anyway.


----------



## groovetube

what, is he the pope? What?

actually, I couldn't care less what his background is. Anyone can brag and bellow endlessly how smart they are. Which I would expect on a forum anyway. Anyone who wants to continually believe that big oil has a fantastic environmental record of cleaning up after themselves, is very seriously gullible, and hasn't read a newspaper in 60 odd years...

But go ahead, believe what you like. Oh forgot Sinc, you got that little tour and you know everything, right.

Anyone trying to tell me how fantastic big oil environmental record is, I'm going to laugh in your face.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> what, is he the pope? What?
> 
> actually, I couldn't care less what his background is. Anyone can brag and bellow endlessly how smart they are. Which I would expect on a forum anyway. Anyone who wants to continually believe that big oil has a fantastic environmental record of cleaning up after themselves, is very seriously gullible, and hasn't read a newspaper in 60 odd years...
> 
> But go ahead, believe what you like. Oh forgot Sinc, you got that little tour and you know everything, right.
> 
> Anyone trying to tell me how fantastic big oil environmental record is, I'm going to laugh in your face.


Tsk, tsk, gt, don't you pay attention?

KC4 is female and likely 99% of us here know that. She's also been in the oil business for years, although that won't cut it with you either, will it? 

And yeah, my "little tour" and eight years of living in Fort McMuray does carry a lot more weight than your rantings.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Tsk, tsk, gt, don't you pay attention?
> 
> KC4 is female and likely 99% of us here know that. She's also been in the oil business for years, although that won't cut it with you either, will it?


this is a forum sinc, how the hell would I know? It could be a hairy old man, or a female stalker. I have no idea.

I only take what I read, at face value. As I said, I don't care if he, or she, is the president of Exxon.

But my point still stands. Don't bother making me laugh with trying to pass off big oil as have a great environmental record. But you're free to believe that nonsense of you wish.

So do your got nothin, bellowing, I'm the ceo of all things corporate and important. I really don't give a rats arse.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> this is a forum sinc, how the hell would I know? It could be a hairy old man, or a female stalker. I have no idea.
> 
> I only take what I read, at face value. As I said, I don't care if he, or she, is the president of Exxon.
> 
> But my point still stands. Don't bother making me laugh with trying to pass off big oil as have a great environmental record. But you're free to believe that nonsense of you wish.
> 
> So do your got nothin, bellowing, I'm the ceo of all things corporate and important. I really don't give a rats arse.


Fine, so give up on harassing people who post honest opinion in this thread. You got the last one closed with that tactic.


----------



## groovetube

oh I don't think it was my tactic that closed it, I wouldn't put up with it, and that closed it.

This forum, as fine as it is, is sometimes not the place to get into a heated discussion. Though you and others will pretend you don't do cheap shots.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> oh I don't think it was my tactic that closed it, I wouldn't put up with it, and that closed it.
> 
> This forum, as fine as it is, is sometimes not the place to get into a heated discussion. Though you and others will pretend you don't do cheap shots.


Oh yeah, right, sorry:



groovetube said:


> what, is he the pope? What?


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Oh yeah, right, sorry:


I'm not sure I understand sinc. You eluded to some great position, I have no idea. Since you wouldn't elaborate, I had to guess.

Prime minister? The pope? What?

Guess it went right past you.

ANyway. Now that this has successfully derailed after the laughable big oil has such a great environmental record, there's not much for me here.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> I'm not sure I understand sinc. You eluded to some great position, I have no idea.


Sorry, but looking at it from here, your statement above has been the core of many of your previous posts in this thread. No idea and all, that is.


----------



## groovetube

a real knee slapper there sinc.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> ANyway. Now that this has successfully derailed after the laughable big oil has such a great environmental record, there's not much for me here.


Then my question becomes, why are you still posting here?


----------



## KC4

groovetube said:


> what, is he the pope? What?
> 
> actually, I couldn't care less what his background is. Anyone can brag and bellow endlessly how smart they are. Which I would expect on a forum anyway. Anyone who wants to continually believe that big oil has a fantastic environmental record of cleaning up after themselves, is very seriously gullible, and hasn't read a newspaper in 60 odd years...
> 
> But go ahead, believe what you like. Oh forgot Sinc, you got that little tour and you know everything, right.
> 
> Anyone trying to tell me how fantastic big oil environmental record is, I'm going to laugh in your face.


The Pope? 
Bless you my son for you have stunned.

Did you read the part of my post where I agreed with you about the O&G industry's poor past performance, environmentally speaking? I AGREED with you gt. Slow down and understand that I am not arguing that big oil has a fantastic environmental record. 
I don't think anybody has stated that, have they? 

Yes, in addition to being a big hairy female stalker, I have considerable and most importantly, relevant experience in the O&G industry.

The relevant part to this discussion was time and energy spent with industry, environmental. legal and regulatory experts to understand the extent of environmental damage caused by Oil & Gas operations - from exploration to exploitation to development etc onward through the cycle to eventual abandonment and reclamation.

It _is_ a huge but no longer growing liability. 

Next was to develop measurable standards of compliance and reclamation and understand the cost of meeting or exceeding these standards. 

The challenge for us was to develop a strategy and a workable regulated system to ensure that environmental responsibility could not be legally shirked nor avoided by those that committed the contamination. 

I've posted briefly about this before - It's basically the Orphan Well /Facility Fund and related Environmental Regulations. It's been in effect for over 10 years and is now a standard part of every industry agreement to do with oil & gas sites. Even though it's fairly new, it covers every site in existence, past, present and future, producing or not.

No longer can environmental responsibility be swept under the carpet and ignored. Not by any company, big or small. Every operation, including the oil sands will be properly taken care of and to exceedingly high standards as well. IF you want to know more details, just ask. Otherwise, enough said. 

That's also why I am very interested in hearing your suggestion. Who should clean up and reclaim the oil sands, if it is not to be Big Oil?


----------



## groovetube

KC4 said:


> The Pope?
> Bless you my son for you have stunned.
> 
> Did you read the part of my post where I agreed with you about the O&G industry's poor past performance, environmentally speaking? I AGREED with you gt. Slow down and understand that I am not arguing that big oil has a fantastic environmental record.
> I don't think anybody has stated that, have they?
> 
> Yes, in addition to being a big hairy female stalker, I have considerable and most importantly, relevant experience in the O&G industry.
> 
> The relevant part to this discussion was time and energy spent with industry, environmental. legal and regulatory experts to understand the extent of environmental damage caused by Oil & Gas operations - from exploration to exploitation to development etc onward through the cycle to eventual abandonment and reclamation.
> 
> It _is_ a huge but no longer growing liability.
> 
> Next was to develop measurable standards of compliance and reclamation and understand the cost of meeting or exceeding these standards.
> 
> The challenge for us was to develop a strategy and a workable regulated system to ensure that environmental responsibility could not be legally shirked nor avoided by those that committed the contamination.
> 
> I've posted briefly about this before - It's basically the Orphan Well /Facility Fund and related Environmental Regulations. It's been in effect for over 10 years and is now a standard part of every industry agreement to do with oil & gas sites. Even though it's fairly new, it covers every site in existence, past, present and future, producing or not.
> 
> No longer can environmental responsibility be swept under the carpet and ignored. Not by any company, big or small. Every operation, including the oil sands will be properly taken care of and to exceedingly high standards as well. IF you want to know more details, just ask. Otherwise, enough said.
> 
> That's also why I am very interested in hearing your suggestion. Who should clean up and reclaim the oil sands, if it is not to be Big Oil?


Stunned. Well, since I've never met you, you could be anyone. I only take what is written here at face value, and whether you are the pope, or a leading environmental king of the planet, it makes no difference.

Agreed with me. Well like many internet forums, often posts are rather like playing the childhood game of telephone.

I got the part that you think big oil should clean it up, and now you are actively involved in making them do that. I commend you. But what you didn't get, was my laughter at the idea, that I should suddenly accept your word, that after oh, 50 odd years of being told how great they are only to discover years later they lied, again, and again and agin! I will still be skeptical, and will laugh at the suggestion that big oil will do so. Any sane individual after having been lied to so many times, would.

But OF COURSE they should clean it up! Any sane person would think that! Why on earth would even think otherwise!!!

But don't tell me to calm down and accept a few paragraphs of glowing words on how this is now suddenly going to happen. I'll believe it, when I see it. And after the insanely horrible record, of being lied to over and over and over and over again, any er, not so "stunned" person would be quite skeptical thank you.

Oh and what of the huge environmental damage to our environment during the process? I understand the part they they, apparently will made to clean up the mess they made to the area.


----------



## Macfury

Let's talk a little about scale here. The sum total of ALL Alberta Oil Sands development doesn't cover 175 square miles (a patch 13 by 13 miles). Of that, 25 square miles is already under rehab--a rigorous process that takes years to complete. The provincial government recently handed out the first certificate for an area that meets its standards for environmental reclamation.


----------



## groovetube

that's nice macfury. But I find it quite hilarious that some so quick, so EAGER, to hand out a gold medal after the incredibly disastrous record of the last several decades. And I don't really trust a provincial government either, but you are certainly welcome to!

I'll wait and see for a number of years before I start handing out any congratulations thank you.


----------



## Macfury

I don't trust any government in bed with business--it aligns their priorities too closely. However, the progress in the Oil Sands area is closely monitored by citizen groups as well.


----------



## CubaMark

There was a thread that included discussion of pre-earthquake-Haiti awhile back that portrayed the South as a bunch of money-grubbing beggars in the climate change talks. So how about this:





> Developed countries are "outsourcing" more than a third of their carbon emissions associated with products and services to other countries, researchers say.
> 
> A study of trade data found that some countries in Western Europe have more than half of their total carbon dioxide emissions occurring elsewhere, especially in developing countries such as China.
> 
> Reserachers at the Carnegie Institution used trade data from 2004 to create a model of the global flow of products in 113 countries and regions.
> 
> They then associated those products with carbon emissions to determine which countries are net "importers" of emissions and which are net "exporters."
> 
> "Just like the electricity that you use in your home probably causes CO2 emissions at a coal-burning power plant somewhere else, we found that the products imported by the developed countries of western Europe, Japan, and the United States cause substantial emissions in other countries, especially China," said the study's lead author Steven Davis of Carnegie, in a statement.


(CBC)


----------



## Macfury

Since CO2 is rather irrelevant, who cares where it's produced? The money-grubbing was from countries who claimed to be suffering as a result of "climate change." The map suggests that these countries could effect an immediate reduction in "dangerous" CO2 emissions by simply refusing to manufacture these items.


----------



## KC4

groovetube said:


> Stunned. Well, since I've never met you, you could be anyone. I only take what is written here at face value, and whether you are the pope, or a leading environmental king of the planet, it makes no difference.
> 
> Agreed with me. Well like many internet forums, often posts are rather like playing the childhood game of telephone.
> 
> I got the part that you think big oil should clean it up, and now you are actively involved in making them do that. I commend you. But what you didn't get, was my laughter at the idea, that I should suddenly accept your word, that after oh, 50 odd years of being told how great they are only to discover years later they lied, again, and again and agin! I will still be skeptical, and will laugh at the suggestion that big oil will do so. Any sane individual after having been lied to so many times, would.
> 
> But OF COURSE they should clean it up! Any sane person would think that! Why on earth would even think otherwise!!!
> 
> But don't tell me to calm down and accept a few paragraphs of glowing words on how this is now suddenly going to happen. I'll believe it, when I see it. And after the insanely horrible record, of being lied to over and over and over and over again, any er, not so "stunned" person would be quite skeptical thank you.
> 
> Oh and what of the huge environmental damage to our environment during the process? I understand the part they they, apparently will made to clean up the mess they made to the area.



I neither expect nor want you to take my word for anything on this matter. Neither do I want you to calm down about it. On the contrary in fact – I want you and me and others that are concerned to stay actively aware and involved. This is what has helped bring this Reclamation Fund system into action and our continued vigilance will help monitor and refine the system to ensure it works as intended. 

I was only suggesting that you slow down for a second to take a look at where we may already be aligned. No value to investing more energy there – let’s redirect our energies to where they are much more useful.

You may wish to join those militant sign wavers yelling and ranting “Down with Big Oil/Government you polluting, lying, money-grubbing basterds, etc. etc.,” but I’m guessing (despite internet forum anonymity) you’re smart enough to be more useful to the cause elsewhere.

The system is young and not perfect but is already returning desired results as Macfury already mentioned. Continued intelligent monitoring and action by concerned groups will keep industry and the government on the straight and narrow. It will be decades before we can really tell if the system is truly effective and successful. I will not live long enough to see it completed.

It is difficult to accomplish anything – from making a sandwich to exploiting/reclaiming the oil sands without first making a mess. 
The exploitation/clean-up process of the oil sands is also very closely monitored to ensure that the environmental contamination and public risk is kept to the minimum. It’s the law.


----------



## groovetube

KC4 said:


> I neither expect nor want you to take my word for anything on this matter. Neither do I want you to calm down about it. On the contrary in fact – I want you and me and others that are concerned to stay actively aware and involved. This is what has helped bring this Reclamation Fund system into action and our continued vigilance will help monitor and refine the system to ensure it works as intended.
> 
> I was only suggesting that you slow down for a second to take a look at where we may already be aligned. No value to investing more energy there – let’s redirect our energies to where they are much more useful.
> 
> You may wish to join those militant sign wavers yelling and ranting “Down with Big Oil/Government you polluting, lying, money-grubbing basterds, etc. etc.,” but I’m guessing (despite internet forum anonymity) you’re smart enough to be more useful to the cause elsewhere.
> 
> The system is young and not perfect but is already returning desired results as Macfury already mentioned. Continued intelligent monitoring and action by concerned groups will keep industry and the government on the straight and narrow. It will be decades before we can really tell if the system is truly effective and successful. I will not live long enough to see it completed.
> 
> It is difficult to accomplish anything – from making a sandwich to exploiting/reclaiming the oil sands without first making a mess.
> The exploitation/clean-up process of the oil sands is also very closely monitored to ensure that the environmental contamination and public risk is kept to the minimum. It’s the law.


well gee that all sounds rosy. You seem to think that I don't think big oil should clean it up. Why on earth would I not.

Unfortunately, we've heard this storey for decades. And you're just going to have to accept scepticism. Because we've all heard rosy stories before, and been lied to, over, and over again.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> well gee that all sounds rosy. You seem to think that I don't think big oil should clean it up. Why on earth would I not.


Oh, I dunno, perhaps THIS for example:



groovetube said:


> HA HA HA HA HA!
> 
> Are you really serious? Let big oil do it?
> 
> Yes those big corporations have such a great track record for doing so now don't they!


Of course you having two opposing opinions at the same time is not unusual, is it? 

It does however lack just a bit of credibility.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Oh, I dunno, perhaps THIS for example:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you having two opposing opinions at the same time is not unusual, is it?


sinc, you seem to have a comprehension problem.

It isn't that I don't think, big oil -shouldn't- be responsible, I'm simply laughing at the idea that we can expect that they would. Decades of lies backs this scepticism up.

It's utterly astounding that this can't be any clearer. Ah, such is debating anything on a forum eh?


----------



## SINC

Nice try at the deflection gt. Sadly it doesn't work. You can't have it both ways and it is there in print for all to see. Two opposite opinions in successive posts.


----------



## groovetube

I'm sorry I can't help you sinc. It is indeed in print, and very clear to anyone who can see it. I've been clear, and consistent from the beginning.

For the, 20th time, based on decades of record, expecting big oil to suddenly change, excuse me while I laugh. Could not be any clearer.

Believe whatever the hell you like.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> I'm sorry I can't help you sinc. It is indeed in print, and very clear to anyone who can see it. I've been clear, and consistent from the beginning.
> 
> For the, 20th time, based on decades of record, expecting big oil to suddenly change, excuse me while I laugh. Could not be any clearer.
> 
> Believe whatever the hell you like.


No way gt, I will just believe what YOU write and your pants are hanging around your ankles on this one.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> No way gt, I will just believe what YOU write and your pants are hanging around your ankles on this one.


heel sinc... heel.


----------



## SINC

Still got nothing other than heel as a reply to that one eh?


----------



## KC4

groovetube said:


> well gee that all sounds rosy. You seem to think that I don't think big oil should clean it up. Why on earth would I not.
> 
> Unfortunately, we've heard this storey for decades. And you're just going to have to accept scepticism. Because we've all heard rosy stories before, and been lied to, over, and over again.


I actually did originally believe you were saying that you didn't want Big Oil to do the clean-up. Your derisive laughter was not lost on me either. I get it. The industry does deserve the contempt for poor past performance.

Then you stated that "OF COURSE" you wanted Big Oil to clean up their mess. I got that too. And there's another thing we can agree on.

Then I thought it must be that you don't think Big Oil can or maybe will do a proper clean-up. You've been lied to over and over and over again. I get it. That's when I offered the explanation of what measures (to my knowledge) have been taken. 

I've not only agreed to accept your skepticism, I've encouraged it. I stated that the system looks like it's working but it will need constant vigilance, constant tweaking and it will be decades before we can really confirm success or not. There's nothing terribly rosy about that. I don't think you disagree with that either. 

So...who are you fighting with again? What's your desired outcome?


----------



## groovetube

KC4 said:


> I actually did originally believe you were saying that you didn't want Big Oil to do the clean-up. Your derisive laughter was not lost on me either. I get it. The industry does deserve the contempt for poor past performance.
> 
> Then you stated that "OF COURSE" you wanted Big Oil to clean up their mess. I got that too. And there's another thing we can agree on.
> 
> Then I thought it must be that you don't think Big Oil can or maybe will do a proper clean-up. You've been lied to over and over and over again. I get it. That's when I offered the explanation of what measures (to my knowledge) have been taken.
> 
> I've not only agreed to accept your skepticism, I've encouraged it. I stated that the system looks like it's working but it will need constant vigilance, constant tweaking and it will be decades before we can really confirm success or not. There's nothing terribly rosy about that. I don't think you disagree with that either.
> 
> So...who are you fighting with again? What's your desired outcome?


it's the context KC. You came in, at a point where macfury announced that we are not in the peak oil scenario and there's nothing to worry about. To which I replied then why are we needing to get oil from the tar sands then, which we all know is not only very expensive, but is extremely damaging to the environment in the process.

You came in a said, well we'll just get big oil to clean it up! Well.. My ensuing laughter, seemed to have caused some feathers to be ruffled.

There was no desired outcome, just an expression of hilarity at a likely, silly notion. But as you said, the fact that we know that it's silly to assume big oil would clean it up, is indeed all the more reason to try and make them as you said. Indeed. But, still, I'll believe it when I see it. And pretty pictures of rolling green grass and trees over top of an old area, isn't likely going to fully convince me either.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> You came in, at a point where macfury announced that we are not in the peak oil scenario and there's nothing to worry about. To which I replied then why are we needing to get oil from the tar sands then, which we all know is not only very expensive...


You got it wrong then. The cost of production in the Oil Sands is certainly more expensive than in Saudi Arabia, but is in the entirely acceptable range. They are taking oil out of there because, even at the current relatively low price of oil, they're making a lot of money--and they have customers for that oil which then doesn't need to be delivered here by freighter. It has nothing to do with a lack of supply, or desperation.

After they're through with the oil sands, there are trillions of barrels in oil shale deposits as well. If the price rises to make that economically viable, then they'll go after those.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> You got it wrong then. The cost of production in the Oil Sands is certainly more expensive than in Saudi Arabia, but is in the entirely acceptable range. They are taking oil out of there because, even at the current relatively low price of oil, they're making a lot of money--and they have customers for that oil which then doesn't need to be delivered here by freighter. It has nothing to do with a lack of supply, or desperation.
> 
> After they're through with the oil sands, there are trillions of barrels in oil shale deposits as well. If the price rises to make that economically viable, then they'll go after those.


-and-, at a great environmental cost. But since you don't believe it, and are pleased to swallow propaganda like everyone else, I won't bother arguing what seems to be a mute point with you.


----------



## Macfury

At an environmental cost, sure. Which is to say that it's like everything humans do, including riding bikes, using computers, eating fresh bread or manufacturing and playing musical instruments.


----------



## groovetube

I'll keep that in mind the next time I ride my bicycle.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I'll keep that in mind the next time I ride my bicycle.


Go for it. Think of where the bicycle was built, how the metal was mined, refined and manufactured, how the bike parts were shipped across the ocean, the retailer who stored and sold it, the food that was grown and processed to give you the energy to ride it, of the roads that were built, and of the soil and vegetation displaced to build that road.


----------



## groovetube

oh oh here comes the brainless live in a cave argument. Usually this arrives as the last desperate attempt.


----------



## Macfury

Why are you talking about living in caves?


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Why are you talking about living in caves?


no macfury, YOU are. Until one makes his bicycle out of the branches in his backyard, eats the bark off the neighbourhood tree, and bathes in the lakes, you're argument will always swing to blaming an individual, for the ills of the big corporation.

It isn't the bike I ride on, it's the practices and environmental damage the corporation creates.

So your argument, is ridiculous, full stop.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> no macfury, YOU are. Until one makes his bicycle out of the branches in his backyard, eats the bark off the neighbourhood tree, and bathes in the lakes, you're argument will always swing to blaming an individual, for the ills of the big corporation.
> 
> It isn't the bike I ride on, it's the practices and environmental damage the corporation creates.
> 
> So your argument, is ridiculous, full stop.


I'm not blaming either big corporations, _or_ bike riders. I have no idea what kind of hippie nonsense you're espousing here.


----------



## MacGuiver




----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I'm not blaming either big corporations, _or_ bike riders. I have no idea what kind of hippie nonsense you're espousing here.


Sure you do macfury. You're the one who insinuated it, and now want nothing to do with it.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Sure you do macfury. You're the one who insinuated it, and now want nothing to do with it.


Well, I have to admit that's a pretty neat trick--arguing both sides of the issue and inventing my dialogue and position to boot.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Well, I have to admit that's a pretty neat trick--arguing both sides of the issue and inventing my dialogue and position to boot.


trick? You are talking trick?

Identify both sides of the issue macfury. I stand firmly in the same place throughout.

YOU, are the one who began to identify all kinds of daily items such as growing food to eat for energy, so, unless one lives like a hippie, and grows their own food without the new for processing, builds a bike out of fallen tree branches, or walk, I don't know what the hell you are blathering about.


----------



## Macfury

I've got some work to do. Carry on with both sides of the argument until I get back.


----------



## groovetube

so do I.

However, you'll need to tell me what the 'both sides' are though.


----------



## KC4

groovetube said:


> it's the context KC. You came in, at a point where macfury announced that we are not in the peak oil scenario and there's nothing to worry about. To which I replied then why are we needing to get oil from the tar sands then, which we all know is not only very expensive, but is extremely damaging to the environment in the process.
> 
> You came in a said, well we'll just get big oil to clean it up! Well.. My ensuing laughter, seemed to have caused some feathers to be ruffled.
> 
> There was no desired outcome, just an expression of hilarity at a likely, silly notion. But as you said, the fact that we know that it's silly to assume big oil would clean it up, is indeed all the more reason to try and make them as you said. Indeed. But, still, I'll believe it when I see it. And pretty pictures of rolling green grass and trees over top of an old area, isn't likely going to fully convince me either.


No desired outcome? Then that's just taking a swing for the sake of it. While I can enjoy a good scrap on occasion, I don't believe it will do anything to further a cause. I think you'll agree with me there too.

How about redirecting all that energy into something more meaningful?

So pretty pictures and a Reclamation Certificate won't convince you. OK, good. 

I'm noting that you are not saying that _nothing at all_ should be done with the Oil Sands and that you seem to agree with me that _something_ needs to be done with them. Let me know if I've misunderstood you. 

You may already know this, but Rec Certs aren't a cake walk to obtain. Very strict standards and guidelines have to be met, tested and proven. These standards and guidelines were developed and agreed to not only by the hard to trust industry and government reps, but also by environmental experts and local private and independent groups. 

Many of us have friends and family living and working in Fort Mac and area. This is not only their livelihood, this is their living environment. It's important to get this right.

Please elaborate on what specifically would eventually satisfy and convince you that the O&G industry has appropriately dealt with this matter? Just as a reminder, I'm with you on the "it's too soon to relax/tell now" part. We are neither naive nor gullible, especially when it comes to government and Big Industry. But we must have a desired outcome, or what the hell are we doing complaining about it? 

If your answer is "Nothing" then I can't help you and you can't help the cause any more effectively than waving your fists and yelling insults and expletives across the fence.


----------



## groovetube

KC4 said:


> No desired outcome? Then that's just taking a swing for the sake of it. While I can enjoy a good scrap on occasion, I don't believe it will do anything to further a cause. I think you'll agree with me there too.
> 
> How about redirecting all that energy into something more meaningful?
> 
> So pretty pictures and a Reclamation Certificate won't convince you. OK, good.
> 
> I'm noting that you are not saying that _nothing at all_ should be done with the Oil Sands and that you seem to agree with me that _something_ needs to be done with them. Let me know if I've misunderstood you.
> 
> You may already know this, but Rec Certs aren't a cake walk to obtain. Very strict standards and guidelines have to be met, tested and proven. These standards and guidelines were developed and agreed to not only by the hard to trust industry and government reps, but also by environmental experts and local private and independent groups.
> 
> Many of us have friends and family living and working in Fort Mac and area. This is not only their livelihood, this is their living environment. It's important to get this right.
> 
> Please elaborate on what specifically would eventually satisfy and convince you that the O&G industry has appropriately dealt with this matter? Just as a reminder, I'm with you on the "it's too soon to relax/tell now" part. We are neither naive nor gullible, especially when it comes to government and Big Industry. But we must have a desired outcome, or what the hell are we doing complaining about it?
> 
> If your answer is "Nothing" then I can't help you and you can't help the cause any more effectively than waving your fists and yelling insults and expletives across the fence.


you've again, missed the point here. All you've done is again, reiterate your story. It's a good one, I agree. But, you did drop in the middle of a conversation, to exclaim, LET BIG OIL DO I T! Without any real explanation, or any insight as to who you are, or what you are involved in. And the final words, you began the mockery game yourself. (spin me around 3 times?). And it's me who shot back? Ok. And then we had captain blowhard jumping in eluding to some sort of secret kingly status of some sort. Why wouldn't I poke some fun?

So you'll have to pardon my reaction. Which is what I have now, oh about 10 times now, explained.

It isn't about desired outcome. That was your agenda not mine. I think any sane semi intelligent individual would want the outcome that results in no environmental damage, or certainly one where it is returned right back to where it was. 



> lease elaborate on what specifically would eventually satisfy and convince you that the O&G industry has appropriately dealt with this matter? Just as a reminder, I'm with you on the "it's too soon to relax/tell now" part. We are neither naive nor gullible, especially when it comes to government and Big Industry. But we must have a desired outcome, or what the hell are we doing complaining about it?


It appears you've asked a question, and answered it yourself. What would convince me? And then, you're with me on 'it's too soon' part. Well, there's your answer. I won't be convinced, for a very, very long time.


----------



## bryanc

groovetube said:


> What would convince me?


This is the crux of this, and many issues. As far as climate change, and the role human activity has in it, it seems that nothing will convince most people. Their minds are made up and decades of scientific evidence is ignored until a tiny scrap of it turns out to be of dubious validity, and then a great hue and cry of "conspiracy!" goes up and the entire field gets branded pseudo-science.

There's an interesting article about the psychology of this in The Guardian. In a nutshell, it boils down to the fact that people believe what they perceive as popular within their tribe, and basically ignore evidence.

This is something advertising psychologists and priests exploit all the time. The key thing is to get people 'on-side' psychologically... then they'll believe whatever you tell them regardless of how dramatically it clashes with observable reality.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

Interesting. My view on AGW is not popular with "my tribe." The evidence simply was not significant enough (regardless of how many decades it took) on which to base real-life actions. When the studies suggest costly solutions to a problem that hasn't yet been proven or adequately defined, and when those solutions will have no observable effects in my lifetime (if ever) it's no wonder people are dubious. Add to that not "a tiny scrap of [evidence that] turns out to be of dubious validity" but rigged study after study promulgated by people who have been committing fraud on a massive scale, then relying on the social engineers in their "tribe" to push the dubious findings.

The whole idea that we must have faith in science to (maybe or maybe not) achieve something (though we're not sure to what degree, or if at all) beyond our lifetime sounds a lot like type of reasoning that atheists would attack if they were offered as inducement to action by a religious movement.

Let's bow down to the Carbon Spaghetti Monster who will eat us up unless we pay him big time now--though we're not sure if we can ever really appease him. Could be we're almost past the point where his anger against us is past forgiveness, so let the mitigation begin--full throttle!!


----------



## MacGuiver

macfury said:


> let's bow down to the carbon spaghetti monster who will eat us up unless we pay him big time now--though we're not sure if we can ever really appease him. Could be we're almost past the point where his anger against us is past forgiveness, so let the mitigation begin--full throttle!!


lol!!!!


----------



## groovetube

> he evidence simply was not significant enough (regardless of how many decades it took) on which to base real-life actions.


all because macfury says so.

lmao


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> all because macfury says so.
> 
> lmao


Taking responsibility for our own decisions and actions can be a big step, but it's not for the faint-hearted who are more comfortable relying on the opinions of others.


----------



## KC4

groovetube said:


> you've again, missed the point here. All you've done is again, reiterate your story. It's a good one, I agree. But, you did drop in the middle of a conversation, to exclaim, LET BIG OIL DO I T! Without any real explanation, or any insight as to who you are, or what you are involved in. And the final words, you began the mockery game yourself. (spin me around 3 times?). And it's me who shot back? Ok. And then we had captain blowhard jumping in eluding to some sort of secret kingly status of some sort. Why wouldn't I poke some fun?
> 
> So you'll have to pardon my reaction. Which is what I have now, oh about 10 times now, explained.
> 
> It isn't about desired outcome. That was your agenda not mine. I think any sane semi intelligent individual would want the outcome that results in no environmental damage, or certainly one where it is returned right back to where it was.
> 
> 
> 
> It appears you've asked a question, and answered it yourself. What would convince me? And then, you're with me on 'it's too soon' part. Well, there's your answer. I won't be convinced, for a very, very long time.


OK, gt..now we're getting somewhere. I see the disconnect. 

You stated, "It isn't about desired outcome. That was your agenda not mine. I think *a**ny sane semi intelligent individual would want the outcome that results in no environmental damage, or certainly one where it is returned right back to where it was*. "

I'm assuming you really don't want the oil sands "returned right back to where it was". That wouldn't make sense. Correct me if I am wrong please.

I'm also assuming that you are smart enough to understand that no resource consumption (of any kind) can be done without _some_ kind of environmental damage (that may or may not be repairable) and that it can _never_ be returned back to where it was (not exactly). Again, please correct me if I am wrong.

Idealistic targets of untouched, undamaged pristine original conditions haven't existed for centuries and will never again. Sorry. So no point in wasting any more energy trying to achieve the unachievable. Anybody who does will _never_ be convinced or satisfied. That's not really you, is it gt? 

That's why it is critical to have a measurable and defined desired outcome. It is _all about _the desired outcome. Otherwise we all might as well spin around 3 times blindfolded and hope to pin the tail on the ass someday. 

How will we know when we have achieved it if we don't know what we want to achieve? 

If you don't want to engage by helping to define an achievable desired outcome, why are you seeming to _make it_ your agenda by giving it such a sh*t-kicking? Unless the kicking itself was all you really wanted to contribute. Let me know. 

Oh - and please don't feel the need to explain your reaction (or the scenario) again for me. I get it. I've moved past that onto this.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The evidence simply was not significant enough (regardless of how many decades it took) on which to base real-life actions.


This is the primary question. What evidence would convince you that human activity _is_ having an effect on the global climate? Unless that is established, there is no point in discussing the issue.



> When the studies suggest costly solutions to a problem that hasn't yet been proven


Science dosen't prove anything. Ever. Nor does it suggest solutions, costly or otherwise.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> This is the primary question. What evidence would convince you that human activity _is_ having an effect on the global climate? Unless that is established, there is no point in discussing the issue.


It's a difficult question to answer in a cogent fashion. Why don't you tell me first what sort of evidence would be necessary to dissuade you, and I'll try to follow suit. 




bryanc said:


> Science dosen't prove anything. Ever. Nor does it suggest solutions, costly or otherwise.


You're right. The scientists suggest them. In using the term, "science" I am referring to a group of workers--scientists by trade.


----------



## groovetube

KC4 said:


> OK, gt..now we're getting somewhere. I see the disconnect.
> 
> You stated, "It isn't about desired outcome. That was your agenda not mine. I think *a**ny sane semi intelligent individual would want the outcome that results in no environmental damage, or certainly one where it is returned right back to where it was*. "
> 
> I'm assuming you really don't want the oil sands "returned right back to where it was". That wouldn't make sense. Correct me if I am wrong please.
> 
> I'm also assuming that you are smart enough to understand that no resource consumption (of any kind) can be done without _some_ kind of environmental damage (that may or may not be repairable) and that it can _never_ be returned back to where it was (not exactly). Again, please correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> Idealistic targets of untouched, undamaged pristine original conditions haven't existed for centuries and will never again. Sorry. So no point in wasting any more energy trying to achieve the unachievable. Anybody who does will _never_ be convinced or satisfied. That's not really you, is it gt?
> 
> That's why it is critical to have a measurable and defined desired outcome. It is _all about _the desired outcome. Otherwise we all might as well spin around 3 times blindfolded and hope to pin the tail on the ass someday.
> 
> How will we know when we have achieved it if we don't know what we want to achieve?
> 
> If you don't want to engage by helping to define an achievable desired outcome, why are you seeming to _make it_ your agenda by giving it such a sh*t-kicking? Unless the kicking itself was all you really wanted to contribute. Let me know.
> 
> Oh - and please don't feel the need to explain your reaction (or the scenario) again for me. I get it. I've moved past that onto this.


You keep making it about me not wanting to define what is an acceptable outcome. What I have been saying, the whole time, is despite what anyone could define as an acceptable outcome, big oil has consistently, lied to everyone for decades. So while we ABSOLUTELY should be setting limits etc. on what they can and cannot do, I don't take solace in "LET BIG OIL CLEAN IT UP" at all, as a stock answer to why we should all the huge devastation environmentally to the tar sands to extract the oil.

If they did in fact, clean it up, and many years later there weren't serious disastrous problems found, I'd be convinced then, it was possible.

I'm well aware though, of the enormous pr money spent on ensuring the stooges believe they're great.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I'm well aware though, of the enormous pr money spent on ensuring the stooges believe they're great.


The Stooges are great!


----------



## KC4

groovetube said:


> You keep making it about me not wanting to define what is an acceptable outcome. What I have been saying, the whole time, is despite what anyone could define as an acceptable outcome, big oil has consistently, lied to everyone for decades. So while we ABSOLUTELY should be setting limits etc. on what they can and cannot do, I don't take solace in "LET BIG OIL CLEAN IT UP" at all, as a stock answer to why we should all the huge devastation environmentally to the tar sands to extract the oil.
> 
> If they did in fact, clean it up, and many years later there weren't serious disastrous problems found, I'd be convinced then, it was possible.
> 
> I'm well aware though, of the enormous pr money spent on ensuring the stooges believe they're great.


Thank you gt. 

Please know that today’s regulated environmental standards for on-going operations, clean up and reclamation exceed your “no serious disastrous problems found” criterion. 

Non-compliance is illegal. Any company that does not remedy their non-compliance risks losing their operating licenses in all of their properties, not just the one in non-compliance. 

Yes, these standards constantly evolve as we get wiser. So far, the evolution has trended towards higher, more exacting standards. 

So, it appears that Big Oil will have to clean up and reclaim the property to high standards or be shut down. If one company defaults (by bankruptcy or otherwise folding up shop), the rest of the industry (through the fund) is obligated to cover it. Will this be enforced to our satisfaction? We shall see.


----------



## groovetube

KC4 said:


> Thank you gt.
> 
> Please know that today’s regulated environmental standards for on-going operations, clean up and reclamation exceed your “no serious disastrous problems found” criterion.


you sound like an exxon commercial. It almost sounds like a stock email, or press release sent out by corporation X.

How on earth can you possibly predict 10 years down the line that there won't be a serious problem discovered?

I'll reserve my judgement for later thank you.


----------



## Macfury

kc: What is a pristine "oil sands" environment like?


----------



## KC4

groovetube said:


> you sound like an exxon commercial. It almost sounds like a stock email, or press release sent out by corporation X.
> 
> How on earth can you possibly predict 10 years down the line that there won't be a serious problem discovered?
> 
> I'll reserve my judgement for later thank you.


1. Thanks. 
2. I can't.
3. Good idea. You're welcome.


----------



## KC4

Macfury said:


> kc: What is a pristine "oil sands" environment like?


.


----------



## eMacMan

KC4 said:


> .


Pretty bl(e)ack image there.beejacon


----------



## Kazak

KC4 said:


> We shall see.


Hey . . . has anyone ever seen KC4 and Dr. G. in the same place at the same time?


----------



## Dr.G.

Kazak said:


> Hey . . . has anyone ever seen KC4 and Dr. G. in the same place at the same time?


Come to think of it we haven't!!!!!!!!!  Of course, if you come to The Shangri-la Clubhouse, it happens all the time. "Beauty and the Beast", they call us there. Sadly, I am the Beast.  C'est la vie.

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## SINC

Climate science: Let’s follow the money



> One of the favourite tactics of global warmists is to set up “straw man” arguments and knock them down.
> 
> For example, they’ll say the growing number of people skeptical about claims of imminent, catastrophic, man-made global warming — including many scientists — are insanely claiming all climate science is a hoax.
> 
> That might be a valid point if that’s what most critics were saying. But it’s not.
> 
> Rather, they’re arguing that since it’s only human to “follow the money” and the big money, to say nothing of scientific prestige in the climate change field, at least pre-Climategate, was in predicting imminent, worst-case, catastrophic, man-made global warming, that might have skewed the science somewhat over time.


And the conclusion?



> *No hoax, just a telling observation of the human tendency of climate scientists, like everyone else, to follow the money. Perhaps to the conclusion that when the political flavour of the month (or decade) is to find evidence of imminent, catastrophic, man-made, global warming, scientific studies over time may tend to overstate conclusions, understate uncertainties and focus excessively on worst-case scenarios.
> 
> Which, as we’re now learning, appears, in many cases, to have happened.*


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> scientific studies over time may tend to overstate conclusions, understate uncertainties and focus excessively on worst-case scenarios.


Except that in every case I've seen, the predictions (even the worst-case predictions) have been conservative. The real world observations show a more dramatic warming than any of the models.

One of the things that does is show that our models are less accurate than we'd like. So yes, there are uncertainties and I'm not aware of any scientist understating them. But it certainly does not suggest that the conclusions are over-stated.

I think you may be confusing *MEDIA* presentation of scientific studies with the studies themselves. The *MEDIA* is chronically overstating, oversimplifying, overgeneralizing, glossing-over uncertainties, and overdramatizing scientific research.

The problem is that people are used to CSI, where the scientists put a sample in a tube and some magic happens, and ten minutes later you know for sure who's the bad guy. That's not how it works. Science is about uncertainty, prediction, hypothesis testing and refinement, and eventually developing a tentative understanding of the natural world (which is always subject to falsification and further refinement).

Since the mid 80's, climate science has been converging on a consensus that human activity is altering processes that impact global climate. That consensus continues to grow as more and more data builds the mountain of support. During the past decade, that consensus has fostered the emergence of a POLITICAL movement, which engages professional POLITICIANS (like Al Gore) in the standard POLITICAL process (which involves lying, cheating, and doing whatever it takes to gain power), whose objectives appear to have something to do with using POLITICAL and ECONOMIC tools to change peoples behaviour. Please do not confuse the POLITICAL with the science. They are unrelated.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Except that in every case I've seen, the predictions (even the worst-case predictions) have been conservative. The real world observations show a more dramatic warming than any of the models.
> 
> One of the things that does is show that our models are less accurate than we'd like. So yes, there are uncertainties and I'm not aware of any scientist understating them. But it certainly does not suggest that the conclusions are over-stated.
> 
> I think you may be confusing *MEDIA* presentation of scientific studies with the studies themselves. The *MEDIA* is chronically overstating, oversimplifying, overgeneralizing, glossing-over uncertainties, and overdramatizing scientific research.
> 
> The problem is that people are used to CSI, where the scientists put a sample in a tube and some magic happens, and ten minutes later you know for sure who's the bad guy. That's not how it works. Science is about uncertainty, prediction, hypothesis testing and refinement, and eventually developing a tentative understanding of the natural world (which is always subject to falsification and further refinement).
> 
> Since the mid 80's, climate science has been converging on a consensus that human activity is altering processes that impact global climate. That consensus continues to grow as more and more data builds the mountain of support. During the past decade, that consensus has fostered the emergence of a POLITICAL movement, which engages professional POLITICIANS (like Al Gore) in the standard POLITICAL process (which involves lying, cheating, and doing whatever it takes to gain power), whose objectives appear to have something to do with using POLITICAL and ECONOMIC tools to change peoples behaviour. Please do not confuse the POLITICAL with the science. They are unrelated.


Actually by conservative they meant that the predictions were far more dire than the realities. 

AFAIK there is still no consistent protocol to take the planets temperature, determine exact planet wide atmospheric CO2 levels, and correlate back far enough to determine if CO2 levels lead or lag warming. This is enormously important if one is to determine if CO2 is a cause or an effect of GW. This is made considerably more difficult because the planet has, as near as can be determined, warming at a fairly consistent rate since ~1500 AD. 

So to summarize the planet indeed has been warming, actually it has been on a long warming run for about a million years with some minor ice age reversals along the way. What the AGW worshippers consistently fail to establish is an actual connection showing CO2 to be the main driver of GW. 

Given that all the proposed solutions involve massive transfers of wealth from the worlds poorest to the Gore Elite, the evidence is far too flimsy to justify further impoverishing seniors and others who have little or no ability to increase their income to offset the increased expenses. 

When I see solutions that involve impoverishing the Gore Gang and the average citizen paying less I will believe that the Great Gore actually believes what he says.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Except that in every case I've seen, the predictions (even the worst-case predictions) have been conservative. The real world observations show a more dramatic warming than any of the models.


Than ANY of the models? Including the models of the IPCC?




bryanc said:


> I think you may be confusing *MEDIA* presentation of scientific studies with the studies themselves. The *MEDIA* is chronically overstating, oversimplifying, overgeneralizing, glossing-over uncertainties, and overdramatizing scientific research.


The IPCC, NASA, NOAA and the Hadley CRU are not media, yet in their own communications I see little difference between their studies, the statements of their staff and what is reported in the media.



bryanc said:


> Since the mid 80's, climate science has been converging on a consensus that human activity is altering processes that impact global climate. That consensus continues to grow as more and more data builds the mountain of support.


Are you willing to stand by that statement, even in 2010 versus 2008 or 2009?



bryanc said:


> Please do not confuse the POLITICAL with the science. They are unrelated.


Somewhere there is pristine science, unaltered by the religious, philosophical and political leanings of its practitioners. Unfortunately, scientists are just people, subject to the foibles of humanity. I believe in the "pure science" behind AGW as much as you believe in the existence of "the free market."


----------



## Macfury

bryanc, still waiting on this one:



> bryanc said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the primary question. What evidence would convince you that human activity _is_ having an effect on the global climate? Unless that is established, there is no point in discussing the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a difficult question to answer in a cogent fashion. Why don't you tell me first what sort of evidence would be necessary to dissuade you, and I'll try to follow suit.
Click to expand...


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> bryanc, still waiting on this one:


Sorry, missed it earlier.

I could easily convinced that AGW is not occurring. Data that shows that the products of combustion of fossil fuels don't absorb as much as we think they do in the IR, or that we have overestimated our contributions of these compounds to the atmosphere by several orders of magnitude would certainly give me reason to suspect the models are fundamentally flawed.

Alternative, more parsimonious explanations with equal or greater explanatory power regarding observed changes in ocean pH, species compositions, permafrost distributions, limnological data from lakes around the world, glacial retreat, etc. etc. etc. would be welcome.

I'm certainly not emotionally attached to the AGW theory. On the contrary, I'd prefer if it were false. But the preponderance of evidence, and the (unanimous) consensus of the many scientists I know who work in this field is that human activity has and is affecting the global climate (though there is certainly debate regarding how much of an effect we have and are having).

Where I really have no opinion is with regard to what should be done about it. I'm very keen to see some rational discussion, but there seems to be very little of that going on.


----------



## Macfury

That was an honest and well-thought out reply, bryanc. I'll craft my answer next.


----------



## MacDoc

gonna be a tough year on the few deniers remaining



> *Global cooling, we hardly knew ya*
> Category: climate
> Posted on: March 16, 2010 8:54 AM, by James Hrynyshyn
> 
> From our friends at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, in Asheville, N.C., we learn the following:
> The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for February 2010 was 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average of 12.1°C (53.9°F). This is the sixth warmest such value on record.
> 
> The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for December 2009 - February 2010 was the fifth warmest on record for the season, 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 12.1°C (53.8°F).
> 
> For the year to date, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature of 12.7°C (54.9°F) was the fifth warmest January-February period on record. This value is 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average.
> 
> The worldwide ocean surface temperature for February 2010 was the second warmest on record for February, 0.54°C (0.97°F) above the 20th century average of 15.9°C (60.6°F).
> 
> The seasonal (December 2009 - February 2010) worldwide ocean surface temperature was also the second warmest on record, 0.54°C (0.97°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.5°F).
> 
> In the Southern Hemisphere, both the February 2010 average temperature for land areas and the Hemisphere as a whole (land and ocean surface combined), represented the warmest February on record. The Southern Hemisphere ocean temperature tied with 1998 as the warmest February on record.


Global cooling, we hardly knew ya : The Island of Doubt


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, please get with the program. We've already established that NOAA is using fudged data from a reduced number of monitoring stations to juice the data upwards. When you determine the North American average temperature after disabling most of the stations in northern Canada, you're bound to get the warmer numbers you're after.

NOAA fails to compensate for the Urban Heat Island Effect in any logical and repeatable fashion, instead throwing out data according to its own secret method.

Looks like a tough year for the Warmists.


----------



## chasMac

MacDoc said:


> gonna be a tough year on the few deniers remaining


Few sceptics remaining? As it is reported, their ranks are swelling, from the Guardian:

US: Nearly half of Americans believe climate change threat is exaggerated | Environment | The Guardian



> Some 46% believe scientists are unsure about global warming, or that it is not occurring.



UK: Sharp decline in public's belief in climate threat, British poll reveals | Environment | The Guardian

To be sure, no majority. That might have to wait till next year.


----------



## eMacMan

*Best Denier Cartoon Ever*









See the entire story here:
In Denial | The Weekly Standard

Some tidbits from Minnesotans for Global Warming here:

Argentinian Couple Shoot Kids, Kill Themselves Over Global Warming - Minnesotans For Global Warming

and here:

50 ships stuck in Baltic thick ice - Minnesotans For Global Warming


----------



## groovetube

Really, what would you guys do, without Al Gore?

lmao...


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> Really, what would you guys do, without Al Gore?
> 
> lmao...


Since one of the two main goals of the AGW scam is to stuff the Gore Gang Vaults beyond capacity, the thread would pretty much collapse were it not for his insatiable greed.

BTW The other goal is to attempt to justify imposing paralyzing carbon taxes on much of the world's population. Again without governmental greed the scam would have long since collapsed.


----------



## groovetube

governments are greedy with tax grabs??? <pulls up chair and waits earnestly...>

I recognize Al Gore is a stooge, but I think this is really, really old news. But the whole global warming thing was around long before Gore gave his first directive to build a vault as you guys screech about.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> ...But the whole global warming thing was around long before Gore gave his first directive to build a vault as you guys screech about.


Yep roughly a million years or so. AG is simply trying to sell refrigerators to Eskimos as we used to say. The difference being is that he wants everyone to be forced to buy the 5h!t he is selling.


----------



## groovetube

I see. So you agree with the global warming theory in general, just not perhaps the solutions such as the Al Gore ones. Perhaps we have more common ground then?


----------



## MacDoc

don't tell me....someone in catch up mode..will wonders never cease...

THAT is where the discussion has been for a decade and needs to be now....'cept for a few deluded flat earth types..

I'm glad to see carbon taxes gaining ground over the scammy cap and trade crap..



> BBC News - *EU considers general carbon tax*
> The European Commission plans an EU-wide tax on carbon as part of the EU's green energy agenda ..


BBC News - EU considers general carbon tax


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> I'm glad to see carbon taxes gaining ground over the scammy cap and trade crap..


The EU is going to economic hell, so it doesn't matter which form of carbon lunacy they impose on themselves. The bigger the carbon tax they impose on themselves the better, I say!


----------



## eMacMan

MacDoc said:


> don't tell me....someone in catch up mode..will wonders never cease...
> 
> THAT is where the discussion has been for a decade and needs to be now....'cept for a few deluded flat earth types..
> 
> I'm glad to see carbon taxes gaining ground over the scammy cap and trade crap..
> 
> 
> BBC News - EU considers general carbon tax


Carbon Taxes like the Gore Gouge are intended to steal from those that can least afford it. Also like the Gore Gouge they will do little or nothing to reduce Carbon Emissions. 

The only way to make a serious dent in Carbon Emissions is mass extermination. As I have said before; For entirely selfish reasons I oppose this option.

Still true believers have found their leader.

Argentinian Couple Shoot Kids, Kill Themselves Over Global Warming - Minnesotans For Global Warming


----------



## MacDoc

> *Urban CO2 Domes Increase Deaths, Poke Hole in Cap-and-Trade Proposal*
> enlarge
> 
> Researcher Mark Jacobson's study contradicts the cap-and-trade proposal's assumption that there is no difference in the impact of carbon dioxide, regardless of where it originates. (Credit: L.A. Cicero)
> 
> ScienceDaily (Mar. 19, 2010) — Everyone knows that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas driving climate change, is a global problem. Now a Stanford study has shown it is also a local problem, hurting city dwellers' health much more than rural residents', because of the carbon dioxide "domes" that develop over urban areas.
> 
> That finding, said researcher Mark Z. Jacobson, exposes a serious oversight in current cap-and-trade proposals for reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases, which make no distinction based on a pollutant's point of origin. The finding also provides the first scientific basis for controlling local carbon dioxide emissions based on their local health impacts.
> 
> "Not all carbon dioxide emissions are equal," said Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering. "As in real estate, location matters."
> 
> His results also support the case that California presented to the Environmental Protection Agency in March, 2009, asking that the state be allowed to establish its own CO2 emission standards for vehicles.
> 
> Jacobson, director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford, testified on behalf of California's waiver application in March, 2009. The waiver had previously been denied, but was reconsidered and granted subsequently. The waiver is currently being challenged in court by industry interests seeking to overturn it.
> 
> Jacobson found that domes of increased carbon dioxide concentrations -- discovered to form above cities more than a decade ago -- cause local temperature increases that in turn increase the amounts of local air pollutants, raising concentrations of health-damaging ground-level ozone, as well as particles in urban air.
> 
> In modeling the health impacts for the contiguous 48 states, for California and for the Los Angeles area, he determined an increase in the death rate from air pollution for all three regions compared to what the rate would be if no local carbon dioxide were being emitted.
> 
> The results of Jacobson's study are presented in a paper published online by Environmental Science and Technology.
> 
> The cap-and-trade proposal passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in June 2009 puts a limit on the amount of greenhouse gases that each type of utility, manufacturer or other emitter is allowed to produce. It also puts a price tag on each ton of emissions, which emitters will have to pay to the federal government.
> 
> If the bill passes the Senate intact, it will allow emitters to freely trade or sell their allowances among themselves, regardless of where the pollution is emitted.
> 
> With that logic, the proposal prices a ton of CO2 emitted in the middle of the sparsely populated Great Plains, for example, the same as a ton emitted in Los Angeles, where the population is dense and the air quality already poor.
> 
> "The cap-and-trade proposal assumes there is no difference in the impact of carbon dioxide, regardless of where it originates," Jacobson said. "This study contradicts that assumption."
> 
> "It doesn't mean you can never do something like cap and trade," he added. "It just means that you need to consider where the CO2 emissions are occurring."
> 
> Jacobson's study is the first to look at the health impacts of carbon dioxide domes over cities and his results are relevant to future air pollution regulations. Current regulations do not address the local impacts of local carbon dioxide emissions. For example, no regulation considers the local air pollution effects of CO2 that would be emitted by a new natural gas power plant. But those effects should be considered, he said.
> 
> "There has been no control of carbon dioxide because it has always been thought that CO2 is a global problem, that it is only its global impacts that might feed back to air pollution," Jacobson said.
> 
> In addition to the changes he observed in local air pollutants, Jacobson found that there was increased stability of the air column over a city, which slowed the dispersal of pollutants, further adding to the increased pollutant concentrations.
> 
> Jacobson estimated an increase in premature mortality of 50 to 100 deaths per year in California and 300 to 1,000 for the contiguous 48 states.
> 
> "This study establishes a basis for controlling CO2 based on local health impacts," he said.
> 
> Current estimates of the annual air pollution-related death toll in the U.S. is 50-100,000.


Urban CO<sub>2</sub> domes increase deaths, poke hole in cap-and-trade proposal


----------



## Macfury

They lost me right here:



> ScienceDaily (Mar. 19, 2010) — _*Everyone knows that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas driving climate change, is a global problem*_.


Starting the article (which lazy MacDoc excerpted in its entirety once again) with a logical fallacy is more sad than disingenuous.


----------



## Vandave

Everybody knows.

YouTube - Everybody Knows (leonard Cohen)


----------



## Macfury

I don't know about your elementary school, Vandave, but my teacher would have given me hell for starting out an essay in such an unsupported fashion. Good enough for the AGW crowd I suppose.


----------



## eMacMan

Vandave said:


> Everybody knows.


I recall a Colin Powell speech to the UN which led directly to the US invasion of Iraq. What I most recall is the number of times he used the phrase everyone knows. He used it in relation to the non-existent weapons of mass destruction. He used it in relation to Iraqs non-existent intent to build a nuclear bomb.

When someone starts off with "Everybody knows" the safe policy is to assume that what follows is anything but reliable.


----------



## SINC

*Yet Another UN Blunder?*

Eating less meat won't reduce global warming: study



> WASHINGTON (AFP) – Eating less meat will not reduce global warming, and claims that it will distract from efforts to find real solutions to climate change, a leading air quality expert said Monday.
> 
> "We certainly can reduce our greenhouse gas production, but not by consuming less meat and milk," Frank Mitloehner, an air quality expert at the University of California-Davis, said as he presented a report on meat-eating and climate change at a conference of the American Chemical Society in California.
> 
> Blaming cows and pigs for climate change is scientifically inaccurate, said Mitloehner, dismissing several reports, including one issued in 2006 by the United Nations, which he said overstate the role that livestock play in global warming.
> 
> The UN report "Livestock's Long Shadow," which said livestock cause more greenhouse gases than all global transportation combined, distracts from the real issues involved in looking for a solution to global warming, said Mitloehner.
> 
> The notion that eating less meat will help to combat climate change has spawned campaigns for "meatless Mondays" and a European campaign launched late last year called "Less Meat = Less Heat," backed by former Beatle Paul McCartney, one of the world's best-known vegetarians.
> 
> *"McCartney and others seem to be well-intentioned but not well-schooled in the complex relationships among human activities, animal digestion, food production and atmospheric chemistry," said Mitloehner.*
> 
> "Smarter animal farming, not less farming, will equal less heat," Mitloehner said. "Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries," he said.
> 
> Rather than focusing on producing and eating less meat, Mitloehner said developed countries "should focus on cutting our use of oil and coal for electricity, heating and vehicle fuels."
> 
> In the United States, transportation creates an estimated 26 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, whereas raising cattle and pigs for food accounts for about three percent, he said.
> 
> *The UN report, issued in 2006, said global livestock rearing was responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in carbon dioxide equivalents. The UN report said that was more than the greenhouse gases produced worldwide by transport.
> 
> Mitloehner said the UN report did not compare like with like when it analyzed the role of livestock versus fossil fuel emissions in spurring global warming*.


Eating less meat won't reduce global warming: study


----------



## groovetube

great. Now we don't have to listen to anymore screeches that cows produce more hot air than cars do.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Eating less meat won't reduce global warming: study


The study in question addresses only the production of methane by livestock. It ignores the primary issues associated with the consumption of meat: the fuel and water consumed in provisioning and transporting the animals over the course of their lives.

The primary ecological issue with consumption high on the trophic pyramid is that you place a greater demand on the supporting ecosystem. This is a mathematical fact and is not in dispute.

The facts that our modern agricultural practises are grossly inefficient with regard to water, fuel and land adds insult to injury, but are easily predictable consequences of the tax structures and subsidies surrounding this industry.

I think MacFury and I might agree on this one; if we could remove all the tax loopholes and subsidies, such that the market prices of food actually reflected their costs, I think the market would sort a lot of this out itself. Of course, if we did that, meat and animal products would become extremely expensive (as would imported fruits and other exotic treats), but locally grown produce would get much cheaper.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I think MacFury and I might agree on this one; if we could remove all the tax loopholes and subsidies, such that the market prices of food actually reflected their costs, I think the market would sort a lot of this out itself. Of course, if we did that, meat and animal products would become extremely expensive (as would imported fruits and other exotic treats), but locally grown produce would get much cheaper.


Agreed, but only up to the point where you try to add "CO2" into the cost structure. But do away with marketing boards, and you would get a lot of price relief as well.


----------



## SINC

Am I the only one who sees the obvious in that story?

It's not the meat thing at all. The part that grabs my attention is how very wrong the UN was once again on things concerning global warming. 

They can't even get cow farts right, never mind Himalayan glaciers and all the other dead wrong data attributed to the IPCC.


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> Am I the only one who sees the obvious in that story?
> 
> It's not the meat thing at all. The part that grabs my attention is how very wrong the UN was once again on things concerning global warming.
> 
> They can't even get cow farts right, never mind Himalayan glaciers and all the other dead wrong data attributed to the IPCC.


Uhhh if they could get it right why would they. How could you ever persuade people to give up essentials like food and heat. After all if someone is living below the poverty line and you want to them give a third of their income to the Gore Gang and steal another third in the form of Carbon Taxes they are going to have to give up at least a few essentials. The only way to accomplish this is to lie and keep on lying.


----------



## Macfury

I think we need to institutionalize the seal hunt to cut down on their methane production.


----------



## SINC

*Germans lose fear of climate change after long, hard winter*

Another entire country turned off by the IPCC:



> Germans are losing their fear of climate change, according to a survey, with just 42 percent worried about global warming.
> It seems the long and chilly winter has taken its toll on climate change sensibilities despite the fact that weather has nothing to do with climate.
> 
> The latest figure is a clear drop from the 62 percent of Germans who said they were scared of such changes just in autumn 2006.
> 
> The new survey, carried out by polling company Infratest for Der Spiegel magazine, showed a quarter of those questioned thought Germany would profit from climate change rather than be badly affected by it.
> 
> Many people have little faith in the information and prognosis of climate researchers with a third questioned in the survey not giving them much credence. This is thought to be largely due to mistakes and exaggerations recently discovered in a report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, the IPCC.
> 
> Germany’s Leibniz Community, an umbrella organisation including many climate research institutes, broke ranks by calling for the resignation of IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri.
> 
> Climate research has been put, “in a difficult situation,” said Ernst Rietschel president of the Leibniz Community. He said sceptics have been given an easy target by the IPCC and said Pachauri should take on the responsibility and resign.
> 
> Last summer the glacier on Germany’s highest mountain, the Zugspitz in Bavaria, was covered over with plastic sheeting to try to protect it from warm rain which threatened to accelerate its melting.


Germans lose fear of climate change after long, hard winter - The Local


----------



## Macfury

The chickens are coming home to roost. Most of the AGW crowd screamed bloody murder every time we have a warm day. They set the standard for what's happening now.


----------



## SINC

*Freeing Energy Policy From The Climate Change Debate*



> Environmentalists have long sought to use the threat of catastrophic global warming to persuade the public to embrace a low-carbon economy. But recent events, including the tainting of some climate research, have shown the risks of trying to link energy policy to climate science.
> 
> *The 20-year effort by environmentalists to establish climate science as the primary basis for far-reaching action to decarbonize the global energy economy today lies in ruins. Backlash in reaction to “Climategate” and recent controversies involving the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s 2007 assessment report are but the latest evidence that such efforts have evidently failed.*
> 
> While the urge to blame fossil-fuel-funded skeptics for this recent bad turn of events has proven irresistible for most environmental leaders and pundits, forward-looking greens wishing to ascertain what might be salvaged from the wreckage would be well advised to look closer to home. Climate science, even at its most uncontroversial, could never motivate the remaking of the entire global energy economy. Efforts to use climate science to threaten an apocalyptic future should we fail to embrace green proposals, and to characterize present-day natural disasters as terrifying previews of an impending day of reckoning, have only served to undermine the credibility of both climate science and progressive energy policy.
> 
> The Endless Weather Wars
> 
> The habit of overstating the current state of climate science knowledge, and in particular our understanding of the relationship between global warming and present-day weather events, has been difficult for environmentalists to give up because, on one level, it has worked so well for them.
> 
> Global warming first exploded into mass public consciousness in the summer of 1988, when droughts, fires in the Amazon, and heat waves in the United States were widely attributed as warning signs of an eco-apocalypse to come. Former U.S. Senator Tim Wirth held the first widely covered congressional hearing on the subject that summer and admits having targeted the hearing for the hottest day of the year and turned off the air conditioning in the room to ensure that the conditions would be sweltering for the assembled media.
> 
> Such tactics have only intensified over the past two decades. In the run-up to U.N. climate talks in Kyoto in 1997, the Clinton Administration recruited Al Roker and other weathermen to explain global warming to the public. In 2006, Al Gore used his “Inconvenient Truth” slide show to link Hurricane Katrina, droughts, and floods to warming. And some environmental groups have routinely implied that present-day extreme weather and natural disasters are evidence of anthropogenic warming.
> 
> But it turned out that both sides could play the weather game. Skeptics also started pointing to weather events like snowstorms as evidence of no warming. While environmental advocates frequently criticize opponents such as Sen. James Inhofe for conflating weather with climate, the reality is that both sides abuse the science in the service of their political agendas. Climate change models, created in an effort to understand the potential long-term effect of global warming on regional weather trends, can no more tell us anything useful about today’s extreme weather events than last month’s snow storms can inform us as to whether global warming is occurring.
> 
> Climate Science Disasters
> 
> For more than 20 years, advocates have simultaneously overestimated the certainty with which climate science could predict the future and underestimated the economic and technological challenges associated with rapidly decarbonizing the energy economy. The oft-heard mantra that “All we lack is political will” assumes that the solutions to global warming are close at hand and that the primary obstacle to implementing them is public ignorance fed by fossil-fuel-funded skeptics.
> 
> Environmental advocates — with help from pollsters, psychologists, and cognitive scientists — have long understood that global warming represented a particularly problematic threat around which to mobilize public opinion. The threat is distant, abstract, and difficult to visualize. Faced with a public that has seemed largely indifferent to the possibility of severe climactic disruptions resulting from global warming, some environmentalists have tried to characterize the threat as more immediate, mostly by suggesting that global warming was already adversely impacting human societies, primarily in the form of increasingly deadly natural disasters.
> 
> The result has been an ever-escalating set of demands on climate science, with greens and their allies often attempting to represent climate science as apocalyptic, imminent, and certain, in no small part so that they could characterize all resistance as corrupt, anti-scientific, short-sighted, or ignorant. Greens pushed climate scientists to become outspoken advocates of action to address global warming. Captivated by the notion that their voices and expertise were singularly necessary to save the world, some climate scientists attempted to oblige. The result is that the use, and misuse, of climate science by advocates began to wash back into the science itself.
> 
> Little surprise then, that most of the recent controversies besetting climate science involve efforts to move the proximity of the global warming threat closer to the present. The most explosive revelations of Climategate involved disputed methodological techniques in which some researchers merged data sets to reinforce certain contentions, such as temperatures rising sharply in recent decades, resembling the so-called “hockey stick” shape. Whatever one thinks of the quality of the data sets, the methods used to combine them, or the efforts by some to shield the underlying data from critics, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that those involved were trying to fit the data to a trend that they already expected to see – namely that the spike in global carbon emissions in recent decades tracked virtually in lockstep with a concomitant spike in present-day global temperatures.
> 
> Other faulty or sloppy claims in the IPCC’s voluminous reports — such as the contention that global warming could melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035 — followed the same pattern.
> 
> *Perhaps most problematic of all, with some environmentalists convinced that connecting global warming to natural disasters was the key to climate policy progress, researchers felt enormous pressure to demonstrate a link. But multiple studies using different methodologies and data sets show no statistically significant relationship between the rising cost of natural disasters and global warming.*


(Emphasis mine.)

Much more here.


----------



## MacDoc

Meanwhile in the real world 



> CSIRO/BOM: Record heat/climate needs science focus
> 
> *
> Melbourne warms to a record long, hot summer
> *
> Surfersvillage Global Surf News, 19 March, 2010 : - - Melbourne has recorded its 100th day in a row when the maximum temperature has exceeded 20 degrees Celsius. Forecasts suggest the record run may extend into next week, at least. The last time Melbourne recorded a maximum temperature of less than 20 degrees was 8 December last year.
> 
> Melbourne’s string of warm days _far_ exceeds the previous record of 78 days, set between 29 December 2000 and 16 March 2001.* Records in Melbourne date back to 1855.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Melbourne’s record run reflects the very warm conditions that have been experienced across Victoria since the start of last winter. Victoria’s mean temperature for the nine months from June 2009 to February 2010 is 15.3 degrees, the highest on record, and is 1.4 degrees above the 1961-90 average. The previous record of 15.1 degrees was set in 1980.
> 
> Source BO


CSIRO/BOM: Record heat/climate needs science focus


----------



## MacDoc

and for the CT conspiracists...:baby:



> *The Guardian responds*
> 
> Filed under:
> 
> Climate Science
> Communicating Climate
> Reporting on climate
> — group @ 24 March 2010
> We recently ran two articles that were quite critical of aspects of the Guardian’s coverage of the stolen emails. This is a response from Dr. James Randerson, the editor of the Guardian’s environmental website.
> I edit the Guardian’s environment website and was part of the editorial team that produced the 12-part investigation by veteran science journalist Fred Pearce into the hacked East Anglia climate emails. I’m very grateful to RealClimate for giving us the opportunity to respond to the recent posts on the investigation: “The Guardian Disappoints” and “Close Encounters of the Absurd Kind”.
> 
> I should say first that we hold RealClimate in very high regard. The site is part of the Guardian Environment Network, a collection of more than 20 hand-picked websites including Grist and Nature’s Climate Feedback blog with whom we have a mutual content sharing agreement. Under the arrangement, the Guardian website republishes RealClimate blogs regularly. We take seriously your criticisms and are considering them carefully. The Guardian has a commitment to accuracy and correcting factual errors.
> Such is the public interest in this story that ever since the emails were released in November, there has been a strong demand for an in-depth journalistic account of what they tell us about how climate scientists operate. As RealClimate rightly pointed out, the response from much of the media has been lazy to the point of “pathology”.
> No other media organisation has come close to producing such a comprehensive and carefully researched attempt to get to the bottom of the emails affair. The investigation tries to reflect the complexity and historical context of the story, and runs to some 28,000 words – of which around half appeared in the printed newspaper.
> Dr. Schmidt did not mince his words though when he said that Fred’s investigation falls, “well below the normal Guardian standards of reporting”, while Dr Ben Santer wrote, “I am taking this opportunity to correct Mr. Pearce’s omissions, to reply to the key allegations, and to supply links to more detailed responses.” Both have also criticised our experimental online exercise to harness the expertise of people with a special knowledge of the emails in order to create a “peer reviewed” account of what they tell us.
> More on that later, but it is wrong to suggest that this is a lazy substitute for traditional journalistic standards and that key protagonists were not invited to respond prior to publication. On the contrary, the investigation was subject to rigorous editorial checking and Fred contacted numerous individuals in the course of his research. Many (particularly those at UEA) declined to comment.
> *The other side of the story*
> The RealClimate commentary reads like a distorted fairground mirror of the Guardian investigation – one that highlights the uncomfortable bits but blurs the rest. The posts did point out that “Some of the other pieces in this series are fine” but do not reflect the large amount of analysis in the investigation of the way the emails have been misused by those with a political agenda and the extensive context we included to indicate the pressure scientists writing those emails were under from time-consuming requests for data.
> In part 2 (How the ‘climategate’ scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics’ lies), for example, we detail how the “hide the decline” email has been misused by Sarah Palin, Senator James Inhofe and others to create, apparently deliberately, the impression that climate scientists had fiddled the figures.
> Almost all the media and political discussion about the hacked climate emails has been based on soundbites publicised by professional sceptics and their blogs. In many cases, these have been taken out of context and twisted to mean something they were never intended to.​ In part 1 (Battle over climate data turned into war between scientists and sceptics) and in a separate piece that appeared in the newspaper (Climate scientists have long been targets for sceptics) Fred outlines the tactics and motivations of some on the “sceptic” side of the debate.
> All this happened against the backdrop of a long-term assault by politically motivated, and commercially funded, climate-change deniers against the activities of many of the key scientists featuring in the emails.​ Similarly in Part 7 (Victory for openness as IPCC climate scientist opens up lab doors) Fred explains how the emails give a special insight into what being on the end of that assault was like.
> In the leaked emails, [Ben Santer] is seen sharing those experiences with other victims of hectoring and abuse by the more rabid climate sceptics. Others had their own horror stories, including Mike Mann over his hockey stick graph, Kevin Trenberth over his analysis of hurricanes and warming in the aftermath of Katrina, and later Jones over his escalating data wars. In each case, they argue, legitimate debates about scientific analysis and access to researchers’ data have been turned into vindictive character assassination.​ And in the concluding part of the investigation (Part 12: Climate science emails cannot destroy argument that world is warming, and humans are responsible), Fred lays out unequivocally that *nothing in the emails casts doubt on the case for climate change being attributable to human actions.*


more
RealClimate: The Guardian responds


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Meanwhile in the real world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Melbourne has recorded its 100th day in a row when the maximum temperature has exceeded 20 degrees Celsius. Forecasts suggest the record run may extend into next week, at least.
Click to expand...

That's right, MaccyD: cold winters don't point to a flaw in AGW theories--only Melbourne's warm summer can be used as evidence. Talk about selecitve data! Take off the blinders!



MacDoc said:


> and for the CT conspiracists...


No such animal here. It seems only the Warmists like to talk about conspiracies. All I see is data fudging, various self-serving agendas, a trail of cash and all around incompetence.



> And in the concluding part of the investigation (Part 12: Climate science emails cannot destroy argument that world is warming, and humans are responsible), Fred lays out unequivocally that nothing in the emails casts doubt on the case for climate change being attributable to human actions.


Well as long as they* CANNOT* and his arguments are *UNEQUIVOCAL*...
There's the power of words for ya!


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> and for the CT conspiracists


OK, fine. So, hundreds of emails have been taken completely out of context, there is no evidence of lies, collusion, bullying or anything of the sort.

I can live with that.

Let's move on.

Where's the original data the IPCC's reports have been based upon? Not the massaged data, the original raw numbers.

What about solar cycle influences that were kept secret by the Jones gang?

How about all the delayed FOIA responses?

Where is NIWA's raw data?

What about Africagate?

Polarbeargate?

Amazongate?

Glaciergate?

Czechgate?

Seagate?

(I could go on...)

Couple more Aces like these and the whole house of cards will be flat like a South African lizard sunning himself on the rocks.

Or is it already?

C'mon MacDoc, where are all the answers? How about one answer? Anything?

For six weeks I've been listening to the sound of crickets while you mount your defense, razing your bookmark list, emailing your AGW buddies for a shred of evidence to silence the unwashed masses. 

Still, nothing.

And, on second thought, I've decided I'm not willing to let go of those emails quite so quickly.



> Dr. John P. Costella examined 1079 leaked emails and 72 other documents from the computers of the UK's Climatic Research Unit to reveal 'shocking misconduct and fraud.'


The Gaurdian's sole _raison d'etre_ is to increase readership. How unbiased do you think they are? Besides, MSM has been cavorting this poppycock for years. They would have significant egg on their face if they suddeny did a one-eighty.

Once more I pick up the gauntlet. Only, this time I'm going to load it with rock when I challange you. How are you at ducking?

Or, have you been already and, hence, the silence?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL, I see only one typical pattern from MacDoc: 

1. Post a bit of selective nonsense (the weather in Sydney, the reproductive habits of the cane toad).
2. Ensure post is padded with massive bumf.
3. Strike faux authoritative pose.
4. Leave.
5. Do not reply to subsequent posts.
6. Return to post something equally weak a fortnight later.
7. Repeat from 2.

I have no idea what sort of pathology is at work here, but I also enjoin MacDoc to answer at least one of your challenges. This game of "Nicky nicky nine doors" is getting tiresome.


----------



## SINC

Meanwhile in the unreal world, it's time to put up or shut up, isn't it?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> I have no idea what sort of pathology is at work here, ...


I'm no expert (despite having been exposed to it in grade school), but it rhymes with "Relational Aggression". Funny, all those years ago when I faced it down things got pretty quiet then, too.

As the Rise & Fall of AGW is no longer _au courant_ perhaps he can comment on the estrus cycle of baboons. 

Or something.


----------



## SINC

*James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change*



> In his first in-depth interview since the theft of UEA emails, the scientist blames inertia and democracy for lack of action
> Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades.
> 
> This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory.
> 
> It follows a tumultuous few months in which public opinion on efforts to tackle climate change has been undermined by events such as the climate scientists' emails leaked from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit.
> 
> *"I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change," *said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. "The inertia of humans is so huge that you can't really do anything meaningful."


James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change | Environment | The Guardian


----------



## SINC

Deleted


----------



## MacDoc

I like this mitigation approach////


> *Could Tiny Bubbles Cool the Planet?*
> by Eli Kintisch on March 26, 2010 11:33 AM | Permanent Link | 32 Comments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Making waves. Seeding the oceans with bubbles much smaller than those created by crashing waves could help cool the planet.
> Credit: Hemera/Thinkstock_
> PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA—In an effort to curb global warming, scientists have proposed everything from launching sunlight-blocking dust into the stratosphere to boosting the number of carbon-sucking algae in the oceans. Now, a Harvard University physicist has come up with a new way to cool parts of the planet: pump vast swarms of tiny bubbles into the sea to increase its reflectivity and lower water temperatures. “Since water covers most of the earth, don’t dim the sun,” says the scientist, Russell Seitz, speaking from an international meeting on geoengineering research here. “Brighten the water.”
> 
> Natural bubbles already brighten turbulent seas and provide a luster known as “undershine” below the ocean’s surface. But these bubbles only lightly brighten the planet, contributing less than one-tenth of 1% of Earth’s reflectivity, or albedo. What Seitz imagines is pumping even smaller bubbles, about one-five-hundredth of a millimeter in diameter, into the sea. Such "microbubbles" are essentially "mirrors made of air," says Seitz, and they might be created off boats by using devices that mix water supercharged with compressed air into swirling jets of water. “I’m emulating a natural ocean phenomenon and amplifying it just by changing the physics—the ingredients remain the same."
> 
> Computer simulations show that tiny bubbles could have a profound cooling effect. Using a model that simulates how light, water, and air interact, Seitz found that microbubbles could double the reflectivity of water at a concentration of only one part per million by volume. When Seitz plugged that data into a climate model, he found that the microbubble strategy could cool the planet by up to 3°C. He has submitted a paper on the concept he calls “Bright Water" to the journal Climatic Change.
> 
> In addition to helping curb global warming, the microbubble strategy could also help conserve water by reducing evaporation in rivers and lakes, says Seitz. That’s a problem that leads to the loss of billions of tons of freshwater each year in California alone.
> 
> Seitz says adding bubbles to a 1-square-kilometer patch of ocean is feasible, but scaling it up may be technically difficult. Energy is not the limiting factor, he says, estimating that the energy output of 1000 windmills might be sufficient to add bubbles to an entire ocean. The larger challenge to large-scale deployment, he says, would be ensuring that the bubbles last as long as possible. In nature, a bubble’s lifetime depends on the level of dissolved organic matter and nanoparticles, without which small bubbles rapidly shrink and disappear. If the water is too clean, the bubbles might not last long enough to be effectively spread over large areas, Seitz says.
> 
> One way to test the viability of the idea might be to study the impact of bubbles created in the wakes of ships, says oceanographer Peter Brewer of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in Moss Landing, California. "It's something nobody's talked about," he says of Seitz’s technique.


Could Tiny Bubbles Cool the Planet? - ScienceNOW


----------



## Macfury

Well, I see he's avoiding answering a single one of your questions again FeXL. True to ineffectual form.

And he's now presenting another solution for non-existent AGW. A cure for which there is no disease.


----------



## MacDoc

Here come the consequences.... 


> *Drought in China caused by climate change: experts*
> (Xinhua)
> Updated: 2010-03-28 20:24
> 
> BEIJING -* Meteorologists have attributed the once-in-a-century drought parching southwest China to climate change.*
> 
> The drought has left more than 18 million residents and 11.7 million head of livestock suffering drinking-water shortages over a region encompassing the southwestern provinces of Yunnan, Guizhou, Sichuan, the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and the municipality of Chongqing, data from the Ministry of Civil Affairs showed.
> 
> "The direct reason for the drought is light rain and high temperatures," Ren Fuming, a leading expert at China's National Climate Center, told the latest edition of Outlook Weekly, a well-known magazine in China.
> 
> Ren's opinion was echoed by Zhang Peiqun, also a meteorologist with the center.
> 
> Zhang said the rainfall in worst-hit Yunnan since September last year is the lowest in about 50 years while the average temperature since the beginning of winter is the highest.
> 
> "The decreased rainfall during the rainy season led to less water in store and high temperatures resulted in greater evaporation, directly causing the severe drought," Zhang said.
> 
> Zhang said the reasons underlying it were the complicated ocean currents and anomalous atmospheric circulation.
> 
> Zhang said the lingering cold air mass that formed last September in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau had fenced off the warm and moist currents from the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal, and at the same time the cold air from the north has had difficulty reaching the Yunnan-Guizhou plateau hinterland.
> 
> "The cold and warm currents can't converge to produce rain, so there is little rain," Zhang said.
> 
> Sun Honglie, director of the national expert committee on climate change, told the magazine that he was inclined to believe that the drought was a result of anomalous atmospheric currents.
> 
> "It is not an environmental or ecological problem," he said. "But the drought is bound to have an impact on the ecological system."
> 
> Another expert, Chen Yiyu, an academic at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, also said the year has seen anomalous climate conditions globally and that the drought in China is part of the phenomenon.
> 
> Globally, climate-related natural disasters have climbed from less than 50 a year in the 1950s to between 350 and 450 a year in the 2000s. In 2009, extreme weather events affected 55 million people around the world, according to figures released by the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR).


Drought in China caused by climate change: experts

but do keep denying reality...it's quite amusing at this point..


----------



## Macfury

Get a load of this FeXL. It's almost pathological. No answers, more bumf.


----------



## groovetube

we all know you're the king of answers macfury. My guess he knows this and has you on ignore.
LOL.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> we all know you're the king of answers macfury. My guess he knows this and has you on ignore.
> LOL.


Guess he has FeXL on ignore. 

It's charming to see someone laughing at their own jokes, groove. "LOL," eh?


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> Guess he has FeXL on ignore.
> 
> It's charming to see someone laughing at their own jokes, groove. "LOL," eh?


I think the fact of the matter is that he can't answer FeXL's questions.

As for groove, he musta recently been appointed head of harassment here. We'll have to refer to him by his new title now, HOH.


----------



## groovetube

oh you do just fine yerself sinc, oh captain thunder galloperer to the recue of fellow circle er, nevermind.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Guess he has FeXL on ignore.


Nope, I don't buy it.

MacDoc's need to feel superior to the proletariat negates putting anyone on ignore. He must know what is going on, what is being said, who is saying it, even if he chooses to pointedly ignore the chatter of the unwashed masses. Not knowing would eat at his guts like acid, even more so than not being able to answer any of my questions.

So, as MacDoc chooses to ignore the reality of the world around him, I'll still respond to his weighty, tired, limp attempts at rebuttal.

As far as this is concerned:



> Meteorologists have attributed the once-in-a-century drought parching southwest China to climate change.


MacDoc, who said the climate isn't changing? The climate has been changing every day since the beginning of earth's time, billions of years ago. That's gotta be, what, six or eight times now? Do you know a single soul who would disagree with that?

Is today different somehow? 

What about last century's "once-in-a-century" drought? If they know it only happens once a century, there must be some record of it somewhere. What was the cause then? What about the one before that?

I just luvs a defense that poses more questions than it answers.

And this:



> "The direct reason for the drought is light rain and high temperatures," Ren Fuming, a leading expert at China's National Climate Center


I'm going to borrow one of Gerry's lines and respond:

"Gee, do ya think??!!"

Some expert. Next, he's gonna tell us that the reason there was sleet at my house this afternoon is that atmospheric conditions were right for it. Really, Sherlock...

And, I see that the illustrious United Nations, that apolitical, don't-have-an-axe-to-grind organization has some salient input, too.

I feel safer already...


----------



## FeXL

It has been brought to my attention that MacDoc has some form of cancer. I was unaware of that. My choice of words in the my last post were not utilized in reference to his condition. They have been changed out of politeness but my intent still stands.


----------



## SINC

Ah yes, more good, sound, reasonable thinking from warmists:

*Global Warming Advocates Threaten Blizzard of Lawsuits*



> Environmentalists, unable to squeeze "cap and trade" rules through the U.S. Senate, have a new strategy for combating what they believe is man-made global warming: Lawsuits.
> 
> The predicted temperature changes (darker red indicating greater change) due to global warming, based on data that scientists, policymakers and the public are now questioning.
> 
> Environmentalists, unable to squeeze "cap and trade" rules through the U.S. Senate, have a new strategy for combating what they believe is man-made global warming:
> 
> They're going to sue.
> 
> They're revving up their briefs and getting ready to shop for judges who will be sympathetic to their novel claim that the companies they believe contribute to global warming are a "public nuisance."*
> 
> The environmentalists allege that individual companies are responsible for climate change because they have emitted greenhouse gases during the course of their operations. Those gases, they say, have "harmed" them by fostering Hurricane Katrina, eroding the shorelines of America's coasts and causing global warming.


Global Warming Advocates Threaten Blizzard of Lawsuits


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Where's the original data the IPCC's reports have been based upon? Not the massaged data, the original raw numbers.....


If you want to see the original data, you have to go to the original published papers (many dating back to the early 1980's). Some of this information is published in current digitally indexed literature, but some of it is not. 

However, it's already well established that the scientists were the first to object when the IPCC misquoted and/or misrepresented their data. This does not in any way refute the scientific consensus regarding AGW. It just makes it less marketable.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> If you want to see the original data, you have to go to the original published papers (many dating back to the early 1980's). Some of this information is published in current digitally indexed literature, but some of it is not.


This doesn't add up.

It is a matter of public record that the IPCC research based on the original numbers cannot be peer reviewed because the IPCC has lost the data.

If this information is, in fact, extant, then why does the IPCC not acknowledge this when asked about the raw data? If it's a simple matter of gathering up past publications to silence the hecklers, why have they not done so?

In addition, if this information was accessible in any way, shape or form the "deniers" would be all over it. I haven't heard a thing to that end. Have you?


----------



## FeXL

‘Climategate' scientists vindicated in investigation.



> The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.


Well, I'll be able to sleep tonight. Especially after they spent a day, a whole day, listening to oral testimony. No, really...



> Lawmakers stressed that their report — which was written after only a single day of oral testimony — did not cover all the issues and would not be as in-depth as the two other inquiries into the e-mail scandal that are still pending.


Lawmakers, huh?

I know my opinion hasn't changed...



> “the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact,”


An old saw about a fox and a hen house comes to mind.

Update:

Steve McIntyre weighs in.

The salient part is his summary:



> It is discouraging to read such bilge.


Update 2:

James Delingpole opines.



> How entirely typical that a body representing the most corrupt, money-grubbing taxpayer-funded roach pit of the lot – our Houses of Parliament – should have found it so very easy to exonerate the Climategate scientists of all wrongdoing.


Works for me.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> It is a matter of public record that the IPCC research based on the original numbers cannot be peer reviewed because the IPCC has lost the data.


Then don't believe it. I certainly wouldn't. The only scientific research I take seriously publishes its data. All the climatologists I know publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals that require the data be included in the manuscripts... that's how science works. If the IPCC is publishing stuff without data to back it up, it's not science by definition. 

But it's important to recognize that just because a political organization that promotes a specific political agenda says something, and backs it up with 'sciency' PR, doesn't automatically mean what they're saying is fundamentally false. Every climatologist I know, and apparently essentially all the climatologists I don't know (which is obviously most of them) agree that human activity is having at least some effect on the global climate. They've been in agreement on this for decades and, as far as I understand, essentially all the data is in agreement that this is the case (while it is obviously true that many non-anthropogenic factors also affect the climate, it's clear that anthropogenic factors also affect the climate).

As this issue became 'main-stream' the science went out the window. But that's not really relevant. The science is not really in significant doubt, so now it's about how society deals with it. It's unfortunate that proponents of a specific agenda felt it necessary to exaggerate and over-simplify the science, but it's not really surprising or important in the final analysis. It's rather like the people who went around trumpeting that science had proven that smoking causes cancer. No such proof ever existed (or ever will), but the science was as conclusive as it could be and people exaggerated the claims to make an easily understandable sound bite for the media. That sort of thing appears to be inevitable when you try to bring a science-based issue into the scientifically illiterate 'main stream.'

But I encourage you, especially if you are skeptical, to abandon the pre-digested-for-the-lay-public sources and get into the primary literature. This data is generally available, but it takes a significant background expertise to understand and critically analyze. I don't have that background, so I trust the scientists who do. If you don't want to trust them, it's incumbent on you to develop sufficient expertise to analyze the data for yourself.

Cheers


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Then don't believe it. I certainly wouldn't. The only scientific research I take seriously publishes its data. All the climatologists I know publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals that require the data be included in the manuscripts... that's how science works. If the IPCC is publishing stuff without data to back it up, it's not science by definition.


I guess I'm confused.

My response


> It is a matter of public record that the IPCC research based on the original numbers cannot be peer reviewed because the IPCC has lost the data.


was in response to your response:


> If you want to see the original data, you have to go to the original published papers (many dating back to the early 1980's).


The kicker is, a study has been done on IPCC Report #4 and something like 40% of the bibliography is crap. Much of it is non-peer reviewed documents published by political bodies like the WWF. Glaciergate occurred at least partially because a magazine article that was based solely on a group of climbers' personal experiences was cited.

"Say, Jeb, that there glacier look smaller this year than last?"
"Damned if it ain't, Luke."
Bang! Suddenly it's gospel and published.

Look around, pore through the pre-digested for the masses information, then follow the trail back. What you find should scare the hell out of you. It did me.

The largest issue for me is that the IPCC is looked upon by both professional & lay people alike as some kind of authority on the matter and yet their so-called research is so full of holes you could fly a flock of 380's through it and not snag a truth.

Subsequently, any research that cites anything published by the IPCC is immediately suspect. Unfortunately, that appears to be the lion's share.
_____

As much as I'd love to delve into the primary literature, time simply does not allow for it. As such, I'm left to the "pre-digested" info. And, as MSM refuses or, at the very least, is reluctant or slow to address the newer information (without bias), I find myself scouring blogs on a regular basis. Yes, many of them carry their own slant but at least the information is getting out.

Is that optimal? Not by a stretch but, right now, it's all I have.

I do find it refreshing after been shovel fed political, instead of scientific, conclusions for the last 15 years.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Every climatologist I know, and apparently essentially all the climatologists I don't know (which is obviously most of them) agree that human activity is having at least some effect on the global climate. They've been in agreement on this for decades and, as far as I understand, essentially all the data is in agreement that this is the case (while it is obviously true that many non-anthropogenic factors also affect the climate, it's clear that anthropogenic factors also affect the climate).


Sure. Building a city of concrete will mean that that city will be warmer at night than if it had been meadowland. So what? It doesn't mean that any major response is required on our part, or that we need to abandon fossil fuels, pay carbon taxes, pay to promote the development of alternative fuels, or do anything out of the ordinary.




bryanc said:


> It's rather like the people who went around trumpeting that science had proven that smoking causes cancer. No such proof ever existed (or ever will), but the science was as conclusive as it could be and people exaggerated the claims to make an easily understandable sound bite for the media. That sort of thing appears to be inevitable when you try to bring a science-based issue into the scientifically illiterate 'main stream.'


Except that those who suggested a causal link between smoking tobacco and cancer did a reasonably good job of demonstrating it, comparing cancer rates between those who smoked and those who did not, and demonstrating the mechanism by which smoking might cause cancer.



bryanc said:


> But I encourage you, especially if you are skeptical, to abandon the pre-digested-for-the-lay-public sources and get into the primary literature. This data is generally available, but it takes a significant background expertise to understand and critically analyze. I don't have that background, so I trust the scientists who do. If you don't want to trust them, it's incumbent on you to develop sufficient expertise to analyze the data for yourself.


If you trust the scientists when the data is not available, you have every right to do so.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> But I encourage you, especially if you are skeptical, to abandon the pre-digested-for-the-lay-public sources and get into the primary literature. This data is generally available, but it takes a significant background expertise to understand and critically analyze. I don't have that background, so I trust the scientists who do. If you don't want to trust them, it's incumbent on you to develop sufficient expertise to analyze the data for yourself.
> 
> Cheers


Though somehow a google king who knows how to use the bold button seems to have, sufficient expertise.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Though somehow a google king who knows how to use the bold button seems to have, sufficient expertise.


GT: You just have to highlight the *text*, then push this button.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> GT: You just have to highlight the *text*, then push this button.


*Cool *...............


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> The kicker is, a study has been done on IPCC Report #4 and something like 40% of the bibliography is crap. Much of it is non-peer reviewed documents published by political bodies like the WWF.


Um, yeah... so what's you're point? The scientists who were mis-quoted were among the first to raise objections to these oversimplifications of their life's work. The IPCC is a _political_ organization. Not a scientific one. But that doesn't mean they're wrong. It just means you shouldn't rely on them for unbiased data.



> Glaciergate occurred at least partially because a magazine article that was based solely on a group of climbers' personal experiences was cited.


Again, what does this have to do with science? It was the political groups and popular media (not the scientific literature) that was making this mistake. If you want scientifically supported arguments, read the scientific literature, not popular magazines or press releases from political organizations.



> The largest issue for me is that the IPCC is looked upon by both professional & lay people alike as some kind of authority on the matter


Not by any climatologists or other scientists that I know. They'r looked on variously as "well intentioned schmucks" or "greedy schmucks" depending on who you ask, but certainly never as scientific authorities. If you took them as "authorities" on the matter, you go suckered. To be fair though, you weren't alone, and they certainly did a good job (initially) of dressing up in lab coats and coming across as all "sciency" (BTW, in my experience, real scientists don't wear lab coats... ever... so that's a good first clue... never trust anyone in a lab coat or a tie).



> Subsequently, any research that cites anything published by the IPCC is immediately suspect.


So if the IPCC cites reputable peer-reviewed sources, they're suspect? That's a neat trick... get some public attention, then get caught being a typical dissembling-political-media-whore, and magically gain the ability to discredit anyone's work. I'll have to remember that.



> I do find it refreshing after been shovel fed political, instead of scientific, conclusions for the last 15 years.


This is because the science was sufficiently conclusive 15 years ago to start taking action. Climatologists have been in consensus that human activity is impacting global climate for decades... the debate has been (and continues to be) how much and how might it best be mitigated.



> As much as I'd love to delve into the primary literature, time simply does not allow for it. As such, I'm left to the "pre-digested" info. And, as MSM refuses or, at the very least, is reluctant or slow to address the newer information (without bias), I find myself scouring blogs on a regular basis. Yes, many of them carry their own slant but at least the information is getting out.


Ah, here is where the cheese starts to bind. Do you make the effort (and take the time) to become sufficiently conversant in the subject matter to formulate your own well-informed opinion, accept the opinions of others who have the expertise to analyze the data, or simply refrain from formulating an opinion?

Personally, I'm in the limbo between the latter two positions, because I certainly don't have time to become sufficiently sophisticated to analyze decades worth of data that is far outside my realm of expertise critically, but I recognize this to be an issue of sufficient importance that I can't remain completely ignorant of it. I'm fortunate that I have colleagues who work in this field that I can ask for some input, and I'm also a professional scientist and therefore understand the culture of academic researchers enough to have some insight into how the media train-wreck that has surrounded this issue has not only happened, but was almost inevitable.

Based on simple thermodynamics, it's obvious to even the most superficially conversant individual that our civilization's energy budget is unsustainable (based on current fossil-fuel technologies), and anyone who knows anything about the principles of ecology will be aware that, while adaptable, biological systems take *millennia* to adapt to even relatively small changes in abiotic factors such as temperature, rainfall, atmospheric CO2, ocean pH, etc. Consequently, the sudden (century time scales) changes human activity has caused in many of these perimeters is bound to, and clearly is having catastrophic consequences on the biosphere.

Consequently, I see the 'climate change' political movement as rather an interesting and attractive phenomenon. While I'm not absolutely certain their primary motivation is entirely well-founded, it seems probable that it is, and, more importantly, their objectives address the over-arching problem of our civilization's gross and unequivocally unsustainable over-consumption of resources, and therefore they appear to be deserving of support, even if they might be somewhat misguided. Rather along "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" line of reasoning. But it also seems very likely that their fundamental motivation (AGW) is also likely to be true, which makes it all the more important to support them unless you're a idealistic purist who insists that any political movement must be absolutely correct in all ways before it is worthy of support. Such a position is cute in a 15 year old, but is really unseemly in any fully mature adult.

Cheers


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> GT: You just have to highlight the *text*, then push this button.


couldn't have planned that one any better.:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> This is because the science was sufficiently conclusive 15 years ago to start taking action.


Take what action?



bryanc said:


> Climatologists have been in consensus that human activity is impacting global climate for decades... the debate has been (and continues to be) how much and how might it best be mitigated.


Or whether it is sufficient to warrant mitigation.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Take what action?


This is the question. There are some actions we can take that are obvious and easy (reducing consumption, by increasing efficiency and using alternate sources of energy). But to achieve a sustainable (i.e. balanced) energy budget, we will either need to develop new technologies, or reduce our consumption by orders of magnitude (or some combination of both). That will require dramatic social and political change, which takes time.

But given that such change is inevitable (and, again, this is a simple thermodynamic necessity, regardless of your opinion on climate issues), and that the changes in technology and behaviour will have to be dramatic, there are two fairly obvious predictions that can be made. Firstly, the enormously powerful corporate and political interests that have emerged during the past century will resist any change to the status quo violently and with every tool available to them. Secondly, the people who first successfully make this transition will be in a very desirable position of being able to sell their technologies and skills to the rest of the world as everyone else is forced to follow their lead.

So I'd like to see Canada taking a leadership role in converting to technologies that were less reliant on fossil fuels and unsustainable resource extraction and pollution. Instead, I see our political leaders dragging their feet, and supporting the status quo along with the oil industry and its other lackeys.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> This is the question. There are some actions we can take that are obvious and easy (reducing consumption, by increasing efficiency and using alternate sources of energy). But to achieve a sustainable (i.e. balanced) energy budget, we will either need to develop new technologies, or reduce our consumption by orders of magnitude (or some combination of both). That will require dramatic social and political change, which takes time.
> 
> But given that such change is inevitable (and, again, this is a simple thermodynamic necessity, regardless of your opinion on climate issues), and that the changes in technology and behaviour will have to be dramatic, there are two fairly obvious predictions that can be made. Firstly, the enormously powerful corporate and political interests that have emerged during the past century will resist any change to the status quo violently and with every tool available to them. Secondly, the people who first successfully make this transition will be in a very desirable position of being able to sell their technologies and skills to the rest of the world as everyone else is forced to follow their lead.


There is no indication that early adopters are in any advantageous position, or that their strategies are even necessary.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> There is no indication that early adopters are in any advantageous position, or that their strategies are even necessary.


I have to keep pointing out that the only truly effective way to immediately reduce Carbon emissions significantly is mass extermination. Nazi Germany, Israel, the US of A, Ruwanda and several others have test marketed this method and it has proven extremely unpopular, particularly with the relatives of the victims.

I too oppose it for purely selfish reasons.


----------



## chasMac

eMacMan said:


> I have to keep pointing out that the only truly effective way to immediately reduce Carbon emissions significantly is mass extermination. Nazi Germany, Israel, the US of A, Ruwanda and several others have test marketed this method and it has proven extremely unpopular, particularly with the relatives of the victims.


Do you have data to support this? I'd wager that the circumstances necessary to create an environment where mass exterminations are possible, ie: total war, mass colonization result in far greater carbon emissions: witness Germany's wartime economy, pre- vs post- Columbian America.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> I have to keep pointing out that the only truly effective way to immediately reduce Carbon emissions significantly is mass extermination


This is clearly not true. While reducing global population (preferably slowly by declining birth-rates) is certainly an important part of the solution, we don't need to be polluting and consuming at the level we have been for the past several decades, and the developing countries don't have to follow the same industrialization path the western european/north american countries did.

If we can get our economies off of oil, help the developing countries by-pass fossil fuels entirely, develop sustainable energy technologies, and gradually reduce our population back down to a few billion, I think we could wind up with a perfectly sustainable civilization.

Of course, a massive die-off would solve the problem too. And, should we persist in fouling our own nest and growing our population, that will inevitably occur. The question is, can we avoid that natural solution by applying our understanding of nature and our creativity, or are we really just too stupid to avoid obvious pitfalls.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> This is clearly not true. While reducing global population (preferably slowly by declining birth-rates) is certainly an important part of the solution, we don't need to be polluting and consuming at the level we have been for the past several decades, and the developing countries don't have to follow the same industrialization path the western european/north american countries did.
> 
> ....


I have to disagree. Really major reductions require redesigning homes, power distribution and transportation from the ground up. All of these are 20-100 year projects. If you honestly believe that the sky will fall if 30-50% reductions are not accomplished immediately then mass extermination is indeed the only possible solution.

Do keep in mind that Carbon Credit trading is designed not to reduce emissions but only to engorge the Gore Gang vaults. Carbon Taxes will further impoverish the poor, who have already cut consumption to the bone, but will also have only limited effect as far as reducing consumption.


----------



## SINC

Finally, some affirmative action on AGW in South Dakota:



> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fifth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South Dakota Legislature urges that instruction in the public schools relating to global warming include the following:
> 
> (1) That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact;
> 
> (2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative; and
> 
> (3) That the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global warming phenomena; and
> 
> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Legislature urges that all instruction on the theory of global warming be appropriate to the age and academic development of the student and to the prevailing classroom circumstances.


2010 Session - Bill History


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> If you honestly believe that the sky will fall if 30-50% reductions are not accomplished immediately then mass extermination is indeed the only possible solution.


I can see the ad campaign now...


----------



## chasMac

SINC said:


> Finally, some affirmative action on AGW in South Dakota:
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Session - Bill History


Brings to mind Tennessee of the 1920's.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> If you honestly believe that the sky will fall if 30-50% reductions are not accomplished immediately then mass extermination is indeed the only possible solution.


I certainly don't think the sky will fall under any circumstances, nor do I accept that significant reductions over the next few decades are impossible without mass exterminations.



> Do keep in mind that Carbon Credit trading is designed not to reduce emissions but only to engorge the Gore Gang vaults


I will accept that is your opinion on that particular issue, which I will remind you, has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific question of the role human activity has in altering global climactic patterns, and has never been something I have advocated.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I will accept that is your opinion on that particular issue, which I will remind you, has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific question of the role human activity has in altering global climactic patterns, and has never been something I have advocated.


The groups behind carbon trading have been so big on promoting selective scientific studies and data, that the lines are getting blurred. Add to that scientists who want to be politicians, sociologists and big wheels at the UN, and the lines are blurred even further.


----------



## eMacMan

One of the really interesting things I discovered is that man is responsible for about 10% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, which is less than 4/1000 of 1% of the total atmosphere. The hypothesis is that this is creating a potent enough greenhouse effect to raise the earths temperature enough to cause it to hold more water vapour which acts as a more powerful greenhouse gas raising temp again...

Man is also responsible for about 10% of the atmospheric particulate content. One thing that the Global Warming Alarmists were really excited to discover is that reliable evaporation data for much of the world existed all the way back to the mid 19th century. They examined the data expecting to see evaporation rates to start rising noticeably in the 1960s and 70s. This would they hoped confirm their hypothesis. Instead they saw consistent drops around the world anywhere from 6-20% with 10-12% being the average range. The GWAs completely lost interest and went on to jigging data and carefully selecting the only 12 tree ring cores that backed their theory. However some scientists did find the anomaly interesting and followed up. What they discovered is that the single biggest factor controlling evaporation is not temperature, is not wind, is not relative humidity. It is the amount of sunlight hitting the earth. They further discovered that atmospheric particulates were indirectly reducing the intensity of the sunlight hitting the earth. 

What it comes down to is this; even if the tiny amount of CO2 man is putting into the atmosphere is raising the globes temperature, the other trash we are putting up there is actually offsetting this. This would explain why the GW theory has consistently failed to predict the future.

Beyond this solar cycles, wobbles in the earths orbit, volcanoes, forest fires and sub oceanic volcanic activity all affect the climate in more powerful ways than mans contributions.


----------



## MacDoc

Strange silence from the denier cadre.....oh I know...




> *Canada reports mildest winter on record*
> March 20, 2010
> 
> Canada jumps into spring after having recorded the mildest and driest winter on record, Environment Canada reported Friday.
> Canada jumps into spring after having recorded the mildest and driest winter on record, Environment Canada reported Friday.
> 
> The agency, which has compiled data from 1948, determined* the average temperature throughout the country was four degrees Celsius (seven degrees Fahrenheit) above normal, said meteorologist Andre Cantin.*
> Cantin said the country also saw 20 percent less precipitation than normal, also a record.
> El Nino, the climate pattern in the Pacific Ocean that influences global weather, was likely responsible for the freakish weather, according to Cantin, who noted that changes in climate may also have played a role.
> The unusual winter wreaked havoc at the Winter Olympics at venues near Vancouver, where a shortage of snow delayed many events.
> Some Arctic areas were warmer and *the north of Quebec province was six degrees Celsius (10 Fahrenheit) above the norm*.


Canada reports mildest winter on record

Could be some cooling as a result of this however if it continues



> Ash from volcano in Iceland disrupts European air travel












Ash from volcano in Iceland disrupts European air travel - The Globe and Mail


----------



## adagio

I have to wonder if the Doc actually reads the stuff he posts.

"El Nino, the climate pattern in the Pacific Ocean that influences global weather, was* likely* responsible for the freakish weather, according to Cantin, who noted that changes in climate *may* also have played a role."


----------



## SINC

You missed a bit of bolding in your post MacDoc. Allow me to add it:



> Cantin said the country also saw 20 percent less precipitation than normal, also a record.
> 
> El Nino, the climate pattern in the Pacific Ocean that influences global weather, *was likely responsible* for the freakish weather, according to Cantin, who noted that changes in climate *may* also have played a role.


----------



## SINC

adagio said:


> I have to wonder if the Doc actually reads the stuff he posts.
> 
> "El Nino, the climate pattern in the Pacific Ocean that influences global weather, was* likely* responsible for the freakish weather, according to Cantin, who noted that changes in climate *may* also have played a role."


:lmao: Great minds think alike Marg! :clap:


----------



## bsenka

MacDoc said:


> Strange silence from the denier cadre.....oh I know...
> 
> 
> 
> Canada reports mildest winter on record
> 
> Could be some cooling as a result of this however if it continues
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ash from volcano in Iceland disrupts European air travel - The Globe and Mail


All winter long we heard how record after record COLD temperatures were being broken all across the country, but now they expect us to forget all that, and believe them when they say that it's record WARM? Who writes their press releases, George Orwell?


----------



## SINC

bsenka said:


> Who writes their press releases, George Orwell?


I could go on and on, but surely by now MacDoc gets the picture?

Coldest winter in 20 years recorded in Ireland Aftermath News

Coldest winter in 8 years to get even colder - Chicago Tribune

Edmonton breaks weather record for coldest December 13 - Posted


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Strange silence from the denier cadre.....oh I know...


That's it? That's all you got? 

Why even bother MacDoc? You're just embarrassing yourself...


----------



## FeXL

bsenka said:


> All winter long we heard how record after record COLD temperatures were being broken all across the country, but now they expect us to forget all that, and believe them when they say that it's record WARM? Who writes their press releases, George Orwell?


Kinda what I was wondering, too.

I know, they were comparing South Africa's weather to Canada's!


----------



## Macfury

adagio said:


> I have to wonder if the Doc actually reads the stuff he posts.


He doesn't read the other posts in the thread. He doesn't answer ANY questions about the nonsense he posts. Why should he break tradition and start reading his own posts?

Probably too busy booking another flight to Bloemfontein on the CO2 express.


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> That's it? That's all you got?
> 
> Why even bother MacDoc? You're just embarrassing yourself...


Geez, what a surprise you are able to post. What with that massive winter blizzard that broke power lines and left 75% of your area without power for hours yesterday. Closed many major highways too, didn't it?

Springtime in the hot new world, I guess?


----------



## groovetube

Boy. A lot of people ready to jump all over something, with "was likely", and "may have", and concentrating on temperatures in certain areas.

And from this, we likely, or may! draw our battle lines. En Guard!


----------



## chasMac

I'm curious how supporters of agw often use examples of unseasonably warm weather to prove their point, but if a sceptic similarly uses examples of unseasonably cold weather to prove his/her point, a lecture is bound to ensue on the differences between climate and weather. Why the double standard?


----------



## FeXL

Oh, and just in case there was any doubt about the International Panel of Climate Crooks AR4:

Climate Bible Gets 21 'F's on Report Card.



> Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, working papers, student theses, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called "grey literature."
> 
> We've been told this report is the gold standard. We've been told it's 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have not come within a mile of a scientific journal.


Rest in pieces...


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> Oh, and just in case there was any doubt about the International Panel of Climate Crooks AR4:
> 
> Climate Bible Gets 21 'F's on Report Card.
> 
> 
> 
> Rest in pieces...


Yeah, that IPCC is a real piece of work, ain't it? :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> Geez, what a surprise you are able to post. What with that massive winter blizzard that broke power lines and left 75% of your area without power for hours yesterday. Closed many major highways too, didn't it?
> 
> Springtime in the hot new world, I guess?


Sitting here cuddled up to my wood burning stove, the last vestiges of battery reserve on my laptop faithfully defending the truth, internet stick the only communication we have with the outside world...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL: I see you're reeling from the blows of MacDoc's stinging rejoinders.


----------



## FeXL

Is that what that was? Here I thought mosquito season had started early...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Is that what that was? Here I thought mosquito season had started early...


You were just strangely silent because you are a denier.


----------



## FeXL

Well, can't disagree about the "strange" part. Momma's bin tellin' me that for years...


----------



## SINC

Strange silence from the warmest cadre, eh folks?


----------



## Max

Frigid silence from the coldest cadre!


----------



## chasMac

Tepid indifference from the lukewarm crowd!


----------



## Max

Heated replies from the luke-warm crowd!

[*Edit:]* whoops, too much redundant redundancy! It's so warm here I'm having trouble thinking straight.


----------



## Macfury

I remember MacDoc being quite excited by regional climate cadres that had formed _ad hoc_ in the U.S. The last partner state in the Western Climate Initiative has pulled out, leaving California to go down the fiscal toilet on its own.


----------



## FeXL

So, now that the International Panel of Climate Crooks have been revealed for the sham they are, it's time to work on that next batch of liars and cheats, the CRU.

Oh, wait, I'll go first.



> However, Lord Lawson chooses his words more carefully in answering the smoking-gun question at the top of the list:
> 
> "Moreover, we are disturbed by the CRU scientists' treatment of the so-called divergence problem. That is the fact that, for that period of time where both a proxy global temperature series and a recorded global temperature series are available, the two series markedly diverge. This clearly suggests either that the proxy series is unreliable or that the recorded series is unreliable (or possibly both: the point is that they cannot both be true). The CRU scientists' attempt to hide the problem by concealing the divergence demonstrates, we believe, a lack of integrity."
> 
> Integrity is at the very heart of the AGW debate -- not just the integrity of the discredited scientists involved, but also the integrity of the data used by the CRU. For many years, the global warming skeptics have been citing that the differing data sets are not in agreement and have asked the simple question "why?" Their assertion has always been that until a scientific explanation for the differences is found, there can be no definitive conclusion concerning AGW. This question was always avoided by the now-discredited Dr. Jones, who headed up the CRU. But finally, some light has been shed onto the question of integrity of the data. In this same memo, Lord Lawson clarifies some of the confusion concerning the differing data sets:
> 
> "[T]here are, in fact, four (not two) other international data sets, all based in the United States. Two of them - NASA and NOAA - are neither wholly independent of each other (unsurprisingly, since they are both US Government agencies) nor wholly independent of the CRU set, as indeed some of the leaked emails indicates. The third, and fourth, which -- unlike CRU, NASA and NOAA - use not surface weather stations but satellite observations, are compiled by the University of Alabama at Hunstville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). They are entirely independent of the CRU. They use the same satellite data as each other but different methodology and produce similar results to each other, which differ from those of the CRU."


Why, indeed.


----------



## eMacMan

Apparently Michael Mann is upset that Minnestans for Global Warming pointed out that his hockey stick was upside down and is planning to sue. Could get interesting as that would force him to cough up the data he has been guarding so ferociously.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL: The Hadley CRU and Mat Office were really softballed in that inquiry, because Lord Oxburgh, the guy they put in charge of the grilling, is chairman of Falck Renewables, a manufacturer of windfarms.


----------



## SINC

*And speaking of the IPCC, here we go again . . .*

IPCC's River Of Lies



> Global Warming: Another shoe has dropped from the IPCC centipede as scientists in Bangladesh say their country will not disappear below the waves. As usual, the U.N.'s climate charlatans forgot one tiny detail.
> 
> It keeps getting worse for the much-discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which seems to have built its collapsing house of climate cards on sand or, more specifically, river sediment.
> 
> After fraudulent claims about Himalayan glaciers, African crop harvests and Amazon rain forests, plus a 2007 assessment report based on anecdotal evidence, student term papers and nonpeer-reviewed magazine articles, the panel's doomsday forecast for Bangladesh has been exposed as its latest hoax.
> 
> According to the 2007 report, melting glaciers and polar ice would lead to rising sea levels and just a three-foot rise would flood 17% of the low-lying country of Bangladesh by 2050 and create 20 million refugees.
> 
> Now comes a study from the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) that says the IPCC forgot to factor in the 1 billion tons of sediment carried by Himalayan rivers such as the Ganges and the Brahmaputra into Bangladesh every year.
> 
> CEGIS director Maminul Haque Sarker told AFP that "studies on the effects of climate change in Bangladesh, including those quoted by the IPCC, did not consider the role of sediment in the growth and adjustment process of the country's coast and rivers to the sea level rise." Even if sea levels rose according to IPCC predictions, Sarker says, natural sediment deposits would cancel the effect of any rise.
> 
> Apocalyptic changes forecast by climate change alarmists, according to Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the International Commission on Sea Level Change, are not in the cards. Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years."
> 
> If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10 cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm."
> Six times he and his expert team visited the Maldive Islands to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has, if anything, dropped in recent decades. Venice, Italy, has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr. Morner.
> 
> IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri defended his organization's predictions by warning that "on the basis of one study one cannot jump to conclusions." Yet he and the IPCC jumped to the conclusion that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 based on unsubstantiated student theses and anecdotes from a magazine for mountain climbers. These claims have been withdrawn amid much laughter.


IPCC's River Of Lies - IBD - Investors.com


----------



## FeXL

*"Warmists" are the real flat Earthers...*

Must be that pesky New Math. Or sumthin'...



> Vincent Gray at Climate realists has noticed a little flaw in the mythical Computer Model of global warming.
> 
> The model is based on a flat Earth.
> 
> Gray wrote: “The attached graph is in all of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, and it is fundamental to all their activities. It assumes that the earth can be considered to be flat, that the sun shines all day and all night with equal intensity, and that the temperature of the earth’s surface is constant.”
> 
> If true, I find that to be amusing.
> 
> Skeptics are supposed to be the flat Earthers, not our moral and intellectual superiors.
> 
> And yet…
> 
> “…All the quantities on the graph are given as correct to the nearer Watt per square meter, but the figures in the paper are shown to possess very high inaccuracy which can never be measured, but always has to be qualitatively estimated. On this occasion it was possible to stretch these inaccuracies to the level needed to provide a balanced energy budget. The total energy entering is made equal to the energy leaving. In this way it is now possible to calculate the effect of additional greenhouse gases. If it was not “balanced” and the balance varied it would be impossible to calculate.what are the effects of additional greenhouse gases,” Gray wrote.
> 
> So the model is based on a false premise.


----------



## eMacMan

Michael Moron's bunch has really done it now. Claims global warming melted the glacier which triggered the Icelandic Volcano. 

Talk about getting it backwards. The volcano blew causing the glacier to melt.


----------



## Macfury

I was a little surprised by this video featuring Obama confidantes regarding their plan for the U.S. Cap and Trade scheme. I was actually shocked to see people describing this collusion so bluntly:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## MacDoc

and as another sure sign of AGW a croc in Hamilton Ontario pond 










Croc spotted in Hamilton pond - thestar.com


----------



## Macfury

Well, hell, if crocodiles are giving birth in the Hammer, then I'm joining the GHG wing-nuts today!


----------



## FeXL

Ties right in with that tiger that's s'pose ta be wandering around the city.

In other related news, there was an article online recently about all the snow & glaciers melting in Glacier National Park in north-western Montana. About bloody time. It's a pain watching the snow removal crew for months on end, only to have a short 4 month riding season. That, and all the road repairs they currently do in prime gourbi season could be relegated to the winter months.


----------



## KC4

Macfury said:


> Well, hell, if crocodiles are giving birth in the Hammer, then I'm joining the GHG wing-nuts today!





FeXL said:


> Ties right in with that tiger that's s'pose ta be wandering around the city.


Anybody check to see if the Hamilton Zoo is still being staffed/supervised? Just a thought.


----------



## Macfury

KC: Both animals have been identified as ex-pets.


----------



## MacDoc

> *Researchers find future temperatures could exceed livable limits*
> 
> May 04, Space & Earth/Earth Sciences
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This map shows the maximum wet-bulb temperatures reached in a climate model from a high carbon dioxide emissions future climate scenario with a global-mean temperature 12 degrees Celsius (21 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than 2007. The white land areas exceed the wet-bulb limit at which researchers calculated humans would experience a potentially lethal level of heat stress. Credit: Purdue University/Matthew Huber
> Reasonable worst-case scenarios for global warming could lead to deadly temperatures for humans in coming centuries, according to research findings from Purdue University and the University of New South Wales, Australia.
> 
> Researchers for the first time have calculated the highest tolerable "wet-bulb" temperature and found that this temperature could be exceeded for the first time in human history in future climate scenarios if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate.
> 
> Wet-bulb temperature is equivalent to what is felt when wet skin is exposed to moving air. It includes temperature and atmospheric humidity and is measured by covering a standard thermometer bulb with a wetted cloth and fully ventilating it.
> 
> The researchers calculated that humans and most mammals, which have internal body temperatures near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, will experience a potentially lethal level of heat stress at wet-bulb temperature above 95 degrees sustained for six hours or more, said Matthew Huber, the Purdue professor of earth and atmospheric sciences who co-authored the paper that will be published in Thursday's (May 6) issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
> 
> "Although areas of the world regularly see temperatures above 100 degrees, really high wet-bulb temperatures are rare," Huber said. "This is because the hottest areas normally have low humidity, like the 'dry heat' referred to in Arizona. When it is dry, we are able to cool our bodies through perspiration and can remain fairly comfortable. The highest wet-bulb temperatures ever recorded were in places like Saudi Arabia near the coast where winds occasionally bring extremely hot, humid ocean air over hot land leading to unbearably stifling conditions, which fortunately are short-lived today."
> 
> The study did not provide new evaluations of the likelihood of future climate scenarios, but explored the impacts of warming. The challenges presented by the future climate scenarios are daunting in their scale and severity, he said.
> 
> "Whole countries would intermittently be subject to severe heat stress requiring large-scale adaptation efforts," Huber said. "One can imagine that such efforts, for example the wider adoption of air conditioning, would cause the power requirements to soar, and the affordability of such approaches is in question for much of the Third World that would bear the brunt of these impacts. In addition, the livestock on which we rely would still be exposed, and it would make any form of outside work hazardous."
> 
> While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change central estimates of business-as-usual warming by 2100 are seven degrees Fahrenheit, eventual warming of 25 degrees is feasible, he said.
> 
> "We found that a warming of 12 degrees Fahrenheit would cause some areas of the world to surpass the wet-bulb temperature limit, and a 21-degree warming would put half of the world's population in an uninhabitable environment," Huber said. "When it comes to evaluating the risk of carbon emissions, such worst-case scenarios need to be taken into account. It's the difference between a game of roulette and playing Russian roulette with a pistol. Sometimes the stakes are too high, even if there is only a small chance of losing."
> 
> Steven Sherwood, the professor at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, Australia, who is the paper's lead author, said prolonged wet-bulb temperatures above 95 degrees would be intolerable after a matter of hours.
> 
> "The wet-bulb limit is basically the point at which one would overheat even if they were naked in the shade, soaking wet and standing in front of a large fan," Sherwood said. "Although we are very unlikely to reach such temperatures this century, they could happen in the next."
> 
> Humans at rest generate about 100 watts of energy from metabolic activity. Wet-bulb temperature estimates provide upper limits on the ability of people to cool themselves by sweating and otherwise dissipating this heat, he said. In order for the heat dissipation process to work, the surrounding air must be cooler than the skin, which must be cooler than the core body temperature. The cooler skin is then able to absorb excess heat from the core and release it into the environment. If the wet-bulb temperature is warmer than the temperature of the skin, metabolic heat cannot be released and potentially dangerous overheating can ensue depending on the magnitude and duration of the heat stress.
> 
> The National Science Foundation-funded research investigated the long-term implications of sustained greenhouse gas emissions on climate extremes. The team used climate models to compare the peak wet-bulb temperatures to the global temperatures for various climate simulations and found that the peak wet-bulb temperature rises approximately 1 degree Centigrade for every degree Centigrade increase in tropical mean temperature.
> 
> Huber did the climate modeling on supercomputers operated by Information Technology at Purdue (ITaP), Purdue's central information technology organization. Sherwood performed the wet-bulb calculations.
> *
> "These temperatures haven't been seen during the existence of hominids, but they did occur about 50 million years ago, and it is a legitimate possibility that the Earth could see such temperatures again," *Huber said. "If we consider these worst-case scenarios early enough, perhaps we can do something to address the risk through mitigation or new technological advancements that will allow us to adapt."
> 
> More information: Paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/04/26/0913352107.abstract


but do keep your head buried...temps more stable down there.....for a while.


----------



## Macfury

Does he actually read these posts, folks?



> The study did not provide new evaluations of the likelihood of future climate scenarios, but explored the impacts of warming.


If I extrapolated the cooling trend between September 25th and February 6th, we'd be approaching absolute zero within decades.


----------



## FeXL

> While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change central estimates of business-as-usual warming by 2100 are seven degrees Fahrenheit, eventual warming of 25 degrees is feasible, he said.


Ah, yes, the infallibility of the infamous IPCC. That wonderful cross section of researchers that swear 100% of their work is based on peer reviewed literature. Snowmobile lobbyists, climbing magazines, forestry trade magazines, press releases, scribbles on the outhouse wall, encrypted notes written on napkins with lemon juice passed back & forth in class, secret handshakes, etc. Fully 30% of the citations noted in their gold standard climate bible (over 5500 of 18,000+) were not published in peer-reviewed academic journals.

Any body/paper that cites the International Panel of Climate Crooks as anything other than a crock of BS is full of BS.

Denier, indeed...


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> Does ha actually read these posts, folks?
> 
> If I extrapolated the cooling trend between September 25th and February 6th, we'd be approaching absolute zero within decades.



Pull your head out of the sand; doomsday scenarios are for a good cause:



> "If we consider these worst-case scenarios early enough, perhaps we can do something to address the risk through mitigation or new technological advancements that will allow us to adapt."


You're not averse to a little duplicity in the name of engineering good behaviour, are you?


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> Any body/paper that cites the International Panel of Climate Crooks as anything other than a crock of BS is full of BS.
> 
> Denier, indeed...


Yep . . .


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> You're not averse to a little duplicity in the name of engineering good behaviour, are you?


I first want Ontario Power Generation to achieve the capacity to generate enough electricity to run air conditioners during the hottest days in summer--then I might consider my own "behaviour."


----------



## MacDoc

Heat island..



> *Rare 114-Year Record, Kept by Generations, Logs Changing Climate*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The rain gauge at Mohonk is the brass 1896 original, supplied by the US Weather Bureau (now called the National Weather Service). (Credit: Linda Keyes/Courtesy Mohonk Preserve)_
> 
> ScienceDaily (May 7, 2010) — Every day since Jan. 1, 1896, an observer has hiked to a spot at The Mohonk Preserve, a resort and nature area some 90 miles north of New York City, to record daily temperature and other conditions there. It is the rarest of the rare: a weather station that has never missed a day of temperature recording; never been moved; never seen its surroundings change; and never been tended by anyone but a short, continuous line of family and friends, using the same methods, for 114 years.
> 
> On top of that, observers have for decades recorded related phenomena such as first appearances of spring peepers, migratory birds and blooming plants. At a time when scientists are wrestling to ensure that temperature readings from thousands of divergent weather stations can be accurately compared with one another to form a large-scale picture, Mohonk offers a powerful confirmation of warming climate, as well as a compelling multigenerational yarn.
> 
> The story is told in an article by researchers from Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Mohonk in the current issue of the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology.
> 
> Mohonk was founded in 1869 by the Smileys, a close-knit Quaker family that still runs the 7,200-acre property on a high ridge in the Shawangunk Mountains. When the fledgling United States Weather Bureau (later the National Weather Service) founded an official station there, it supplied thermometers, log sheets and other materials; Albert K. Smiley, one of the twin brothers who founded the place, volunteered to man it. The thermometer (occasionally replaced by a new duplicate over the decades) has always been kept in a box out of direct sun, in the same place, a short walk from the Mohonk hotel; a brass rain gauge at the end of a boat dock is the 1896 original. In 1906, Albert's half-brother, Daniel, took over the readings.
> 
> In 1930, Daniel's sons Bert and Doc followed. In 1937, Bert's son Daniel Smiley Jr., picked up the job. In addition, Daniel Jr., an old-school amateur naturalist, started recording many other observations, including first spring sightings of various creatures, on some 15,000 index cards. In 1988, the year before Daniel Jr. passed away, he handed his duties to Paul Huth, a longtime friend and employee. Today Huth or one of his staff still walks up to the box at 4 pm every day. The weather log, for many decades kept on hand-written sheets, lacks only 37 days of precipitation data from 1901, 1908 and 1909, due to a missing data sheet, and a few days when observers apparently didn't look at the rain gauge. The temperature record is complete.
> 
> Enter another father-son team. In 1971, Edward R. Cook, then serving as a military policeman at nearby West Point, became friends with Daniel Smiley Jr. Later, Cook became a tree-ring scientist and climatologist at Lamont, and began studying conifer trees at Mohonk--some of which turned out to be over 400 years old. From these, he extracted a rough record of weather in the Hudson Valley before Europeans settled. Then Edward Cook's son, Benjamin I. Cook, became a climate modeler at Lamont. It was under Benjamin's leadership that the Cooks and their colleagues at Mohonk began studying the instrumental readings and other data.
> 
> Starting in 1990s, Mohonk staffers spent hundreds of hours digitizing the records so they could be analyzed. "It is incredibly rare to have the level of continuity that we have at Mohonk," said Benjamin Cook. "Any one record cannot tell you anything definitively about climate globally or even regionally. But looking closely at sites like this can boost our confidence in the general trends that we see elsewhere, and in other records."
> 
> Indeed, the new study finds remarkable correlations with many other widely spread, but less continuous records.* At Mohonk, average annual temperatures from 1896-2006 went up 2.63 degrees Fahrenheit. Global measurements in the same time over both land and oceans put the rise at about 1.2 to 1.4 degrees; but land temperatures are rising faster than those over the oceans*, and those at Mohonk track the expected land trend closely. As expected also, temperatures are up in all seasons, but increases have been especially evident in summer heat waves, and this has been accelerating in recent years. Prior to 1980, it was rare for the thermometer to surpass about 89 degrees more than 10 days a year; since then, such events have come to Mohonk on at least 10 days a year -- and often, on more than 20 days. At the same time, the number of freezing days has been decreasing--about a day less every five years over the long term, but since the 1970s, at the accelerated rate of a day every two years. This also matches wide-scale observations in North America and elsewhere.
> 
> The Mohonk records do not match wider trends in one area. The start of the growing season -- the date on which freezing temperatures end -- has been advancing steadily in many places, but not here. Instead, the total number of yearly above-freezing days is increasing because more unusually warm days are puncturing the winter. As described in an earlier study in the International Journal of Climatology, also by the Cooks and Mohonk staff, the effect has been a sort of an intermittent false spring that may expose some early-flowering plants to frost damage. The earliest flowering native plants like hepatica, bloodroot and red-berried elder are likely to be most affected, said Benjamin Cook. He said it is still too early to tell the ecological effects of such disruptions, but added: "The data from Mohonk will be invaluable for expanding our knowledge of how ecosystems respond to climate change." Temperature data after 2006 has not yet been analyzed, but Mohonk maintains an up-to-date online archive of the weather data accessible to the public.
> 
> The new study comes at a time when some skeptics have questioned the accuracy of long-term weather records, on the basis that many stations have been moved or that surroundings have changed, occasionally putting instruments nearer to buildings, parking lots or other possible heat sources that could skew readings upward. However, recent studies including one by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have found that such year-to-year inconsistencies cut both ways, and that instruments near developed spots actually more often read too cool rather than too hot. Researchers say every effort has been made to adjust for errors, and that errors one way or the other at individual stations basically cancel each other out, leaving the averages correct.
> 
> "Pictures, anecdotes, and cursory glances of poorly sited or maintained sites and weather stations may suggest problems, but until the data is analyzed it is impossible to conclude that the record is compromised by cold or warm biases," said Cook. "The advantage to Mohonk is that we can revisit the record in detail, with minimal corrections. This helps confirm the large-scale trends, and it helps us identify stations with errors that need to be corrected."
> 
> As for the long history behind the studies, he said: "We and the Smileys all just happened to be in the right place, at the right time."


Rare 114-year record, kept by generations, logs changing climate


----------



## Macfury

C-Questor Carbon Markets and Climate Change News Letter: Heated Exchange Over Climate




> Heated Exchange Over Climate
> By PAUL GLADER
> Linda Keyes
> The placement of the brass rain gauge at the end of a boat dock at Mohonk Preserve in New Paltz has been criticized.
> Weather experts are tangling over a 114-year-old thermometer at the Mohonk Preserve, New York's largest nonprofit nature preserve.
> Set on a rocky spot near the Mohonk Mountain House close by the Hudson River in New Paltz, the white thermometer box has been visited by weather observers every day between 4 and 5 p.m. since 1896. While there, the observers record the high and low temperatures for the past 24 hours.
> In an article appearing in the current issue of the "Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology," academics from Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory say that the century-old weather station at the preserve offers a powerful commentary on climate change. "The site is optimal for daily climate analysis," write Ben Cook and his co-authors, noting that the station has been in the same spot and has had methodical recording over the years.
> The Mohonk Preserve regularly invites research scientists to analyze its meticulously collected historical data on weather, plant life and wildlife for patterns related to climate change and other factors.
> Self-described climate-change critic Anthony Watts of Chico, Calif., questions such claims following a 2009 investigation of the Mohonk site by surfacestations.org, a website that researches and challenges climate station records and surveys. The former TV weather forecaster and weather equipment entrepreneur notes that the thermometer box is wind-sheltered and is situated near artificial heat sources, such as a building with a chimney, and that there are trees nearby, the shade and reflections from which can influence temperature readings.
> 
> He also notes the thermometer box is 29 inches from the ground; 59 inches is the standard. "They err in saying that site is optimal," said Mr. Watts. "The lower the thermometer and closer to the surface of the earth it is, the warmer the temperature."
> Mohonk botanist Paul C. Huth, who has taken weather records for 36 years, agrees the site has flaws but said it can't be changed. "We're trying to maintain a standard of method and observation."
> Mr. Watts also criticizes the placement of the brass rain gauge at the end of a boat dock. "It makes me wonder how many kids dump Pepsi in there or peed," he said.
> Mr. Huth also shrugs off that criticism. "We're out there all the time," he said. "Attendants are well-trained to keep their eyes on the facilities."


----------



## SINC

The warmists will try anything to alarm us, won't they? 

Just like the IPCC, no comparable data to standards. Who do they think they are kidding?



> At Mohonk, average annual temperatures from 1896-2006 went up 2.63 degrees Fahrenheit. Global measurements in the same time over both land and oceans put the rise at about 1.2 to 1.4 degrees; but land temperatures are rising faster than those over the oceans,


Sure thing jocko when the thermometer practically lies on the ground compared to other reporting stations. Yeah, more good science there all right.


----------



## bryanc

*Read and make any effort you like to rebut*

A letter to Science, signed by 255 members of the national academy of sciences, including 11 nobel laureates:



> We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.
> Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."
> 
> For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.


link


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular...


I think they should be addressing their complaints to the climate scientists in particular, not the general public.


----------



## SINC

All this does is solidify my suspicions that scientists want their own way.


----------



## FeXL

(from the link, emphasis mine)



> Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically *driven by special interests or dogma*, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.


So, just what would anyone call the politically motivated claptrap of the IPCC? Is that not a special interest or dogma?

Sorry, forgot, it's a religion and you know what happens when you tamper with someone's religion...

Nor, either, has the IPCC made an "honest" effort to provide an alternative theory that...blah, blah, blah.

Sauce for the goose...



> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.


Pure, undiluted horsesh!t. From about 12 different angles...

The IPCC has indeed produced massive reports but, with over 5500 of 18,000 cited references non-peer reviewed, they are hardly comprehensive. Nor accurate.

I have no truck with honest mistakes. To err is to be human and all that. But when the head of the IPCC, the same lying jackal who sets a worldwide example of carbon restraint by having his driver chauffeur him to work a mile and back each day, looks at me and insists that the climate bible is based solely on source material published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and is proven wrong by rank amateurs, he and his organization carry absolutely no credibility.

None. Zip. Zero. So much for Nobel prize winners.

Bryan, as a scientist, how long would your credibility (and, subsequently, your career) last if you started citing "press releases, discussion papers, student theses, news clippings, and advocacy material produced by green groups" as peer-reviewed literature? (from nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com)

How many mistakes are acceptable before people start asking questions? How many holes in your argument before it becomes obvious that the balance of what you say is nothing more than a house of cards? How many "-gates" need to be revealed for the fallacies they are before the egg on your face becomes a permanent tattoo?

How much horsesh!t am I supposed to ingest before I projectile vomit in a spectacular, multi-hued fashion all over the whole drama?

Indeed, the errors may be corrected, but rarely, if ever, in a timely fashion and usually only after they've been made to look like the fools they are.

Also, I'd like someone, anyone, to show me where the IPCC has ever acknowledged that "Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate,". Or, for that matter, included it in their calculations or results.

Tired of hearing me dump on the IPCC? Then stop quoting them or citing articles that quote them as some sort of reliable reference.



> The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.


How much is man made? And, FWIW, I don't believe a snowy winter in Washington is confirmation of anything other than snowy weather at that point in space in time. I've lived in southern Alberta my whole life. I've seen snow every month of the year. I've also ridden my motorcycle on dry roads with no snow to be seen every month of the year. It's weather, not climate.



> Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.


Ah, the answer, "Most". Where's the proof? And don't dare start quoting the IPCC to me.



> The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities


It wouldn't take long to find a dozen examples of ancient cities currently underwater that were once thriving on dry land. It's been happening for millenia. 

Is there a possibility that our current habits are accelerating that process? Yup. Has mother nature been able to do that on her own for many years without man's help? Yup. You pays your money, you takes your chances.

There's been some recent archaeological discoveries in the Arctic, now that the ice has begun to melt. What I can't figure out is how and why upper Quaternary man managed to dig that deep into solid ice just to bury artifacts...



> We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un restrained burning of fossil fuels.


Fine. If there is so much information pointing to this, where is it? I know, I know. I can find it in scientific journals. If the need is so pressing, if the situation is so dire, then someone must have the drive to translate all that scientific gobbledygook into something the unwashed masses can comprehend. For the results (namely, support of the people instead of suspicion & disdain), that's gotta be worth it, no?

When I was in university, I was involved with paleontology. To this day it still intrigues the hell out of me. On any given day I can go online to New Scientist or Scientific American or a whole host of other sites and read about the latest paleontological discovery presented in a watered down fashion so that John Q Public can get the gist of the discovery. Astronomy? Same thing. Archaeology? Yup. Biology? Chemistry? Math? No prob. Most other disciplines? Ditto. 

I can get the meat of the issue without having to pore over the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, after I get my PhD in a dozen disparate disciplines.

If I so choose, I can then pursue the story in a scientific journal (which, BTW, I frequently do regarding paleontology).

Why is it so difficult to do the same with climate change?

Is it the science? Or is it the scientists? Or is it something else?

Want my support? Make me believe. Inform me. Spoon feed me if you must, but get the *truth* out there. Don't try to sell me some thinly disguised political agenda with 3 out of every 10 references as much use as Dr. Seuss and then come crying the blues because I don't believe anything that subsequently comes out of your mouth. Ever hear of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? A lesson not learned, apparently.

Oh, and then come shuffling across the floor like some recalcitrant schoolboy, head down and hat in hand, tear trails stark against the dirt on your face, looking for an even break from the public after you've lied to them and insulted their intelligence.

Wah, frickin' wah...

Cheers.


----------



## SINC

▲ Ohhhhhh, THAT was good! :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Oh, and then come shuffling across the floor like some recalcitrant schoolboy, head down and hat in hand, tear trails stark against the dirt on your face, looking for an even break from the public after you've lied to them and insulted their intelligence.
> 
> Wah, frickin' wah...
> 
> Cheers.


Amen!


----------



## eMacMan

Something I have been wondering about. 

Fred Singer's scientific reputation was pretty badly tarnished by his support of big tobacco. Knowing this, did the Gore Gang pay him to say that man-made Global warming was a hoax?

For a short time I actually thought there was something to the CO2 hoax based entirely on Singer's disavowal.


----------



## Macfury

I actually read the complete letter. What a self-serving crock of manure! If you follow that link from the StockPhoto image of the polar bear on an ice floe, the image is described as PhotoShopped--with the polar bear added!

""This images is a photoshop design. Polarbear, ice floe, ocean and sky are real, they were just not together in the way they are now.""



> We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them.


This after scientists called for the prosecution of "climate deniers."

Those opposing these scientists aren't avoiding action, They are declaring--and rightly so--that there is no reason for action.


----------



## FeXL

Food and Ethanol Shortages Imminent as Earth Enters New Cold Climate Era



> The SSRC has been the only US independent research organization to correctly predict in advance three of the most important events in all of climate science history. We accurately announced beforehand, the end of global warming, a long term drop in the Earth’s temperatures and most importantly the advent of a historic drop in the Sun’s output, a solar hibernation. The US government’s leading science organizations, NASA and NOAA have completely missed all three, as of course have United Nations climate change experts.


Now, I don't know if global warming is at or near its end.

I do, however, find their prediction interesting in the face of other opposition.


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> Food and Ethanol Shortages Imminent as Earth Enters New Cold Climate Era
> 
> Now, I don't know if global warming is at or near its end.
> 
> I do, however, find their prediction interesting in the face of other opposition.


Hmm, the unravelling continues, a thread at a time.


----------



## Macfury

Big question. If the warmists truly believe that CO2 has a warming effect on the planet, how many years of devastatingly cold temperatures would it take for them to start releasing CO2 deliberately?

My best guess is that crippling cold would be treated as "normal."


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> ...
> 
> My best guess is that crippling cold would be treated as "normal."


More likely as an inconvenient truth!


----------



## CubaMark

*Earth, 2300: Too hot for humans*



> The problem is that we cannot survive if our skin temperature exceeds 35 °C for more than a few hours. Although many people live and even work in temperatures of 45 °C or more, sweating keeps their skin cool as long as it's not too humid.
> .....
> At the moment, virtually nowhere on Earth has a wet-bulb temperature of more than 30 °C. But with a global rise of 11 °C, huge areas would have wet-bulb temperatures of more than 35 °C for part of the year. According to the climate model used by the team, these regions would include much of the eastern US, the entire Indian subcontinent, most of Australia and part of China.
> ....
> How likely are we to reach such a point? Well, under business-as-usual scenarios the current prediction is for a 4 °C to 7 °C increase by 2100. In other words, in the worst-case scenario if we carry on as we are, some of our children might just live to see small parts of the world start to become too hot for human habitation.
> 
> In fact, the same limits would apply to all mammals, including livestock.


(New Scientist)


----------



## MacDoc

To give that some perspective...that's only 4-5 generations out given today's longevity.


----------



## FeXL

To give *real* perspective...

The abstract of the article referred to in CM's New Scientist (NS) link contains absolutely no mention of a timeline. The author merely states that the human body cannot survive wet bulb temperatures above 35 degrees C.

Fine.

The fly in the ointment lies herein the NS article itself:



> How likely are we to reach such a point? Well, under business-as-usual scenarios the current prediction is for a 4 °C to 7 °C increase by 2100. In other words, in the worst-case scenario if we carry on as we are, some of our children might just live to see small parts of the world start to become too hot for human habitation.


Emphasis mine, the underlined text forwards you to this, of course, The Copenhagen (Hopenchangin?) Diagnosis: Climate Science Report. Of course, that wouldn't immediately be suspect now, would it?

In a very brief overview of the complete report, the authors repeatedly refer to the IPCC's AR4 report, Hadley's CRU data and data previously published by NASA/GISS and NOAA. All of this data is suspect for reasons which are apparent to anyone who is really informed on the subject and not merely another Henny Penny running around in a flap crying "The sky is falling!!!!"

The NS article states:



> "If warmings of 10 °C were really to occur in [the] next three centuries, the area of land likely rendered uninhabitable by heat stress would dwarf that affected by rising sea level," write Sherwood and co-author Matthew Huber of Purdue University in Indiana.


No sh!t, Sherlock. Sorry, I mean, Sherwood. 

If. Mighty big word that. Means squat.

Where's the proof it's gonna happen by 2300, AD? IPCC AR4? Puleaze...

More sensationalization for higher page counts for bigger revenues. The article would have been just as effective without the inclusion of the ninth paragraph, far more accurate and less offensive.


----------



## Macfury

Don't set your thermostats above 45 degrees kids. It's too warm! Sheesh....does this pass for scientific discourse among warmists?


----------



## MacDoc

> *Was Nashville flooding spurred by global warming?*
> May 6th, 2010
> 
> From Green Right Now Reports
> 
> Seeing the pictures of the flooding in Nashville this past week may have reminded you of other recent U.S. floods — in Fargo, Iowa City and the Mississippi River Valley.
> 
> And if you keep up with global warming, you may be wondering if this trend isn’t proving what scientists have been telling us about extreme rain events growing more severe and more frequent under climate change.
> 
> That question certainly came up in Nashville, according Rich Hayes, deputy communications director at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a Nashville resident.
> 
> “A lot of my friends here have asked me if this disaster is related to global warming. The fact is that climate change increases the probability of some types of weather, including heavy rains and flooding. As average temperatures rise, more rain falls during the heaviest downpours. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we experienced in Nashville over the weekend,” Hayes said in a prepared statement on Thursday.
> 
> “Warmer air holds more moisture. We’ve all seen it. Next time you take a shower, notice how the water vapor hangs in the warm air after you turn off the hot water. When warm air holding moisture meets cooler air in the atmosphere, the moisture can condense onto tiny particles to form floating droplets. If those drops get bigger and become heavy enough, they fall as precipitation.
> 
> Hayes went on to cite a report by the United States Global Change Research Program, a collaborative effort involving 13 federal agencies, which found that “one of the most pronounced precipitation trends in the United States is the increasing frequency and intensity of heavy downpours.”
> 
> As for those climate skeptics who might think the Nashville event is just an extreme example of an otherwise good thing, i.e., more rain. Listen in to the rest of what that report predicts:
> 
> “More precipitation is falling during very heavy events, often with longer dry periods in between. Climate models project more heavy downpours and fewer light precipitation events.”
> 
> In other words, we get rain that doesn’t really work that well for us anymore. It comes in sudden, heavy downpours that produce a lot of runoff and erosion, and when the water can’t escape, flooding. In between, we get dry spells. Ask any farmer if this is a good thing.
> 
> It would be akin to having water to drink one week, but no water the next. Most organisms can’t live that way.
> 
> Hayes goes on to note that the rain that fell on Nashville was undoubtedly outside the norm. A record of 13 inches fell on Saturday and Sunday, nearly double the previous record set in 1979, and that followed a hurricane.
> 
> All these flood events are different. Fargo and the Mississippi Valley had their own distinct issues. Fargo faced rapid heavy snow melt. In Iowa, the flooding was exacerbated by monoculture farming that has left the flat lands susceptible to run off. But they seem to be happening more frequently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Increases in Very Heavy Precipitation 1958-2007 (Image: U.S. Global Change Research Program)_
> 
> In Nashville, the sheer volume of rain in a short time overwhelmed the city. Unfortunately, under climate change models, what’s been outside the norm is becoming the norm.
> 
> *The report cited by Hayes notes that “very heavy rain and snow events, defined as the heaviest 1 percent of all precipitation events, now drop 67 percent more water on the Northeast; 31 percent more on the Midwest and 20 percent more on the Southeast than they did 50 years ago.*” (See image above from the USGCRP.)
> 
> “If the fossil fuel emissions that cause global warming continue unabated, scientists expect the amount of rainfall during the heaviest precipitation events across the country to increase more than 40 percent by the end of the century. Even if we dramatically curbed emissions, these downpours would still increase, but by only a little more than 20 percent,” according to the UCS statement.
> 
> “It’s going to take Nashville a long time to recover from the flooding,” says Hayes. “But when the flood waters do recede, and local officials turn to the question of how we plan for the future, they need to take climate change into account.”


ABC7.com Green Content - Was Nashville flooding spurred by global warming?

Isn't the Anthropocene fun.....


----------



## Macfury

Flood damage spurred by building on flood plains.

I love how they go from a sort of quizzical stance to predicting the exact amount of rain that will fall based on CO2 emissions. There is no solid science behind this--just a computer model that increases precipitation as you increase CO2 inputs.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Isn't the Anthropocene fun.....


Well, some of its denizens are certainly good for a laugh. I guess that's fun...


----------



## eMacMan

Sorry MacDoc but not outside the norm as this Jan 20, 1882 article will illustrate.

FLOODS SOUTH AND WEST.; A LARGE PART OF NASHVILLE INUNDATED-- SOUTHERN... - Article Preview - The New York Times



> NASHVILLE, Tenn., Jan. 19.--The Cumberland River continues to rise slowly, with about 53 feet marked by Broad-street gauge. The river is reported falling above, but as a heavy rain fell there yesterday, it is thought that another rise will occur.


Sorry but the full article is a pdf image file but the link will allow you to down load it.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Sorry MacDoc but not outside the norm as this Jan 20, 1882 article will illustrate.


Yeah but MacDoc's article cherry-picked data from 1957 on so don't try to ruin his charade. 

Hey, where's MacDoc gone? Dumped another flatulent nugget and gone like stink. 

Has he attempted to debate even one of his feeble posts?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Has he attempted to debate even one of his feeble posts?


I don't know about MacDoc, but I certainly haven't debated any climate change science, because I know I'm not qualified to do so. The only point I've made is that neither are you, nor is anyone else here. So unless you or the other deniers want to spend a decade or two becoming sufficiently expert in the field to have an *informed* opinion, you're just some guys spewing nonsense on the internet.

Meanwhile, the scientists who know what they're talking about continue to agree that anthropogenic climate change has been and continues to occur at an accelerating rate, and that potentially dire consequences are likely if we don't change course. Given that the changes they're promoting are largely beneficial with respect to other obvious problems (like pollution and the dependence of our economies on foreign oil), there seems no rational objection to be raised.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Meanwhile, the scientists who know what they're talking about


Now there's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one about climate scientists.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I don't know about MacDoc, but I certainly haven't debated any climate change science, because I know I'm not qualified to do so


bryanc, this has become a very tired old song with you. If you don't feel qualified to debate these matters, then don't. If you feel that climate scientists have made a case sufficient for you to alter your lifestyle and economic decisions, why then your options are clear. 

The studies we are debating use cherry-picked data, and offer biases and flaws so obvious you can drive a fire truck through them, yet we're supposed to sit here dumbstruck and silent because the high priests of the science class have spoken?

That you would even uses such a term as "denier" shows your obvious bias--a bias that we've watched creep into so-called scientific endeavour in recent years. Climate science is a political hot potato with ideology and research grant cash shaping the outcome of experimentation. It's shocking that you have the temerity to ask us, after the monstrous revelations of recent years, to meekly listen to that august bunch. That horse has not only left the barn, it's put up a "For Sale" sign. What the hell year do you think this is, that you continue to represent scientists as some sort of privileged class, automatically deserving either respect or attention? "Scientist" is part of a job description like "judge" and "paper boy"--nothing more. 

And please don't come here mewling about the Scientific Method, which has been replaced by ideology in climate science years ago.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> I don't know about MacDoc, but I certainly haven't debated any climate change science, because I know I'm not qualified to do so. The only point I've made is that neither are you, nor is anyone else here. So unless you or the other deniers want to spend a decade or two becoming sufficiently expert in the field to have an *informed* opinion, you're just some guys spewing nonsense on the internet.
> 
> Meanwhile, the scientists who know what they're talking about continue to agree that anthropogenic climate change has been and continues to occur at an accelerating rate, and that potentially dire consequences are likely if we don't change course. Given that the changes they're promoting are largely beneficial with respect to other obvious problems (like pollution and the dependence of our economies on foreign oil), there seems no rational objection to be raised.


excellent reason why I don't take any of their posts here seriously. But, it makes them feel good though, I... guess. 

But I doubt they'll like you telling them they're not qualified experts.

EDIT: yup.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The studies we are debating use cherry-picked data, and offer biases and flaws so obvious you can drive a fire truck through them, yet we're supposed to sit here dumbstruck and silent because the high priests of the science class have spoken?


If you had even the faintest idea of what research studies looked like you'd recognize that what you have been "debating" are press-releases and popular media "science stories" not "studies."

Studies are published in peer-reviewed journals, and I seriously doubt anyone here has the background to understand the abstracts, let alone the data.

So feel free to continue whacking your favourite strawman, but try not to confuse it with science.


----------



## chasMac

bryanc said:


> ...I certainly haven't debated any climate change science, because I know I'm not qualified to do so.


I daresay, most of us are neither policitians nor political scientists. Yet we we debate it. I'd wager none of us are theologians or men of the cloth, go so far as to say the majority of members have only a rudimentary understanding of religion, yet we argue. I know next to nothing on lawn mowers; hasn't stopped me from contributing my two cents. 

I'm not sure I understand; does one have to be a credentialed expert to offer opinion; to enter into the fray of debate? Look at the context: by having an 'Everything Else' area on a forum devoted to a computer, we are practically admitting we are master of none. Were this a forum set up by the scientists at Hadley and Harvard, and one of us were to venture in and lay down a bomb of an argument, you'd certainly have a point. Here, I'd say anything goes.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Studies are published in peer-reviewed journals, and I seriously doubt anyone here has the background to understand the abstracts, let alone the data.


So you, who are self-admittedly unable to understand these studies, have chosen your stance, but become outraged when other choose theirs.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> I don't know about MacDoc, but I certainly haven't debated any climate change science, because I know I'm not qualified to do so. The only point I've made is that neither are you, nor is anyone else here.


So, what's the thrust here? Unless you're an expert, shaddup? MacDoc won't like that... 

There are currently 339 threads in Everything Else. How many "experts" do you suppose there are amongst the people who have created or contributed to them? Be a pretty quiet place if none of us was allowed to express an opinion.

You've currently 2908 posts. Was each and every one of them only posted in areas of your expertise?



bryanc said:


> So unless you or the other deniers want to spend a decade or two becoming sufficiently expert in the field to have an *informed* opinion, you're just some guys spewing nonsense on the internet.


My opinion is just as informed as anyone else's on these boards. Actually, judging by some of the garbage that some have bullied over the years, especially relating to AGW, I'm a bloody genius.



bryanc said:


> Meanwhile, the scientists who know what they're talking about continue to agree that anthropogenic climate change has been and continues to occur at an accelerating rate, and that potentially dire consequences are likely if we don't change course.


There are scientists out there who are eminently qualified who disagree. Are they wrong?



bryanc said:


> Given that the changes they're promoting are largely beneficial with respect to other obvious problems (like pollution and the dependence of our economies on foreign oil), there seems no rational objection to be raised.


No quibble.



bryanc said:


> If you had even the faintest idea of what research studies looked like you'd recognize that what you have been "debating" are press-releases and popular media "science stories" not "studies."


Actually, as MSM practically refuses to address the question, no. Far more likely bloggers who aren't afraid to ask the question. And, you may mock that source, but it's head & shoulders above 30% of what the IPCC considers peer reviewed journals.



bryanc said:


> Studies are published in peer-reviewed journals, and I seriously doubt anyone here has the background to understand the abstracts, let alone the data.


That's very arrogant, bryanc. I may disagree with your perspective but I respect it. However, that's just been lowered a notch. Or two.


----------



## Macfury

> Given that the changes they're promoting are largely beneficial with respect to other obvious problems (like pollution and the dependence of our economies on foreign oil), there seems no rational objection to be raised.


I disagree here. The concept is like telling someone that I'm going to declare sugar an illegal substance, because the results of controlling sugar would be beneficial to one's health. Or telling someone I'm going to sterilize them because it's better for the environment to control the population. _There is no rational objection to be raised to these goals._

There's a severe disconnect between "it is desirable to eventually stop using fossil fuels" and "we must discontinue fossil fuels or the world will face dire peril." They are two entirely different propositions, both with "desirable goals." 

Unfortunately, adopting the second proposition will cause severe economic dislocation and--even in the most optimistic GHG wet dream--will delay dire global warming by minutes or seconds to the tune of a fraction of a degree.


----------



## bryanc

chasMac said:


> I daresay, most of us are neither policitians nor political scientists. Yet we we debate it. I'd wager none of us are theologians or men of the cloth, go so far as to say the majority of members have only a rudimentary understanding of religion, yet we argue. I know next to nothing on lawn mowers; hasn't stopped me from contributing my two cents.


These are all perfectly fair points, and I agree that we all have opinions about things outside of our fields of expertise. And some of these issues, like public policy, are sufficiently complex and important that not all opinions are equal; those who have read and thought deeply about the subject have significantly more to contribute to the discussion than those who have not.

When venturing an opinion on a simple machine like a lawn mower, a general understanding of the mechanical principles, and/or some personal experience with the build quality of a given brand is plenty of expertise on which to base an opinion. However, if you were discussing the merits of various lawnmowers, and a 4-year-old chimed in with his opinion that "Fisher Price Rules!" you may be indulgent with regard to the child, but you probably won't go looking for the Fisher Price lawnmowers at your local Canadian Tire. Even with respect to simple topics, we don't (and shouldn't) take all opinions seriously.

With respect to current scientific research, I know from my own work, that it's effectively impossible for anyone who hasn't spent *MANY YEARS" studying the field to understand the data, let alone the inferences or the validity of these interpretations.

I don't have the expertise to critically evaluate the data with regard to climate research, so I must either refrain from forming an opinion, trust the consensus opinions of the researchers in the field (who, in this case are stunningly congruent in all important respects), or undertake educating myself to the extent that I can do my own independent analysis of the data. Given the agreement of so many of the experts on the analysis of this data, the latter option seems likely to be a massive waste of time, and given the congruence of scientific opinion on this issue the former option seems skeptical to the point of perversity.



FeXL said:


> So, what's the thrust here? Unless you're an expert, shaddup? MacDoc won't like that...


MacDoc actually seems to have spent far more time becoming informed about these issues than anyone else around here, but I wouldn't really mind if he stopped posting "scientific american" style pre-digested stuff, and instead posted more links to peer-reviewed research. Certainly in my experience, by the time anything gets to "New Scientist" or "Scientific American" it's been simplified to the point of being basically worthless.



MacFury said:


> So you, who are self-admittedly unable to understand these studies, have chosen your stance, but become outraged when other choose theirs.


I'm not outraged about anything, and you mistake the nature of my objection. I couldn't care less about your "stance", but rather your contention that the science is in some way invalid. Neither you nor I are even remotely qualified to make any judgement of the science. So choose your stance as you like, but be aware that you do so from a position of abject ignorance.



> There's a severe disconnect between "it is desirable to eventually stop using fossil fuels" and "we must discontinue fossil fuels or the world will face dire peril."


Really? Could you clarify? I see two statements saying we should stop using fossil fuels. One is more strident than the other, but there's certainly no disconnect in their message.



> Unfortunately, adopting the second proposition will cause severe economic dislocation and--even in the most optimistic GHG wet dream--will delay dire global warming by minutes or seconds to the tune of a fraction of a degree.


Here's where there's a disconnect. You're arguing that you know what will happen if a certain [vaguely defined] course of action is taken on the basis of pure fantasy. You clearly don't have the expertise to know what will happen if our GHG emissions are dramatically reduced, because, as we've already discussed, you don't understand the science (wether anyone else does or not is beside the point: you don't and yet you proclaim you know what will happen). I also seriously doubt you have the expertise to make these dire prognostications about the economic impacts of any course of action. Economics is a far less precise science than even climatology, and I'm not aware of your having any special expertise in that field either.

So while you deride the scientists who use the best predictive methods currently available and subject their efforts to critical peer-review as 'chicken little' doomsayers, you happily proclaim the end of the economic world on the basis of what? Your 'gut instinct? Maybe you should run for president.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> With respect to current scientific research, I know from my own work, that it's effectively impossible for anyone who hasn't spent *MANY YEARS" studying the field to understand the data, let alone the inferences or the validity of these interpretations.


If someone successfully proves that experimentation has been fudged or that a scientist has taken a kickback, has falsified results, or has promoted ideas based on ideology, then knowledge of the intricacies of their discoveries becomes far less relevant.

If I am told that the temperature is likely to go up by a large amount if fossil fuels continue to be burned, and then told that this is based on a computer model that results in raised temperatures when carbon inputs are raised, then I take issue. The model can only do what the scientist is telling it to do. 



bryanc said:


> I... trust the consensus opinions of the researchers in the field (who, in this case are stunningly congruent in all important respects), or undertake educating myself to the extent that I can do my own independent analysis of the data.


They are not stunningly congruent. They are at odds. That very idea is at issue in this debate.




bryanc said:


> I'm not outraged about anything, and you mistake the nature of my objection. I couldn't care less about your "stance", but rather your contention that the science is in some way invalid. Neither you nor I are even remotely qualified to make any judgement of the science. So choose your stance as you like, but be aware that you do so from a position of abject ignorance.


You claim abject ignorance for yourself. I make no such claim.




bryanc said:


> Really? Could you clarify? I see two statements saying we should stop using fossil fuels. One is more strident than the other, but there's certainly no disconnect in their message.


One involves desirability, while another imposes a totalitarian control.



bryanc said:


> Here's where there's a disconnect. You're arguing that you know what will happen if a certain [vaguely defined] course of action is taken on the basis of pure fantasy. You clearly don't have the expertise to know what will happen if our GHG emissions are dramatically reduced, because, as we've already discussed, you don't understand the science (wether anyone else does or not is beside the point: you don't and yet you proclaim you know what will happen). I also seriously doubt you have the expertise to make these dire prognostications about the economic impacts of any course of action. Economics is a far less precise science than even climatology, and I'm not aware of your having any special expertise in that field either.
> 
> So while you deride the scientists who use the best predictive methods currently available and subject their efforts to critical peer-review as 'chicken little' doomsayers, you happily proclaim the end of the economic world on the basis of what? Your 'gut instinct? Maybe you should run for president.


I have seen what happens to our economy when energy prices rise. I have seen it in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. I have seen it again in the past five years. Eliminating or severely reducing the use of fossil fuels raises the price of energy. Maybe it will turnout differently this time?


----------



## eMacMan

The universal message of the Chicken Little crowd is that massive carbon taxes combined with sending whatever is left over to the Gore Gang will solve the problem.

They forget the fact that neither of these methods will produce a car that sells for $10,000 CDN, is as safe as the currently marketed cars and gets 100 miles per US gallon. Nor will they allow a senior just squeaking by to improve the energy efficiency of their home sufficiently to offset the proposed increased costs of heating it.

Still if you honestly believe this claptrap, by all means send half of your savings and income to the federal government and the other half to Al Gore. Don't forget to max out the line of credit on your home and business and pass that along as well. In other words if you truly believe, live the life you preach.


----------



## chasMac

eMacMan said:


> Still if you honestly believe this claptrap, by all means send half of your savings and income to the federal government and the other half to Al Gore. Don't forget to max out the line of credit on your home and business and pass that along as well. In other words if you truly believe, live the life you preach.


Hah. The people you refer to think along the lines that everyone must participate in their plan for a better world. That's why they are so hell-bent on legislation. If only it were so simple as having the enviromentalists adhering to their beliefs and acting on them, and the sceptics theirs.


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> Hah. The people you refer to think along the lines that everyone must participate in their plan for a better world. That's why they are so hell-bent on legislation. If only it were so simple as having the enviromentalists adhering to their beliefs and acting on them, and the sceptics theirs.


This is why the gassers are content to "leave policy to the politicians." Because they will turn specious GHG research into laws.


----------



## eMacMan

chasMac said:


> Hah. The people you refer to think along the lines that everyone must participate in their plan for a better world. That's why they are so hell-bent on legislation. If only it were so simple as having the enviromentalists adhering to their beliefs and acting on them, and the sceptics theirs.


You can hardly call the Gore Worshippers environmentalists. After all they preach use of environmentally damaging light bulbs. Environmentally devastating hydro projects. Even Nuclear power plants that require weapons grade fuel and disposal of the same. 

You can call them suckers as they willing to sell out National sovereignty, the ability to buy food, heat their homes, and drive their cars all in the vague hope that reducing the atmospheric level of CO2 by 1/1000th of a percent will somehow prevent the sky from falling. This even though the ones telling them the sky is falling are the ones that are proposing to steal everything they have worked for.


----------



## SINC

I can't think of a better place to post this. So much for the science behind AGW:

*Odds Are Its Wrong*



> For better or for worse, science has long been married to mathematics. Generally it has been for the better. Especially since the days of Galileo and Newton, math has nurtured science. Rigorous mathematical methods have secured science’s fidelity to fact and conferred a timeless reliability to its findings.
> 
> During the past century, though, a mutant form of math has deflected science’s heart from the modes of calculation that had long served so faithfully. Science was seduced by statistics, the math rooted in the same principles that guarantee profits for Las Vegas casinos. Supposedly, the proper use of statistics makes relying on scientific results a safe bet. *But in practice, widespread misuse of statistical methods makes science more like a crapshoot.*
> 
> *It’s science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation.* Statistical tests are supposed to guide scientists in judging whether an experimental result reflects some real effect or is merely a random fluke, but the standard methods mix mutually inconsistent philosophies and offer no meaningful basis for making such decisions. Even when performed correctly, statistical tests are widely misunderstood and frequently misinterpreted. *As a result, countless conclusions in the scientific literature are erroneous,* and tests of medical dangers or treatments are often contradictory and confusing.
> 
> Replicating a result helps establish its validity more securely, but the common tactic of combining numerous studies into one analysis, while sound in principle, is seldom conducted properly in practice.
> 
> Experts in the math of probability and statistics are well aware of these problems and have for decades expressed concern about them in major journals. Over the years, hundreds of published papers have warned that science’s love affair with statistics has spawned countless illegitimate findings. In fact, if you believe what you read in the scientific literature, you shouldn’t believe what you read in the scientific literature.
> 
> *“There is increasing concern,” declared epidemiologist John Ioannidis in a highly cited 2005 paper in PLoS Medicine, “that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims.”*
> 
> Ioannidis claimed to prove that more than half of published findings are false, but his analysis came under fire for statistical shortcomings of its own. “It may be true, but he didn’t prove it,” says biostatistician Steven Goodman of the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health. On the other hand, says Goodman, the basic message stands. “There are more false claims made in the medical literature than anybody appreciates,” he says. “There’s no question about that.”
> 
> Nobody contends that all of science is wrong, or that it hasn’t compiled an impressive array of truths about the natural world. Still, any single scientific study alone is quite likely to be incorrect, thanks largely to the fact that the standard statistical system for drawing conclusions is, in essence, illogical. “A lot of scientists don’t understand statistics,” says Goodman. “And they don’t understand statistics because the statistics don’t make sense.”


Odds Are, It's Wrong - Science News


----------



## Macfury

SINC: When somebody creates a "model" that results in warmer temperatures as you add minute amounts of carbon-dioxide to the virtual atmosphere, it's no surprise that the model predicts a relationship between CO2 and warming. These are the results the model is created to produce. It's akin to predicting that if a child places a star shape on the end of the Play-Doh Fun Factory, that the Play-Doh will extrude in a star shape. As bryanc points out, we can never PROVE it will always come out in a star shape, for you see, science can't be counted on to provide such proofs. However, we CAN create a hypothesis that a star shape is produced, regardless of which colour Play-Doh is used.


----------



## MacDoc

An excellent and "illuminating" compendium of the climate change denier "phenomena" 

Quite the sordid tale

Denier vs Skeptic Greenfyre’s


----------



## Macfury

Never fear Maccy D: 



> “Doubt, indulged and cherished, is in danger of becoming denial; but if honest, and bent on thorough investigation, it may soon lead to full establishment of the truth.” – Ambrose Bierce


The investigation is complete. Come over to the light.


----------



## MacDoc

> The world's combined global land and ocean surface temperature made last month the warmest March on record, according to NOAA. Taken separately, average ocean temperatures were the warmest for any March and the global land surface was the fourth warmest for any March on record. Additionally, the planet has seen the fourth warmest January -- March period on record.
> 
> 
> The monthly National Climatic Data Center analysis, which is based on records going back to 1880, is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides government, business and community leaders so they can make informed decisions.
> *
> The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for March 2010 was the warmest on record at 56.3°F (13.5°C), which is 1.39°F (0.77°C) above the 20th century average of 54.9°F (12.7°C).
> 
> The worldwide ocean surface temperature was the highest for any March on record --1.01°F (0.56°C) above the 20th century average of 60.7°F (15.9°C).*
> 
> Separately, the global land surface temperature was 2.45°F (1.36°C) above the 20th century average of 40.8 °F (5.0°C) -- the fourth warmest on record. Warmer-than-normal conditions dominated the globe, especially in northern Africa, South Asia and Canada. Cooler-than-normal regions included Mongolia and eastern Russia, northern and western Europe, Mexico, northern Australia, western Alaska and the southeastern United States.


more
March 2010 to Hottest March on Record


----------



## Macfury

Note that the above NOAA readings have been recorded with the warm bias monitors active, but only a few northern monitors remaining after the recent disbanding of most of the northern posts. Temperatures in the hinterlands have been "estimated" based on the warm monitors. Made-to-order warming trend.


----------



## MacDoc

Unrelenting....it's getting hotter....the consequences are *now*...we're primarily responsible..



> *NASA: Easily the hottest April — and hottest Jan-April — in temperature record
> Plus a new record 12-month global temperature, as predicted*
> May 16, 2010


NASA: Easily the hottest April — and hottest Jan-April — in temperature record Climate Progress


----------



## eMacMan

From the Minnesotans for Global Warming site.



> *Al Gore's Carbon Footprint Gets Even Bigger*
> 
> 
> The Los Angeles Times reported last week that Al and Tipper Gore greatly expanded their carbon footprint with the purchase of their fourth luxury home. The 'global warming' business has been very, very good to the Gores.
> 
> Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal... The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.
> *
> Given the ocean-view, Gore really can't be too concerned with rising sea levels*
> 
> BTW If you look closely at the lamps in the lighting fixtures they ALL appear to be incandescents!


YouTube - Gore's New House

and this



> *'Climate Change Scientists' Numbers Dropping Dramatically*
> 
> By Elmer on May 7, 2010 10:03 AM | 6 Comments  | No TrackBacks
> 
> By Elmer Beauregard
> *There used to be 2,500 scientist who believe in Global Warming now there are only 250. *
> Today in a desperate attempt to restore their reputations a mere 250 scientists came forward to do damage control from the hacked emails that exposed their Ponzi scheme last fall.
> The open letter, signed by only 11 Nobel laureates, and published in the May 7 issue of the journal Science, reads, "When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action."
> It seems they have also created a new category of scientist, they call themselves "Climate Change Scientists". Which I think makes them seem more like a political group then a scientific one, because they are already assuming the science is proven and are moving on with a political agenda.
> On the other side of the debate 31,000 regular old "Scientists" have signed a petition saying they don't believe in Global Warming.
> So let's see, that means *123 Out Of 124 Scientist DON'T Believe in Global Warming!*


----------



## MacDoc

Sure 

Meanwhile in reality..



> *Continued high temperatures in the Arctic* Despite the late ice growth, Arctic air temperatures remained persistently warmer than average throughout the winter and early spring season. April temperatures were about 3 to 4 degrees Celsius (5 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) above average across much of the Arctic Ocean,* and up to 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal in northern Canada.* Conditions in the Arctic were part of a trend of warmer temperatures worldwide in the past few months. An exception was the Sea of Okhotsk, where cool April conditions and northerly winds have slowed the rate of ice retreat. Visit the NASA GISS temperatures Web site for more information on global and Arctic temperatures over the past few months.


Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

••



> *STATE OF DENIAL*
> From climate change to vaccines, evolution to flu, denialists are on the march. Why are so many people *refusing to accept what the evidence is telling them?*
> 
> In this special feature we look at the phenomenon in depth. What is denial? What attracts people to it? How does it start, and how does it spread? And finally, how should we respond to it?


Special report: Living in denial - New Scientist


----------



## SINC

Replace the northern monitors so they compare directly like they used to and the change would be very different. Until you can provide data that compares apples to apples, posting such "engineered drivel" is just that, drivel.


----------



## Macfury

SINC: Even if NOAA and NASA could regain their credibility, and then prove that March was the warmest on record, they would still need to show that this was caused by CO2. Showing me a computer model that merely spits out increased temperatures as CO2 inputs are increased is not a valid proof. I can prove to people that making PacMan eat power pills causes an increase in the number of ghosts--because that's what the arcade game was designed to do.


----------



## MannyP Design

MacDoc said:


> Sure
> 
> Meanwhile in reality..
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


Funny. I've posted that site before and people gave me $h!t for it. Odd how we've come full circle. :lmao:

What's amazing is that you're ignoring that the temperatures are recovering from the 2007 thaw that alarmed everybody. It's since been on a recovery and is shy of the average.

The average temperatures in May 2010 vs. May 2008 is considerably different—the arctic is currently in negative temperatures (hovering around -3°C) whereas 2008, the temp was +10°C (and up).

The temperatures are colder and ice is growing year over year.

That's the _reality_.


----------



## Macfury

MannyP Design said:


> Funny. I've posted that site before and people gave me $h!t for it. Odd how we've come full circle


Yeah, but you made the mistake of reading it. Maccy D is innocent of that crime.


----------



## Macfury

I don't know the source of this cartoon:


----------



## Macfury

Here's one for bryanc regarding the separation of science and politics. If I recall correctly, this sort of thing just doesn't happen, as scientists indulge in pure science--not politics.



> *US top scientists urge coal, oil use penalties*
> 
> The nation's top scientists say global warming is so urgent that the United States must make it more expensive to use coal and oil.
> 
> The National Academy of Sciences, an advisory panel to the government, is taking the unusual step of urging specific actions to curb global warming. Normally, the academy speaks out on scientific matters but doesn't recommend policy.
> 
> The academy says the nation needs to cut its greenhouse gas emissions from 57 to 83 percent by 2050. That's about what President Barack Obama has called for. The academy says the way to do that is through a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system that would limit pollution from carbon dioxide, a major contributor to global warming.


US top scientists urge coal, oil use penalties - BusinessWeek


----------



## eMacMan

I do wish when they publish this sort of garbage the author would take the time to see if the individual has invested heavily in the Cap & Trade Ponzi scheme. Beyond that, the BO administration is slobbering all over the prospect of a blue sky tax.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Here's one for bryanc regarding the separation of science and politics. If I recall correctly, this sort of thing just doesn't happen, as scientists indulge in pure science--not politics.


Maybe on your planet. On my planet scientists are people and have political opinions and agendas just like everyone else.

The difference is that scientists are required to defend their positions using empirical evidence and logic, against the best minds in the world - people who have the acumen and expertise to find flaws and shoot holes in any interpretation of data that isn't fully supported by the observable facts.

That means that when mistakes are made, they get caught. This has clearly happened in the climate change field recently. People either honestly or dishonestly over/misinterpreted their data and they got caught. That how the system works. This would be a non-issue if it weren't for the politics now encumbering this field.

The interesting thing here is that even after the discredited research is removed, the conclusions remain unchanged:



National Academy of Sciences said:


> The compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence ... While noting that there is always more to learn and that the scientific process is never "closed," the report emphasizes that multiple lines of evidence support scientific understanding of climate change. The core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.


As I have said all along in this discussion, I don't have a dog in this fight. I have too much too do to invest the time and energy in developing the expertise necessary to rationally analyze the primary data on my own, so I have to rely on the analysis of the experts or refrain from forming an opinion on this issue. What I object to is a bunch of arm-chair analysts claiming that their naive interpretation of partial data should be considered equally to the consensus of decades-worth of effort by thousands of trained experts using every type of empirical and analytical tool available.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but unless you can demonstrate you have some significant expertise in the field, it isn't worth the electrons inconvenienced in transmitting it.


----------



## eMacMan

Uh Bryanc, one of the issues is that MM and AG are fighting tooth and nail to make sure the primary data remains unavailable to the non-believers. 

A red flag for anyone that cannot afford to see $10,000+/year of their families hard earned capital go to things like Carbon Taxes and the Al Gore engorgement fund.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Maybe on your planet. On my planet scientists are people and have political opinions and agendas just like everyone else.


This statement was a long time coming. I thank you for your honesty.



bryanc said:


> The difference is that scientists are required to defend their positions using empirical evidence and logic, against the best minds in the world - people who have the acumen and expertise to find flaws and shoot holes in any interpretation of data that isn't fully supported by the observable facts.


People (other scientists) are shooting holes in it--big ones. But the AGW academics are starting to look like the Monty Python Black Knight.



bryanc said:


> The interesting thing here is that even after the discredited research is removed, the conclusions remain unchanged.


That's not interesting--it's simply not true, since AGW is still an outre theory. Sure, the people who have been discredited say that their conclusions are unchanged. What else do you expect them to say: "We lied AND the conclusions of our studies have changed"?



bryanc said:


> You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but unless you can demonstrate you have some significant expertise in the field, it isn't worth the electrons inconvenienced in transmitting it.


bryanc. while I enjoy your contributions, I would never ask you to waste your electrons in addressing me.


----------



## MacDoc

> *Record heat recorded for Africa's greatest lake
> By Daniel Howden in Nairobi
> Tuesday, 18 May 201
> 
> Africa's deepest lake is warming at an "unprecedented" rate thanks to man-made climate change, scientists have warned*. Lake Tanganyika, which stretches from Burundi and DR Congo on its northern shores to southern Tanzania and Zambia, is the second largest lake in the world by volume.
> 
> The 420-mile-long finger of water in south-central Africa is now warmer than at any point in the last 1,500 years, according to research published in the journal Nature Geoscience, and the consequences could be dire for the 10 million people who live around it and depend on its fisheries.
> *
> "Our records indicate that changes in the temperature of Lake Tanganyika in the past few decades exceed previous natural variability,*" the paper found. _*"We conclude that these unprecedented temperatures and a corresponding decrease in productivity can be attributed to anthropogenic global warming.*_"


more

Record heat recorded for Africa's greatest lake - Africa, World - The Independent

and




> Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across U.S.
> February 11, 2010












Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across U.S. Climate Progress


----------



## Macfury

Note that recent study of seaside fossils indicates the opposite of the above study, indicating that the world was much warmer during the time of Nero and Julius Caesar than it is today. The debate is not settled, and the studies are not conclusive.

EDITORIAL: Nero was hotter than Al Gore - Washington Times

Two millennia of North Atlantic seasonality and implications for Norse colonies ? PNAS


----------



## SINC

Once again the alarmists use cooked up information to try and convince people they are right. In every single case, the science has been wrong, just like this last one posted by MacDoc. Astonishing ineptness indeed.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> In every single case, the science has been wrong.


Really?!? I'm only aware of about a dozen cases (out of tens of thousands) where the research has been drawn into question, let alone proven incorrect.

Links?


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Really?!? I'm only aware of about a dozen cases (out of tens of thousands) where the research has been drawn into question, let alone proven incorrect.
> 
> Links?


Good thing the good scientists don't ever assume all scientists are always right. Otherwise Newtons's laws of gravity would never have been fine tuned by Einstein.

The problem with the AGW crowd is that they are creating the results desired by Al Gore and tax hungry governments around the world. Natural enough considering where their financing comes from.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Really?!? I'm only aware of about a dozen cases (out of tens of thousands) where the research has been drawn into question, let alone proven incorrect.
> 
> Links?


I haven't looked into the rest of the cases you refer to bryanc.

I figure there's enough bad science exposed and enough wiggling of figures to make me suspicious of all science.

If you choose to believe them, be my guest. I don't trust any of them any longer.

No surprise that a scientist would trust a scientist. It's kinda similar to a shark trusting a lawyer. Professional courtesy and all.


----------



## MacDoc

Got to 30 day - still gorgeous out at 7.30 pm



> The Water-Climate Relation
> 
> The second study, reported in this week's issue of the journal Nature, addresses how all this water can help scientists track global warming and predict its effects.
> 
> Led by John Lyman at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, this study involved a team of researchers from the United States, Germany, and Japan. They analyzed several different sets of ocean temperature measurements collected around the world from 1993 through 2008.
> 
> These measurements were made by different groups over this 16-year period using different assumptions. Some discrepancies between them arose because of the way the data was processed. Some swaths of ocean were not sampled as widely or as often as others. Changes in instrumentation have confused the issue further.
> 
> However, Lyman and colleagues standardized all the measurements and in doing so they found the same general trend for all the data.
> 
> "Although you see differences, they are all fairly consistent,” said Lyman.
> 
> They also averaged the results from these groups, which gave them the best estimate to date of the extent to which the top layers of the ocean have warmed over the last two decades. Lyman said that information is important because it is a good measure of global warming.
> 
> [b_]"Ninety percent of the energy [trapped by increased greenhouse gasses] goes into the ocean_,[/b]" said Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, an expert who was not involved in the NOAA study.
> 
> "It's important to track this in order to properly understand what is happening in the climate system," Trenberth said. "If you dump heat in the ocean and it gets moved around and reappears somewhere, it has consequences in terms of the weather patterns."
> 
> A climatologist at NASA who was not involved in the research said this week that the long-term trends in ocean warming presented in the new study have confirmed other results in the field.
> 
> "That's what the climate models were predicting would be happening," said Gavin Schmidt, the NASA climatologist. "It's a great paper."
> 
> Provided by Inside Science News Service


Oceans Smaller And Warmer

as I was commenting elsewhere on atmosphere temps being a small part of the issue...


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Oceans Smaller And Warmer
> as I was commenting elsewhere on atmosphere temps being a small part of the issue...


At least they finally know how much water is in all of the oceans--sheesh! You would have thought this would have to be standard knowledge with all of the pronouncements being made about them.

This part of the study report did not impress me:



> These measurements were made by different groups over this 16-year period using different assumptions. Some discrepancies between them arose because of the way the data was processed. Some swaths of ocean were not sampled as widely or as often as others. Changes in instrumentation have confused the issue further.


By the time you get to the zinger: 

*"Ninety percent of the energy [trapped by increased greenhouse gasses] goes into the ocean,*" 

we find that this conclusion has nothing to do with the study and the pronouncement was made by someone not involved in it: 



> ...said Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, *an expert who was not involved in the NOAA study*.


Finally, NOAA has been publicly excoriated for fudging its data figures using unsuitable proxies for surface weather stations that skew colder.

By the way, here is a review of that alarmist Lake Tanganyika article you posted earlier. If a study like that can be peer-reviewed and accepted by _Nature Magazine_, it seriously calls into question their editorial integrity,

Tanganyika Revisited | Watts Up With That?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> By the way, here is a review of that alarmist Lake Tanganyika article you posted earlier. If a study like that can be peer-reviewed and accepted by _Nature Magazine_, it seriously calls into question their editorial integrity,


There ya go, being all annoying again with facts and figures, not mere speculation, poor research and bad conclusions...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> There ya go, being all annoying again with facts and figures, not mere speculation, poor research and bad conclusions...


But you see FeXL, despite the failure of the facts, the conclusion still stands. It floats in mid-air, even after its support structure has been kicked to pieces.

This is the nature of peer-reviewed science.


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> There ya go, being all annoying again with facts and figures, not mere speculation, poor research and bad conclusions...


Yep, just more bullsh!t from the alarmists. Good catch Macfury.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> If a study like that can be peer-reviewed and accepted by _Nature Magazine_, it seriously calls into question their editorial integrity...












So is it safe to assume that you've submitted these oh-so-rational-and-obvious criticisms of this paper to the editors of _Nature_? Or are you not so keen to get into a debate with actual scientists with actual data who actually know what they're talking about?

Let us know how that goes. beejacon


----------



## Macfury

bryanc: as i have little respect for the journal Nature and its staff, why would I want to get in an argument with them about their editorial policies? I don't go back to restaurants that serve poor food and try to convince them to do better--I stop eating there. Likewise, I don't argue with the editors of religious publications about the content they select for publication--even though such articles are reviewed by a board of their peers.


----------



## FeXL

Sonuvagun. In a *real* peer reviewed journal (not the political butt-wipe IPCC AR4 is), no less.

Nero was hotter than Al Gore

As we're all terribly busy doing others things and it takes so much effort to perform yet another click, I've decided to MacDoc it:



> *The planet has never been warmer than it is right now*, if you believe what global warming alarmists have to say. Mankind's selfishness in producing "excessive" amounts of carbon dioxide has set us on a path toward global cataclysm, they insist. *The problem with this tale is that it neither fits with the historical record nor with a growing body of scientific evidence.*
> 
> The alarmists must imagine that 50 years before the birth of Christ, men like Julius Caesar spent their summers strolling the streets of Rome wearing sweaters to guard against catching a chill - instead of abandoning the sweltering capital in favor of temperate seaside villas. *A study published in the March 8 edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science casts further doubt on the warmist premise by concluding that the sun beat down more harshly on the Caesars than it did on anyone else in the past 2,000 years.*
> 
> Instead of using tree rings as a proxy for air temperature, the study's authors extracted data from sea shells preserved in deep sedimentary layers, using them as a proxy for sea temperature in the North Atlantic over the course of two millennia. *According to the study, the "reconstructed water temperatures for the Roman Warm Period in Iceland are higher than any temperatures recorded in modern times."* The heat lasted from approximately 230 B.C. to 140 A.D. After that, temperatures rose and fell over time with a second peak taking place during the better-known Medieval Warm Period.
> 
> The researchers confirmed their temperature estimates against records of human settlement patterns and descriptions found in Norse sagas and other historical writings. People settled in the region when it was warm; cold spells coincided with descriptions of famine.
> 
> *These facts will not sit well with the climate-change theocracy.* In order to sell the notion that global warming is a consequence of industrialized society, the fundamental article of the warmist faith must be that modern times are the hottest on record. Much like the ancient Romans, today's environmentalists believe extreme weather conditions are not a phenomenon with natural causes, but rather a portent of Mother Earth's displeasure with the choices made by the people. Whereas the ancients offered animal sacrifice to appease her wrath, the modern pagan offers carbon credits.
> 
> The punishment for failure to render carbon sacrifice is environmental disaster, according to the alarmist movement's high priest, Al Gore. The following easily could be a passage from his book "Earth in the Balance" describing the consequence of failure to act on climate change: "Either the scorching sun burns up your fields, or sudden rains or frosts destroy your harvests, or a violent wind carries away all before it." Inconveniently for Mr. Gore, the Roman poet Lucretius expressed those sentiments around 50 B.C. That's because weather back then was just as hot - or hotter - and as extreme as it is today.
> 
> *Other studies from around the world confirm the existence of Roman and Medieval warming periods, where no source of "greenhouse gases" existed aside from the horses and cows of the time.* For that reason, we encourage our senators to stab their daggers into the heart of cap-and-trade and all other legislation being promoted in the name of climate-change fiction.


The only thing more surprising is that MSM actually had the stones to report it...

Emphasis mine...


----------



## MacDoc

Or you'd have the foolishness to swallow the tripe - consider the source. 

How about some reality intruding on your political fantasy


> *Global Highlights*
> 
> 
> 
> The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for April 2010 was the warmest on record at 14.5°C (58.1°F), which is 0.76°C (1.37°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F). This was also the 34th consecutive April with global land and ocean temperatures above the 20th century average.
> The worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 16.0°C (60.9°F) and the warmest April on record. The warmth was most pronounced in the equatorial portions of the major oceans, especially the Atlantic.
> The April worldwide land surface temperature was 1.29°C (2.32°F) above the 20th century average of 8.1°C (46.5 °F)—the third warmest on record.
> For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 13.3°C (56.0°F) was the warmest January-April period. This value is 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average.


and we are heading well out of range of anything in the Holocene.

Regional anomalies are not global....our impact is....



> *How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?*
> 
> Link to this page
> *The skeptic argument...*
> 
> 
> *Medieval Warm Period was warmer*
> The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current conditions. This means recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made.
> 
> *What the science says...*
> 
> _*While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.*_
> 
> The Medieval Warm Period spanned 950 to 1250 AD and corresponded with warmer temperatures in certain regions. During this time, ice-free seas allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland. North America experienced prolonged droughts. Just how hot was the Medieval Warm Period? Was the globe warmer than now? To answer this question, one needs to look beyond warming in a few regions and view temperatures on a global scale.
> Prior temperature reconstructions tend to focus on the global average (or sometimes hemispheric average). To answer the question of the Medieval Warm Period, more than 1000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres were used to construct a global map of temperature change over the past 1500 years (Mann 2009). The Medieval Warm Period saw warm conditions over a large part of the North Atlantic, Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North America. In these regions, temperature appears to be warmer than the 1961–1990 baseline. In some areas, temperatures were even even as warm as today. However, certain regions such as central Eurasia, northwestern North America, and the tropical Pacific are substantially cooler compared to the 1961 to 1990 average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Figure 1: Reconstructed surface temperature anomaly for Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 A.D.), relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable._
> How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current conditions. Here is the temperature pattern for the last decade (1999 to 2008). What we see is widespread warming (with a few exceptions such as regional East Antarctic cooling)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Figure 3: Surface temperature anomaly for period 1999 to 2008, relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable (__NOAA__)._
> The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. Globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today.


How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

Do keep denying reality....it is amusing to watch the desperation set in...


----------



## MannyP Design

Keep swinging, MacDoc. At least your're consistent. :lmao:

P.S. Still no response on the last link you posted. I guess it's easier to just keep moving in the hopes nobody catches on.


----------



## Macfury

Of course, Maccy D--they know the temperature of the entire Medieval world because they just extrapolated for the rest of the planet where they have no records. 

Unbelievably your website is trying to trade on the authority of the discredited Michael Mann, of all people, to fill in the blanks.

Regarding the warmest April on record: nice the way the temps all spiked upward when NOAA eliminated most of the cold region thermometers and began extrapolating temperatures from warm locations.

I'm afraid YOUR desperation is the amusement here.


----------



## Macfury

MannyP Design said:


> Keep swinging, MacDoc. At least your're consistent. :lmao:
> 
> P.S. Still no response on the last link you posted. I guess it's easier to just keep moving in the hopes nobody catches on.


MacDoc keeps running without looking back!


----------



## MannyP Design

Well, since MacDoc wants to play a round of linky-dink, I see his link and raise another: EDITORIAL: Nero was hotter than Al Gore - Washington Times



> Instead of using tree rings as a proxy for air temperature, the study's authors extracted data from sea shells preserved in deep sedimentary layers, using them as a proxy for sea temperature in the North Atlantic over the course of two millennia. According to the study, the "reconstructed water temperatures for the Roman Warm Period in Iceland are higher than any temperatures recorded in modern times." The heat lasted from approximately 230 B.C. to 140 A.D. After that, temperatures rose and fell over time with a second peak taking place during the better-known Medieval Warm Period.
> 
> The researchers confirmed their temperature estimates against records of human settlement patterns and descriptions found in Norse sagas and other historical writings. People settled in the region when it was warm; cold spells coincided with descriptions of famine.
> 
> These facts will not sit well with the climate-change theocracy. In order to sell the notion that global warming is a consequence of industrialized society, the fundamental article of the warmist faith must be that modern times are the hottest on record. Much like the ancient Romans, today's environmentalists believe extreme weather conditions are not a phenomenon with natural causes, but rather a portent of Mother Earth's displeasure with the choices made by the people. Whereas the ancients offered animal sacrifice to appease her wrath, the modern pagan offers carbon credits.


----------



## SINC

MannyP Design said:


> Well, since MacDoc wants to play a round of linky-dink, I see his link and raise another: EDITORIAL: Nero was hotter than Al Gore - Washington Times


You're a tad behind with that article. FeXL posted it on the previous page and it was that post MD was reacting to. 

See post number 500:

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else...l-authoritative-ghg-thread-50.html#post970037


----------



## MannyP Design

SINC said:


> You're a tad behind with that article. FeXL posted it on the previous page and it was that post MD was reacting to.
> 
> See post number 500:
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else...l-authoritative-ghg-thread-50.html#post970037


Not behind, just reminding.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Or you'd have the foolishness to swallow the tripe - consider the source.


I do, MacDoc. I purely do. Every time you post something, whether here or on another thread. I jes' smiles an' shakes my head... 

Do keep rolling those eyes, though. I jes' knows yous not yourself without the ol' rollin' eyeballs.



MacDoc said:


> How about some reality intruding on your political fantasy


You want to talk politics? Take a look at any of the International Panel of Climate Crooks reports, in particular AR4. Politics, he says. Ever heard of the Goracle? Maybe carbon credits? Give me a break...



MacDoc said:


> and we are heading well out of range of anything in the Holocene.


According to what? Exactly which piece of proxy data are you using to measure temps before thermometers ? And, find me another piece of proxy data that supports the first, rather than presents a completely different set of conclusions. Better yet, find me an original dataset that hasn't already been lost, bastardized or otherwise heavily reconfigured to reach a foregone conclusion, rather than support or disprove a theory. Good luck.



MacDoc said:


> Regional anomalies are not global


A few regions, huh? Sounds more like half a hemisphere with solid evidence pointing to related effects south of the equator (link posted some time ago, better go back & brush up on your homework. Again... Do try to keep up. Having to stop class every time you require remedial study is beginning to bore the hell out of me... )



MacDoc said:


> Do keep denying reality....it is amusing to watch the desperation set in...


Not that I give a rat's backside what the general populace thinks, but, speaking of desperation, have you seen the drop in numbers of people who actually believe in AGW? Your side is long overdue for a bit of good news. When you find some, post it here. I'd be glad to debunk for you...


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


>


Nice link, Cuba. What's next? Crooks and Liars?


----------



## groovetube

CubaMark said:


>


brilliant. Sums up this thread perfectly.


----------



## Macfury

Groove, I think it looks like that cartoon if the links themselves make no sense to you.


----------



## groovetube

ah. 
:baby:


----------



## Macfury

In the old days, the catcalls would have been: "They're just arguing with ideas found in books."


----------



## SINC

Apollo Mission: A Giant Leap Contradicting Greenhouse Gas Theory

In case you missed it in the psychology thread.



> *NASA no longer shows any greenhouse gas "backradiation" in its relevant graphic representation of the energy budget of the Earth. In simple terms, GHG theory may have applied an “average temperature” method of no more use than a rule of thumb calculation.*


For once their methods are exposed as nothing more than guesses at best. :clap::clap:


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> In the old days, the catcalls would have been: "They're just arguing with ideas found in books."


I doubt the old days would have seen a catcall in reference to insignificant laymen...


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I doubt the old days would have seen a catcall in reference to insignificant laymen...


Certainly not if the caller could not understand the books.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Certainly not if the caller could not understand the books.


right. forgot there dr. macfury.


----------



## MacDoc

and perhaps the lowest in thousands of years....

This should answer the "natural variance" nonsense



> *Arctic ice at low point compared to recent geologic history*
> June 2, 2010 by Pam Frost Gorder Arctic ice at low point compared to recent geologic history
> 
> Leonid Polyak
> 
> *Less ice covers the Arctic today than at any time in recent geologic history.* That's the conclusion of an international group of researchers, who have compiled the first comprehensive history of Arctic ice.
> 
> For decades, scientists have strived to collect sediment cores from the difficult-to-access Arctic Ocean floor, to discover what the Arctic was like in the past. Their most recent goal: to bring a long-term perspective to the ice loss we see today.
> 
> Now, in an upcoming issue of Quarternary Science Reviews, a team led by Ohio State University has re-examined the data from past and ongoing studies -- nearly 300 in all -- and combined them to form a big-picture view of the pole's climate history stretching back millions of years.
> 
> "The ice loss that we see today -- the ice loss that started in the early 20th Century and sped up during the last 30 years --* appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years,*"


more
Arctic ice at low point compared to recent geologic history


----------



## Macfury

Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008

Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008 | Watts Up With That?


----------



## SINC

'Tis but one more example of warmists trying to pass off questionable data. I'll take the US Navy sub information over quacks from Ohio State every time. You see, the navy has lives depending on their accuracy.


----------



## MannyP Design

Macfury said:


> Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008
> 
> Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008 | Watts Up With That?


Ah, yes. That was covered in MacDoc's link a couple of pages back: Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

But he apparently failed to look at the data. :clap:

Maybe he was looking at the pretty colours. :lmao:


----------



## eMacMan

The Chicken Little crowd really needs to stop trying to hang their lost cause on the Arctic Ice pack hook. 

The North West passage was navigated and then closed several times in the 20th century. There is ample evidence that the Norsemen were plying the passage at the same time their settlements on Greenland were thriving. 

The fact that this keeps coming up is very solid evidence that the IPCC lacks viable evidence to back their man-made Global Warming catastrophic climate failure hypothesis.


----------



## Macfury

> R.A. Hall Elementary School fourth-grader Julisa Castillo has been named junior division champion for the 2010 National Science Fair. Her project, *“Disproving Global Warming,”* beat more than 50,000 other projects submitted by students from all over the U.S.
> 
> *“There is not enough evidence to prove global warming is occurring,”* fourth-grader Julisa Raquel Castillo concluded in a science project she entered in the campus’ annual science fair on Tuesday.



mySouTex.com - R A Hall fourth grader is science national champion


----------



## eMacMan

What's scary here is that a fourth grader can see through the BS and prove the point sufficiently to satisfy some pretty tough judging. Still our politicians would happily sell our senior citizens down the river with carbon taxation and credit schemes that would do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> What's scary here is that a fourth grader can see through the BS and prove the point sufficiently to satisfy some pretty tough judging...


Unfortunately, the award given the child--who believed she had won the prize--was some sort of hoax. The local media picked up the story, but it was later found that someone had fabricated an award, letter and other documents. Pretty damned low, whoever did it.


----------



## FeXL

Climate Science and the IPCC Fail Legal Cross Examination

The fact that this was a law study carries it's own funk, but that notwithstanding:



> In a surprising twist it compares the IPCC claims with _“the peer-edited scientific literature on climate change.”_ This is the literature that people like Naomi Oreske and many others tried to claim did not exist. A most damming comment holds, _“A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key process involved in climate change.”_
> .
> .
> .
> The article then identifies the procedures used to counteract any who questioned or tried to draw attention to other science. _“…in every important case, the establishment response is to question the reliability of the disconfirming evidence and then to find other evidence that is consistent with model predictions.”_ It’s a reasonable account of the activities and techniques of the people associated with Realclimate; the group set up to fend off attacks on the people at the CRU.
> 
> Finally, the article identifies the major issues that are at the heart of the debate.
> 
> *1. “Because of the system’s complexity and non – linearity, without a quite detailed understanding of the system, scientists cannot provide useful guidance regarding the impact on climate of increases in atmospheric ghg concentration.”
> 2. “As a large number of climate scientists have stressed, such an understanding will come about only if theoretical and model-driven predictions are tested against actual observational evidence.”
> 3. “…there is no indication that climate scientists are converging toward the use of standard observational datasets that they agree to be valid.”
> 4. “We should not be using public money to pay for faster and faster computers so that increasingly fine-grained climate models can be subjected to ever larger numbers of simulations until we have got the data to test whether the predictions of existing models are confirmed (or not disconfirmed) by the evidence.
> 5. “Policy carrying potential costs in the trillions of dollars ought not to be based on stories and photos confirming faith in models, but rather on precise and replicable testing of the models’ predictions against solid observational data.”
> 
> Legal analysis looks at the evidence, the motive and the modus operandi. Both these examples do this with perception and clarity to expose the extent to which climate science was perverted for political ends. The analysis indicates actions were deliberate and premeditated.*


Italics from the original. Bold mine.

Sums it up for me...


----------



## Macfury

Read this from environmentalist Peter Taylor, author of _Chill: A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory_, and a "greenie" who thinks warmists are barking up the wrong tree, and in the pocket of big government:

spiked debate: Meet the green who doubts ‘The Science’ by Peter Taylor



> ..if you actually look at the wording of what this so-called consensus of scientists has produced, then you will see that they believe that ‘global warming is not due to known natural causes acting alone’. This is clever wording. It means that the door is open to an unknown mechanism driving the warming. So although it is well known that the warming is naturally driven, the mechanism is not.
> 
> Why would the UN suppress all of this debate happening within its working groups? The problem is that the secretariat within the UN tasked with processing this debate is already committed – financially – to focusing upon carbon dioxide as the climate-change driver. It is very hard for them to backtrack.
> 
> ...There are top-level atmospheric physicists, oceanographers and solar scientists who do not agree that the case is proven for global warming. Nobody is seriously saying that carbon dioxide has no effect whatsoever, but the defenders of the faith, as it were, set up a straw man. ‘These people’, they say, ‘think carbon dioxide has no effect’. Only a lunatic fringe thinks that.
> 
> The critical scientists are simply saying that carbon dioxide’s effect is small, at most 20 per cent. This means that even a 50 per cent reduction by 2050 in manmade greenhouse gas emissions would only reduce the driving force of climate change by 10 per cent.
> 
> ...What’s really disconcerting for me is that I am a longstanding environmentalist. As part of environmental groups I’ve helped to prevent nuclear waste from being dumped in the ocean, I’ve helped change emergency planning for nuclear reactors, and I’ve also helped develop biodiversity strategy. I’m as green as you can get. But what I am faced with now is environmental groups and major NGOs – Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF, even the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds – which have allied themselves with the state. They talk about so-called denialists allying themselves with ‘Big Oil’, but they have fallen into the arms of big government. They’ve allied with disreputable prime ministers; they’ve allied with chief policy advisers who have never got anything right in their lives; they’ve allied themselves with scientific institutions that have never led on any of these environmental issues.


----------



## MacDoc

> *NASA: Easily the hottest spring — and Jan-May — in temperature record*
> 
> *Plus another record 12-month global temperature*
> 
> June 10, 2010
> Lmonth tied May 1998 as the hottest on record in the NASA dataset. More significantly, following fast on the heels of easily the hottest April — and hottest Jan-April — on record, it’s also the hottest Jan-May on record [click on figure to enlarge].
> Also, the combined land-surface air and sea-surface water temperature anomaly for March-April-May was 0.73_°_C above the 1951-1980 mean, blowing out the old record of 0.65_°_C set in 2002.
> *The record temperatures we’re seeing now are especially impressive because we’ve been in “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.” *It’s just hard to stop the march of manmade global warming, well, other than by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, that is.
> _*Most significantly, the 12-month global temperature grew to 0.66°C — easily the highest on record.*_


more
Climate Progress


----------



## eMacMan

I was not aware that NASA had been keeping comparative records for 131 years. 

I am aware that they are struggling to maintain funding and BO wants "scientific" justification for a carbon tax and to establish a large funnel directly to the Al Gore Vault.


----------



## Macfury

And to put all of MaccyD's bright red graphs and screaming yellow zonkers back into perspective:



> This [the NASA study] is a selective use of a trend line that joins a datapoint in the late 1970’s with the most recent one ignoring the details in the data inbetween. The fact is that one could have taken a datapoint a decade ago and tied it to the same point in the late 1970’s and deduced an even greater rise in temperature per decade. So another way of describing the data is that the rate of increase has actually declined.





> ...Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, adds what is missing from the article mentioned earlier: “We have seen rapid warming recently, but it is an example of natural variation that is associated with changes in the Pacific rather than climate change.”


As SINC and I have repeatedly pointed out, but the Great One refuses to acknowledge, NOAA and NASA have recently dismantled most of the northern reporting stations and have extrapolated the data from warmer stations to fill in the gap. Doesn't take a genius to see how this will lead to to the conclusions Hansen is eager to present. 

Is 2010 Heading For A Record?


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> And to put all of MaccyD's bright red graphs and screaming yellow zonkers back into perspective:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As SINC and I have repeatedly pointed out, but the Great One refuses to acknowledge, NOAA and NASA have recently dismantled most of the northern reporting stations and have extrapolated the data from warmer stations to fill in the gap. Doesn't take a genius to see how this will lead to to the conclusions Hansen is eager to present.
> 
> Is 2010 Heading For A Record?


To give a very localized example, all of our town weather forecasts are interpolated from a town about 20 miles away. Even though we are consistently 2-3°s cooler than our neighbour, the forecast temps are always identical. 

Just as a photo image captured at 3MP and interpolated to 12MP fails to capture essential details, so does an interpolated temp capture. Especially when you eliminate the cold end of the spectrum. 

Still as I said before the main motivating factor behind the NASA science is funding.


----------



## Macfury

*Bonn Climate talks also failing*

A continuation of the Copenhagen "King Canute" summit is also failing badly. 



> ...the Bonn talks so far have not been able to make even incremental advances.


What made me laugh was this statement:



> The failure of the much-hyped Copenhagen summit in December last year not just pushed back hopes of a comprehensive global agreement on climate change, possibly, by several years, it also raised serious questions over UN process of negotiations *that require every decision to be taken only by consensus*.


They've completely failed to get scientific consensus on AGW itself, but by pretending they have, they've bound themselves to the same process in "climate negotiations."

Copenhagen was a horrible meet, says de Boer


----------



## adagio

MF, I enjoyed reading the story by Peter Taylor. The last paragraph is rather sad. It's a sorry state of affairs. Sums up what a few of us have been saying right from the beginning. There is a glimmer of hope. More and more people are questioning "the big lie". Of course there will always be some who will not admit they've been HAD. 

_"We’re seeing the dangerous development here of a very intolerant political ideology. It is a very strange political and scientific situation, in which vast sums of money are underwriting a bureaucracy of climate accountants and auditors, and in which academic funding is easier to obtain if you put man-made climate change at the top of your research proposal. I have never seen anything like it in the 40 years of my scientific and environmental career."_


----------



## CubaMark

*You Can't Trust Science!*


----------



## Macfury

That's a baby-sized argument, CM. The appropriate lesson to be drawn from that video is that we are being asked to build public policy around a flat Earth theory that hasn't got a vote of confidence even close to that of anesthetics and other scientific discoveries that can be demonstrated reliably and repeatedly. Decisions of public policy should not require the level of faith being asked of us by the gassers.


----------



## Macfury

This video is more pertinent:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## SINC

Yeah, the truth is out there if people would only look for it instead of swallowing the swill of the day.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> This video is more pertinent:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


Thats one thing I respect about John Stossel. He did that report at the very height of religious fervour surrounding global warming when nobody in the media dared question the dogma of the IPCC and the Al Gore propaganda movie. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


> *You Can't Trust Science!*


The authors of this video show a clear lack of critical thinking skills. 
The problem with this video is that it begins with the assertion that you can trust either science or religion, and that you need to choose between the two. In fact its quite common to find people that have a degree of trust in both but only an idiot would have complete trust in either. The other fact that eludes the video producers is that many of the scientific wonders they tout where discovered by deists.
In the list of scientific wonders they also failed to mention nuclear bombs, carcinogenic compounds, chemical and biological weapons, ozone depleting chemicals and technological advances that have enabled us to produce the vast amounts of CO2 that warmists claim have doomed the planet.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury

^^^^^^^^

What's hilarious is that the video points out how science has successfully dispelled the flat Earth model--while failing to mention that _current_ AGW computer models are based on the Earth being literally flat!


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> The authors of this video show a clear lack of critical thinking skills.
> The problem with this video is that it begins with the assertion that you can trust either science or religion, and that you need to choose between the two. In fact its quite common to find people that have a degree of trust in both but only an idiot would have complete trust in either. The other fact that eludes the video producers is that many of the scientific wonders they tout where discovered by deists.
> In the list of scientific wonders they also failed to mention nuclear bombs, carcinogenic compounds, chemical and biological weapons, ozone depleting chemicals and technological advances that have enabled us to produce the vast amounts of CO2 that warmists claim have doomed the planet.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


For the record the total atmospheric CO2 level is less than 4/100 of 1%. Mans CO2 share of the total atmosphere is 4/1000th of 1%. Claims that increasing the atmospheric CO2 content by 1/1000th of 1% will cause catastrophic climate failure are ludicrous. There are way to many other things affecting climate. Not the least of which is all the other 5h!t man is throwing up into the air. Again the contribution is about 10% of the total but this other crap reflects or blocks sunlight which has a cooling effect. Throw in other climate variables like volcanic eruptions, suboceanic volcanoes and thermal zones and it becomes obvious that giving trillion$ to governments and the Gore $hippers will do nothing to save the planet.

That money would be much better spent reducing or eliminating the poisons man is putting into the land, sea and air.

As for cataclysmic impact. If as has been speculated, Blundering Petroleum cannot stop the oil volcano they have created, the environmental devastation will greatly exceed any damage caused by a minor increase of atmospheric CO2.


----------



## Macfury

Meanwhile, Obama is hard at work, eliminating capitalism and economic activity as the source of CO2.


----------



## eMacMan

*Maldives refuse to take a dive*



> An excerpt of the documentary "Global Warming Doomsday Called Off!" In this clip, professor Nils Axel Morner of Stockholm University travels to the Maldives and finds out that the ocean levels have actually dropped in recent years.


YouTube - The Maldives Are Not Sinking!


----------



## Macfury

^^^^^^^^
That was all a plan to institute a model for massive economic aid. I've read specific instances where researchers, using another historic tree as a benchmark, actually ripped it out of the ground because it clearly showed that the water hadn't advanced.


----------



## SINC

.


----------



## SINC

> British and international boffins, having probed an Antarctic glacier which is thought to be a major cause of rising sea levels worldwide, report that increased polar ice melting may not be driven by climate change.
> 
> The massive ice river in question is the Pine Island Glacier, aka PIG to those in the field.


Jenkins, Jacobs and their colleagues write:



> Once the grounding line began its downslope migration from the ridge crest prior to the 1970’s, a period of rapid change was inevitable, and since that time oceanic variability may have had relatively little influence on the rate of retreat.
> 
> *Or in other words the glacier would have shown the same acceleration and thinning it has shown since the 1990s with or without climate change,* perhaps accounting for its very rapid melting and the local contrast with the general picture of increased Antarctic sea ice.


Antarctic glacier melt maybe 'not due to climate change' ? The Register


----------



## Macfury

Interesting, SINC. I followed it to its source--the media release anyway. 

I'm sure this will be of no interest to the converted, but what the hell:

No Longer Anchored, Antarctic Ice Stream Surges to Sea | Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory


----------



## Macfury

Here's the world as envisioned by Elizabeth May:



> *Power rationed on 'green island' Eigg after mild weather causes drought*
> 
> By John Bingham
> Published: 3:21PM BST 28 Jun 2010
> 
> It was hailed as Britain’s first “green” island and a glimpse of the what the future could hold for the rest of the country.
> 
> But when the inhabitants of the remote Scottish island of Eigg put their faith in the wind and rain to provide all their electricity they did not reckon for one thing – mild weather.
> 
> Now the 95 residents are being asked not to use kettles, toasters or other kitchen appliances after uncharacteristically mild weather caused a critical shortage of power.
> 
> Other household equipment such as washing machines are to be used only outside times of “peak” demand for the island’s 45 homes and 20 businesses.
> 
> Weeks of what passes for heatwave conditions in the Inner Hebrides have caused water levels on the island’s three main burns to drop uncharacteristically low, cutting off the island’s hydroelectricity supply.
> 
> The normally powerful Atlantic gusts in the tiny island south of Skye have also reduced to a pleasant breeze leaving the island’s wind turbines idle for hours on end.
> 
> As a result, the community owned power company has placed the island on “red alert” and issued notices effectively rationing electricity.
> 
> It has had to revert to using old-fashioned diesel power to run a backup generator to keep the lights on.


Power rationed on 'green island' Eigg after mild weather causes drought - Telegraph


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Here's the world as envisioned by Elizabeth May:
> Power rationed on 'green island' Eigg after mild weather causes drought - Telegraph


Good point. Due to global climate change, designers of sustainable energy systems need to consider the fact that previously reliable climatic patters (e.g. lots of rain in the winter in Scotland) may not be reliable in the future. It's a good thing these pioneers are blazing a trail for us, because there's no way the wealthy countries of the west would risk a moments inconvenience or wrinkle in our lives of luxury while making the inevitable conversion to renewable energy.


----------



## SINC

Meanwhile the Carbon King finds himself in a hotter issue than climate change. Looks good on him too:

'Procedural issues' prompt re-opening sex assault case involving Gore


----------



## Macfury

SINC: I heard a gag suggesting that, since there's a *consensus* that Al Gore is a randy old creep, we may as well send him straight to jail without benefit of trial.

I love this statement:



> She says she finally got away at around 1.30am, went home, and called a friend about the ordeal. The woman said she was initially dissuaded from contacting the police by liberal friends, whom she refers to as "The Birkenstock Tribe," and of which she counts herself a member.
> 
> One friend *"was basically asking me to just suck it up, otherwise the world's going to be destroyed from global warming,"* she said.


Al Gore 'crazed sex poodle' case reviewed | Stuff.co.nz


----------



## bryanc

I suggest those of you fixated on Al Gore to refresh your memories regarding the ad hominem fallacy.

On an unrelated point, I was just reading an interesting summary of a set of workshops regarding public attitudes towards science. One of the interesting findings was that, in contradiction to most scientist's intuitive predictions, the "knowledge deficit" model does not adequately explain peoples attitudes towards scientific findings, especially with regard to climate change. While a "college education" is obviously not even beginning to scratch the surface of a scientific understanding of any topic, in general, the scientific community has always thought that citizens with a post-secondary education would be more open to the findings of the scientific method. But it turns out that political affiliation is a much stronger predictor.



> The powerful influence of politics and ideology is underscored by a rather shocking survey result: Republicans who are college graduates are considerably less likely to accept the scientific consensus on climate change than those who have received less education. These better-educated Republicans could hardly be said to suffer a knowledge deficit; a more apt explanation is that they are politically driven consumers of climate science information—and often quite voracious ones at that. They strain information through a powerful ideological sieve and end up loudly supporting a viewpoint that is incompatible with modern scientific understanding.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> SINC: I heard a gag suggesting that, since there's a *consensus* that Al Gore is a randy old creep, we may as well send him straight to jail without benefit of trial.


MF: I guess that happens when you're out "Goring around".


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> But it turns out that political affiliation is a much stronger predictor.


People are politically affiliated based on party characteristics. A realist is hardly likely to choose the Democrat party.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> People are politically affiliated based on party characteristics. A realist is hardly likely to choose the Democrat party.


A realist should despise all parties equally since the same funding sources control them all.beejacon


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> People are politically affiliated based on party characteristics. A realist is hardly likely to choose the Democrat party.


Yet similarly educated people of different political stripes interpret the same empirical data in diametrically opposite ways. Interesting, no? Of course, if you want to get a significant consensus about the meaning of scientific data, you have to go to trained scientists, not just people with 'college degrees.' And, among the people with the expertise to interpret climate research, there remains a very strong consensus about the meaning of the data.

On a tangentially related note, did you hear that Dr. Mann (of the hockey stick graph fame), has been completely exonerated of all wrong doing yet again? It seems that "Climategate" has been exposed as a bit of a witch hunt. I wonder if anyone will be able to follow the money back to the petroleum industry?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Yet similarly educated people of different political stripes interpret the same empirical data in diametrically opposite ways. Interesting, no? Of course, if you want to get a significant consensus about the meaning of scientific data, you have to go to trained scientists, not just people with 'college degrees.' And, among the people with the expertise to interpret climate research, there remains a very strong consensus about the meaning of the data.


No, people of different political stripe use data to suit their ends. Democrats largely favour warmist evidence because it increases their power over the American people. Warmism is largely leftist dogma.




bryanc said:


> On a tangentially related note, did you hear that Dr. Mann (of the hockey stick graph fame), has been completely exonerated of all wrong doing yet again? It seems that "Climategate" has been exposed as a bit of a witch hunt. I wonder if anyone will be able to follow the money back to the petroleum industry?


Penn State's Mann was "exonerated" in an investigation... by Penn State. He's still on the hook for his dishonesty everywhere else. 

This is just as good as Lord Oxburgh's "independent " investigation of the Hadley CRU--never mind he's has paid directorships of two renewable energy companies, is a paid advisor to Climate Change Capital, the Low Carbon Initiative, among other "green" credentials. The investigation also avoided any review of the science of the CRU studies.


----------



## MacDoc

Still in deep denial mode MF??- how Lamarckian of you....just keep swallowing that wattsupmybutt crap ...amusing.

Never a mention from you of the millions upon millions of dollars of funding from the fossil fuel interests to cloud the issue.....same clowns that kept Big Tobacco out from scrutiny ......but that's okay by you I guess. 

_Meanwhile it's getting hotter









NASA: Easily the hottest April — and hottest Jan-April — in temperature record Climate Progress

we're STILL responsible..._

We even apparently managed to impact climate early on...



> *Human-Made Global Warming Started With Ancient Hunters*
> 
> ScienceDaily (July 1, 2010) — Even before the dawn of agriculture, people may have caused the planet to warm up, a new study suggests.


Human-made global warming started with ancient hunters


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Meanwhile it's getting hotter...


And we're still using those fudged NOAA datasets based on removing most of the cold weather reporting stations... which you have neither acknowledged or explained away. The margin of error on those junky datasets is greater than the supposed warming that has been reported.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Penn State's Mann was "exonerated" in an investigation... by Penn State. He's still on the hook for his dishonesty everywhere else.


Did you miss the "independent" part of the investigation. Check out the backgrounds and credentials of the people on the panel. Doesn't look like a stacked panel to me.


----------



## MacDoc

Don't bother trying to convince MF - he's _indelible, _swallows the national pest , Dear Anthony et al whole without question...suits his ideology 

The squirming from watts etc about the ice disappearance in the Arctic is hilarious. 2-3 SD at last check and plunging 

some good summaries here
Arctic Sea Ice Volume at record low. - JREF Forum

of the ice *volume* plunge











and what's there is just rotting in terms of multi-year - so even the radar coverage is under estimating the loss.



> The multiyear ice covering the Arctic Ocean has effectively vanished….
> “I would argue that, from a practical perspective, we almost have a seasonally ice-free Arctic now, because multiyear sea ice is the barrier to the use and development of the Arctic,” said Barber [Canada's Research Chair in Arctic System Science at the University of Manitoba].​ Barber and his team thought they’d find “a huge multiyear ice pack that should have been in the Beaufort Sea” but
> *Instead, his ice breaker found hundreds of miles of what he called “rotten ice” — 50-cm (20-inch) thin layers of fresh ice covering small chunks of older ice.*
> *“I’ve never seen anything like this in my 30 years of working in the high Arctic … it was very dramatic,” he said.*​


Where on Earth is it unusually warm? Greenland and the Arctic Ocean, which is full of rotten ice Climate Progress


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Did you miss the "independent" part of the investigation. Check out the backgrounds and credentials of the people on the panel. Doesn't look like a stacked panel to me.


They were all tenured professors at Penn State, all people who knew Mann, and their investigation was not a response to any formal accusations but a series of--as they put it--"synthesized allegations."

Their report includes such scientific conclusions as:



> Had Dr. Mann's conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions.


Cleared by a jury... of his friends.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> The squirming from watts etc about the ice disappearance in the Arctic is hilarious. 2-3 SD at last check and plunging


Your little dance is pretty funny too, MaccyD:

Scan of Arctic ice dispels melting gloom: Researcher


> An electromagnetic "bird" dispatched to the Arctic for the most detailed look yet at the thickness of the ice has turned up a reassuring picture.
> 
> The meltdown has not been as dire as some would suggest, said geophysicist Christian Haas of the University of Alberta. His international team flew across the top of the planet last year for the 2,412-kilometre survey.
> 
> They found large expanses of ice four to five metres thick, despite the record retreat in 2007.
> 
> "This is a nice demonstration that there is still hope for the ice," said Haas.
> 
> The survey, which demonstrated that the "bird" probe tethered to a plane can measure ice thickness over large areas, uncovered plenty of resilient "old" ice from Norway to the North Pole to Alaska in April 2009.
> 
> The thickness had "changed little since 2007, and remained within the expected range of natural variability," the team reports in the Geophysical Research Letters.
> 
> There is already speculation about how the ice will fare this summer, with some scientists predicting a record melt. Haas said he doesn't buy it.
> 
> He said the ice is in some ways in better shape going into the melt season than it has been for a couple of years. "We have more thick ice going into the summer than we did in 2009 and 2008," he said.


----------



## SINC

MF: There they go again:


----------



## Macfury

Just leftist, hippie guilt SINC. Sure, they like freedom if necessary, but not necessarily freedom...if it interferes with their guilt trip.


----------



## CubaMark

*The climate scandal that never was*



> In the grand saga of political battles over climate research, there is no event more pivotal, or more damaging, than what has come to be called "climategate" - the late-2009 theft and exposure of a trove of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK. Fred Pearce's The Climate Files, based on his 12-part investigative series for The Guardian newspaper in London, is the first book-length attempt to cover the furore.
> 
> ....
> 
> ...climategate was a pseudo-scandal, and the worst that can be said of the scientists is that they wrote some ill-advised things. "I've written some pretty awful emails," admitted Phil Jones, director of the CRU at the time. The scientists also resisted turning over their data when battered by requests for it - requests from climate sceptics who dominate the blogosphere and don't play by the usual rules.
> 
> ....
> 
> ...why were their hacked emails such big news? Because they were taken out of context and made to appear scandalous. Pearce repeatedly faults the sceptics for such behaviour. Yet he too makes the scientists' private emails the centrepiece of the story. Pearce's investigations don't show any great "smoking gun" offences by the scientists...


(New Scientist)


----------



## SINC

Ah yes, scientists exonerating scientists. Yep that makes it a lot better.


----------



## Macfury

SINC: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!


----------



## groovetube

is that similar to oil money screaming that oil use is fine?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> is that similar to oil money screaming that oil use is fine?


No, it's somewhat worse.


----------



## groovetube

did BP tell you this?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> did BP tell you this?


Not at all. Oil use _is_ fine.


----------



## eMacMan

I do find it interesting that none of our TO based Chicken Little types are bragging about getting through the heat wave with no AC.

Come on guys true believers should be willing to sweat it out.beejacon


----------



## SINC

*Cold Winter Takes Toll On Pine Beetle*

Mother Nature lends hand for first time

Yep, global warming at work again. 



> EDMONTON — Winter was cold enough at just the right times to put a dent in the population of mountain pine beetles, Sustainable Resource Development Minister Mel Knight announced Wednesday.
> 
> It's the first time since the infestation began in 2006 that winter has significantly knocked back the hardy pests.
> 
> Bark samples from 1,266 pine trees at 229 sites show that except for a few hot spots in the north and west, the beetle numbers were pushed back to 2007 levels, Knight said.
> 
> The province has spent more than $200 million the past several years on controlled burns and tree removal after swarms of beetles flew in on winds from British Columbia.
> 
> "But let's face it. Mother Nature played the largest role in this particular story," Knight said.
> 
> Cold snaps last winter and this spring came at times when the rice-grain-sized beetles had less natural antifreeze in their bodies. The larvae can usually survive -35 C temperatures for several days.


Winter takes toll on pine beetle


----------



## Macfury

Arctic warming? Not this year.



> The Arctic shows no signs of warming, according to the latest data from the Danish Meteorological Institute’s Centre for Ocean and Ice. Last month, in fact, virtually every single day saw temperatures below the mean experienced over the last half-century. The Danish data – taken daily – casts doubt on climate models that had predicted a steady warming of the Arctic. Earlier this year, Arctic temperatures had been warming, giving hope to those who back the global warming hypothesis that their long expected Arctic warming had begun.
> 
> Read more: Lawrence Solomon: Arctic chills down | FP Comment | Financial Post


----------



## bryanc

Interesting graph MF. I just dropped it into FIJI and did some quick measurements. Based on that data, the area between the measured temperature the curve representing the mean temperature is more than 5 times greater on the "hotter than average" side than it is on the "colder than average" side. So while it's true that it shows that the last couple of months have been *very slightly* cooler than average, over the past year it has been very much warmer than average.

Cheers

{sorry for the slow edit... I didn't describe my measurement well the first time}


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Interesting graph MF. I just dropped it into FIJI and did some quick measurements. Based on that data, the measured temperature has been above the mean 84% of the time, and below the mean 16% of the time. So while it's true that it shows that the last couple of months have been *very slightly* cooler than average, over the past year it has been very much warmer than average.
> 
> Cheers


Right, but the predictions were that this summer would be continuing unusually warm. I'm not misrepresenting the conclusion. It's clear that the first part of the year was above the mean.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> but the predictions were that this summer would be continuing unusually warm.


The summer is just getting started, but the temperature over a few months, or even a couple of years is not really significant on a climatic scale.

This debate will be settled by observation over the next few decades. But based on the data from the last few hundred thousand years, the conclusions are already obvious.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The summer is just getting started, but the temperature over a few months, or even a couple of years is not really significant on a climatic scale.
> 
> This debate will be settled by observation over the next few decades. But based on the data from the last few hundred thousand years, the conclusions are already obvious.


Sure, but I didn't frame the prediction. It was some warmist who chose that hill to die on.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Sure, but I didn't frame the prediction. It was some warmist who chose that hill to die on.


Actually, it was Lawrence Soloman, apparently a professional global warming denier, who was up to his usual tactic of spreading FUD among the people who can't handle the real science. The source of that data makes no such claims whatsoever, and, as usual, draws the exact opposite conclusion as is presented by the deniers.

I encourage you to check out the actual data at the DMI, look at the archives over the past dozen or so years and you'll see this is becoming a consistent pattern in the arctic; much warmer in the winter, ever so slightly cooler during the summer... average temperature just continuing to go up and up.

You know about the ice cube analogy? If you put ice in a drink and warm it up, the temperature of the drink doesn't go up until all the ice melts... so if you want to see what's happening to the climate in the arctic, you need data on ice thickness. Unfortunately, until recently we didn't have direct measurements, so we're constrained to use proxies like isotope aging to estimate the age of ice at various depths (the closer very old ice is to the surface, the more confident you can be that the ice mass is shrinking). All of that data is consistent with significant and accelerating ice loss in the arctic and antarctic during the past century.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

The data is just data. Other predicted a warm Arctic summer.


----------



## Macfury

Take a look at this gem:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all



> The issue involved an effort to reconstruct the climate history of the past several thousand years using indirect indicators like the size of tree rings and the growth rate of corals. The C.R.U. researchers, leaders in that type of work, were trying in 1999 to produce a long-term temperature chart that could be used in a United Nations publication.
> 
> But they were dogged by a problem: Since around 1960, for mysterious reasons, trees have stopped responding to temperature increases in the same way they apparently did in previous centuries. If plotted on a chart, tree rings from 1960 forward appear to show declining temperatures, something that scientists know from thermometer readings is not accurate.


This is part of the defense of the Hadley CRU in explaining themselves regarding ClimateGate: "See? We can use the tree evidence only prior to 1960, but then the trees changed."


----------



## eMacMan

eMacMan said:


> I do find it interesting that none of our TO based Chicken Little types are bragging about getting through the heat wave with no AC.
> 
> Come on guys true believers should be willing to sweat it out.beejacon


So even with this challenge thrown right in their faces not a single one of the Carbon Tax/En-Goregement promoters was willing to tackle a minor heat wave without A/C.

Yet this is exactly what their proposals will force seniors on fixed incomes to do.

Bahtptptptp


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> So even with this challenge thrown right in their faces not a single one of the Carbon Tax/En-Goregement promoters was willing to tackle a minor heat wave without A/C.
> 
> Yet this is exactly what their proposals will force seniors on fixed incomes to do.
> 
> Bahtptptptp


Nope. The biggest proponents of this sort of thing are usually well protected in government jobs or publicly funded enterprises. The have no fear of the fall-out from heir ideas, because they'll just get more from the government teat.


----------



## bryanc

I don't have AC in my house or car. Never thought about it.

As for this


> "See? We can use the tree evidence only prior to 1960, but then the trees changed."


if you'd care to take a look at the actual data, after spending a few years becoming educated in the field so you'd actually be able to understand what it means and what the limitations are, you might be able to formulate a reasonable criticism. But this is just childish "I don't understand it so it must be stupid" talk.

Get back to us when you have some rational criticisms of the science rather than a bunch of popular media "hur hur, scientists are dorks" pieces.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> f you'd care to take a look at the actual data, after spending a few years becoming educated in the field so you'd actually be able to understand what it means and what the limitations are, you might be able to formulate a reasonable criticism. But this is just childish "I don't understand it so it must be stupid" talk.
> 
> Get back to us when you have some rational criticisms of the science rather than a bunch of popular media "hur hur, scientists are dorks" pieces.


Don't be a silly man, bryanc. They have decided that the trees stopped behaving in a way that is reasonable after the trees stopped reflecting the conclusions they were making. Why accept, then, that the trees were ever capable of accurately reflecting climate?

_The New York Times_ wasn't saying that the scientists were dorks, by the way. They were agreeing with them. You're the one who identified the article as a "hur hur, scientists are dorks" piece, when they were reporting it straight up. That's very telling.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> They have decided that the trees stopped behaving in a way that is reasonable after the trees stopped reflecting the conclusions they were making. Why accept, then, that the trees were ever capable of accurately reflecting climate?


Because there's plenty of good evidence that this is the case if you read the scientific literature on the subject. That's my point. You and many others consistently criticize and/or misrepresent the science (and the popular media chronically oversimplifies it to the point of being simply incorrect) because you're fundamentally ignorant, and then blame the scientists or worse, accuse them of dishonesty.

I note that despite many months of jeering at the CRU, you have not noted that the independent investigation that just published it's report completely exonerated them, and emphasized that the science remains robust.

"Climategate" has now been completely debunked as a witch hunt designed to besmirch and discredit honest scientists who had done nothing wrong.

All those "damming" emails that ostensibly showed CRU scientists using their influence to prevent the publication of papers critical of global warming theory were scrutinized in context and the investigation concluded


> The reviewer has suggested the possibility of rejection, and the editor asks for a good reason. The fact that that e-mail was taken out of context demonstrates the dishonesty prevalent in the denialist movement.


With respect to the tree ring data, the investigation concluded:


> Clearly, not all tree-ring data agrees with the instrumental data all the time. This is known to be true and has been published extensively. The inquiry found that in the published data, it was a standard caveat involved in interpreting temperature reconstructions. They also found that the reasons for divergence were the subject of active investigation, and had every sign that healthy science was in action.


Unfortunately, when the media and politicians get involved, scientific integrity is hard to maintain...


> The inquiry also looked at how the uncertainty in the data was represented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. Again, it found that all published reconstructions had been included in the report, and that the variance, both within and between reconstructions was clearly visible. However, they do note that the IPCC, in its phrasing, uses a rather simplified expression of uncertainty.


The oft repeated claim that the CRU prevented access to the raw data, adjusted the data without scientific justification, or inappropriately withheld computer code necessary for others to check their conclusions were completely refuted.



> the CRU did not, and, in fact, _could not_ prevent other researchers from accessing the instrumental data record.
> Further, the CRU has not manipulated the data to obtain a preordained result.
> ...[WRT software being witheld] There was no evidence for any of this occurring.
> 
> The inquiry found no evidence that any of these conditions had been met: no data manipulation, no cherry picking, and no misrepresentation of uncertainty.


Yet again, the science of the CRU remains intact.

The only criticism the investigation made of CRU scientists was that they "should have been helpful and supplied a list that uniquely identifies the different stations."

So, now that the CRU is fully vindicated, are you going to retract the statements you've made about their lack of integrity in the past?


----------



## Macfury

The CRU investigation was a total whitewash looking only at select accusations, and used people who were, in many cases not at all impartial. Very much like the oil industry exonerating BP. Do you want a blow by blow?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The CRU investigation was a total whitewash looking only at select accusations, and used people who were, in many cases not at all impartial. Very much like the oil industry exonerating BP. Do you want a blow by blow?


Sure... if you've got anything better than "the people doing the investigation are known 'warmists'" because excluding 'warmists' excludes almost every credible climate researcher in the world.

The panel went over every reasonable accusation and refuted it unequivocally. The only thing the CRU did wrong was to get annoyed with their critics and stop being helpful.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Sure... if you've got anything better than "the people doing the investigation are known 'warmists'" because excluding 'warmists' excludes almost every credible climate researcher in the world.
> 
> The panel went over every reasonable accusation and refuted it unequivocally. The only thing the CRU did wrong was to get annoyed with their critics and stop being helpful.


The "inquiries" such as they were, were very careful in what they examined and which conclusions they drew. Their conclusions were biased and inept--and I state that unequivocally. 

In what sort of inquiry do we never hear from people who are "witnesses for the prosecution"? It was all friendly.

Lord Oxburgh carried out the first investigation and, to quote Birtish newspapers: "..is chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, has paid directorships of two renewable energy companies, and is a paid advisor to Climate Change Capital, the Low Carbon Initiative,..." among other monetary interests that should disqualify him. No notes were kept of the inquiry and no terms of reference were made public.

As Oxburgh states:



> "Given the seriousness of the allegations they wanted our inquiry to be completed as quickly as possible..
> 
> "... the inquiry was established with a minimum of formality and many of the arrangements were made verbally...
> 
> The important point to emphasise is that we were assessing people and their motivations. *We were not assessing the wisdom of their judgement or the validity of their conclusions.*


Muir Russell's review likewise indicates that CRU data was missing or unconfirmed, then called this "insufficient openness." If you can't produce the underlying data, then how can they be unequivocally cleared?

Russell says: "We have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made...”



> CRU e-mail: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise”.


Russell also claims he didn't look a the science because Oxburgh did. Oxburgh says he didn't.

Like Oxburgh, Russell only interviewed CRU members and took no notice of their detractors.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> In what sort of inquiry do we never hear from people who are "witnesses for the prosecution"? It was all friendly.


From the report:


> The Independent Climate Change Email Review is being conducted by an expert team, led by Sir Muir Russell KCB DL FRSE. The Review team has more than 100 years’ collective expertise of scientific research methodology and a wide range of scientific backgrounds.
> 
> None have any links to the Climatic Research Unit, or the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). More information about each of the review team members can be found in the Biographies section.


The panel was "friendly" only to the extent that they were scientists who understand how science is done.



MacFury said:


> Lord Oxburgh carried out the first investigation


Wrong investigation...



MacFury said:


> Muir Russell's review likewise indicates that CRU data was missing or unconfirmed, then called this "insufficient openness." If you can't produce the underlying data, then how can they be unequivocally cleared?


All primary data was available to any researcher. Some intermediate data was not provided by CRU, and CRU was chastised for being "uncooperative" on this (and today's _Gardian_ is much more strident on this issue). But the enquiry was not about wether these people were nice, but rather were they dishonest, and the conclusion was no, they were not.



> Russell also claims he didn't look a the science...


He didn't look at _ALL_ the science; see chapters 6, 7 and 9 of the report for some investigation regarding the "controversial" science, that turns out, of course, to be not at all controversial.



> Like Oxburgh, Russell only interviewed CRU members and took no notice of their detractors.


If either of these investigations were failing to take note of the detractors, they wouldn't have occurred. The allegations were investigated by independent, qualified investigators, at great public expense, explicitly because the detractors were making serious allegations of scientific fraud. All of these these allegations have been found to be completely without merit. Sorry; "Climategate" was nothing but smoke-and-mirrors designed to distract from the problem for another couple of years while the oil industry continues to rake in profits at the expense of our future.


----------



## SINC

I must say I am tiring of hearing all this "you are not well enough educated to understand science bullsh!t", because that is exactly what it is.

There are many bright minds here on ehMac that have made the conclusion that science tried to pull a fast one on mankind and got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

They are intelligent types and perfectly capable of understanding fraud.

If you are a scientist, I could claim you know nothing of medicine or mechanics when in fact you are bright enough to make intelligent decisions about your own health or that of your automobile.

So stick a cork in all that "not smart enough to understand" insults. It is not, and never will be true.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> If either of these investigations were failing to take note of the detractors, they wouldn't have occurred. The allegations were investigated by independent, qualified investigators, at great public expense, explicitly because the detractors were making serious allegations of scientific fraud. All of these these allegations have been found to be completely without merit. Sorry; "Climategate" was nothing but smoke-and-mirrors designed to distract from the problem for another couple of years while the oil industry continues to rake in profits at the expense of our future.


They didn't hear from detractors at all. They were investigated off the record, and verbally at great public expense to preserve public policy which intends to rape billions from ordinary citizens. They investigated only carefully worded allegations in order to preserve the reputations of the fraudsters at the CRU. 

If you're satisfied this wasn't a whitewash, then be happy in your confidence. However, you're in the minority here.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> So stick a cork in all that "not smart enough to understand" insults


It's got very little to do with "smart" but it has a lot to do with "educated." They are unrelated concepts.

If there were a controversy over journalism published in Spanish, I'm sure you would agree that the validity of the accusations ought to be determined by respected journalists who spoke Spanish.

In this case, the people on this board who've been claiming the CRU have been dishonest, neither speak the language, nor do they have any expertise in the field.

Obviously, everyone's entitled to their opinions, but developing strong opinions (and posting them on a public forum) regarding topics about which you are ignorant and/or mis-informed is setting yourself up for rebukes that you may find insulting.



> There are many bright minds here on ehMac that have made the conclusion that science tried to pull a fast one on mankind and got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.


If you've made this conclusion, the facts and judgements of independent panels are unanimously in opposition to you. Call that "bright" if you like.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc, you give academia a bad name.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> bryanc, you give academia a bad name.


Way to man up and admit when you're wrong.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> If you've made this conclusion, the facts and judgements of independent panels are unanimously in opposition to you. Call that "bright" if you like.


I certainly do. What intelligent person would trust scientists to exonerate scientists? Spare me.


----------



## MacDoc

In the minority MF !!???- not likely - the AGW denier cadre is akin to the evolution deniers at this point and the climate science community is more concerned about the ridiculous harrassment of working scientist from the likes of Dear Anthony and other cranks.

Just more anti-science crap from the rightwingers...luckily they are indeed a small if noisesome minority.

The world moves on dealing with the problem of AGW rather than denying it.

Anyone denying that reality of AGW now hasn't the first clue how their planet works...period. 

About the only conclusion one can draw is either too stupid to understand the science or too hung on their ideology.....could be either or perhaps both in this case.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> The world moves on dealing with the problem of AGW rather than denying it.


Country by country, the world is opting out of your AGW dream--killing agreements, postponing targets, failing to meet quotas.


----------



## eMacMan

MacDoc said:


> The world moves on dealing with the problem of AGW rather than denying it.
> 
> Anyone denying that reality of AGW now hasn't the first clue how their planet works...period.
> ..


Rather they do have a clue that a clear harmless gas that makes up less than 4/100th of 1% of the earths atmosphere with mans contribution being less than 4/1000th of a percent simply cannot be the primary or even a secondary climate driver. Especially as even 100% CO2 lets all but a single wave length of the infrared and visible spectrum pass without any impact whatsoever.

As to those nations that choose to rape their taxpayers via carbon taxes and the Great Gore syphon, the money would be far better spent fighting real pollutants.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> ... a clear harmless gas that makes up less than 4/100th of 1% of the earths atmosphere with mans contribution being less than 4/1000th of a percent simply cannot be the primary or even a secondary climate driver....


Yet another internet expert who knows what simply can and cannot be, without ever even having taken a single course on the subject. Isn't it remarkable that thousands of Ph.D.s have spent their entire lives working on this subject and over decades no one thought to consider something so obvious to you?

Did you ever consider that your understanding of the role of CO2 in climate modelling may be somewhat simplistic? That getting your understanding of a complex science from the media and blogs might not be giving you a complete picture? That the people working on this problem are not stupid?


----------



## Macfury

See, eMacMan, you failed to realize that the scientists are as smart as bryanc, but smarter than you. This is the flaw in your reasoning.


----------



## groovetube

wasting your time leveraging someone else's argument on a forum is a game for fools.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> wasting your time leveraging someone else's argument on a forum is a game for fools.


Well, since you joined in . . .


----------



## groovetube

sorry SINC, but the joke fell flat. My post didn't have the required link to someone else's opinion (which automatically MAKES IT SOO!!).

But I guess I struck a nerve.


----------



## SINC

Not at all, you just proved what you are by joining in . . .


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> See, eMacMan, you failed to realize that the scientists are as smart as bryanc, but smarter than you. This is the flaw in your reasoning.


Please don't pretend to be another person who can't understand the difference between training and intelligence.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Not at all, you just proved what you are by joining in . . .


does it really need to get to a "I know you are! But what am I!!" childish nonsense?

I think my point was clear. And once again, it appears it hit.

Forums are just full, of "google makes me smart!!" Geniuses. 

yawn.


----------



## Macfury

groove really stepped in it, SINC.


----------



## groovetube

"stepped in -it-"...

yes, you're absolutely right. The forum filters out the word for what the -it- is though.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Please don't pretend to be another person who can't understand the difference between training and intelligence.


Of course not. When a climate scientist tells another climate scientist he is deleting his e-mails, we all need the equivalent training in climate science to weigh in on the matter.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Of course not. When a climate scientist tells another climate scientist he is deleting his e-mails, we all need the equivalent training in climate science to weigh in on the matter.


Okay, fair point. But when those "deleted" emails are all provided to an inquiry (because they were all backed up), and the inquiry reviews them in context and finds nothing inappropriate being done (and furthermore makes the emails available _in context_ to the public), a reasonable person will be forced to conclude that even though these scientists did not want to share their data with their competitors, they did not hide, cherry-pick, misinterpret or otherwise commit any scientific fraud.

I agree that the appearances of impropriety were generated by the stolen emails, and I agree that you don't need any expertise in climatology to formulate that opinion, but that is a separate issue from lay people loudly proclaiming that they know CO2 can't have anything to do with the climate. Furthermore, as it turns out the appearance of impropriety was calculatedly generated by selectively quoting the stolen emails out of context and nothing unethical was done.


----------



## eMacMan

Nobody ever said CO2 has zero impact on climate. What we are challenging is the AGW theory that it is virtually the only factor impacting climate and increasing the level by 1/1000th of a percent of total atmosphere will cause cataclysmic failure.

What other factors control climate?

Sub-Oceanic volcanic activity can and probably does have a much bigger impact on ocean temps than CO2.

Sunspot activity.

Volcanic activity.

Variations in the earths orbit. 

Magnetic Pole Reversals (effects are still speculative but cannot be discounted)

Trash in the atmosphere. Can be man-made, dust or volcanic ash. All have a cooling effect. 

Lots more but you get the idea. CO2 is hardly the main driver of climactic change. The IIPC is being paid very handsomely to portray CO2 emissions as deadly. Gore stands to make hundreds of billions with his carbon credit scam and governments can bring down a back breaking carbon tax. Obviously throwing around a few million dollars so that a few "scientists" will produce the desired conclusions is a very small investment for these crooks.

This is an area where precipitous action can be disastrous, with the people who pay the heaviest price being those on fixed or limited incomes. They may easily see expenses double with no change in income. In Canada this could actually mean people starve or freeze to death.

Notice the Great Gore's beliefs are so all consuming that he continues to consume electricity at 25+ times the national average. Course he does buy Carbon Credits from himself.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> What we are challenging is the AGW theory that it is virtually the only factor impacting climate and increasing the level by 1/1000th of a percent of total atmosphere will cause cataclysmic failure.


Then have fun knocking your strawman to bits. That's not a theory that anyone in the climatology field is defending. Which you would know if you read actual research in the field, rather than media mash-ups of dumbed-down press releases.


----------



## SINC

bryanc, why don't you come back when you can stop putting your fellow members down with your intellectual superiority? It's become tiresome.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> bryanc, why don't you come back when you can stop putting your fellow members down with your intellectual superiority? It's become tiresome.


As was said in another thread



MLeh said:


> If you don't like it, Sinc, you can go play elsewhere. No need to be all curmudgeonly all over it. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean some of us can't have fun with, and enjoy, it.


Or take advantage of the ignore list this forum provides if you can't handle it.


----------



## bsenka

*IPCC caught appropriating activist propaganda*

*IPCC caught appropriating activist propaganda*:

Science behind climate change under fire - again | Canada | News | Toronto Sun



> The 2007 UN report on climate change, the one that has helped guide government efforts to spend billions of dollars to combat global warming, claimed that “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation.” The real report, drawn from a website and paid for by pressure group the World Wildlife Fund, says something quite different.





> Toronto author Donna Lafamboise recently led a team of citizen auditors through the 2007 climate change report and found heavy use of reports from Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund


----------



## SINC

.


----------



## Macfury

Add to that the attacks on the notion that the Earth is a greenhouse at all:

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: Why a Cold Body Cannot Heat A Warm Body



> Recall that backradiation from atmospheric greenhouse CO2 is the scientific corner-stone of IPCC climate alarmism, supported by in particular the Royal Society and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. This corner-stone is unphysical and purely fictional.


Please don't claim you can understand what he has written, as you haven't got a PhD in climate science, therefore you can have no opinion on it.


----------



## MacDoc

Just a reminder for the "tell me it ain't so" tantrum lovers....










It's still getting warmer and we're still mostly responsible. Reality sucks when it doesn't cooperate with your ideology eh? 



> *NASA: First half of 2010 breaks the thermometer — despite “recent minimum of solar irradiance”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> July 10, 2010


NASA: First half of 2010 breaks the thermometer ? despite “recent minimum of solar irradiance” Climate Progress


----------



## bryanc

I think this may be relevant here


> New research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts -- and often become even more attached to their beliefs.


----------



## Macfury

NASA and NOAA are still using proxy data that ignores most of the northern latitudes. Each month we bring this up. Each month you say nothing.


----------



## MacDoc

Appears 4 degrees C seems inevitable..... have a look at the potential consequences...courtesy Google.



> *Google climate map offers a glimpse of a 4C world*
> 
> Interactive tool layering climate data over Google Earth maps shows the impact of an average global temperature rise of 4C
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new interactive Google Earth map was developed using peer-reviewed science from the Met Office Hadley Centre and other leading impact scientists. Photograph: earth.google.co.uk Think it's hot this summer? Wait until you see Google's simulation of a world with an average global temperature rise of 4C.
> Using a map that was first launched by the former Labour administration in October 2009, the coalition government has taken temperature data from the Met Office Hadley Centre and other climate research centres and imposed it on to a Google Earth layer.
> It's a timely arrival, with warnings this month that current international carbon pledges will lead to a rise of nearly 4C and the Muir Russell report censuring some climate scientists for not being more open with their data (but exonerating them of manipulating the scientific evidence).
> Unlike a similar tool using IPCC data that was launched by Google in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate conference last year, this map will be updated regularly with new data. It also has a series of YouTube videos of experts across the globe, with Met Office staff talking about forest fires in sub-Saharan Africa and researchers at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research explaining sea level rises. To go more in-depth you can follow links to government sites, such as this one on water availability in a warming world.
> Playing with the layer is surprisingly addictive, mainly thanks to Google Earth's draggable interface. Unlike the static map of last year, it also has the bonus of showing more obviously how temperature rises will differ drastically around the world. The poles glow a red (a potential rise of around 10C) while most of northern Europe escapes with light orange 2-3C rises. Other hotspots, such as Alaska, the Amazon and central Asia, also stand out.
> Neatly, you can turn different climate "impacts" on and off. If you just want to see which regions will be worst affected by sea level rises - such as the UK and Netherlands as well as low-lying island states - you can. One limitation is that you have to zoom out to continental level to see the layer: if you're zoomed on your street, you can't see it.
> Climate change minister Greg Barker launched the map today alongside the government's chief scientist, Prof John Beddington. Barker said: "This map reinforces our determination to act against dangerous man-made climate change. We know the stakes are high and that's why we want to help secure an ambitious global climate change deal."
> The layer, of course, isn't the only one with an environmental theme to land on Google Earth. The UN's environment programme has one showing deforestation, WWF has a layer highlighting its projects across the globe and Google even has its own climate change "tours" for Google Earth. What other good green Earth layers have you stumbled across? And how do you rate the newest addition from the UK government?
> • The KML layer of The impact of a global temperature rise of 4C is available now (you'll need a browser plug-in or the Google Earth app installed to view it)


Google climate map offers a glimpse of a 4C world | Adam Vaughan | Environment | guardian.co.uk


----------



## Macfury

Well, Maccy D, if the Hadley CRU is behind this data, it's as good as gold. Remember folks, this is only a map of the world with a little science fiction thrown in for cheap thrills. Why not juice it up by 8 degrees Celsius, or knock it down by 5?


----------



## Macfury

Bah, I thought it would give me a science fiction weather forecast for Toronto. Instead it just points to the typical Google ads for hotels


----------



## SINC

MF: They're all based on 'models' and you know the IPCC's success with models, don't you? I think all those model's panties ares still firmly in place.


----------



## bsenka

MacDoc said:


> First half of 2010 breaks the thermometer ? despite “recent minimum of solar irradiance” Climate Progress


Right. Every day we have more record COLD temps, but NASA's summary after a few months is always 30 days of record cold adds up to a record warm. James Hansen must have failed grade 6 math.


----------



## Macfury

bsenka said:


> Right. Every day we have more record COLD temps, but NASA's summary after a few months is always 30 days of record cold adds up to a record warm. James Hansen must have failed grade 6 math.



bsenka, there's also the lame bait-and-switch in which weather is not climate when it's colder, but weather IS climate when it's warmer. In a cold winter, we get the warmists clucking that this is the result of global warming. In a warm summer we're told: "The Earth is sick..."

Comparisons are also often made by trimming data at the front end--e.g., "it's warmer than 1891!!" when 1890 is actually the record. Or "ice has diminished since 1933" when it has grown if you include 1932.


----------



## bryanc

bsenka said:


> James Hansen must have failed grade 6 math.


Hypothesis 1: James Hansen (B.A. Math, M.Sc. Astronomy, Ph.D. Physics) cannot do elementary school arithmetic.

Hypothesis 2: bsenka, and other local climate change deniers with no relevant expertise in the field don't understand the science being discussed.

Which hypothesis provides a simpler explanation of the data?


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Hypothesis 1: James Hansen (B.A. Math, M.Sc. Astronomy, Ph.D. Physics) cannot do elementary school arithmetic.
> 
> Hypothesis 2: bsenka, and other local climate change deniers with no relevant expertise in the field don't understand the science being discussed.
> 
> Which hypothesis provides a simpler explanation of the data?


Anyone is entitled to hold an opinion on the results of scientific theory and should not have to endure your constant put downs and humiliations as a result. tptptptp


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Anyone is entitled to hold an opinion


Indeed, anyone is entitled to an opinion... but in science, not all opinions are equal.

If you have an opinion on the hypotheses, by all means let's hear it. But science is a blood sport; if you're data doesn't support your hypothesis, or if someone else can come up with a simpler explanation of your data, your hypothesis dies.

The fact that AGW remains the hypothesis at the top of the heap, despite decades of the best efforts from all the world's experts in the field to refute it, suggests it is probably true.

What I have been trying to communicate to people here is that a bunch of anonymous critics on the internet, some bloggers, and the odd legitimate scientist claiming that they can refute the AGW hypothesis does not make it so. The rancourous opinions of the ignorant are of no relevance to the discussion. The legitimate scientists are welcome to submit their papers for peer review and they have; there's still clearly a less than perfect understanding of global climate, and there's still lots of exciting and lively science going on, but that does not change the fact that there's a broad and extraordinary consensus on the issue among the people who have the expertise to formulate an informed opinion, and a few dissenting opinions does not change this fact.

So you can put your fingers in your ears and sing "La-la-lah-I-can't-hear-you!", accuse me an other scientists of perpetuating a global conspiracy, take my simple statements of fact as insults or whatever you like, but it won't change the facts. Science marches on and the more data we accumulate the more confident we become that human activity is influencing the global climate, and that our politcal-economic policy must change. Perhaps you and many others will succeed in preventing these changes, and there's even a chance you'll be right. In which case, good for you; no harm, no foul. But if the denier movement succeeds in preventing change, and (as usual) the science turns out to be right, the costs to society and the biosphere may be incalculable. I sincerely hope that does not happen. 

Since it seems obvious to me that the cost of converting to sustainable energy before we absolutely have to is far less than failing to convert in time, I'm arguing we should err on the side of caution, accept that change is inevitable, and take a leadership role in that technological advancement, rather than be dragged, kicking-and-screaming into the future and thus failing to capture the early mover advantage.


----------



## Dr.G.

"Science marches on and the more data we accumulate the more confident we become that human activity is influencing the global climate, and that our politcal-economic policy must change. Perhaps you and many others will succeed in preventing these changes, and there's even a chance you'll be right. In which case, good for you; no harm, no foul. But if the denier movement succeeds in preventing change, and (as usual) the science turns out to be right, the costs to society and the biosphere may be incalculable. I sincerely hope that does not happen." I strongly agree with you here, bryanc. My biggest fear is that governments, industry, small businesses and average people will become lax and continue upon our wasteful ways. This will lead to disaster. Not sure how close we are to the tipping point, and it may not happen in my lifetime, but I believe it is coming.

Still, many of us here do our bit to help protect the environment and that is a start. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami. Excelsior.


----------



## eMacMan

Actually I have been following this thread for some time. The AGW worshippers go by faith then attempt to back it up. 

The actual research when closely examined consistently fails. Tree rings that are selected because they ignore a minor ice age and produce the Mann hockey stick. And that is the supposedly the gold standard. 

Fudging data to create the desired result may pass an internal peer review or even a review where fund withdrawal is used as a stick. Still most first year science lab courses have at least one experiment designed to ensnare the student that tries this shortcut. BTW those that do are rewarded with Fs for that experiment.


----------



## Macfury

I believe this handles the CRU whitewash as well as any source. I used the entire article because WEJ pieces tend to be reduced to a single paragraph after a day or two.

A Climate Absolution? - WSJ.com



> A Climate Absolution?
> 
> Written by Wall Street Journal Editorial | 15 July 2010
> 
> The latest study purporting to absolve the scientists involved in November's Climategate scandal was published last week. On predictable cue, the news was followed by a letter from our admirers at the United Nations Foundation and the Natural Resources Defense Council urging us to "set the record straight" on "these bogus scandals." Having devoted considerable space to Climategate, we're happy to explain why we can't do that.
> ***
> Climategate is media shorthand for the debate over the content of thousands of emails and documents that were released without authorization from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. At its core, the scandal was as much about the integrity of the scientific process as it was about the quality of the science. Leading climate scientists were caught advising each other to delete potentially compromising emails, stonewall freedom of information requests and game the peer review process to exclude contributions from skeptical colleagues.
> 
> The Climategate emails also revealed a habit among climate scientists of trimming their scientific sails to the political winds, sometimes by emphasizing temperature and environmental trends at the alarmist end of the spectrum.
> 
> "I tried hard to balance the needs of the science with the IPCC, which were not always the same," wrote East Anglia climatologist Keith Briffa to Penn State's Michael Mann in April 2007. The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is the U.N. body whose lengthy reports are supposed to be the gold standard for what the world knows about climate change.
> 
> For anyone who believes that science benefits from transparency, Climategate was a very good thing. The scandal prompted reporters, bloggers, independent scientists and parliamentary committees to take a closer look at the "settled science." A widely cited claim by the IPCC that Himalayan glaciers would all but vanish by 2035 was debunked. Another stunner about a potential 40% decline in the Amazonian rainforest "appears to have absolutely no scientific basis at all," according to Roger Pielke, Jr., an environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado. Other attention-getting IPCC assertions turn out to have been based on the work of environmental pressure groups and popular magazines.
> 
> At a minimum, then, Climategate ought to have prompted some soul-searching among climate scientists about the need for greater openness, less politics and a more balanced treatment of the data. Which makes it all the more unfortunate that last week's "Independent Climate Change Email Review," commissioned and funded by the University of East Anglia and chaired by Muir Russell, the former Vice Chancellor of the University of Glasgow, amounts to a 160-page evasion of the real issues.
> 
> One such evasion concerns the science of climate change itself. The review insists that it found nothing "that might undermine the conclusions" of the 2007 IPCC report, to which the CRU was a significant contributor. But that's only because it explicitly refused to look. The review says its "concern is not with science, whether data has been validated or whether the hypotheses have survived testing," but rather with "the honesty, rigor and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted."
> 
> In other words, the review assumes the validity of the global warming "consensus" while purporting to reaffirm that consensus. Since a statement cannot prove itself, the review merely demonstrates a weakness for circular logic.
> 
> Nearly the only significant scientific judgment cast by the review is that some versions of the notorious "hockey stick" graph—which purports to show relatively stable global temperatures until the last century—were "misleading" because the attempt, in the words of CRU director Phil Jones, to "hide the decline" in some of the data had not been made clear to readers.
> 
> Then there is the evasion—or maybe absolution is the better word—as it concerns the professional standards of the CRU scientists. The review does acknowledge that it found "evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable." And it faults the CRU staff for "[failing] to recognize . . . the significance of statutory requirements" concerning freedom of information requests. The review puts this down to a kind of naivete by the CRU scientists.
> 
> Yet it's hard to understand how researchers who were nothing if not meticulous in avoiding the FOI requests could have been unaware of their importance. In one now famous 2008 email, Mr. Jones wrote Penn State's Michael Mann as follows: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the 2007 IPCC report]? Keith will do likewise." Good thing for these gentlemen that they didn't work for, say, Enron.
> 
> Perhaps the most significant evasion is the report's claim to be genuinely independent. Of its four panelists, one of them, Geoffrey Boulton, was a member of the University of East Anglia's faculty of environmental studies for 18 years and signed a petition last December insisting that climate researchers "adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity." Given that one of the problems exposed by the emails was a tendency for self-dealing, it's hard to see how this review will put suspicions to rest.
> ***
> 
> We realize that, for climate change true believers, last week's report will be waved about as proof that the science of climate change is as "settled" as the case for action. It's never hard to convince yourself of what you're already disposed to believe. But if their goal is to persuade an increasingly skeptical public about the science of global warming, and the need to restructure the world economy to ameliorate it, they need to start taking the politics out of the science.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Since it seems obvious to me that the cost of converting to sustainable energy before we absolutely have to is far less than failing to convert in time, I'm arguing we should err on the side of caution, accept that change is inevitable, and take a leadership role in that technological advancement, rather than be dragged, kicking-and-screaming into the future and thus failing to capture the early mover advantage.


It appears obvious to you, but it is not reasonable. Watch the disasters in Spain and Germany resulting from just such policies. Much money spent for little result.


----------



## FeXL

*Just wondering if I need a PhD to figger this out...*

IPCC to Scientists: Shut Up!



> The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on July 5th warned the scientists in its camp to avoid talking to the press. The warning came just before the Muir Russell report into the Climategate Email scandal stated that IPCC scientists needed to enter “a new world of openness” because their bunker mentality was harming the cause of science.


If your science is peer reviewed, if your data possesses integrity, if your conclusions are supported, what's the issue?


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> Just wondering if I need a PhD to figger this out...


Yep, you do so, bryanc said so.


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> Yep, you do so, bryanc said so.


<sigh> Awright, I'll delete it...


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> If your science is peer reviewed, if your data possesses integrity, if your conclusions are supported, what's the issue?


Exactly. I've never argued that the political interference in the publication of science is justified, or that you need special expertise to object to the politicization of science. I've only objected to people without the necessary expertise criticizing the research.

You have every right to be appalled at the IPCC for trying to muzzle scientists.


----------



## FeXL

Thank you for your comment.

However, the question remains unanswered.


----------



## Macfury

This article on the Climategate whitewash is also quite good.



> Like the Watergate affair, the real scandal is not just the actual events under investigation but the subsequent cover-up. The ‘Climategate’ emails lifted the curtain on the deeply questionable and anti-scientific methods being employed to keep AGW theory going in the face of contrary evidence. But the investigation that followed has turned into a scandal of its own. It exposes how AGW theory is so deeply embedded into a scientific establishment which has far, far too much face to lose if it were to start telling the truth about this bogus ‘science’ – and thus it helps explain how a scam of the magnitude of AGW theory has been successfully perpetrated upon the world for so long.


http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6147814/the-climategate-travesty.thtml


----------



## CubaMark

*With Climate Change, Facts Matter*



> It must be difficult, if not downright embarrassing, to be a climate change denier these days. After all, the scientists they’ve attacked have been exonerated, London’s Sunday Times newspaper ran a retraction and apology for an article deniers were using to discredit climate change science, and more and more denier “experts” are being exposed as shills for industry or just disingenuous clowns.
> 
> (SNIP)
> 
> ...the deniers will ignore the evidence. Nothing would please us more than if they were right. Life really would be easier if fossil fuels like oil and coal did not cause environmental damage or pose risks to life on our small planet. But this is the real world, with real scientific evidence pointing to the urgent need to make changes in the way we live and get energy.
> 
> We have many ways to confront the threat of catastrophic climate change, from individual efforts to conserve energy and pollute less to government initiatives to encourage research and development into clean energy technology.
> 
> It’s time to listen to the people who continue to look at the facts in the face of baseless accusations, break-ins, and threats. We need to listen to those are trying to do something about our predicament rather than wishing it away.


(The Mark News)


----------



## Macfury

Oddly enough, it's far more embarrassing to support that Climategate whitewash. While warmists are peeing their pants with delight over internal reviews by friendly panels that vindicated scientists of extreme wrongdoing (but did not examine their scientific method). Support for Warmism is dropping rapidly, and faster still in the wake of the whitewash, which is largely seen as a cover-up.

Who would be embarrassed over criticizing BP in the wake of a friendly oil industry probe that exonerates them?
_
Addendum: My apologies for responding to the above. It's an article written by baby machine David Suzuki._


----------



## SINC

I believe nothing David Suzuki has to say about climate. As bryanc would point out, he, like the rest of us, doesn't have the scientific credentials to comment on the "facts".


----------



## bryanc

*Some interesting meta-research published in PNAS*

As I am not a climate scientist myself, I have tried to refrain from formulating opinions on the meaning of the actual research data, and have focused instead on the significance of the consensus among those who's expertise is relevant. I was, however, unaware of exactly how strong that consensus was until today. I think this is partly due to the media's propensity to show they're being 'balanced' by giving time to both sides of a dispute, even when one of those sides has a far better case. 

A recent peer-reviewed research article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (one of the most prestigious journals in all of science) documents the objective analysis of the credibility of climate researchers accepting & promoting the theory of anthropogenic climate change, and the contrarians we hear so much about who are still skeptical of this model.

They conclude


> (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.


Please feel free to read the article and try to criticize the methods, which are well explained and/or the data which is freely available.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> However, the question remains unanswered.


Was this directed at me? If so, I don't think I understand what you're asking. What question remains unanswered?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> A recent peer-reviewed research article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (one of the most prestigious journals in all of science) documents the objective analysis of the credibility of climate researchers accepting & promoting the theory of anthropogenic climate change, and the contrarians we hear so much about who are still skeptical of this model.


This article has resulted in a lot of embarrassment because it intends to create a blacklist of scientists who are not "right-thinking." Thankfully it fails, not only in methodology, but in intended effect:

Global warming: Open letter to Stephen Schneider



> Global warming: Open letter to Stephen Schneider
> 
> Written by Thomas Fuller, SF Environmental Policy Examiner | 23 June 2010
> 
> 
> Dear Professor Schneider,
> 
> I am writing in regards to your recently published paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, titled 'Expert Credibility in Climate Change.'
> 
> I would like to start by asking you if your previously held opinions on global temperatures, which you have since discarded, should be used to disqualify you from current or future work or discussion regarding climate change. If not, why do you libel Roger Pielke Sr. as a skeptic based on his signature to a petition in 1992?
> 
> Second, I would like to know how you could associate your name and reputation with a paper with so many errors of data. Are you aware of the mistakes regarding the backgrounds, employment and specializations of the scientists on the lists used for your paper? What quality control measures did you use that could get Willam Happer's field of specialization wrong? Do you stand by the integrity of the data used in your paper?
> 
> Third, I would like to know how you validated your lists as fit for purpose. How were the petitions selected? What quality control checks and validation procedures were used? Surely, assuming you libeled Pielke Sr. unintentionally, you would have realised that his appearance on your list would call into question the list itself and not his character or beliefs.
> 
> Fourth, are you aware that this list is already being used to dismiss scientists as unfit for participation in the debate merely because of their presence on this list? How could you have been unaware that this would be a blacklist used to demean those on it and threaten those who might wish to voice an unpopular opinion in the future? Joe Romm wrote today, “It is time for the media to stop listening to, quoting, and enabling the anti-scientist disinformers.”
> 
> Roger Pielke Sr., to continue with the case example, recently wrote on his weblog of how a project he had requested funding for had been denied, despite stellar reviews from referees. How do you think his next project will fare now that he is officially mislabeled (but libeled) as a skeptic, something he has been adamant about denying (I know from personal experience after mistakenly referring to him as one)?
> 
> Judith Curry writes, "My first comment about the paper is that I suspect it was not peer reviewed. Since the 4th author Steve Schneider is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a paper submitted by a member is published without review, sort of a “vanity press” for national academy members." Can you either confirm or deny that this paper was in fact peer-reviewed?
> 
> I am not the only questioning the data selection, methodology and analysis of this paper. Eric Steig says he is appalled by it. Lucia Liljegren writes,
> 
> "With respect to this focus on counting papers, there are all sorts of obvious questions one might ask like:
> 
> Are some researchers working on large collaborative teams writing papers with over a dozen authors while other write papers with only 1 or 2? If yes, how should a person listed as one of 20 co-authors on 10 papers be weighted against someone listed as one of 2 authors on 10 papers be accounted for when assessing expertise?
> 
> Does participating in the IPCC help people make connections and help grease the wheels when submitting papers and going through peer review? Does merely going along to get along help people get papers published? Does signing a letter criticizing the IPCC make it harder to get papers published? If yes, is the number of differences in paper counts due to this effect rather than any true expertise?
> 
> As for your reading in the idea that this paper tells us we can’t find two viable camps, let’s first assume that someone proposes there are two viable camps. Did that someone propose that the dividing line separating the camps lies between the groups the authors of the paper call “CE” and “UE”. Couldn’t a fault line lie somewhere in the group they called “CE”?
> 
> I note no reference in your paper to West and McIlwaine. How do you address their conclusion that there is no correlation between number of citations and expert ratings of quality? Or Callaham et al in their findings that journals were a greater predictor of citations than quality of the research? Where can we find how you allowed for this?
> 
> Is this science you are proud of? Does damaging the reputation of some scientists by mistakenly (or vindictively) including them on a blacklist serve science well? Does establishing a climate of fear that will dissuade scientists from expressing their true opinion?
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Thomas Fuller


PNAS: Witchdoctors of science « JoNova



> PNAS: Witchdoctors of science
> 
> Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: a step back to the Stone Age
> 
> Shame on you Schneider, traitor to science. Shame on the NAS editors who allowed this pathetic excuse for research into their publications. And shame on any member of the NAS who doesn’t shout in protest at this denigration of the good name that took decades to build.


----------



## SINC

Oh my, more . . .


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Was this directed at me? If so, I don't think I understand what you're asking. What question remains unanswered?


Nope. Open question, if not rhetorical.

The question stands: What is the issue with having your scientists speak to the media if all else (data, conclusions, peer-review) is intact?


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> The question stands: What is the issue with having your scientists speak to the media if all else (data, conclusions, peer-review) is intact?


I'm entirely in favour of scientists speaking in the media, provided their data has been subject to rigorous peer-review and has been accepted for publication as a result (press-releasese prior to peer-review are notoriously problematic). In practise, this often doesn't work very well, because the media and the public are largely scientifically illiterate, so the stories that get published in the popular press usually wind up being mis-leading or downright false, because they don't allow the quoted scientists to verify what's going to be published (often due to time constraints). More reputable publications will publish retractions, but that is like closing the proverbial barn door after the horse has run off.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> This article has resulted in a lot of embarrassment because it intends to create a blacklist of scientists who are not "right-thinking."


Did you read the paper? I provided a link and it's only 3 pages long. If you read the paper and came to that conclusion, it's no wonder you're confused about more complicated issues.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Did you read the paper? I provided a link and it's only 3 pages long. If you read the paper and came to that conclusion, it's no wonder you're confused about more complicated issues.


Yes I did read it. It's intellectual pap, attempting to map the author's own emotional response to the issue onto some sort of embarrassing proxy for intelligence. The magazine itself has come under scorn for printing it, even on the errors in data collection alone.

Would you give your students a good grade for coming up with a study such as this?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Would you give your students a good grade for coming up with a study such as this?


Absolutely. It's a good attempt to come up with an objective measure of a chronically subjective characteristic: "credibility."

The authors have made a database of over 1300 climate researchers, categorized them as being convinced by the evidence for ACC (CE), or unconvinced by the evidence (UE). The only reasonable criticism I've seen of this so far is that the may have made two errors of categorization (which is less than 0.2% error, and that error works against their conclusion in that both of the mis-categorizations are researchers who used to be UE, but are now firmly convinced of ACC, and should therefore have been categorized as CE). Then they have applied standard and widely accepted measures of research productivity and impact; the exact same measures used by granting agencies to rank researchers, and have found that not only are those climate researchers who are convinced of ACC the *VAST* majority (over 97%), but those who are unconvinced are also statistically far less important contributors to the field. There is certainly no "black list" or argument that such should exist.

For those of us who are not climate researchers, this is an important piece of data. We hear reports that "most climate researchers agree that ACC is a well-supported model" or "there is a broad consensus that ACC is true", but on the other hand, we hear reports that "many credible scientists are remain skeptical of ACC" and that "the consensus on ACC is far from unanimous." Without the expertise to analyze the data for ourselves, how is a rational person to deal with this paradox? This paper provides some valuable insight: There is a consensus of over 97% of trained climatologists that ACC is well-supported, and the ~3% that remain skeptical are researchers who's main contributions are either in other fields or are from long ago. To me, that is valuable information.


----------



## Macfury

From the abstract:



> Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...


Even Spencer Weart, who believes in AGW states:



> Although I am personally "convinced by the evidence" and am surprised at the number who are not, I have to admit that this paper should not have been published in the present form... the defects are obvious on a quick reading of the paper itself.


The researcher also credits papers with multiple authors as a full paper for each author. What his research proves--if no further errors are found in the data collection, is that:

* those who support the IPCC tenets are more likely to be published
* those convinced by AGW tend to write more about it. In the "publish or perish" mentality of academia, many push out dozens of papers which are simple variations of one another.
* That the AGW group has reached significant enough size to ensure that more papers supporting AGW are published

Using number of published works as a proxy for credibility and expertise is an invention of the author. If the most published author is wrong, does it make him more credible? If I take a data set of published papers _disproving_ continental drift between 1912 and 1960, I will conclude that the most credible geophysicists are those stalwart, right-thinking and more often published souls who know that continents _stay put_.

The author has ultimately reached a conclusion akin to making the statement: "most of the people who write for religious magazines are themselves religious."


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Using number of published works as a proxy for credibility and expertise is an invention of the author. If the most published author is wrong, does it make him more credible?


Take that up with NSERC, NIH, NSF, CIHR, NCIC, CFI, and every other granting agency on earth. Publication and citation/impact factors are the only proxies we've got for credibility.



> If I take a data set of published papers _disproving_ continental drift between 1912 and 1960, I will conclude that the most credible geophysicists are those stalwart, right-thinking and more often published souls who know that continents _stay put_.


I'd like to see this analysis. I don't think you could do it.

It's not that paradigm-changing research does not suffer some resistance. It clearly does. But the data supporting ACC is *growing* and the number of people with expertise in the field skeptical of this paradigm is *shrinking* because the *data* supports the model. Paradigm shifts happen when the data *conflicts* with the established model.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Paradigm shifts happen when the data *conflicts* with the established model.


I've never read about a "model" yet that did not have a sleazy side, never mind her wardrobe.


----------



## FeXL

*Phil Jones exonerated? Hardly...*

Ya know the Oxburgh's Eleven papers that let Phil Jones off the hook? They let him pick which ones to sample. Nice...



> Now, whichever way you look at it, this is a funny question to put to the accused if one's objective is a fair trial. I mean, what could Jones say? "You've picked all my bad papers"? And of course Jones must have known that the sample was not representative.


Further...



> The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. And, to add insult to injury, when you let the accused endorse which pieces of evidence might be a "fair sample";, is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?


----------



## SINC

Some science group said it was so because they read Jone's hand picked submissions? Yeah, right, that elevates my confidence in science level much higher.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Ya know the Oxburgh's Eleven papers that let Phil Jones off the hook? They let him pick which ones to sample.


The fact that Lord Oxburgh has financial interests in several companies promoting wind power and alternative energy should have disqualified him right off, since he has incentive to let them off the hook.


----------



## Macfury

From an editorial in New Scientist magazine:



> *Without candour, we can't trust climate science*
> 
> * 14 July 2010
> 
> IS CLIMATEGATE finally over? It ought to be, with the publication of the third UK report into the emails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Incredibly, none looked at the quality of the science itself.
> 
> The MPs' inquiry - rushed out before the UK general election on 6 May - ducked the science because the university said it was setting up an "independent scientific assessment panel" chaired by geologist Ron Oxburgh.
> 
> After publishing his five-page epistle, Oxburgh declared "the science was not the subject of our study". Finally, last week came former civil servant Muir Russell's 150-page report. Like the others, he lambasted the CRU for its secrecy but upheld its integrity - despite declaring his study "was not about... the content or quality of [CRU's] scientific work" (see "Scientists respond to Muir Russell report").
> 
> Though the case for action to cut greenhouse gases remains strong, this omission matters. How can we know whether CRU researchers were properly exercising their judgment? Without dipping his toes into the science, how could Russell tell whether they were misusing their power as peer reviewers to reject papers critical of their own research, or keep sceptical research out of reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
> 
> Russell's report was much tougher on data secrecy, finding a "consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness". Key data on matters of public importance - like CRU's assembly of 160 years of global thermometer data - cannot be regarded as private property. Even so, he ought to have joined Oxburgh in calling for greater documentation of the "judgmental decisions" that turned raw data into the graphs of global average temperatures. Data manipulation is the stuff of science, but that manipulation has to be as open and transparent as the data itself.
> Global thermometer data going back 160 years cannot be regarded as private property
> 
> Russell's team left other stones unturned. They decided against detailed analysis of all the emails in the public domain. They examined just three instances of possible abuse of peer review, and just two cases when CRU researchers may have abused their roles as authors of IPCC reports. There were others. They have not studied hundreds of thousands more unpublished emails from the CRU. Surely openness would require their release.
> 
> All this, plus the failure to investigate whether emails were deleted to prevent their release under freedom of information laws, makes it harder to accept Russell's conclusion that the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists concerned "are not in doubt".
> 
> Some will argue it is time to leave climategate behind. But it is difficult to justify the conclusion of Edward Acton, University of East Anglia vice-chancellor, that the CRU has been "completely exonerated". Openness in sharing data, even with your critics, is a legal requirement.
> *
> But what happened to intellectual candour - especially in conceding the shortcomings of these inquiries and discussing the way that science is done. Without candour, public trust in climate science cannot be restored, nor should it be*.


Without candour, we can't trust climate science - opinion - 14 July 2010 - New Scientist


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc's Chicken Little squawking about hurricanes has fallen flat as well. We're on our way to a record LOW number of tropical storms this year, measured over a period of 30 years.


coaps.fsu.edu | Ryan Maue's Seasonal Tropical Cyclone Activity Update





> *Ryan N. Maue's 2010 Global Tropical Cyclone Activity Update*
> 
> July 15: If no additional ACE occurred in July, the 24-month global ACE total would be 1095 compared to last month at 1173. The previous 30-year low was 1091 set recently in September 2009. No lower values exist during the past 30-years.


----------



## Macfury

Authoritarian scientists are losing credibility because they are no longer content to report their findings, but demanding that people follow their instructions as well. A literature search spanning 30 years conducted by the American Enterprise Institute showed an increasingly harsh and authoritarian tone expressed in scientific articles and articles about science:



> What we found surprised us. One phrase, in particular, has become dramatically more frequent in recent years: “Science tells us we should.” Increased usage of this phrase leads to a chart resembling a steep mountain climb (or, for those with a mischievous bent, a “hockey stick”). The use of the phrase “science requires” also increases sharply over time. The chart (below) vividly shows the increasing use of those particular phrases. Some of this may simply reflect the general growth of media output and the growth of new media, but if that were the case, we would expect all of the terms to have shown similar growth, which they do not....
> 
> 
> If science wants to redeem itself and regain its place with the public’s affection, scientists need to come out every time some politician says, “The science says we must…” and reply, “Science only tells us what is. It does not, and can never tell us what we should or must do.” If they say that often enough, and loudly enough, they might be able to reclaim the mantle of objectivity that they’ve given up over the last 40 years by letting themselves become the regulatory state’s ultimate appeal to authority.


----------



## eMacMan

Now there's a hockey stick.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Authoritarian scientists are losing credibility because they are no longer content to report their findings, but demanding that people follow their instructions as well. A literature search spanning 30 years conducted by the American Enterprise Institute showed an increasingly harsh and authoritarian tone expressed in scientific articles and articles about science:


If you can't do the math you gotta believe, that's all you gotta argue about is your faith.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> If you can't do the math you gotta believe, that's all you gotta argue about is your faith.


What a picayune existence you describe. That doesn't represent my reality at all.


----------



## MacDoc

AGW deniers fate










> * The Earth is hotter than ever, global warming is real, researchers warn *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Louis S. St-Laurent makes its way through the ice in Baffin Bay, Thursday, July 10, 2008. The Louis S. St-Laurent is on its annual voyage through Canada's Arctic that includes patrols through the Northwest Passage. In addition to serving the people of Canada's North the ship is carrying a team of scientists studying climate change and the health of Canada's three oceans. Canadian Press
> 
> _Scientists hope findings will debunk some growing skepticism about climate change_
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Waldie
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail Published on Thursday, Jul. 29, 2010 12:03AM EDT Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 29, 2010 2:27PM EDT
> 
> More than 300 scientists from around the world, including several Canadians, hope to blunt some growing skepticism about climate change with a new report that says global warming is a fact and the Earth is hotter than ever.
> *“The conclusion is unmistakable – yes, the planet is warming,” said Derek Arndt, a co-editor of the report, called State of the Climate, which was published by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA.*
> “The facts speak for themselves, and speak simultaneously,” said Mr. Arndt, who runs the Climate Monitoring Branch at NOAA. “And, they all point toward the same conclusion – the globe is warming.”
> The report – co-edited by researchers in the United States, Canada, Britain and Australia – pulled together data from 10 climate indicators measured by 160 research groups in 48 countries. The scientists compared the figures decade by decade as far back as possible, more than 100 years in some cases. They concluded 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade ever, and the Earth has been growing warmer for 50 years. Each of the past three decades – 1980s, 1990s and 2000s – was the hottest on record, the researchers said.
> This year is shaping up to be even warmer. For the first six months of 2010, the combined global land and ocean temperature was the warmest on record, according to the NOAA.
> The study is the most extensive ever done by the agency and it comes after controversy erupted last year when leaked e-mails purported to show that scientists at a world-leading climate institute in Britain had fudged research. Three investigations have concluded that the researchers at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit did not tamper with data or interfere with the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming.
> Mr. Arndt said the NOAA report is meant to be a kind of medical check-up for the planet in which measurements are taken and the results documented. He said it will be up to others to draw conclusions about why climate change is occurring and what should be done about it. “This is basically a broad and comprehensive telling of what’s going on with the climate system,” he said.
> Nonetheless, he said he was personally taken aback by how all 10 indicators clearly showed the Earth is heating up. “Seeing them standing next to each other, kind of nakedly, and pointing to the same conclusion, it very much jumped off the page at me... Absolutely, yes, we live in a warming planet.”
> Of the 10 measurements, the report said seven are rising – air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and the temperature of the troposphere, which is the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining – Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. All of which point to a warming trend.
> The past decade was 0.6 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1960s, and 0.2 degrees warmer than the 1990s, the report found. While that may seem small, Mr. Arndt said, the planet has already been changed. “Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. And, as the new report tells us, there is now evidence more than 90 per cent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our ocean.”
> The researchers also found the retreat of mountain glaciers, an important signal of climate change, continued for the 19th consecutive year in 2009. The cumulative loss of the past 30 years is “equivalent to slicing 13 metres off the top of the average glacier,” the study said. The majority of glaciers in every region surveyed receded last year. For example, of the 88 glaciers examined in Switzerland, 81 had retreated, two advanced and five were stable last year. Of the 93 glaciers in Austria, 85 receded, seven didn’t move and one advanced.
> As for Canada, the report noted the mean temperature for 2009 was 0.8 C above normal, tying 1988 as the 14th warmest year since nationwide records began in 1948. The warmest year was 1998, which was 2.5 C above normal. For the decade as a whole, “it is clear that the 2000s was the warmest decade out of the six that are available for this national study, with an average temperature of 1.1C above normal.”


----------



## Dr.G.

"AGW deniers fate". Wrong there, MacDoc. It is the fate of us ALL. If it happens, it happens to us all, believers and non-believers. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> AGW deniers fate


If the devil is real, then a lot of people are going to hell too. It's a nonsense statement you're making.

Once NOAA replaces its thousands of defective weather stations and reinstates the Canadian weather stations we might get something resembling an accurate climate picture. Hadley CRU and GISS data are constantly extrapolated and corrected for anomalies to favour warming, both before data is supplied to them by individual countries and after they receive it.

Note how little attention is being paid to record cold in South America and other countries this year. Such "anomalies" are being smoothed out by the warmists.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> If the devil is real, then a lot of people are going to hell too. It's a nonsense statement you're making.
> 
> Once NOAA replaces its thousands of defective weather stations and reinstates the Canadian weather stations we might get something resembling an accurate climate picture. Hadley CRU and GISS data are constantly extrapolated and corrected for anomalies to favour warming, both before data is supplied to them by individual countries and after they receive it.
> 
> Note how little attention is being paid to record cold in South America and other countries this year. Such "anomalies" are being smoothed out by the warmists.


It does seem ridiculous to be wasting a great deal of time collecting faulty data. Makes it that much tougher to go back and get it right. Some how the AGW types keep ignoring that prior to the Maunder Minimum, it was even warmer than it is now. While it may be just a coincidence that the dark ages coincided with a mini-ice age, it would seem that mankind has progressed most rapidly during warming phases and suffered mightily when things got cold.

While Global Warming is not going to cause the sky to fall, for some of us sliding back into an ice age could at the very least be a major inconvenience and it would be nice to have a heads up. So why not at least start putting together a reliable data set that includes the entire planet rather than just those stations which can further the cause of the Carbon Carpetbaggers.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan, they're too invested in warming to back out now. 

Note that any warmists who talk of future Ice Ages never suggest that these could be staved off by pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere. Only removing CO2 is permissible--or whatever creates the most human suffering. I could imagine these clowns in a future Ice Age telling people to shut down their furnaces because the carbon emissions will only make things worse.


----------



## MacDoc

> *As nation, Russia, and world swelter under record-smashing heat waves, The New York Times sets one-day record for most unilluminating stories*
> 
> July 26, 2010
> ​ Globally NOAA just reported that June is the fourth month in a row of record global temperatures, and the first half of 2010 is on a record pace. This is all the more powerful evidence of human-caused warming “because it occurs when the recent minimum of solar irradiance is having its maximum cooling effect,” as a recent NASA paper noted.
> Globally nine countries have smashed all-time temperature records, “making 2010 the year with the most national extreme heat records,” as meteorologist Jeff Masters has reported.
> *“This is a serious abnormality. The Russian weather service has never measured such temperatures in Moscow in July,” said Dmitry Kiktyov, Deputy Director of the Hydrometeorological Center of Russia.*​ Daily highs outpaced daily lows across the United States nearly 5-to-1 in June and over 3-to-1 in July — whereas the ratio for the decade of the 2000s was 2.04-to-1, up from 1.36-to-1 in the 1990s (see below).


As nation, Russia, and world swelter under record-smashing heat waves, The New York Times sets one-day record for most unilluminating stories Climate Progress

and the consequences...



> *25 dead as forest fires rage across Russia*
> 
> 
> The Associated Press
> Friday, July 30, 2010 | 7:54 a.m.
> Forest fires raged across Russia on Friday, destroying villages, surrounding one southern city and killing at least 25 people, including three firefighters. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin consoled survivors at one smoldering village and urged officials to redouble their efforts against the blazes.
> The fires have spread quickly across more than 200,000 acres (90,000 hectares) in recent days after a record heat wave and severe drought. July *has been the hottest month in Moscow in 130 years of recorded history. *Fields and forests have dried up, and much of this year's wheat harvest has been ruined.
> 
> 
> 25 dead as forest fires rage across Russia - Friday, July 30, 2010 | 7:54 a.m. - Las Vegas Sun


----------



## Macfury

The short version: Russian forest fires kill 25.

You'll note that any heat deaths are given front page coverage while a larger number of deaths caused by cold are not:

BBC News - Peru declares emergency over cold weather

The Peruvian government has declared a state of emergency in more than half the country due to cold weather.

..... 

This week Peru's capital, Lima, recorded its lowest temperatures in 46 years at 8C, and the emergency measures apply to several of its outlying districts.

*Hundreds of people* - nearly half of them very young children - *have died of cold-related diseases*, such as pneumonia, in Peru's mountainous south where temperatures can plummet at night to -20C.


----------



## eMacMan

Yep interesting about those record temps. Locally the summer has been noticeably cooler than average. Taber Corn is 3 weeks slow, overnight temps in the single digits and La Nina has her tardy and floundering big brother dead in her sights, leaving us looking at a third colder than norm winter this year. 

A summer (which depending on August) could well be one of the coldest on record and a colder than normal winter does ≠ global warming.


----------



## Macfury

eMAcMan, the notion of a "global temperature" is also a fairly recent invention fraught with inconsistencies. 

Are we monitoring land, ocean, deep sea, air or upper atmosphere temperatures? Some of them or all of them? Are we taking 24-hour readings or just highs and lows? Where are the monitoring stations located? Are we using ancient units that once sat in open fields but now sit in urban areas, some of them under exhaust vents--as NOAA does? Are we using proxy data for northern regions while using actual data for hotter areas--as NOAA does? The scientific method seems not to matter to them. 

Depending on how you decide to calculate it, you can jig the average temperatures warmer or cooler.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> eMAcMan, the notion of a "global temperature" is also a fairly recent invention fraught with inconsistencies.
> 
> Are we monitoring land, ocean, deep sea, air or upper atmosphere temperatures? Some of them or all of them? Are we taking 24-hour readings or just highs and lows? Where are the monitoring stations located? Are we using ancient units that once sat in open fields but now sit in urban areas, some of them under exhaust vents--as NOAA does? Are we using proxy data for northern regions while using actual data for hotter areas--as NOAA does? The scientific method seems not to matter to them.
> 
> Depending on how you decide to calculate it, you can jig the average temperatures warmer or cooler.


I do disagree here. Their methods have been carefully scientifically calculated to exactly produce the results they want, which will in turn allow them to justify unleashing the Carbon Carpet Baggers.beejacon


----------



## MacDoc

Flat earthers unite - grab those tin foil hats....










what a hopeless bunch of loons the anti-AGW crowd has sunk into ......


----------



## FeXL

Don't believe in AGW? There's an app for that...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL: You can tell that MacDoc doesn't read a blessed word of anyone else's posts. He draws up that straw man argument of a conspiracy when none has been implied. A true conspiracy would require some sort of concerted effort by a tightly-knit cabal. The Warmists are a just a "rainbow coalition" of serious scientists, misguided scientists, freeloaders, enviro-nut jobs, Gaia worshipers, power-hungry bureaucrats and moneygrubbers sucking on the government teat.


----------



## FeXL

The IPCC, Climate Change and Solar Sophistry

Another -gate?  Yup. Judithgate. Go figger...



> Benjamin Santer graduated from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), where Tom Wigley supervised his PhD. He returned to the US working at the government’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He was appointed lead author of Chapter 8, titled “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes” of the 1995 IPCC Report. It turned out Santer had significantly altered the meaning of the Chapter from that agreed on by the other authors. As Avery and Singer noted in 2006, “Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process! The ‘discernible human influence’ supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been *cited thousands of times* since in media around the world, and has been the ‘stopper’ in millions of debates among nonscientists.”


In case anyone wonders why we need to still beat up IPCC's AR4, my emphasis in the last sentence should be crystal clear.



> A Czech researcher only recently exposed the worst example of this conflict. He calls it Judithgate after Judith Lean co-lead author of Chapter 2 of the 2007 IPCC Report. Section 2.7.1 is titled “Solar variability” and purports to be the work of several researchers according to the bibliography. Actually, the section is dependent on one paper. Lean J., Roltmann G., Harder J., Kopp G.: Source contributions to new understanding of global change and solar variability, Sol. Phys., 230, 27-53, 2005. As a Norwegian government independent reviewer wrote to the IPCC. “I urge IPCC to consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section hangs on one single paper in which Judith Lean is the co-author.” Note the comment “Confidential, Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute.” Why is this necessary for a publicly funded project that has massive global economic implications? Steve McIntyre obtained the information through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.
> 
> More disturbing was the disclosure that Lean and Claus Frohlich had altered graphs to reduce solar influence. “The original satellite data showed, that TSI (measured in Watts) increased from 1986 to 1996 by cca one third… But then Judith and Clause “laundered” the graphs and voila… solar output increase was gone.” *Why was any of this necessary*?


Emphasis mine. Answer: Duh. Because the real data didn't support their lie...



> There are a multitude of other astrophysical relationships causing cycles related to climate not considered by the IPCC.


Sonuvagun. Check out the graph in the hyperlink from the above text. Anybody see any correlations? Yup, me neither.



> Finally, there’s the relationship between sunspot and global temperature. The IPCC consistently ignore the relationship though there’s extensive literature beginning with Galileo’s observations of sunspots in 1610. *Initially they said there was no explanatory mechanism*. This is not a valid reason if you are doing a complete summary of climate science. Svensmark’s plausible Cosmic Theory appeared in embryonic form in 1991 and more completely in 1996. The 2001 Report mentioned it briefly, but it’s omitted in the 2007 Report. Now there is further confirmation of the theory. Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Institute, DTU, and co-author with Svensmark in 1996 said, “The evidence has piled up, first for the link between cosmic rays and low-level clouds and then, by experiment and observation, for the mechanism involving aerosols. All these consistent scientific results illustrate that the current climate models used to predict future climate are lacking important parts of the physics”


Emphasis mine. Nice. If you cannot explain the data, you whitewash it and hope it goes away. In the real world, however, sooner or later that dog will bite.

And to sum up the above quote's last sentence:



> Of course they do, because they were designed to prove CO2 was the cause and therefore the problem.


Yup.

So, you pinko, leftie, warmist "intellectuals" can continue to spout yer drivel, it'll all come clean in the wash.


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> So, you pinko, leftie, warmist "intellectuals" can continue to spout yer drivel, it'll all come clean in the wash.


.


----------



## MacDoc

> *Message from the Eemian: too late to stop significant sea level rise*
> 
> 
> 
> *Time to focus on adaptation. (But bye bye Miami)*
> 
> 
> Jim White leaning on the wing of an airplane at the North Greenland Ice Core Project site in 2004. (Yes, paleoclimatologists do have fun!) He has just returned from another trip to Greenland — this time with a sober assessment of where we’re headed with climate change This morning I interviewed James White, the director of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research here in Boulder, for KGNU radio’s “How on Earth” science show. White is a paleoclimatologist — he studies ancient climates to understand better how Earth’s climate system works. He has just journeyed back from the Greenland ice sheet, where he has been part of an international science team working on the North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling project, or NEEM.
> The “lede” for the story I would write based on this interview is pretty astonishing: In White’s view, it’s already too late to turn back the clock on climate change to save low-lying coastal cities like Miami. The ice cores that he and his colleagues drill from Greenland and Antarctica tell us that the last time greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere were as high as they are today, the world was even warmer than it is now, Greenland was largely deglaciated, and sea level was 10 to 15 feet higher.
> In the interview, White barely mentioned reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases to mitigate climate change, although I know he thinks this would be a very good idea. Instead, he emphasized the need for societies to adapt to what he considers to be inevitable and very significant changes.
> 
> Click here for MP3 audio of the entire science show, including the interview. (The recording actually includes quite a bit of other material from before the science show, so scroll forward to about 13 minutes into the program, where the White interview begins.)
> Below are some of the most significant moments from the interview. I’ve also included some context and my questions (which are not verbatim):
> I pointed out that after two summers of work, the NEEM team has drilled down more than 1.5 miles through the Greenland ice sheet, reaching bedrock just last week. The ice Jim White and his colleagues have recovered originally fell as snow during the Eemian interglacial period, from 115,000 to 130,000 years ago. It contains valuable clues about the climate and environment at that time.
> I asked White why recovering ice from the Eemian is significant.
> “The Eemian, or the last interglacial period, is the last time climate was as warm as it is today. in fact, it was warmer than it is today. And that’s important because as climate warms, we want to know what the impacts are going to be. How much ice is going to melt, how are the climate patterns going to change, are the agricultural areas going to stay the same or are they going to change. And the last interglacial period, being warmer, is a good analogue for the future.”​The Eemian was as warm and perhaps even warmer than it is today. So what insights might the NEEM ice core give us about what could be in store for us in the future?“First let me make the point that the Eemian . . . was indeed warmer. We have multiple lines of evidence for that . . . We also know that sea level was higher in the Eemian — in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 feet higher than today. Ten to 15 feet may not sound too impressive to us here in Colorado. But, for example, 10 to 15 feet would mean no Miami, no Norfolk Virginia, even Washington D.C. — the Mall would be underwater with 10 to 15 feet of sea level rise.
> That’s important because it tells us that these interglacial periods, and climate in general, is not a static thing. We should expect change. We should expect that sea level will change. We should expect that temperatures will change. We should not be surprised that climate changes when we do something as fundamental as adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.”​White then pointed out that the 10 to 15 feet of sea level rise that occurred during the Eemian came from ice melting in Greenland and Antarctica. But scientists want to know what were the relative contributions from these ice sheets. And here is where the interview got very interesting:“If sea level is rising at the rate that it is today, this is something that we can deal with. We’ll lose Miami, for example, but we can perhaps pay for that if we decide that’s the way we want to go. If sea level is rising very rapidly then that makes adaptation more difficult and more expensive.”​That really stopped me. My response: “Lose Miami? Really?”
> White responded that most predictions are for roughly 3 feet of sea level rise by the end of the century.“Go to Google Maps and plug that in and see what Miami looks like. And that’s just by the end of this century. Nobody that I know thinks that sea level is going to stop at a 3 foot rise. It’ll go maybe 10 or 15 feet at least in the next few hundred years. So most coastal cities around the world are going to have to be moved and repopulated elsewhere.​Is there anything we can do not simply to adapt but to prevent climate change and sea level rise?“Carbon dioxide levels, methane levels, are already very high relative to what we know existed for the last million years. I don’t think that we’re going to turn that around very quickly. We could get into some very serious geoengineering in terms of removing these greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Very expensive things to do.
> My feeling is we just need to understand what the science is telling us and make intelligent decisions. I don’t really believe that it’s my role as a scientist to tell policy makers what to do. My role is to tell them this is the information you’re going to get, and we need as a society to make decisions. My pitch as an educator, as a professor, is that those be educated decisions. And whether it’s we’re going to adapt or we’re going to deal with this from a geoengineering sense, it doesn’t really matter to me . . . What matters to me is that we do this with intelligence and that we don’t just deny the obvious.​So we should pay more attention to adaptation?“I think that adaptation is in our future whether we like it or not. We’re going to have to deal with this problem. You can’t stop physics. You can argue all you want. You can say global warming is not happening all you want, but that’s not going to stop global warming. So we’re going to have to deal with it. We’re going to have to adapt to it. And as I said I think it’s just important for us to do that adaptation with some intelligence. We’re going to have to make choices . . . How are we going to spend our money? We only have so much.”​And then came the kicker:“We’re the only creature on the planet that can actually think through these things, and we ought to start thinking”​


.


----------



## Macfury

> The “lede” for the story I would write based on this interview is pretty astonishing: In White’s view, it’s already too late to turn back the clock on climate change to save low-lying coastal cities like Miami. The ice cores that he and his colleagues drill from Greenland and Antarctica tell us that the last time greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere were as high as they are today, the world was even warmer than it is now, Greenland was largely deglaciated, and sea level was 10 to 15 feet higher.


Unfortunately, the link between CO2 and temperature hasn't yet been established--it's far more likely that CO2 spikes as a result of warming, not as the cause of it. What was the state of the Antarctic then? It's icing up really heavily now. Even the premise that we could stop the Earth from warming is a pipe dream--almost embarrassing.

Thank goodness it's too late to turn back the clock--maybe we'll be spared the sermons for for awhile.


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> Thank goodness it's too late to turn back the clock--maybe we'll be spared the sermons for for awhile.


+1. It's time to adapt, or rather recognize that we are continually adapting to our environment; as we've been doing for millennia.


----------



## eMacMan

chasMac said:


> +1. It's time to adapt, or rather recognize that we are continually adapting to our environment; as we've been doing for millennia.


Yes and much easier to adapt to slightly warmer conditions than say a new ice age. 

BTW so far this has been one of the coldest winters on record for Antarctica, most of South America and even Australia.

Russia may be baking, but parts of western Canada are experiencing an unusually cold summer.

Course the growing Arctic ice shelf and the glaciers in Greenland that keep getting thicker are not helping the alarmist cause either.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc's precioussssss NOAA is getting its share of deserved abuse heaped on it these days. Some of the temperatures it's using to determine average temperatures include figures that show Michigan recording temperatures in excess of 300 degrees Fahrenheit! and Iowa in excess of 600 degrees! That's how NOAA and NASA managed to convince people that this year is shaping up to be the warmest on record.

A NOAA whistleblower tipped off journalists about the fraud:



> Global warming data apparently cooked by U.S. government-funded body *shows astounding temperature fraud with increases averaging 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit.*
> 
> The tax-payer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has become mired in fresh global warming data scandal involving numbers for the Great Lakes region that substantially ramp up averages.
> 
> A beleaguered federal agency appears to be implicated in the most blatant and extreme case of climate data fraud yet seen. Official records have been confirmed as evidence that a handful of temperature records for the Great Lakes region have been hiked up by literally hundreds of degrees to substantially inflate the average temperature range for the northeastern United States.
> 
> ...Together the two institutions *show temperature maps for northern Lake Michigan registering an absurd 430 degrees Fahrenheit* -yes, you read it right –that’s four hundred and thirty degrees-and this is by no means the highest temperature recorded on the charts.
> 
> ....But our intrepid anonymous whistleblower wasn’t done yet. He pointed out that Egg Harbor, Wisconsin, really got cooking this July 4th around 9:59AM, according to NOAA and Coast Watch. *It was there, at the bottom left row of the temperature data points, that the records reveal on that day a phenomenally furnace-like 600 degrees Fahrenheit.*


Climate Change Fraud - US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal ? NOAA Disgraced


----------



## eMacMan

Boy am I glad that 430°F temp  on Lake Michigan did not occur the day I was swimming off the North Shore.


----------



## SINC

One day the warmists will have egg all over their faces when this fraud is uncovered for what it really is - deliberate manipulation of data.


----------



## bryanc

Good grief. Anomalous data is a routine problem in remote sensing, and is filtered out automatically.

To suggest that global climate models are flawed because there are anomalies in the raw data is like suggesting a road is impassible because there is a pot hole somewhere.

Only someone fundamentally ignorant of the basics could think this is an issue.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Good grief. Anomalous data is a routine problem in remote sensing, and is filtered out automatically.


It wasn't filtered out. That's the point the whistleblower was making.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Good grief. Anomalous data is a routine problem in remote sensing, and is filtered out automatically.
> 
> To suggest that global climate models are flawed because there are anomalies in the raw data is like suggesting a road is impassible because there is a pot hole somewhere.
> 
> Only someone fundamentally ignorant of the basics could think this is an issue.


Not only was it not filtered, but a false swing that should have triggered alarm bells in a sixth grade science class was instead passed off as "proof" of global warming by University level researchers.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Not only was it not filtered, but a false swing that should have triggered alarm bells in a sixth grade science class was instead passed off as "proof" of global warming by University level researchers.


Any evidence that this obvious anomaly was treated as anything but an anomaly by credible scientists? 

If it wasn't filtered, it was negligible noise. It should obviously have been filtered, but there's no way it was being used as "proof" of anything other than a faulty transponder.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It wasn't filtered out. That's the point the whistleblower was making.


From what is published, this "anonymous whistleblower" has no evidence that these obvious anomalies weren't filtered or that they were used in any credible scientific research. I don't know about the NOAA, but I do know the guy at the NRC who's in charge of one of the databases that archives ocean temperature data acquired from remote sensing stations all over the pacific, and the very first layer of filtering is for temperature readings outside of reasonable bounds. Any station reporting temperatures in the 100s of degrees would be automatically flagged as erroneous data and prioritized for repair.


----------



## SINC

Temperatures continue well below average in Southern California - Whittier Daily News


----------



## Macfury

bryanc: They're arguing now. The people who crunch the data initially said the map was a forgery, then retracted. They next said they had never seen such an anomaly--but a dozen more "anomalies" were pulled up by other people. They are not willing at this point to go on the record saying that the "anomalous" data was not used. Will update.


----------



## eMacMan

Somehow the concept that scientists are beyond the greed and corruption that is stifling the rest of the planet is quite laughable.

In plain English there is gold in producing research that supports AGW. There is a real possibility of losing ones paycheck if the research points the other way. 

Expecting unbiased and non-fudged research in that climate is incredibly naive.

The very fact that more and more evidence comes to the surface repudiating CO2 as the mother of all climate drivers or even as a strong secondary driver, should be reason enough in this academic climate, to carefully consider the very real possibility that AGW is indeed a scam equaled in magnitude only by The Great Bankster Heist of 2008.


----------



## Macfury

The agency responsible for the Lake Michigan temperature data has responded--by deleting the images from its web site. Hurrah!


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> SIn plain English there is gold in producing research that supports AGW.


*snort*

If someone wanted to make money in climate research, they'd be working for the oil companies spreading FUD that lay people and politicians might mistake for science.

Research showing that we have to reduce our consumption of non-renewable resources is the last thing people are going to make money with.

Follow the money.


----------



## adagio

bryanc said:


> *snort*
> 
> If someone wanted to make money in climate research, they'd be working for the oil companies spreading FUD that lay people and politicians might mistake for science.
> 
> Research showing that we have to reduce our consumption of non-renewable resources is the last thing people are going to make money with.
> 
> Follow the money.


Many of us HAVE been following the money and it all leads towards an AGW scam.


----------



## Macfury

adagio said:


> Many of us HAVE been following the money and it all leads towards an AGW scam.


Indeed--the money spent supporting the AGW scam dwarfs the amount oil companies have spent fighting it.


----------



## eMacMan

Saw an interview with one scientist that fairly early on withdrew his support from the AGW camp. He was asked if oil companies paid him to do it. He pointed out that he was driving a 92 Volvo and would absolutely be driving something a lot better if the oil companies were paying him.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Indeed--the money spent supporting the AGW scam dwarfs the amount oil companies have spent fighting it.


Link? I think it would be very difficult to get reliable numbers on either side (it is relatively trivial to find out how much peer-reviewed public research money is spent on climate change research, effectively all of which supports AGW, but if you're speculating that there are conspiracies to fake data and generate false alarms, there's no easy way to determine how much might be spent on that (or who it would benefit)), but intuitively it seems obvious that the anti-AGW 'researchers' would have access to effectively unlimited funds.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Saw an interview with one scientist that fairly early on withdrew his support from the AGW camp.


When was this? Do you recall the name? I know several AGW skeptics that gained some notoriety for their position who have since become convinced by the data.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Link? I think it would be very difficult to get reliable numbers on either side (it is relatively trivial to find out how much peer-reviewed public research money is spent on climate change research, effectively all of which supports AGW, but if you're speculating that there are conspiracies to fake data and generate false alarms, there's no easy way to determine how much might be spent on that (or who it would benefit)), but intuitively it seems obvious that the anti-AGW 'researchers' would have access to effectively unlimited funds.


I'm not differentiating between AGW's faked data and that produced honestly--sum total.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I'm not differentiating between AGW's faked data and that produced honestly--sum total.


Okay... so you're saying that all support for climate research is "money spent supporting the AGW scam"? Like all money spent on biological research is money spent on supporting the evolution scam? Or money spent on geological research is being spent on the 'round earth' scam? 

I guess I can sort of see your point in that the consensus on AGW among climatologists is almost as unanimous as the consensus on evolution among biologists, but geez... I thought you might have something ... anything ... supporting the idea that there was money supporting an AGW bias.

Still... there's no way for us to figure out how much the oil industry is spending on spreading anti-science FUD so there's no way to resolve this.


----------



## MacDoc

Flat earthers are so quaint...


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Okay... so you're saying that all support for climate research is "money spent supporting the AGW scam"?


No. I said that the value of all pro-AGW research exceeds that of research supported by opponents of AGW theory. I make no differentiation between the value of pure research and less honest research.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> No. I said that the value of all pro-AGW research exceeds that of research supported by opponents of AGW theory.


You're suggesting that all researchers receiving public funding to do climate research, not to mention all the researchers reviewing their grant applications, over the last several decades had a pro-AGW bias?!? So rather than accusing a few individuals of gross scientific misconduct and complete lack of academic integrity, you're accusing essentially everyone in the field of these egregious crimes?

How on earth can you suggest that thousands of scientists are not only so unethical as to intentionally falsify their life's work, but also that they would somehow benefit financially from our societies' reduced consumption of fossil fuels?

I should buy stock in tin-foil companies... it looks like we're going to need some pretty big hats around here.


----------



## eMacMan

*Data Manning*


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> You're suggesting that all researchers receiving public funding to do climate research, not to mention all the researchers reviewing their grant applications, over the last several decades had a pro-AGW bias?!? So rather than accusing a few individuals of gross scientific misconduct and complete lack of academic integrity, you're accusing essentially everyone in the field of these egregious crimes?


I don't know where you're getting this--get your own tin foil hat on straight. I said that there is a bias toward pro-AGW research spending--not that all data and research is falsified.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I said that there is a bias toward pro-AGW research spending


Yes. I understand this. I just have no idea how you come to this conclusion. Hence the request for a link or other evidence.


----------



## eMacMan

Lets see. Governments world wide are salivating over the possibility of a new form of taxation and the Gore Gang will make $100s of Billion$ if Cap & Trade can be instituted. Both groups are quite willing to generously fund any research that aids their cause and do everything possible to suppress research that disagrees. With $Trillions$ at stake it would be extremely foolish to believe there was a level playing field.

Since neither carbon taxes nor C&T will impact the use of petroleum very significantly Big Oil really doesn't care. They will happily replace any shortfalls with higher prices.


----------



## FeXL

Good!



> 'Climategate' university to open up data
> 
> The University of East Anglia is to receive Jisc funding for a project to *open up its research on global warming to scrutiny and re-use*


Emphasis mine.


----------



## SINC

*Al Gore Says Climate Battle Lost By 'Failure' Of Government*



> Also blames 'right-wing' media and pushes global-warming alarmists to demand coverage
> 
> Ex–Vice President Al Gore, *who has invested heavily in schemes that would give him profits from climate-related energy credits and carbon-emissions trading*, is lamenting bitterly the "failure" of the government that means there probably won't be comprehensive legislation taxing energy use and emissions right now.
> 
> And he's blaming "right-wing" media, whose reports documented "Climategate," the revelations of global-warming scientists that made it appear they were manipulating results and shutting out critics, for that failure.


Emphasis mine.

Al Gore says climate battle lost by 'failure' of government


----------



## FeXL

*Lake Michigan boiled away on July 4 temp peak of 430° F...*

No, really. Satellite-Gate?

I've posted links questioning the NOAA before, this one takes (bakes?) the cake.



> So what's the uptake?
> 
> NOAA either through incomptence, negligence or malice "cooked" the books (pun intended) on Lake Michigan temperatures, but it has far wider questions and implications. If the NOAA 16 satellite is "degraded" what about the others such as the new NOAA 18 satellite and the older NASA AQUA satellite that is used by UAH and RSS to make the "official" Satellite temperature records, what about NOAA 15 that was used prior to NASA's AQUA by RSS and UAH are they as well ? or will the newer ones be expected to now or not? Is the older one, older then one discussed, not just "degraded" by orbital decay but also it's sensors and if so when did it start? Was UAH and RSS told if so? How was it handled.


and



> "Data from NOAA-16 is no longer used. The data from this instrument appears to be drifting relative to data from the earlier satellites. The cause of this drift has not yet been determined. The drift is as large as several tenths of a degree K per decade, *as large or larger than the expected climate signal*".
> 
> When you click on the link to the RSS PDF it is there plain as day. This is huge this shows that *a KNOWN malfunctioning satellite was still being used by NOAA for research purposes 3 years after the fact*. The malfunction had to have started to happen before Feb 2007, when exactly the PDF doesn't say, but for RSS to "kick" it from its analysis in that month/year it had to be before. Now *the question is when was the drift first noticeable and how long before that did it start to drift?*


Emphasis mine.


----------



## eMacMan

I believe before NOAA pulled the satellite data from their website there was a 600°F in some town in Wisconsin. Strange thing is that while it may have helped Global Warming along the towns residents were unaware that they had been broiled and were ready for dinner.


----------



## bryanc

This is exactly the sort of routine data processing that people point to when they say climate scientists are 'manipulating the data.'

Anyone in this business knows that raw data from remote sensing systems is full of spurious data that needs to be filtered out.

What is harder to deal with (but is still routinely managed) is measuring biases that systematically affect certain kinds of measurements. Fortunately, climate scientists have lots of different, independent data sets (gas measurements from ice cores, isotope ratios that are a function of the temperature at which the reactions occur, actual temperature readings from ground and sea based probes, IR data from *many* satellites, distributions of insect mouthparts in fossil/current sediments, tree rings, etc. etc. etc.) and only suggest that there is evidence for global warming when there is a consensus between all of these independent data sets.

Of course, I shouldn't be surprised when anti-science deniers who have no clue how science is conducted whip themselves into a frenzy when the data shows one of the instruments on one of the probes broke down.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> This is exactly the sort of routine data processing that people point to when they say climate scientists are 'manipulating the data.'
> 
> Anyone in this business knows that raw data from remote sensing systems is full of spurious data that needs to be filtered out.
> 
> What is harder to deal with (but is still routinely managed) is measuring biases that systematically affect certain kinds of measurements. Fortunately, climate scientists have lots of different, independent data sets (gas measurements from ice cores, isotope ratios that are a function of the temperature at which the reactions occur, actual temperature readings from ground and sea based probes, IR data from *many* satellites, distributions of insect mouthparts in fossil/current sediments, tree rings, etc. etc. etc.) and only suggest that there is evidence for global warming when there is a consensus between all of these independent data sets.


Manufactured consensus--such as hand-picking certain trees that have favourable ring data--and declaring the others nearby anomalous when they show cooling or stable temperatures. Or deciding that all tree rings post 1960 cease to be a reliable proxy for climate--on the basis that they don't show warming.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Manufactured consensus--such as hand-picking certain trees that have favourable ring data--and declaring the others nearby anomalous when they show cooling or stable temperatures. Or deciding that all tree rings post 1960 cease to be a reliable proxy for climate--on the basis that they don't show warming.


If you were a trained dendrochronologist, or if you had peer-reviewed dendrochronology papers that supported this assertion, it would have some merit. But as far as I know, all you've got are some ignorant opinions, based on the unsupported assertions of other's equally ignorant of the subject. Please correct me if I'm wrong. On this occasion, I'd like to be.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> If you were a trained dendrochronologist, or if you had peer-reviewed dendrochronology papers that supported this assertion, it would have some merit. But as far as I know, all you've got are some ignorant opinions, based on the unsupported assertions of other's equally ignorant of the subject. Please correct me if I'm wrong. On this occasion, I'd like to be.


Lets see MM magically makes a mini ice age and a major warming period disappear and someone that challenges this is ignorant? His data source is valid and not manipulated?


----------



## FeXL

Here, let me fix that statement for you...



bryanc said:


> Anyone in this business knows that raw data from remote sensing systems is full of spurious data that needs to be filtered out, *but it is currently unknown if the erroneous data has been removed in this case*.


Bryan, with all respect due, you aren't on that team. You weren't involved in the collection, processing or dissemination of that data. You understand the theory (as do I) but you know no more than any of us do as to whether the data was actually filtered or not.



> But the spokesman for the Michigan Sea Grant Extension, a 'Coastwatch' partner with NOAA screening the offending data, then confessed that its hastily hidden web pages had, indeed, showed dozens of temperature recordings three or four times higher than seasonal norms. *NOAA declined to make any comment as to whether such a glitch could have ramped up the averages for the entire northeastern United States by an average of 10-15 degrees Fahrenheit by going undetected over a longer time scale*


When the NOAA themselves provide an answer that passes review or an independent assessment (again, peer-reviewed) is conducted, we will know. 

Until then, your assumption that the data was filtered is just as ignorant.



bryanc said:


> ...when the data shows one of the instruments on one of the probes broke down.


The issue is not that the probe broke down while the NOAA was sampling. Mechanical & electronic equipment breaks down. No problem with that.

The issue is that the satellite was known to be producing errors even before the NOAA started using it. Would you use lab gear you knew was giving false results to collect data for any of your research?


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> You weren't involved in the collection, processing or dissemination of that data. You understand the theory (as do I) but you know no more than any of us do as to whether the data was actually filtered or not.


Okay, fair enough. And I'll be as appalled as anyone if it turns out they were *using* that data, which we should find out fairly soon. More to the point, it seems a safe assumption that they were not, because anyone even remotely competent who does this kind of work knows about this sort of stuff, and knows how to deal with it. What I'm objecting to is the excitement about the fact that there are obviously anomalous figures in the raw data; that's to be expected.

Raising a fuss about it is based on the implicit assumption that the scientists working with this data are incompetent, or worse, dishonest.



> Would you use lab gear you knew was giving false results to collect data for any of your research?


Of course not, and I'd be mad as hell if someone attacked the conclusions of my peer-reviewed papers because cosmic background noise created an artefact in one frame of a confocal stack that shows up in the raw data, but is averaged with so much other data that it has a negligible effect on the dataset used for analysis.


----------



## MacDoc

No science from the denier cadre - just more attacking the messenger in the face of overwhelming evidence from a myriad of diverse sources.

_it's warming
we're primarily responsible due to use of fossil fuels._

get over it ...the science has moved on to how much and how fast 

Russia is finding out...



> Russian fires prompt Kremlin to abruptly embrace climate change
> 
> By Fred Weir Fred Weir – Mon Aug 9, 11:44 am ET
> 
> Moscow – Russia's ongoing heat wave, along with its disastrous fallout, may have finally persuaded the Kremlin to combat climate change.
> 
> Russian officials, who have until now resisted dramatic action out of fears it would dampen economic growth, have lately issued strong statements linking global warming to the emergency Russia is currently facing. Some hope the abrupt change of tune will result in more effective environmental policies, even after the smog dies down.
> 
> *"There is no question that we need to get ahead of climate change," says Vladimir Slivyak, co-chair of Ecodefense, a grass-roots Russian environmental group. "This is a wake-up call."*
> 
> Moscow-region fires triple in size. The crisis, which seems to have taken the Kremlin by surprise, features a fierce and unremitting heat wave that's now well into its second month, a drought that has ruined up to a third of the vitally important grain crop, and a wave of seemingly irrepressible wildfires that have blanketed half of European Russia – including the capital, Moscow – in a cloud of smoke.


mind you the low activity sun has a role in making the situation worse....



> Frozen jet stream links Pakistan floods, Russian fires
> 
> * 10 August 2010 by Michael Marshall
> * Magazine issue 2773. Subscribe and save
> * For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide
> 
> Raging wildfires in western Russia have reportedly doubled average daily death rates in Moscow. Diluvial rains over northern Pakistan are surging south – the UN reports that 6 million have been affected by the resulting floods.
> 
> It now seems that these two apparently disconnected events have a common cause. They are linked to the heatwave that killed more than 60 in Japan, and the end of the warm spell in western Europe. The unusual weather in the US and Canada last month also has a similar cause.
> 
> According to meteorologists monitoring the atmosphere above the northern hemisphere, unusual holding patterns in the jet stream are to blame. As a result, weather systems sat still. Temperatures rocketed and rainfall reached extremes.


Frozen jet stream links Pakistan floods, Russian fires - environment - 10 August 2010 - New Scientist



> * Extreme is the new normal.*
> 
> "We're setting climate records at a record-setting pace," David Orr, a professor of environmental studies and politics at Oberlin College, told HuffPost. "More hottest hots, driest dries, wettest wets, windiest wind conditions. So it's all part of a pattern.* If you ask is this evidence of climate destabilization, the only scientific answer you can give is: It is consistent with what we can expect."* Orr is the author of "Down to the Wire: Confronting Climate Collapse" and five other books on politics and the environment.
> 
> The Pentagon announced in a report earlier this year that new patterns in the weather "may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world."
> And a new report from the National Wildlife Federation explores the unsettling implications of continued warming: climate models indicate that if nothing is done -- and nothing is being done -- extreme fluctuations will only become more common. The warning is timely, if the steady rise of international weather-related disasters is any indication.
> 
> So far this summer Russia has lost one-fifth of its wheat harvest to raging wildfires, fueled by the worst drought the country has seen in 130 years. Crops in the neighboring countries of Ukraine and Kazakhstan are also suffering from the drought, as the wildfires continue to sweep west.
> 
> Wheat crops are failing in other parts of the world, too. The Canadian Wheat Board, a marketing agency for Canada's wheat and barley growers, is forecasting a 35 percent drop in the harvest this year, a falloff caused by unusually heavy rains during the planting season. In a study last month, the National Academy of Sciences predicted that failing crops produced by inclement weather may drive up to seven million Mexicans to the U.S. over the next 70 years.
> 
> In the eastern United States, Americans have been sweating out a summer-long heat wave following a winter of extraordinary snowfall that brought major cities to a halt several times. Scientists confirm it's been the hottest year globally on record.


more

'Global Weirding': Extreme Climate Events Dominate The Summer

but the climate deniers, also a dwindling crop, ignore the obvious...


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> but the climate deniers, also a dwindling crop, ignore the obvious...


Talk about "deniers" ignoring the obvious. 

Anyone who can swallow so much BS is full of, well . . .


----------



## eMacMan

How quickly MD seems to have forgotten the brutally COLD winter Russia and most of Europe suffered just months ago.

Still 800 fires in Russia and 350 in BC, kind of puts things in perspective, as western BC is looking at a pretty normal summer and the eastern part of the province has been a bit cooler than normal.

Once we ignore the tainted NOAA satellite data; We see parts of the northern hemisphere hotter than norm, others cooler than norm this summer. OTH the southern hemisphere is "enjoying" one of the coldest winters on record. 

As MD says, every time I point out the cooler than normal summer western Canada is seeing; It's only weather not climate.


----------



## Macfury

> "There is no question that we need to get ahead of climate change," says Vladimir Slivyak, co-chair of Ecodefense, a grass-roots Russian environmental group. "This is a wake-up call."


Well, since he's an activist, we'll have to trust his word...

But all you're showing is that Moscow has had a heat wave. This is no proof of AGW at all. You should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## MannyP Design

It's 13° C this morning. Where is this warming you speak of, Doc? :lmao:


----------



## adagio

Haven't you figured it out yet? When it's hot... that's climate. When it's cold.... that's weather. Smarten up, eh?


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> No science from the denier cadre...


So, lemme get this straight...

Satellite temperature readings at the earth's surface of 400°F and greater is AGW's science? Methinks all that steam in the atmosphere that was once Lake Michigan is clouding the thinking in Mississauga.

C'mon MacDoc, you can do better.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> So, lemme get this straight...
> 
> Satellite temperature readings at the earth's surface of 400°F and greater is AGW's science? Methinks all that steam in the atmosphere that was once Lake Michigan is clouding the thinking in Mississauga.
> 
> C'mon MacDoc, you can do better.


When these temperature maps--dozens of them, not just one--were subsequently pulled off the website, it must be what bryanc refers to as anomalous data being rejected by the computer.


----------



## MacDoc

Superb piece from RealClimate



> *The Key to the Secrets of the Troposphere*
> Filed under:
> 
> * Climate Science
> 
> — rasmus @ 13 August 2010


RealClimate: The Key to the Secrets of the Troposphere


----------



## SINC

Ah yes, "climate science from climate scientists", very reassuring given their recent track records.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Ah yes, "climate science from climate scientists", very reassuring given their recent track records.


Now, now SINC this is *Real*Climate!

Edit: I did read the article but there's nothing conclusive there. He is postulating a theory, but has little to back it up. Note that he isn't trying to offer proof either.


----------



## MacDoc

> *June Earth's hottest ever: US monitors*
> July 15, 2010 NASA image of the Earth
> 
> Last month was the hottest June ever recorded on Earth, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday, amid global climate warming worries.
> 
> Last month was the hottest June ever recorded on Earth, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday, amid global climate warming worries.
> 
> 
> The combined global land and ocean surface temperature data also found the January-June and April-June periods were the warmest on record, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, which based its findings on measurements that go back as far as 1880.
> 
> In June, the combined average for global land and ocean temperatures was 61.1 degrees Fahrenheit (16.2 Celsius) -- 1.22 degrees Fahrenheit (0.68 Celsius) more than the 20th century average of 59.9 degrees Fahrenheit (15.5 Celsius).
> 
> Temperatures warmer than average spread throughout the globe in recent months, most prominently in Peru, in the central and eastern United States and in eastern and western Asia, according to NOAA.
> 
> In contrast, cooler-than-average conditions affected Scandinavia, southern China and the US northwest.
> 
> The Beijing Climate Center found that Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang and Jilin experienced their warmest June since records began in 1951, while Guizhou saw its coolest June ever.
> 
> Spain's nationwide temperatures made June the coolest in 13 years, according to its meteorological surface.
> 
> Global ocean surface temperatures averaged 0.97 degrees (0.54 Celsius) above last century's average of 61.5 degrees Fahrenheit (16.4 Celsius) -- the fourth warmest June since records began. The Atlantic Ocean saw the most pronounced warmth, NOAA said.
> 
> The average land surface temperature that month was 1.93 degrees Fahrenheit (1.07 Celsius) more than the 20th century average of 55.9 degrees Fahrenheit (13.3 Celsius) -- the warmest ever.
> 
> Meanwhile, sea surface temperatures were declining throughout the equatorial Pacific Ocean, in line with the end of El Nino, a climate pattern that lasts an average of five years during which unusually warm sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean move east.
> NOAA's Climate Prediction Center forecast that La Nina conditions, where ocean waters in the east-central equatorial Pacific are unusually cool, would likely develop during the northern hemisphere summer this year.





> *Trend continues with second hottest July on record*
> August 14, 2010 By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID , AP Science Writer
> 
> (AP) -- The Earth continues to feel the heat. Last month was the second warmest July on record, and so far 2010 remains on track to be the hottest year
> 
> Worldwide, the average temperature in July was 61.6 degrees Fahrenheit (16.5 Celsius), the National Climatic Data Center reported Friday. Only July 1998 was hotter since recordkeeping began more than a century ago.
> *
> And the January-July period was the warmest first seven months of any year on record, averaging 58.1 F (14.5 C). In second place was January-July of 1998.*
> 
> The report comes after a month of worldwide extremes including floods, fires, melting ice and feverish heat. Atmospheric scientists have grown increasingly concerned about human-induced global warming in recent years, though political pressures and fierce arguments about climate change have slowed efforts to develop solutions.
> 
> The climate center noted that a condition called La Nina developed during July as the waters of the central Pacific Ocean cooled. This is expected to last through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2010-2011.
> 
> That could be bad news for the Gulf of Mexico as La Nina years tend to have more hurricanes, and such storms could interfere with the clean up of the oil spilled in that region.
> 
> For the United States the center noted that "intense heat either tied, or shattered, July monthly temperature records in several East Coast cities, including Washington, Atlantic City, N.J. and Hartford, Conn."
> 
> It was the hottest July on record for Delaware and Rhode Island and every East Coast state from Maine to Florida ranked in its top ten warmest.
> 
> Only Montana, Idaho, and Texas had average temperatures that were below-normal for the month.
> 
> Rainfall, averaged across the country, was much-above-normal in July, ranking in the 10 ten percent in the 1895-2010 period.
> 
> Much of the Plains and Upper Midwest experienced above normal wetness, the climate center noted. "Wisconsin had its second wettest July, while Texas had its fourth, Iowa its fifth and Missouri its eighth" wettest.


June Earth's hottest ever: US monitors
Trend continues with second hottest July on record

oh must be getting cooler ....July only the 2nd hottest ....


----------



## Macfury

Even if they are the warmest or second warmest, the data collected by NOAA has come under increasing fire for eliminating monitoring stations in the north--and now for using erroneous satellite data. So after all of these failings, even if the temperature is warmer, there's no proof this is related to human activity.


----------



## SINC

Cycles ever come to mind? It's all cycles. Watch it reverse. 'Course once the models are proven to have false data, again, and they will, it won't hold water. Not hot water for sure.


----------



## MacDoc

Pure coincidence of course.....



> *In Weather Chaos, a Case for Global Warming*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PAKISTAN The worst flooding in at least 80 years has killed at least 1,384 people and affected 20 million in a continuing crisis.
> 
> The floods battered New England, then Nashville, then Arkansas, then Oklahoma — and were followed by a deluge in Pakistan that has upended the lives of 20 million people.
> 
> The summer’s heat waves baked the eastern United States, parts of Africa and eastern Asia, and above all Russia, which lost millions of acres of wheat and thousands of lives in a drought worse than any other in the historical record.
> 
> Seemingly disconnected, these far-flung disasters are reviving the question of whether global warming is causing more weather extremes.
> 
> The collective answer of the scientific community can be boiled down to a single word: probably.
> *
> “The climate is changing,” said Jay Lawrimore, chief of climate analysis at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. “Extreme events are occurring with greater frequency, and in many cases with greater intensity.”
> 
> He described excessive heat, in particular, as “consistent with our understanding of how the climate responds to increasing greenhouse gases.”*
> 
> Theory suggests that a world warming up because of those gases will feature heavier rainstorms in summer, bigger snowstorms in winter, more intense droughts in at least some places and more record-breaking heat waves. Scientists and government reports say the statistical evidence shows that much of this is starting to happen.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/science/earth/15climate.html?_r=1&ref=global-home


----------



## eMacMan

I believe that more than 1,000,000 people died in monsoon flooding in India in 1903. Given that it is ludicrous to blame AGW for worse than normal flooding in Pakistan.


----------



## MannyP Design

MacDoc, have you actually seen the temperatures of Moscow and Peru? Perhaps, the U.S.? Not exactly sweltering heat… How's Toronto? :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

It's that old saw for Maccy D--it's climate if it is "consistent with" suppositions about the AGW theory; it's weather if it's consistent with the reverse.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> It's that old saw for Maccy D--it's climate if it is "consistent with" suppositions about the AGW theory; it's weather if it's consistent with the reverse.


Methinks his posts should be labelled, "A Convenient Truth".


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Pure coincidence of course.....


OK, time to deal with some of this horse sh!t.

No, it isn't pure coincidence, and if you took the time to pull your pretty head out of the sand you'd know why. As you currently seem unable to do that, I'll hold your hand once more. Be advised, though, these freebies are getting tiresome...

Please note that this is *weather*, not *climate*, MacDoc.

 Frozen jet stream links Pakistan floods, Russian fires



> According to meteorologists monitoring the atmosphere above the northern hemisphere, unusual holding patterns in the jet stream are to blame. As a result, weather systems sat still. Temperatures rocketed and rainfall reached extremes.


Also



> The same effect is probably responsible for the heatwave in Japan, which killed over 60 people in late July.


Now, can AGW be linked to the cause?



> Climate change models predict that rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will drive up the number of extreme heat events. *Whether this is because greenhouse gas concentrations are linked to blocking events or because of some other mechanism entirely is impossible to say.* Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado – who has done much of this modelling himself – points out that *the resolution in climate models is too low to reproduce atmospheric patterns like blocking events*. So they cannot say anything about whether or not their frequency will change.


(Emphasis mine.)

For those of you unable to read, the answer to the question is no.

Could there be another answer?



> There is some tentative evidence that the sun may be involved. Earlier this year astrophysicist Mike Lockwood of the University of Reading, UK, showed that winter blocking events were more likely to happen over Europe when solar activity is low – triggering freezing winters


Sonovagun. Solar cycles. Again.



> Now he says he has evidence from 350 years of historical records to show that low solar activity is also associated with summer blocking events (Environmental Research Letters, in press). "There's enough evidence to suspect that the jet stream behaviour is being modulated by the sun," he says.


So, to summarize. 

1. Floods, heat waves, cold snaps and the rain on my motorcycle ride yesterday are *weather*, not *climate*; 

2. There is currently no proof that the theory of AGW has anything to do with the cause of these *weather* events; 

3. There is evidence that all of these events can be explained by natural events such as solar cycles causing stationary patterns in the jetstream.

Questions?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> OK, time to deal with some of this horse sh!t.


This is why all of the kooks that MacDoc quotes use the term "consistent with" the AGW theory. _All unwanted weather_ is consistent with the AGW theory. It is not proof of it.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> This is why all of the kooks that MacDoc quotes use the term "consistent with" the AGW theory. _All unwanted weather_ is consistent with the AGW theory. It is not proof of it.


I do believe that AGW is one of those all inclusive theories. Point to any spot on the map and even if it is getting normal highs, normal lows, normal wind, normal sunshine and normal precipitation it is still proof that the sky is indeed falling.

Should any of the criteria be even slightly out of whack, then it is; "Bunker Time"


----------



## FeXL

More on Satellitegate.



> In an escalating row dubbed ‘Satellitegate’ further evidence proves NOAA
> knew of these faults for years. World’s top climate scientists and even prior
> governmental reports cite underfunding and misallocation as the trigger for
> spiraling satellite data calamities. *Key flaws with five satellites* undermines global data.


Emphasis mine.

...

(from the PDF)



> Worryingly, as to how many of its users (mostly international meteorologists and
> climate researchers) were affected has not beent revealed by NOAA. But we know
> the automated numbers were sold throughout the world and it’s readings of land and
> ocean temperatures have been used by climate scientists in their models since the
> satellite’s launch in September 2000. As a consequence and without full disclosure
> by NOAA, it is feared innumerable scientific studies about rising global temperatures
> are now rendered entirely invalid.


...



> Crucially, Bohan’s article wasn’t based on any so-called unsubstantiated ‘big oil’
> funded skeptic disinformation plot, a dying urban myth anyway, but on a US
> Government Accountability Office report (GAO). GAO concedes that nine new
> climate instruments on the latest generation of satellites were canceled or their
> capabilities scaled back in 2006. GAO is the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress.
> 
> As a consequence at least five such satellite programs have been identified as being
> either degraded or seriously compromised:
> 
> -Landsat 7 (currently in orbit) is broken leaving data gaps. Scientists do not get
> all the information they should.
> 
> -NPOESS (National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite) will
> not have any sensors that measure the sun’s energy output on the 2nd and
> 4th satellites.
> 
> -GOES-R (Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series) has
> had 14 sensors cancelled. No data for cloud base height, ozone layer, ocean
> color, ocean turbidity and cloud imagery, snow cover, etc. Effectively
> neutered.
> 
> -No sensor for movement of greenhouse gases and pollutants. No sensor to
> monitor temperature changes on Earth over time. (NOAA didn’t even bother
> to try to get the funding to keep the eliminated sensors!).
> 
> -The sensor to measure how Earth’s temperature reacts to changes in Solar
> energy was cancelled by the Obama Administration at the end of June 2010.


...



> Dr. Roy Spencer commented, “Obviously, whatever happened to NOAA-16 AVHRR
> (or the software) introduced HUGE errors. We always had trouble with NOAA-16
> AMSU, and dropped it long ago. *It had calibration drifts that made it unsuitable for
> climate monitoring*.”
> 
> Dr Christy particularly addressed faults exclusively with the AMSU instrumentation
> and not problems with the AVHRR system. He advised me, “We spent a lot of time in
> 2006 trying to deal with the issues of NOAA-16, but t*he errors were so erratic, we
> ended up eliminating it as one of the backbones of our dataset*.”
> 
> As many such analysts have long been advising, these failures go way beyond the
> shockingly absurd numbers of 604 degrees recorded at Egg harbor, Wisconsin.
> 
> Dr. Timothy Ball, climate consultant to the military and lead author of a new book
> debunking the greenhouse gas theory, observes, “At best the entire incident
> indicates gross incompetence, at worst it indicates a deliberate attempt to create a
> temperature record that suits the political message of the day.”


Emphasis mine.



> Piers [Corbyn] thundered on the Climate Realists blog, “This revelation further
> confirms something I and Tom Harris said on Russia Today TV Feb (5th) 2010
> namely that WE JUST DO NOT reliably KNOW what world temperatures are and have been
> doing over the last decade or century.”


...



> In light of concerns that NOAA has officially admitted to only withdrawing “images”
> from its archives without confirming all bogus data has also been dumped, I posed
> the following and yet unanswered questions to NOAA’s Dr. Jane Lubchenco:
> 
> -What steps have you taken to ascertain the scope and extent of this data
> error and what action will be taken to avoid further recurrence?
> 
> -Have you identified whether these temperature anomalies impact other data
> sets and findings; in particular does this undermine in any way the credibility
> of official government statements already made about climatic changes, and if
> so by how much?


Questions, questions...


----------



## FeXL

So, MacDoc wants science. How about a good dose of statistics?

The complete article is a PDF file 40 odd pages long, technical, but readable. However, the link leads the reader through a quick summary.

Now, before some of you go attacking the data, graphs, whatever, I present the following:



> We assume that the data selection, collection, and
> processing performed by climate scientists meets the standards of their dis-
> cipline. Without taking a position on these data quality issues, we thus take
> the dataset as given.


...



> In other words, our model performs better when using highly autocorrelated
> noise rather than proxies to ”predict” temperature. The real proxies are less predictive than our ”fake” data. While the Lasso generated reconstructions using the proxies are highly statistically significant compared to simple null models, they do not achieve statistical significance against sophisticated null models.


Conclusion:



> Research on multi-proxy temperature reconstructions of the earth’s temperature is now entering its second decade. While the literature is large, there has been very little collaboration with universitylevel, professional statisticians (Wegman et al., 2006; Wegman, 2006). Our paper is an effort to apply some modern statistical methods to these problems. While our results agree with the climate scientists findings in some
> respects, our methods of estimating model uncertainty and accuracy are in sharp disagreement.
> 
> *On the one hand, we conclude unequivocally that the evidence for a ”long-handled” hockey stick (where the shaft of the hockey stick extends to the year 1000 AD) is lacking in the data*. The fundamental problem is that there is a limited amount of proxy data which dates back to 1000 AD; what is available is weakly predictive of global annual temperature. *Our backcasting methods, which track quite closely the methods applied most recently in Mann (2008) to the same data, are unable to catch the sharp run up in temperatures recorded in the 1990s, even in-sample.*
> 
> As can be seen in Figure 15, our estimate of the run up in temperature in the 1990s has
> a much smaller slope than the actual temperature series. Furthermore, the lower frame of Figure 18 clearly reveals that the proxy model is not at all able to track the high gradient segment. *Consequently, the long flat handle of the hockey stick is best understood to be a feature of regression and less a reflection of our knowledge of the truth.* Nevertheless, the temperatures of the last few decades have been relatively warm compared to many of the thousand year temperature curves sampled from the posterior distribution of our model.
> 
> Our main contribution is our efforts to seriously grapple with the uncertainty involved in paleoclimatological reconstructions. Regression of high dimensional time series is always a complex problem with many traps. In our case, the particular challenges include (i) a short sequence of training data, (ii) more predictors than observations, (iii) a very weak signal, and (iv) response and predictor variables which are both strongly autocorrelated.
> 
> *The final point is particularly troublesome: since the data is not easily modeled by a simple autoregressive process it follows that the number of truly independent observations (i.e., the effective sample size) may be just too small for accurate reconstruction.*
> 
> *Climate scientists have greatly underestimated the uncertainty of proxy based reconstructions and hence have been overconfident in their models.* We have shown that time dependence in the temperature series is sufficiently strong to permit complex sequences of random numbers to forecast out-of-sample reasonably well fairly frequently (see, for example, Figure 9). Furthermore, even proxy based models with approximately the same amount of reconstructive skill (Figures 11,12, and 13), produce strikingly dissimilar historical backcasts: some of these look like hockey sticks but most do not (Figure 14).
> 
> Natural climate variability is not well understood and is probably quite large. It is not clear that the proxies currently used to predict temperature are even predictive of it at the scale of several decades let alone over many centuries. Nonetheless, paleoclimatoligical reconstructions constitute only one source of evidence in the AGW debate. Our work stands entirely on the shoulders of those environmental scientists who labored untold years to assemble the vast network of natural proxies. Although we assume the reliability of their data for our purposes here, there still remains a considerable number of outstanding questions that can only be answered with a free and open inquiry and a great deal of replication.


Emphasis from WUWT.


----------



## Macfury

Well, MacDoc--are you going to do better than "*The globe is warming and we're responsible*" or are you going to address FeXL's challenges? I realize it's upsetting you see your beliefs under attack from so many sides, but try to mount a cogent defense here, instead of reverting to bluster.


----------



## bryanc

Looks like an interesting article... I'll read it more carefully later. But from what I can tell, they're not arguing against AGW, but rather that the confidence intervals on some of the proxy data are not as tight as was previously thought.

One of the most interesting figures in the paper is Fig 18 (attached), which shows that if you take the last 30 years of data out of their forecasting model, it goes flat, but with the last 30 years of data, even their very conservative model shows a statistically significant rise in temperature.

I'm very happy to see that the latest developments in statistical modelling are helping us to better understand global climate. But I hope those of you who read this will take note of the fact that it does not argue against the AGW consensus of the climatology community.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> ...the confidence intervals on some of the proxy data are not as tight as was previously thought.


That would be an understatement.



bryanc said:


> But I hope those of you who read this will take note of the fact that it does not argue against the AGW consensus of the climatology community.


Nor do the authors argue for it.

Next step: let's analyze the data.


----------



## FeXL

Speaking of analyzing data (and, further to my post 6 of this thread):

Court asked to invalidate NIWA temperature record



> The High Court has been asked to invalidate the New Zealand official temperature record (NZTR) as promoted by the Crown Research Institute, NIWA. These records are the historical base of NIWA’s scientific advice to central and local government on issues relating to climate change. NIWA maintains temperature archives for the past century, and also projects them forward for the next century.
> 
> The statement of claim filed on behalf of the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET) asks the court for three rulings:
> 
> A: to set aside NIWA’s decisions to rely upon its Seven Station Series (7SS) and Eleven Station Series (11SS), and to find the current NZTR to be invalid
> 
> B: to prevent NIWA from using the current NZTR (or information originally derived from it) for the purpose of advice to any governmental authority or to the public
> 
> C: to require NIWA to produce a full and accurate NZTR.


...



> “The New Zealand Met Service record shows no warming during the last century, but NIWA has adopted a series of invariably downward adjustments in the period prior to World War 2. Because these move the old temperature records downwards, the 7SS NZTR shows a huge bounce-back of over 1°C in the first half of the century” said Mr Leyland. “Although this is out of line with dozens of other records, and has been the subject of sustained questioning by both the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and the ACT party, NIWA refuses to accept that there are serious problems with the adjustments. In fact, no one has been able to explain exactly how they were arrived at.”


...



> NZ was warmer in 1867, and during 1863-1919, than it is now


Just read it. If nothing else, it will make you laugh out loud. After you shake your head.

What a gong show...


----------



## MannyP Design

Antarctic Sea ice is still growing.

_"We've seen this paradox, but we don't know why—here we gave an explanation," Liu said.​_:lmao:


----------



## eMacMan

Sounds almost logical until you try to take into account the Greenland Glacier that advanced so rapidly that it calved an iceberg the size of Manhatten Island or four years of continued Arctic ice pack expansion or one of the worst southern hemisphere winters ever recorded.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Sounds almost logical until you try to take into account the Greenland Glacier that advanced so rapidly that it calved an iceberg the size of Manhatten Island or four years of continued Arctic ice pack expansion or one of the worst southern hemisphere winters ever recorded.


They often calve when they're growing. It's the like of YouTube that's making this into a sensational event.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> They often calve when they're growing. It's the like of YouTube that's making this into a sensational event.


So true and hardly consistent with the "Arctic ice is disappearing at an accelerating pace" claims.


----------



## SINC

The local weather guy said last night that we have a new record in this area. Normally we reach 30° in each of the months of May, June, July and August of each year. For the first time ever, we reached 30° only in May. It didn't happen in June, July and will not happen in August either according to the forecast. Doesn't seem to fit the AGW paranoia at all, does it?


----------



## MacDoc

Play with fire - expect to get burned....one way or another...



> *Ocean greenery under warming stress*
> 
> A century of phytoplankton decline suggests that ocean ecosystems are in peril.
> Quirin Schiermeier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [SUP]Since 1950, phytoplankton in the world's oceans have declined by 40%.Karl Bruun, Nostoca Algae Laboratory. Courtesy of Nikon Small World[/SUP]
> Marine phytoplankton — the vast range of tiny algae species accounting for roughly half of Earth's total photosynthetic biomass — have declined substantially in the world's oceans over the past century, researchers report in Nature1 this week. The findings add to concerns that climate change is dangerously altering marine ecosystems.


continues
Ocean greenery under warming stress : Nature News


----------



## MannyP Design

Welcome to last month. Nothing new, I see?


----------



## bryanc

MannyP Design said:


> Welcome to last month.


Well, it is difficult to keep up with the mountains of evidence for AGW accumulating from so many different, independent and non-partisan sources.

Or you could just pretend the problem doesn't exist. 

Look! A shiny thing!


----------



## FeXL

Yes, mountains (Mountains!) of evidence, errors and all. 

Isn't it interesting how it all eventually comes out in the wash...

Government report: Canadian climate data quality ‘disturbing’



> “The common assumption among users is that the data has been observed accurately, checked for mistakes and stored properly,” said the report, printed in June 2008. “It is profoundly disturbing to discover the true state of our climate data network and the data we offer to ourselves and the real world.”


GISS & METAR – dial “M” for missing minus signs: it’s worse than we thought



> Here’s a story about how one missing letter, an M, can wreck a whole month’s worth of climate data. It is one of the longest posts ever made on WUWT, I spent almost my entire Saturday on it. I think it might also be one of the most important because it demonstrates a serious weakness in surface data reporting.


Longer read, but a good one.

As an aside, isn't it interesting that most of these data errors always skew the temperatures *upwards?* Things that make you go hmmmm...


----------



## bryanc

I'm glad to see people are continuing to scrutinize the data and catch errors. And if all we had to work with was remote sensing data, that would be even more important (and these sorts of errors would be good reason to re-examine the conclusions). But this sort of error doesn't cause a 40% decrease in phytoplankton, or shifts in ocean currents, radical changes in the distribution of insects in lake sediments, etc. etc. etc.

The data supporting climate change comes from so many independent sources, and reveals impacts on so many different processes, that it's hard to imagine how the conclusions could be wrong.


----------



## FeXL

Once again...

Climate change? Yes!

AGW? Not so much...


----------



## eMacMan

Climate certainly changes.

However we are going into this winter with La Ninå working its way northwards at least a year earlier than expected. Sunspot activity should be reaching a peak and instead is hovering distressingly close to zero. We are also about at the point in the 11,000 year ice age cycle where glaciers turn around and go the other way. In other words rather than counting on coconuts becoming a regular part of our diet, Canadians need to be ready for a severe bout of global cooling.

I do believe there are some real bargains to be had in the current Florida real estate market.


----------



## Macfury

As usual, MaccyD fails to read the full article. The phytoplankton study does little more than describe that phytoplankton levels appear to be decreasing in the ocean. No proper correlation between the levels and so-called AGW are made. 


> *But ocean warming does not explain reduced productivity in regions, including the Arctic Ocean, where algal growth is mainly constrained by sunlight. So scientists must try to find out what other drivers, such as changes in wind and ocean circulation, might force the decline*, says Falkowski.


Likewise, we have no way of determining natural variability of phytoplankton prior to 1900:



> Reduced phytoplankton growth, says Worm, adds a new dimension — comparable to coral bleaching, overfishing and acidification — to the problems of global change in the ocean. *"We don't know what happened before 1899, and we're not sure about what will happen in the future,*" he says. "But we absolutely need to monitor this worrying trend and watch how it is unfolding."


I agree the trend needs to be monitored. Pegging it to AGW on this level of data is ludicrous.


----------



## MannyP Design

bryanc said:


> Well, it is difficult to keep up with the mountains of evidence for AGW accumulating from so many different, independent and non-partisan sources.
> 
> Or you could just pretend the problem doesn't exist.
> 
> Look! A shiny thing!


And some are willing to ignore the evidence to the contrary, shiny things be damned. It seems the scientists like to have an answer for anything—including things they don't understand.

One thing that I've noticed is MacDoc is more than willing to devour anything put in front of him, as long as it fits his bias. It wasn't long ago he posted a link about some riot in Quebec that featured a quote from their Mayor "Monsieur Poutine". :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

MannyP Design said:


> One thing that I've noticed is MacDoc is more than willing to devour anything put in front of him, as long as it fits his bias. It wasn't long ago he posted a link about some riot in Quebec that featured a quote from their Mayor "Monsieur Poutine". :lmao:


He's generally not industrious enough to read through the articles he posts, and they often contain the seeds of his own destruction, providing conclusions contrary to their headlines.


----------



## MacDoc

Payment coming due...



> Time to blame climate change for extreme weather?
> 
> * 25 August 2010 by Anil Ananthaswamy
> * Magazine issue 2775. Subscribe and save
> * For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide
> 
> Editorial: Liability for climate change
> 
> IT IS time to start asking the hard questions. Countless people in flood-stricken Pakistan have lost families and livelihoods. Who can they hold responsible and turn to for reparations?
> 
> Less than a decade ago, these questions would have been dismissed outright. "Many scientists at the time said that you can never blame an individual weather event on climate change," says Myles Allen of the University of Oxford. But a small meeting of scientists in Colorado last week - organised by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, among others - suggests the tide is turning.
> 
> The aim of the Attribution of Climate-Related Events workshop was to discuss what information is needed to determine the extent to which human-induced climate change can be blamed for extreme weather events - possibly even straight after they have happened.
> 
> Assigning blame in this way is not without precedent. In 2004, Allen and his colleagues showed to a high level of confidence that human greenhouse gas emissions had at least doubled the risk of the European heatwave of 2003 occurring.
> 
> The basic idea in producing such a figure is straightforward. Run thousands of simulations of the climate as it is and as it would have been without human influences, then compare the number of times a given event occurs in each scenario. In 2004, technological limitations made it impossible to run simulations for long enough to reproduce the 2003 heatwave, so the analysis involved making certain assumptions.
> 
> "With the tools we have today we can do much better," says Allen. His team is now using borrowed computing space from thousands of PC owners to run simulations for recent devastating weather events, though their results are not yet in.
> 
> Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, thinks similar analyses should be done within weeks of an event. For instance, we know that high sea-surface temperatures and large amounts of moist air over the Indian Ocean helped bring about the Pakistani floods and the heatwave in Russia. It should be possible to determine how great a role human climate change played in these events, Trenberth says.
> It should be possible to determine how great a role climate change played in the Pakistan floods
> 
> The role of climate change can be examined in other weather events too. Indeed, Allen thinks all climate events should be analysed, to avoid giving the impression that a greater number of events are affected by climate change than is the case. "For most events, the impact of climate change is probably quite small."
> 
> Ultimately, though, putting numbers on the consequences of climate change will open the door to legal challenges. "There is a possibility that people who are adversely affected by climate change might seek compensation from those they feel are responsible," says Allen.
> 
> Trenberth agrees. "It comes to the question: given that there is a global warming component to an event, is there any way in which you can sue somebody for it? Who do you sue?" He points out, though, that it will always be difficult to rule out natural variation in climate. "It's going to be messy."
> 
> It already is. In 2005, victims of hurricane Katrina filed a lawsuit against a group of oil companies, claiming that they had created the environmental conditions in the Gulf of Mexico that strengthened Katrina. The case was dismissed in 2007, after it was ruled that the victims had no standing to sue because the harm could not be traced to individual defendants. That decision was reversed in 2009. But in June this year the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit again dismissed the case, this time because it did not have enough judges to form a quorum. In the process, the judges that were present ruled once more that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.
> 
> There is another reason for finding out how much climate change is to blame for various events. "Hundreds of billions of dollars are potentially available [in a UN fund] to help developing countries adapt to climate change," says Allen. Who gets what share of the funds depends on being able to say which regions have suffered most as a result of climate change. For now, at least, that remains an open question.


Time to blame climate change for extreme weather? - environment - 25 August 2010 - New Scientist


----------



## SINC

Once again, the jury is still out on that topic:

BBC Broadcast Meteorologist Elizabeth Saary looks at whether Climate Change can create Extreme Weather conditions.



> Conclusions:
> 
> Hadley Centre scientists say that the world is currently undergoing an unprecedented shift in climate, not seen in the past 10,000 years. Recent research suggests that it is only when human activity is taken into account that these changes can be explained against a background of expected natural climate variability.
> 
> *It is clearly difficult, however, to attribute any one individual event to human induced climate change, as natural variations in the climate along with non-climatic causes will also have an effect and therefore cannot be discounted.*
> 
> What is certain is that our climate has undergone major fluctuations in the past and will continue to show variations. There is no doubt that these changes will ultimately have an effect on the nature of extreme weather events and they will continue to be headline news well into the future.


BBC - Weather Centre - Features - Understanding Weather


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, you go ahead and write a cheque to Pakistan, 'cause nobody else will. If you buy into this malarkey then the only thing due is a visit from the tinfoil hat man.


----------



## FeXL

Is ENSO, rather than a ‘Greenhouse Effect’, the origin of ‘Climate Change’?

Longer article, lots of info & graphs, interesting read.

In summary:



> Is there evidence that the activity of man (adding CO2 to the atmosphere) is tending to produce more severe El Nino events. The answer is no. The flux in surface pressure is responsible for ENSO and for the swing from El Nino to La Nina dominance. In spite the activities of man, the globe is currently entering a La Nina cooling cycle testifying to the strength of natural cycles and the relative unimportance atmospheric composition in determining the issue (if the much touted greenhouse effect exists at all).
> 
> Is there evidence that the ENSO phenomenon is in fact ‘climate change in action’, driven by factors other than the increase of atmospheric CO2? Yes, it appears that whatever drives the flux in surface atmospheric pressure drives ENSO and with it, climate change.
> 
> Is recent ‘Climate Change’ driven by greenhouse gas activity? No, it appears that the cause of recent warming and cooling relates to long-term swings in atmospheric pressure that changes the relations between mid and low latitudes thereby affecting the trade winds that in turn determine the temperature of the Earth’s solar array, its tropical ocean, and ultimately the globe as a whole.


----------



## adagio

Thanks FeXL, I jumped in and waded through that article. Lot's of interesting info there. 

The more we research the more I realize how little understanding mankind has about how nature works. Every time something comes along that we think may be the answer, that's often not the case upon further study. That's what REAL research is all about. I bucked the AGW train from the beginning. I'm so glad to see many others finally opening their eyes and at least keeping an open mind. The one single thing that bothered me so much, coming from a science background myself, was the announcement that the consensus was in that AGW was THE thing and the attitude was "move along, move along, nothing else to see here." I can't think of another such horrific attitude in the scientific community in my lifetime. Of course it was never ALL the scientists but that is not what was touted as truth. It's downright scary how a group of people could control so much, both the media and by bully intimidation tactics on those scientists who remained true to their calling.... always questioning.


----------



## Macfury

A fine example of the propaganda from the enlightened greenhouse gassers--in which school children are murdered for being "deniers". Hilarious. Oh yeah....






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## chasMac

^^

Was that produced by a group supporting or mocking 1010?


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> ^^
> 
> Was that produced by a group supporting or mocking 1010?


Supporting, believe it or not.


----------



## SINC

*Winter could be a whopper, forecasters say*



> The most intense La Niña conditions since 1955 are brewing near the equator, raising the odds of a wild winter in the Pacific Northwest.
> 
> Meteorologists say more rain, colder temperatures and bigger snowstorms are likely.
> 
> "There's the potential for whoppers — but no guarantees," Washington state Climatologist Nick Bond said Thursday at a National Weather Service briefing.
> 
> The snow that paralyzed much of the Puget Sound region during the winter of 2008-2009 is one example of what a La Niña pattern can produce.
> 
> "La Niña winters are snowy winters," said Brad Colman, National Weather Service meteorologist-in-charge for Seattle. "Skiers and departments of transportation should be paying attention."
> 
> *The flip side of the more-famous El Niño pattern, La Niñas occur when the ocean near the equator becomes colder than usual. Current temperatures are the coldest for this time of year since the Eisenhower administration.*
> 
> Computer models predict the pattern will continue, and possibly strengthen, throughout the season, Colman said.


Global warming my a$$.

Local News | Winter could be a whopper, forecasters say | Seattle Times Newspaper


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> Global warming my a$$.
> 
> Local News | Winter could be a whopper, forecasters say | Seattle Times Newspaper


God help us here in St.John's if this forecast is correct. The last time a big la Nina hit Canada we received 635cm of snow from Nov. until June. We shall see.


----------



## eMacMan

Dr.G. said:


> God help us here in St.John's if this forecast is correct. The last time a big la Nina hit Canada we received 635cm of snow from Nov. until June. We shall see.


According to the weatherman it arrived way too early and liquidated our summer here in SW AB. Also confirmed by the Farmers Almanac and we are bracing for a particularly nasty winter as well.


----------



## Dr.G.

eMacMan said:


> According to the weatherman it arrived way too early and liquidated our summer here in SW AB. Also confirmed by the Farmers Almanac and we are bracing for a particularly nasty winter as well.


The Canadian Farmers' Almanac was accurate for NL up until Hurricane Igor. Then, their forecast for wet and cool temps was way off as we experienced sunshine and record warm temps. Sadly, they forecast snow for us in early Nov. lasting until mid-June ............. a repeat of our record setting winter of 2000/01. We shall see.


----------



## eMacMan

Dr.G. said:


> The Canadian Farmers' Almanac was accurate for NL up until Hurricane Igor. Then, their forecast for wet and cool temps was way off as we experienced sunshine and record warm temps. Sadly, they forecast snow for us in early Nov. lasting until mid-June ............. a repeat of our record setting winter of 2000/01. We shall see.


Beyond poisoning much of the Gulf of Mexico, the BP spill and subsequent release of toxic chemical dispersants seems to have had an unpredicted impact on both the internal circulation of the Gulf of Mexico and on the Gulf Stream Current. Realistically I believe that all predictions are out the window for both Atlantic Canada and Europe at least for the next few months.

For my money this sort of disaster may have a far bigger global impact than minor variations in atmospheric levels of CO2.


----------



## Dr.G.

eMacMan said:


> Beyond poisoning much of the Gulf of Mexico, the BP spill and subsequent release of toxic chemical dispersants seems to have had an unpredicted impact on both the internal circulation of the Gulf of Mexico and on the Gulf Stream Current. Realistically I believe that all predictions are out the window for both Atlantic Canada and Europe at least for the next few months.
> 
> For my money this sort of disaster may have a far bigger global impact than minor variations in atmospheric levels of CO2.


Not what we want to hear, eMacMan. I know someone who works for the city and is in charge of our water system. They have been working on plans as to what we shall do if we get a winter in which we receive 25-30 feet of snow ............. and the impact that it shall have upon our infrastructure when it falls, when we try to clear it away, and when it finally melts away. On July 1st, 2001, I was able to make a snowball with the last bit of snow that remained under my deck from the 21 feet that had fallen that winter. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Beyond poisoning much of the Gulf of Mexico, the BP spill and subsequent release of toxic chemical dispersants seems to have had an unpredicted impact on both the internal circulation of the Gulf of Mexico and on the Gulf Stream Current. Realistically I believe that all predictions are out the window for both Atlantic Canada and Europe at least for the next few months.
> 
> For my money this sort of disaster may have a far bigger global impact than minor variations in atmospheric levels of CO2.


Those dispersants--and even the oil--are a drop in the bucket of the Gulf of Mexico, regarding its total volume. By what mechanism do you suppose such things might change ocean currents?


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Those dispersants--and even the oil--are a drop in the bucket of the Gulf of Mexico, regarding its total volume. By what mechanism do you suppose such things might change ocean currents?


It's that or complete coincidence but the patterns have changed.


----------



## FeXL

Further update on Kiwigate.

Again, could care less about the legality of such things but find some statements...revealing.



> In the climate controversy dubbed Kiwigate New Zealand skeptics inflict shock courtroom defeat on climatologists implicated in temperature data fraud.
> 
> New Zealand’s government via its National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has announced it has nothing to do with the country’s “official” climate record in what commentators are calling a capitulation from the tainted climate reconstruction.
> 
> NIWA’s statement claims they were never responsible for the national temperature record (NZTR).The climb down is seen as a dramatic legal triumph for skeptics of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) who had initiated their challenge last August when petitioning the high court of New Zealand to invalidate the weather service’s reconstruction of antipodean temperatures.


...

Big surprise here:



> The specific charge brought against the Kiwi government was that it’s climate scientists had taken the raw temperature records of the country and then adjusted them artificially with the result that a steeper warming trend was created than would otherwise exist by examination of the raw data alone.
> 
> *Indeed, the original Kiwi records shows no warming during the 20th century, but after government sponsored climatologists had manipulated the data a warming trend of 1C appeared*.


...

Then what's the raison d'etre? Fire 'em all, dissolve the framework & use the tax dollars to turn it into something useful. Say, a group of scientists that can stand behind their work?



> *The NZCSC story reports that the NZ authorities, “formally stated that, in their opinion, they are not required to use the best available information nor to apply the best scientific practices and techniques available at any given time. They don’t think that forms any part of their statutory obligation to pursue “excellence.”
> 
> NIWA now denies there was any such thing as an “official” NZ Temperature Record, although there was an official acronym for it (NZTR). However, the position now taken by the NZ government is that all such records are now to be deemed as unofficial and strictly for internal research purposes.*


(Sorry about the bold, red, underline. I just wanted to make sure you read that quote at least twice. Slowly.)

Nice. What about scientific procedure?

...

And from the "Do ya think?" department:



> The article urges that if the government will not affirm that their temperature reconstruction is official then, “Nobody else should rely on it."


...

Big surprise:



> As reported in a Suite101 article by the same writer of April 2010 'Kiwigate is a Carbon Copy of Climategate' *it was shown that the scientist who made the controversial “bold adjustments” is none other than Jim Salinger who is also a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)*. Salinger was dismissed by NIWA earlier this year for speaking without authorization to the media. The discredited researcher originally worked at Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), the institution at the center of the Climategate scandal.


...

Hmmm. Never saw that before...



> *In circumstances strangely similar to those witnessed in the Climategate controversy Kiwigate appears to match Climategate in three key three facets. First, climate scientists declined to submit their data for independent analysis. Second, when backed into a corner the scientists claimed their adjustments had been ‘lost’. Third, the raw data itself proves no warming trend.*


All emphasis mine.


----------



## Macfury

Cue unrelated graph, or photo of ostrich courtesy of MacDoc or other warmist.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Cue unrelated graph, or photo of ostrich courtesy of MacDoc or other warmist.


MacFury, they've given up on graphs and are moving on to remote detonating C4 caplets to deal with the "deniers'. Be careful what you swallow!


----------



## chasMac

MacGuiver said:


> MacFury, they've given up on graphs and are moving on to remote detonating C4 caplets to deal with the "deniers'. Be careful what you swallow!



The story on that campaign gets better and better:



> The child actor who played one of those spectacularly eviscerated declared: “I was very happy to get blown up to save the world.”
> 
> Peter Foster: The U.K.’s climate killers | Full Comment | National Post


----------



## CubaMark

*Sun's Impact on Climate Change Overestimated?*





> It's possible that rising solar activity tends to cool—rather than warm—Earth, because visible light output is actually reduced.
> 
> If this is true, it would mean that climate scientists have been overestimating the contributions of the sun on climate change and underestimating the effect of human activity, according to Michael Lockwood, a climate scientist at the U.K.'s University of Reading.
> 
> "This is not good news for skeptics" of the idea that humans largely cause global warming...


(National Geographic)


----------



## Macfury

> It's possible that rising solar activity tends to cool—rather than warm—Earth, because visible light output is actually reduced.
> 
> If this is true, it would mean that climate scientists have been overestimating the contributions of the sun on climate change and underestimating the effect of human activity, according to Michael Lockwood, a climate scientist at the U.K.'s University of Reading.
> 
> "This is not good news for skeptics" of the idea that humans largely cause global warming...


So since solar activity has been low over the past decade, then we can assume that under this scenario the sun has been contributing far more to global average temperatures than previously thought--meaning humans have caused less of it. How is this bad news for skeptics?


----------



## SINC

Simple answer is that it's not.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Simple answer is that it's not.


For every complex problem, there is a simple answer, which is almost always wrong.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> For every complex problem, there is a simple answer, which is almost always wrong.


In this case, if you read the report, it was a news reporter who decided that this was bad news for skeptics of warmism--and that's one of the phrases Cubamark decided to copy.


----------



## MannyP Design

Out of curiosity, I dug up this article from NASA prior to the climate warm spell that happened in 2007: NASA - NASA Aids in Resolving Long Standing Solar Cycle Mystery

If what MacFury postulates is true, then 2007 may have been the apex of solar inactivity and we are seeing the stronger solar cycle returning.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> In this case, if you read the report, it was a news reporter who decided that this was bad news for skeptics of warmism--and that's one of the phrases Cubamark decided to copy.


Uh, no. Re-read the article. The quote is attributed to *"Michael Lockwood, a climate scientist at the U.K.'s University of Reading."*


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Uh, no. Re-read the article. The quote is attributed to *"Michael Lockwood, a climate scientist at the U.K.'s University of Reading."*


He did not define the nature of the skepticism. The journalist filled it in.


----------



## MacDoc

Before the giddiness gets out of hand...very mistakenly

a) it's a sine function
b) it's tiny compared to AGW

but of course you knew that....



> Does a Weaker Sun Mean a Warmer Earth?
> 
> Changes in the sun's output of various wavelengths of light have been warming the planet recently, contradicting scientists' computer models of the solar cycle
> 
> By David Biello October 7, 2010 11
> 
> SOLAR SURPRISE: In the most recent solar cycle, the sun put out more visible light than anticipated by scientists, exacerbating global warming. Image: Courtesy of NASA / Solar Dynamics Observatory
> 
> The sun controls Earth's climate, bathing us in light ranging from ultraviolet to visible that warms the planet and drives the heat engines we know as weather systems and ocean currents. The sun is changeable, cycling from maximum to minimum outputs over a roughly 11-year cycle, increasing or decreasing the amount of light that reaches Earth as a result of the poorly understood aspects of the sun's seething nuclear fusion. Now new satellite measurements reveal that from 2004 to 2007—the declining phase of an unusually low and prolonged solar minimum—the sun put out even less ultraviolet light than expected but compensated by putting out more visible light.
> 
> "The amount of visible radiation entering the lower atmosphere was increasing, which implies warming at the surface," says atmospheric physicist Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London, who led the research, published in Nature on October 7. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) "The solar radiative forcing of climate increased by 0.1 [watt per square meter]." That means the sun, at least for those three years, played a larger role in ongoing climate change than previously thought.
> 
> Global climate change—average temperatures have risen by roughly 0.6 degree Celsius since the beginning of the 20th century—is caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases, chief among them carbon dioxide (CO2), act as a blanket, trapping the sun's heat that would otherwise be radiated back into space. Rising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere means rising average temperatures for the planet, causing climate change.
> 
> But the change from 2004 to 2007 in the sun's output of visible light, and the attendant warming at Earth's surface of 0.1 watt per square meter, is roughly equivalent to the overall forcing of the sun on the climate over the past 25 years—estimated by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to be an additional 0.12 watt per square meter. That suggests scientists may have overestimated the sun's role in climate change.
> 
> *Regardless, the solar change is dwarfed by the impact from the extra heat trapped by CO2 alone since 1750: an additional 1.66 watts per square meter, an effect that other greenhouse gases, such as methane, strengthen further. In other words, whereas the new satellite measurements call into question computer models of solar output, it does not change the fundamental physics of human-induced global warming.*
> 
> Still, the finding suggests that scientists' understanding of solar cycles and their impact on climate needs more work. "The result reverses understanding of solar cycle climate effects," which had been that the sun generally warms the climate on the way up from minimum to maximum and generally cools the climate on the way down from maximum to minimum, explains atmospheric scientist Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in England. "But the opposite seems to have been true of the last solar cycle."
> 
> In addition, the larger than expected loss of UV light meant less stratospheric ozone up to 45 kilometers above the surface, but more above that line. That distinguishes this solar cycle from the preceding two and "suggests that the declining phase of solar cycle 23 is behaving differently to previous solar cycles," the team wrote.
> 
> Of course, solar irradiance measurements from just three years of one solar cycle cannot be applied to any other period than the one measured by the Spectral Irradiance Monitor on NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite. "We cannot extrapolate to a 250-year period," Haigh says. "While this increase is similar to that produced by greenhouse gases, it may well turn round with the 11-year cycle so it can't be used to imply any long-term forcing."
> 
> In fact, the solar minimum for the last cycle was reached in 2009, and the sun's activity has picked up in the intervening months. It remains to be seen if that will bring a decline in the sun's output of visible light—and therefore a decline in the sun's contribution to a warming climate during this upward part of the present solar cycle. The sun "was thought to be having a cooling effect over the last few years," Forster notes, a thought now shown likely to be mistaken. "Perhaps the sun has been trying to warm the Earth after all."


Does a Weaker Sun Mean a Warmer Earth?: Scientific American


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Regardless, the solar change is dwarfed by the impact from the extra heat trapped by CO2 alone since 1750: an additional 1.66 watts per square meter, an effect that other greenhouse gases, such as methane, strengthen further. In other words, whereas the new satellite measurements call into question computer models of solar output, it does not change the fundamental physics of human-induced global warming.



It does not change the _fundamental presumption of warmists _regarding _the computer models_ demonstrating _computer modeled_ physics _which demonstrate to them the theory of human-induced global warming_.


----------



## FeXL

> estimated by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to be an additional 0.12 watt per square meter.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The article cites the International Panel of Climate Crooks.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

'Nuf said.


----------



## FeXL

*Today is Climate Fools Day!*

Linky



> For the last 20 years politicians, jets setting bureaucrats and vested interests have been plotting how to make Climate Fools of the western world, taxing industry and consumers to fund green schemes, carbon speculators and international wealth redistribution.
> 
> The fightback by sceptical scientists and public was greatly boosted on the first Climate Fools Day when, in October 2008, British politicians passed with little dissent “The Climate Change Bill” a piece of legislation that future generations will come to accept was “the most absurd Bill that this Parliament has ever had to examine”.
> 
> 
> Since then, sceptics all over the world have exposed the lack of evidence, the manipulation of data, the misuse of scientific process, the corruption of vested interests and the powerful influence of natural factors in climate cycles.
> 
> Despite the now discredited projections of dangerous global warming, the globe itself has continued its normal weather defining cycles such as El Nino, La Nina, the Pacific Oscillations, the powerful solar cycles and the massive ebb and flow of oceans and atmosphere. On a longer time scale there is no evidence that the globe’s long history of recurrent ice ages and violent episodes of volcanic and earthquake activity have suddenly ceased.
> 
> Unfortunately, a whole generation of Climate Fools will have to be rooted out of our parliaments before Climate Sense reigns again. We will then see the massive flood of community resources currently being wasted on windmills, solar toys, alarmist junkets, silly subsidies and climate bureaucracy will be more sensibly directed towards preparation for coping with the real natural cycles of heat and cold, floods and droughts, cyclones and earthquakes, vulcanism and ice ages. We will then regret the destruction of industry and wastage of real energy opportunities now taking place.


I suggest you celebrate by firin' up the SUV, headin' out to the cabin (er, cottage for you easterners), loadin' up the wood burnin' stove, lighting the 'cue, roasting a marshmallow or six and finishing off with a big, ol' stogie...

Enjoy!


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> I suggest you celebrate by firin' up the SUV, headin' out to the cabin (er, cottage for you easterners), loadin' up the wood burnin' stove, lighting the 'cue, roasting a marshmallow or six and finishing off with a big, ol' stogie...


If climate skeptics all did that regularly, this problem would be solved quickly by an epidemic of heart attacks XX)

Cheers


----------



## BigDL

FeXL said:


> Linky
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you celebrate by firin' up the SUV, headin' out to the cabin (er, cottage for you easterners), loadin' up the wood burnin' stove, lighting the 'cue, roasting a marshmallow or six and finishing off with a big, ol' stogie...
> 
> Enjoy!


If you go far enough easterner you use the term camp or bungalow, but I digress.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> If climate skeptics all did that regularly, this problem would be solved quickly by an epidemic of heart attacks XX)
> 
> Cheers


Infinitely better'n choking to death on pointless, expensive legislation being shoved down my throat. 

Free choice an' all...


----------



## eMacMan

Even if the CO2 myth is reality, funneling large portions of my income over to the government and Al Gore cannot and will not reduce mans or my own CO2 footprint in the slightest!

To have a significant impact on man made CO2 emissions only wholesale extermination of a large portion of the first world population will work. May I modestly suggest that we start with the true believers in the Chicken Little Theory?beejacon Clearly one should be willing to sacrifice everything for a cause they truly believe in!

Once that is done we can start taking unfudged measurements over a period of about 500 years and accurately determine what if any impact man has on climate.

I do wish the Chicken Little crowd were as passionate about putting a stop to GMO foods. Reducing true pollution; land, water and air. And cleaning up the other environmental messes we have created.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> I do wish the Chicken Little crowd were as passionate about putting a stop to GMO foods.


Why would anyone want to do that? GMOs can be used to reduce environmental impact of crop production, increase the nutritional value of crop plants, reduce the reliance on fertilizers and pesticides, decrease the cost of production. I can understand wanting to put a stop to the use of GMOs that are engineered to increase dependency on pesticides (e.g. Monsanto's "Round-up Ready" canola), or the plants engineered to be sterile so that farmers can't produce their own seeds, but I cannot fathom people being opposed to genetic modification plants (or animals) on principle (except possibly the principle of ignorance and fear).


----------



## eMacMan

the Saskatchewan farmer


bryanc said:


> Why would anyone want to do that? GMOs can be used to reduce environmental impact of crop production, increase the nutritional value of crop plants, reduce the reliance on fertilizers and pesticides, decrease the cost of production. I can understand wanting to put a stop to the use of GMOs that are engineered to increase dependency on pesticides (e.g. Monsanto's "Round-up Ready" canola), or the plants engineered to be sterile so that farmers can't produce their own seeds, but I cannot fathom people being opposed to genetic modification plants (or animals) on principle (except possibly the principle of ignorance and fear).


Tell that to the Saskatchewan Farmer who spent $100,000s fighting Monsanto when they sued him after their GMOs pollen contaminated his canola crop. Or the Thousands of Indian farmers who have committed suicide. Or the Swiss dairy farmer that lost his heard after feeding them GMO corn...
Or any other farmer that is trying to rid his field of super weeds that were pollinated by GMO pollen from related crops.

However the point I was trying to make was that supporting Carbon Taxes and the Gore Extortion Group is suicidal particularly for those at the lower end of the economic spectrum, and there are far more important environmental battles to be fought. Whether or not you agree that GMOs is one of those battles is entirely up to you.

As for GMOs I firmly believe that they should be heavily tested on Monsanto executives for a period of 10 years before they can be sold. This should be carefully supervised perhaps in a prison environment so they cannot substitute Taber corn for the Monsanto variety.


----------



## BigDL

bryanc said:


> Why would anyone want to do that? GMOs can be used to reduce environmental impact of crop production, increase the nutritional value of crop plants, reduce the reliance on fertilizers and pesticides, decrease the cost of production. I can understand wanting to put a stop to the use of GMOs that are engineered to increase dependency on pesticides (e.g. Monsanto's "Round-up Ready" canola), or the plants engineered to be sterile so that farmers can't produce their own seeds, but I cannot fathom people being opposed to genetic modification plants (or animals) on principle (except possibly the principle of ignorance and fear).


I fear GMO crops for the same reason that I do not trust pesticides. Large corporations indiscriminately push out products with the attitude of "what could possibly go wrong" and then take the position of "prove it was our product and no other possibility." With all for the foresight of what 90 days or so of profit will do for bottom lines. 

GMO=DDT, in my mind is, guilty until proven innocent. It took a lot of effort to prove DDT a culprit that affects ecosystems and pollutes environments. 

No one yet knows the full effects of unleashing GMO's in to the test tube called Earth.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> GMO=DDT, in my mind is, guilty until proven innocent. It took a lot of effort to prove DDT a culprit that affects ecosystems and pollutes environments.


DDT has been back in a big way for mosquito control since its endorsement by the World Health Organization in 2006.


----------



## bryanc

BigDL said:


> GMO=DDT, in my mind


Well there's your problem. This is like arguing that because evil corporations use computers, computers are evil. Technologies like genetic engineering can certainly be used in ways that should not be allowed, and the examples you've cited are great illustrations of that. But blaming the technology for the ways unregulated profit-driven corporations use it is missing the point.

Now I completely agree that it was naive to think that technologically illiterate lawyers and power-hungry politicians would do a good job of regulating this new technology, and that is the cause of the problems. But the solution is to hire competent, educated regulators and monitor the politicians and corporations better, not to get rid of the technology.


----------



## eMacMan

As usual the Chicken Little crowd is attempting to divert attention from the big issue.

Carbon Taxes and Gore Extortion Fees will not reduce CO2 emissions and will devastate those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. The intent is to rob the poor and give to the rich.

Like it or not AGW is a combination of a cash and power grab supported by nothing more than computer models that were fed erroneous data. How is it possible to ignore the Middle Age Warming Period and the Maunder minimum and still claim the data is credible?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Well there's your problem. This is like arguing that because evil corporations use computers, computers are evil. Technologies like genetic engineering can certainly be used in ways that should not be allowed, and the examples you've cited are great illustrations of that. But blaming the technology for the ways unregulated profit-driven corporations use it is missing the point.


Never mind that they are profit-driven. Even libertarians agree that the "commons" must be protected and that includes regulating companies producing GMO crops if they are capable of pollinating neighbouring fields.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Even libertarians agree that the "commons" must be protected and that includes regulating companies producing GMO crops if they are capable of pollinating neighbouring fields.


Yep. And it's not going to be easy to come up with these regulations; we're going to need people who understand the biology, the economics, and the law, and there are very few people with real expertise in all three areas.

Interesting times.


----------



## BigDL

bryanc said:


> Well there's your problem. This is like arguing that because evil corporations use computers, computers are evil. Technologies like genetic engineering can certainly be used in ways that should not be allowed, and the examples you've cited are great illustrations of that. But blaming the technology for the ways unregulated profit-driven corporations use it is missing the point.
> 
> Now I completely agree that it was naive to think that technologically illiterate lawyers and power-hungry politicians would do a good job of regulating this new technology, and that is the cause of the problems. But the solution is to hire competent, educated regulators and monitor the politicians and corporations better, not to get rid of the technology.


Criminals using a computer as designed for nefarious purposes are consequences that are expected. Nigerian spam for example may have not been the model presented first but some version would have come to mind quickly enough.

The flaw in this argument is the intended consequences may be subverted by unimagined processes, producing undesirable changes, that nobody conceived of, intended nor wants to have taken place, changes that could devastate the biosphere. 

After all life started out of an ooze that is not fully appreciated, last I heard.


----------



## KC4

More and hopefully better data, obtained in an interesting way. One of the animals most at risk is assisting with the information gathering. I can't see any information about how long they have been obtaining data this way. 



> The use of the animals as “biological oceanographers” has shown that waters in this key habitat for the tusked whale are warming faster than previous climatology data had suggested.


NunatsiaqOnline 2010-10-29: NEWS: Narwhals aid Arctic climate research effort


----------



## MacDoc

Not sure about your question but analogue signals from ocean and land biomes have been tracked - some with very long timelines ( species ranges off England by fishermen and spring budding etc )

This is a yearly report that is multi-discipline and includes biome data for the Arctic

Arctic Report Card


----------



## Macfury

^^^^^^^^
I see he tried to slip that link in without mentioning the fact that this is the discredited NOAA supplying the data.


----------



## KC4

MacDoc said:


> Not sure about your question....]


Was just curious about the duration of the data sampling done with the assistance of the Narwhals. 

The answer.

Looking at the timeline at the bottom of the article synopsis, I wonder why it has taken so long to get this interesting news published? Is this normal for scientific research?


----------



## bryanc

KC4 said:


> Looking at the timeline at the bottom of the article synopsis, I wonder why it has taken so long to get this interesting news published? Is this normal for scientific research?


Yes, that's normal. After several person-years of data collection, replications and analysis, a manuscript will be submitted for peer review. The length of that process depends on the journal, the data, and the reviewer, but routinely takes at least a couple of months. After review, many papers are returned to the authors with specific experimental controls proposed by the reviewers, which may take months to accomplish. The manuscript is then revised to incorporate this new data, and re-submitted. 

I've had papers that have gone back and forth for a year before being accepted (in fact I have two that are undergoing that process now, both of which were first submitted over a year ago). While it's very frustrating, this is part of how science does 'quality control.'

Cheers


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> ...discredited NOAA...


Only discredited for those who expect all data to be perfect all the time. Which does not include any scientists.

Mistakes happen. When they're identified, they're fixed, and any conclusions based on the erroneous data is re-analyzed. As far as I know, all the conclusions remain intact.


----------



## bryanc

I was just looking at _one_ of the dozens of independent, peer-reviewed research papers used in the NOAA analysis cited above, and viewed as 'discredited' by MacFury, and noted the authors affiliations:


Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole, MA
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia
Alfred Wegener Institute, Germany
Institute of Ocean Sciences, Sidney, Canada
Polar Science Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
International Arctic Research Center, Fairbanks, Alaska
Institute of Observational Research for Global Change, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokosuka, Japan

I guess all these institutions are also 'discredited' as well, eh MacFury?


----------



## eMacMan

What has been fully discredited is the GW alarmists attempts to deny the Medieval Warming period and the Maunder Minimum. 

Both are particularly important because: Combined they shatter the Michael Mann hockey stick. The out of control upward spiral is replaced by a U and we still have some ways to go before the current temps match the Medieval Warming temps. By itself the Medieval Warming period is proof that the planet can withstand much warmer temps without a catastrophic climate failure. It also proves that such changes can and will happen with or without the impact of man. Proves that Polar Bears and various whale species can and will survive changes. The Maunder Minimum is also important as it establishes a long straight line upward trend rather than the curved hockey stick. Also clearly establishes that melting of the glaciers was well underway prior to the industrial revolution. 

For those that must believe; I strongly urge you to give half of your assets to Al Gore and the other half to the government. This will give you a jump on Carbon Taxes and Cap and Trade and will have every bit as much impact on the climate as doing it to everybody. Course if the Warming fails to show up again this winter you may freeze to death but all true believers must be willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause. However sacrificing those that do not believe is just plain evil.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> What has been fully discredited is the GW alarmists attempts to deny the Medieval Warming period and the Maunder Minimum.
> 
> Both are particularly important because: Combined they shatter the Michael Mann hockey stick. The out of control upward spiral is replaced by a U and we still have some ways to go before the current temps match the Medieval Warming temps. By itself the Medieval Warming period is proof that the planet can withstand much warmer temps without a catastrophic climate failure.


What I find interesting is that when I talk to real climatologists (i.e. people with real expertise on the subject, not Internet Experts), they don't agree with your interpretation of the Medieval Warming period or the Maunder Minimum. They tell me, for example, that the MWP was restricted to the northern hemisphere, and is thought to have resulted from changes in the circulation in the north atlantic. But I won't try to tell you what it proves, because, as a scientist, I know that empirical research isn't about proving things.

It's remarkable how I keep hearing how people who have no training in the field think they've demolished decades of peer-reviewed research done by thousands of people with Ph.D.s. It's not that I think the scientists are infallible, but you'd have to have a pretty remarkable opinion of yourself to assume that your 'proofs' are things that weren't considered, especially without having read (or even being able to read) any of the primary literature in the field.


----------



## MacDoc

Gotta love his unsupported trash...ala Faux News et al....

quite of few of these in the denidiot camp these days.....










Keeping court with the anti-evolution crowd

Meanwhile in the real world..



> *2010 Is Now Tied For Hottest Year on Record (So Far)*
> by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 09.16.10
> SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (science)
> 
> New NOAA temperature data has been released including August temperatures and this year's record-setting global trend continues: "For January-August 2010, the global land and ocean surface temperature of 14.7°C tied with 1998 as the warmest January-August period on record. This value is 0.67°C above the 20th century average." August itself went down in history as being among the warmest recorded as well.
> 
> Looking at combined global land and ocean surface temperatures, August 2010 was the third warmest on record, with August 1998 still holding that title and August 2009 coming in second. Last month global average temps were 0.6°C above the 20th century average. Just looking at land temperatures, August 2010 was the second hottest recorded, behind 1998, with temps running 0.9°C above average.
> 
> The northern hemisphere summer as a whole was the second warmest on record, global average temperatures (combined land and ocean surface) were 1.0°C above average. Again, 1998 here too holds the record.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TreeHugger readers in the eastern half of the US should be reassured that the severity of this summer's heatwaves was as bad as you thought: NOAA reports that the biggest variations from normal average temps occurred in the the eastern part of the contiguous US, across eastern Canada and much of Europe. Northwest Africa and parts of Asia 2also experience markedly higher temperatures than normal. Cooler-than-average conditions prevailed across southern South America, central Russia, and most of Australia.
> 
> For the year as a whole to date, the warmest temperature anomalies were observed in Canada, the northern part of the United States, southern Greenland, Africa, southwest Asia and the tropical portions of the North Atlantic Ocean. Cooler than normal temperature anomalies occurred across Central Asia, the non-equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean, and the southern oceans.
> 
> NOAA has much more update climate data for this time period (precipitation changes, sea ice changes, more) and more detail on the info above: State of the Climate | Global Analysis | August 2010


Seems your contention of

a) denial of MWP and LIA is wrong.....( amongst many other notions of ignorance of your planet )

b) Yes Virginia there really is Global Warming and we're the cause....

c) it's warmer now that in MWP

d) there is more C02 that in the last 15 million years and we are headed towards the same temps as then ( look up hysteresis )












> This image is a comparison of* 10 different* published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 2000 years. More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer colors. An instrumental history of temperature is also shown in black. The medieval warm period and little ice age are labeled at roughly the times when they are historically believed to occur,* though it is still disputed whether these were truly global or only regional events*.


now that's merely to 2004 ...and it's 2010 and continuing to climb.....your word of the day is *hysteresis*.....learn something...


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> What I find interesting is that when I talk to real climatologists (i.e. people with real expertise on the subject, not Internet Experts), they don't agree with your interpretation of the Medieval Warming period or the Maunder Minimum. They tell me, for example, that the MWP was restricted to the northern hemisphere, and is thought to have resulted from changes in the circulation in the north atlantic. But I won't try to tell you what it proves, because, as a scientist, I know that empirical research isn't about proving things.
> 
> It's remarkable how I keep hearing how people who have no training in the field think they've demolished decades of peer-reviewed research done by thousands of people with Ph.D.s. It's not that I think the scientists are infallible, but you'd have to have a pretty remarkable opinion of yourself to assume that your 'proofs' are things that weren't considered, especially without having read (or even being able to read) any of the primary literature in the field.


The Northern hemisphere can hardly be viewed as localized. Beyond that there is certainly ample evidence of the Medieval Warming era in Africa and Australia. The reason the alarmists try to minimize these two major climactic extremes is that their computer models fail to re-produce them.

Still I will stand between no man and his beliefs. I will even urge all true Goreshippers to prove their devotion beyond all doubt.



eMacMan said:


> ..For those that must believe; I strongly urge you to give half of your assets to Al Gore and the other half to the government. This will give you a jump on Carbon Taxes and Cap and Trade and will have every bit as much impact on the climate as doing it to everybody. Course if the Warming fails to show up again this winter you may freeze to death but all true believers must be willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause. *However sacrificing those that do not believe is just plain evil.*


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> quite of few of these in the denidiot camp these days.....


I've never been able to figure out why a supposedly reasonable, mature, 60-something individual resorts to insults and name calling to preface an argument. I've been on the receiving end of it & certainly didn't find the experience pleasurable. I know many others on these boards who have also experienced said insults & name calling from said individual. Fair bet none of them enjoyed it, either.

Usually such schoolboy tactics stem from some issue or another, whether a physical affliction or some deeper, psychological issues that create a sense of entitlement, a lack of compassion and impulse control and persons who crave attention and are concerned only about themselves.

Was familiar with another bully once, back in kindergarten. He had a significant weight problem.

Knew another back in high school who was pissed off at the world because all he rode was a scooter, instead of a real motorcycle.

Yet another who used to insult on a regular basis back in university had a small penis: a bitter, bitter man.

What are your issues, MacDoc? 

I don't know, but whatever they are, please, just deal with them and return to the discussion table when you are able to conduct yourself in a mature fashion. No one here appreciates the abuse.

Thank you.


----------



## SINC

Yeah, it's been an ongoing problem with the insults for far too long now and always ignored by the mods. I have to wonder just why that is, doesn't everyone?

Well put, and time it was done . :clap:


----------



## MannyP Design

Hey, when you got nothing else, just sling [email protected] at people, right? He's come full circle at least three times—just keeps hammering the same links and graphs over and over thinking the results will change. :lmao:

MacDoc can dish it, but he sure can't take it.


----------



## Greenman

This just in.... worry not.... god will save us 

Congressman says God will save us from climate change - Telegraph

Score another one for the Republicans beejacon


----------



## CubaMark

Greenman said:


> Congressman says God will save us from climate change - Telegraph


Oh good lord. He's not just another Republican. He's a Republican with some power...


> A Republican congressman who believes that global warming is not a threat because God has promised not to destroy the Earth has put himself forward as chairman of a powerful committee that deals with energy policy and its effect on the environment.


Man, I wish the Founding Fathers had been a bit more explicit on the separation of Wingnuts and State....


----------



## Dr.G.

Greenman said:


> This just in.... worry not.... god will save us
> 
> Congressman says God will save us from climate change - Telegraph
> 
> Score another one for the Republicans beejacon


Praise the Lord ............ and pass the keys to the Hummer. :greedy:


----------



## Dr.G.

"Man, I wish the Founding Fathers had been a bit more explicit on the separation of Wingnuts and State.... " Good one, Cuba Mark. Well, at least he is not a witch.


----------



## Macfury

Greenman said:


> This just in.... worry not.... god will save us
> 
> Congressman says God will save us from climate change - Telegraph
> 
> Score another one for the Republicans beejacon


Either that or this Gaia-worshiping Democrat crap and a president who promises to lower the world's sea levels and heal the Earth. Neither is reasonable.


----------



## MacGuiver

This guys confused. God doesn't need to save us from man made global warming anymore than the he needs to save us from the flying spaghetti monster. They're both myths.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc

Gee he finally acknowledged fsm and big g as equivalent myths....

You actually got it correct with two out of three.....myths

on the other hand in the real world

*It IS getting warmer
We ARE responsible......*

but given how reality escapes you on one count you hold dear, I'm not surprised on the other.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> *It IS getting warmer
> We ARE responsible......*


It is getting warmer in here...a nd MacDoc is responsible.


----------



## SINC

Yep, we've *"been told"* again by the learned one.


----------



## FeXL

Credit due...at least there was no name calling.


----------



## eMacMan

Still if the sky did not fall during the Medieval Warming period, why should I believe it will fall this time around?

Frankly I find revisiting the Maunder Minimum a lot scarier as should any one living in Canada.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Still if the sky did not fall during the Medieval Warming period, why should I believe it will fall this time around?
> 
> Frankly I find revisiting the Maunder Minimum a lot scarier as should any one living in Canada.


I have always asked Greenhouse Gassers what they believe the "appropriate temperature" should be. Few have answers. If they suggest a temperature I ask them if they would consider releasing more CO2 if the temperature fell below those levels. They recoil in horror.

The notion of controlling temperature using CO2 as a thermostat is nonsense to begin with, but you can see their prejudice favours only measures that compromise an industrial economy and human prosperity.


----------



## Max

Macfury said:


> I have always asked Greenhouse Gassers what they believe the "appropriate temperature" should be. Few have answers. If they suggest a temperature I ask them if they would consider releasing more CO2 if the temperature fell below those levels. They recoil in horror.
> 
> The notion of controlling temperature using CO2 as a thermostat is nonsense to begin with, but you can see their prejudice favours only measures that compromise an industrial economy and human prosperity.


Perhaps; but it would also be a mistake to leap from that and take the view that human prosperity must always trump concern over the environment.

Viewed from another angle altogether, it's idiotic to even draw a distinction between the two - this environment _is_ our natural habitat. We are dependent on its air, its soil, its raw materials, its water. We are in a symbiotic relationship with the earth or Gaia or whatever you wish to call it (sarcastically or reverently, your choice) and in that regard viewing the environment as 'the other' is problematic at best. One would think the aims of human prosperity would be to be at truly home with the world, rather than endlessly attempting to dominate it - particularly considering this could come at the potential expense of killing the host... you know, the goose that laid the golden egg. There is still precious little we understand about the mechanics of that symbiosis, and the myriad permutations thereof. It ain't a closed book.

Perhaps we'll go off-planet one day and leave behind this lump of rock and water. Perhaps. In the meantime, it might be a grave mistake to consider human prosperity and the natural world as mutually exclusive matters.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Perhaps; but it would also be a mistake to leap from that and take the view that human prosperity must always trump concern over the environment.


Of course not. And you'll find that those countries that are the wealthiest also have the cleanest environments. Crippling an economy by chasing the CO2 ghost will do more to harm the environment than any measure I could think of.

Likewise, if your strategy is to merely control the production of CO2 there must be a goal set for outcome. You can't merely state that you want to control output of CO2 and then declare the effort a success if you achieve that quota. What is the result? What proof do you have that the strategy was meaningful?

Ontario is currently spending millions cleaning up the Deloro mine site which is pumping arsenic into the eco-system through nearby streams. Sounds like a good use of those funds and there's a meaningful outcome with results that can be proven and tested.


----------



## Max

Macfury said:


> Of course not. And you'll find that those countries that are the wealthiest also have the cleanest environments.


I dispute that, finding it highly contentious. China is pretty dang wealthy by all sorts of yardsticks - most of us expect it will soon displace America in terms of sheer industrial and economic might - and the air quality over much of that country is horrendous. Likewise Canada's own massive tar sands operations are not exactly synonymous with your own stated "cleanest environments." Looks like wishful thinking to me. Look at that Gulf of Mexico debacle... it's a joke. What's your proof that wealthy countries have the best track record?

I think there are correlations between wealthy nations and environmental practises but there are no hard and fast rules and exploitable loopholes abound. There is nothing about wealthy nations guaranteeing them intrinsic protection against horrendous environmental degradation.

I do not have any quibble with the rest of your argument about meaningful strategies re quotas and the difficulty of proving effectiveness with what often appear to be quite arbitrary numbers.


----------



## Macfury

They begin to clean up after achieving a certain amount of wealth, directing funds into environmental policing and clean-up. China is almost there as it begins to recognize that it needs to pay more attention to its environment. It does so, however, only from a position of economic achievement. Sure it's filthy now, as it goes through the same phases North America once did--and other developing countries undoubtedly will continue to do.



Max said:


> I dispute that, finding it highly contentious. China is pretty dang wealthy by all sorts of yardsticks - most of us expect it will soon displace America in terms of sheer industrial and economic might - and the air quality over much of that country is horrendous. Likewise Canada's own massive tar sands operations are not exactly synonymous with your own stated "cleanest environments." Looks like wishful thinking to me. Look at that Gulf of Mexico debacle... it's a joke. What's your proof that wealthy countries have the best track record?
> 
> I think there are correlations between wealthy nations and environmental practises but there are no hard and fast rules and exploitable loopholes abound. There is nothing about wealthy nations guaranteeing them intrinsic protection against horrendous environmental degradation.


----------



## Max

But North America, following your argument - went through its cycle already - and _still_ the blowout happened in the Gulf - a massive spill, by any measure - and _still_ the tar sands are despoiling northern Alberta's watersheds. I know what you're saying but it's not as cut and dried as all that. Economic achievement alone does not render nations invulnerable from shortsighted industrial practises which result in ruinous environmental impacts, even catastrophes. You can have all the money in the world but if you don't think about long-term consequences, ugly stuff can and will go down. And that applies to long-established democracies just as well as it does to dictatorships.


----------



## Macfury

I think the tendency is toward a cleaner environment as we move along. The notion of the Oil Sands is a fairly new one and it took awhile for it to actually seep into the collective consciousness. I think we're seeing a combination of corporate reaction, public awareness and stricter regulation as the issues are understood. Likewise the Gulf Oil spill focuses massive attention on the issues involved. 

Compare this to the Deloro mine site near Peterborough, ON which was shut down 50 years ago after stinking up a few thousand acres for almost 100 years.

So we're not clean yet, but I see a willingness to improve matters as wealth is amassed--and an unwillingness among nations who do not consider themselves wealthy to do much until they get some disposable income.


----------



## Max

No disagreement there. The problem would appear to be the very long lead times it takes for people to realize that 'a good thing' employment / industry-wise can well turn out to become, in effect, a much more complicated thing than folks would otherwise wish.

Too, so-called 'developing' nations anxious to catch up on the wealth side are all too eager to sacrifice environmental concerns.... and occasionally see fit to call down the west for acting so sanctimonious about the environment - when its own member nations did much the same thing in turn, on their respective way up to national prosperity. Our old friend, hypocrisy.

Seems to me that the situation also points to a weakness in how we define prosperity, especially on a planet-wide scale. We remain all too eager to examine short-term goals and sacrifice long-term ones in order to realize the former. Moreover, we're more concerned with regional goals, rather than national ones, much less international or global ones. Such is the nature of our all too human disposition.


----------



## Macfury

Yes, they are willing, provided we are willing to buy. That's part of the cost savings of buying from these nations--they dont have any environmental costs factored into their product prices. I simply avoid buying from these countries wherever possible.

I don't see the West as entirely sanctimonious. What was once done was largely done in ignorance. The developing nations are both blessed with the knowledge that doing the same thing will result in environmental degradation and health problems, but cursed by the fact that they can't proceed to build up their economies in ignorance of the consequences.

Much of their ballyhoo about global warming,is simple exploitation of the fears of Western hand wringers. "You feel bad about making my sea level rise? You feel bad about the typhoon that just hit me? Then pay up and relieve your guilt." Likewise, most of the nonsensical pronouncements about having the West reduce carbon output while they do not is simply an effort to cripple the West while their economies catch up.



Max said:


> Too, so-called 'developing' nations anxious to catch up on the wealth side are all too eager to sacrifice environmental concerns.... and occasionally see fit to call down the west for acting so sanctimonious about the environment - when its own member nations did much the same thing in turn, on their respective way up to national prosperity. Our old friend, hypocrisy.
> 
> Seems to me that the situation also points to a weakness in how we define prosperity, especially on a planet-wide scale. We remain all too eager to examine short-term goals and sacrifice long-term ones in order to realize the former. Moreover, we're more concerned with regional goals, rather than national ones, much less international or global ones. Such is the nature of our all too human disposition.


----------



## Max

Again, do you really think BP et all built environmental costs into their operations? Had they done so, would that huge Gulf blow out ever even have occurred on the scale it did? And yet it happened... and what's more, it dragged on and on, for months. A constant surge of oil spilled out of the bowels of the earth and into the Gulf. Some protection, that; most impressive. Yeah, that's the west at its finest.

And just where is this vaunted environmental protection for the tar sands? From what I see, there's an ambitious propaganda campaign being waged in media and publicity circles, but it would be foolish to mistake that for real protections afforded the environment. But it's a political football to complain about it, here at home. Too many jobs depend on it. A resurgent western Canada depends on it. It's increasingly an economic engine helping to drive the entire nation. So it's swept under the rug and we pretend, yet again, that we don't know. We're good at that. Not we as Canadians, mind you - such duplicity is to be found around the world. We're hardly special that way. We're just playing a game which predates our nation's existence.

Nor do I buy your handy theory that developing nations know full well the cost of industrialization to a fragile environment, while trail-blazing western economies merely had no idea and just went merrily on their way, hoping for the triumph of positive thinking and holding aloft the torch of scientific progress. Rather, they just ignored what was often obvious... and went for that older green - the green of loot. It's an old urge.

You seem to feel it's OK to give western nations a pass, blithely writing it all off to innocent ignorance. I don't see it quite that way. I think you have an oft-demonstrated, rather doctrinaire propensity to elevate western economies/nations to quasi-moral stances they simply do not deserve. The playing field is more level, and far grittier, than that quaint fantasy... the truth greyer.

As far as I'm concerned, no nation deserves a pass for historical environmental abuses in the pathetic name of "we didn't know." Too damn simple. We just muddle on, hoping for the best, forever waging ambitious and clever campaigns to suitably frame up our deeds in the best possible light. Facts be damned.


----------



## Macfury

Colour Max's face.... guilty!



Max said:


> Again, do you really think BP et all built environmental costs into their operations? Had they done so, would that huge Gulf blow out ever even have occurred on the scale it did? And yet it happened... and what's more, it dragged on and on, for months. A constant surge of oil spilled out of the bowels of the earth and into the Gulf. Some protection, that; most impressive. Yeah, that's the west at its finest.


No, not the full environmental cost, just a partial one. In our semi-regulated economy they are required to do only the minimum dictated by government. In a free one they would be required in court to pay out the full cost of the damage they caused.



Max said:


> And just where is this vaunted environmental protection for the tar sands? From what I see, there's an ambitious propaganda campaign being waged in media and publicity circles, but it would be foolish to mistake that for real protections afforded the environment. But it's a political football to complain about it, here at home. Too many jobs depend on it. A resurgent western Canada depends on it. It's increasingly an economic engine helping to drive the entire nation. So it's swept under the rug and we pretend, yet again, that we don't know. We're good at that. Not we as Canadians, mind you - such duplicity is to be found around the world. We're hardly special that way. We're just playing a game which predates our nation's existence.


I don't pretend that I don't know. Some of it is beastly, but it continues to improve and I'm satisfied with the rate of improvement.



Max said:


> Nor do I buy your handy theory that developing nations know full well the cost of industrialization to a fragile environment, while trail-blazing western economies merely had no idea and just went merrily on their way, hoping for the triumph of positive thinking and holding aloft the torch of scientific progress. Rather, they just ignored what was often obvious... and went for that older green - the green of loot. It's an old urge.


Some of them were obvious polluters but had little idea of the extent of the damage tat was being caused--again, I give you Ontario's Deloro mine. They simply buried the arsenic when they closed the plant in 1961. Many of those who formerly dumped chemicals in the water honestly thought that the oceans had an endless capacity to consume the stuff. Are there environmental criminals who pollute with full knowledge of the consequences--yes. Were there such criminals a century ago--yes, although the nature of what they were doing was different.



Max said:


> You seem to feel it's OK to give western nations a pass, blithely writing it all off to innocent ignorance. I don't see it quite that way. I think you have an oft-demonstrated, rather doctrinaire propensity to elevate western economies/nations to quasi-moral stances they simply do not deserve. The playing field is more level, and far grittier, than that quaint fantasy... the truth greyer.


They don't get a pass--but they don't owe anyone for past oversights either.


----------



## Max

You say I am guilty. I say I am calling you on your doctrinaire views regarding the West and how it's somehow automatically superior with regard to the matter of polluting the environment. I am questioning your motives.

You're satisfied with the rate of improvement, are you? All I can say is that I am relieved you are not upset about it. That would mean we'd all be up to our armpits in you-know-what. I'd hate to see what kind of mess we'd be in if you ever got angry. Sounds like we'd have to be in end times.

You say in a free economy a polluting company would be "would be required in court to pay out the full cost of the damage they caused." Really? In your free economy I can see it being even more likely that the company would win out because it could afford the best lawyers - winner take all. It would win out because there would be no government regulation against corporate industrial pollution - or what legislation there _might_ be would in all likelihood be bereft of teeth. After all, th' compny's gotta make coin!

In your dreaded, fantastical free economy I could just as easily see legal precedents going out the window, and each court case would be isolated. No pattern of pollution detected and guarded against, no meting out of fines or other legal actions to make violating companies pay the true cost of their damages. No intervention from the gubbmint at all, no matter how ham-handed we all know gubbmint can be. Just a nice frontier town kind of ambiance, where he who has the most dough wins the day. Concern for the environment? Sorry, fresh out of that commodity. But hey, it's a free economy! _Huzzah!_

Geez man, times like these I am reminded me of that sad movie, _The Boy In The Plastic Bubble. _

Off to bed... fresh discussions to be brewed up tomorrow.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Geez man, times like these I am reminded me of that sad movie, _The Boy In The Plastic Bubble. _


You and Travolta should get out of that bubble once in awhile and see the world. He'd be dead, of course, but you get my drift.

Seriously, though, I see the largest part of government regulation as a protection for companies to do the bare minimum required to operate. Toeing that line provides a handy excuse that protects them from the legal action that should be kicking their asses to the curb. I believe that, legally, most oil companies that do as the government tells them are limited to a preposterously small dollar amount of liability--a few million.

If you go the legislative route, far better to tell the oil companies: "Put down a deposit, operate as you wish, and you will pay $X for every barrel that you spill." Legislate outcomes, which is a lot closer to the judicial model I prefer, rather than behaviour.


----------



## Max

Nice idea, one I can agree with. But I don't see it happening. Big polluters tend to have big pockets. Big pockets buys you whole lot of lobby power to ensure that laws governing how you conduct your business (or punishing you when you screw things up and a toxic lake overflows its berm or what have you) are kept weak and insubstantial. Too, big pockets can also let a company drag a case through the courts for years on end, all the while conducting business as usual - enabling unsafe extraction and abatement programs continuing as they always have.

I guess the crux of it is that I can't see the courts working any more effectively under your proposed system than I do with the status quo. I wouldn't say the courts are useless and don't occasionally produce a useful landmark decision, but I do believe the system is rigged in favour of Big Corporate and have been for an awfully long time.

___________________

Couldn't sleep. There was this nightmare of a furious dude in a plastic bubble and a bad haircut... it was horrible.


----------



## Macfury

Even under the legislative approach you could merely pre-set the penalty for spilled barrels. I think it's far more efficient to monitor outcomes than processes. Let the insurance companies worry about compliance with industry norms.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Even under the legislative approach you could merely pre-set the penalty for spilled barrels. I think it's far more efficient to monitor outcomes than processes. Let the insurance companies worry about compliance with industry norms.


The penalty per barrel approach can be self defeating. BP simply sank as much of the oil as they could rather than recovering as much as possible from the surface. The result is that both oil and toxic reactant are still in the environment so BP can claim the spill was a lot smaller than it was.


----------



## Max

Bingo.

Even if BP _didn't_ pull that clever stunt, going back to MF's legislative approach: companies like BP would simply use their tremendous covert lobbying influence to ensure that the fine per barrel spilled would be absurdly minuscule, thereby encouraging the status quo. So much for monitoring outcomes there.

Of course, it's not a case of Big Corp running rampant over the whole scene. If people voted with their wallets, big polluters would change their tune in a hurry. But they count on historic indifference and apathy on the part of the public. So business continues as usual - sure, a fine-tuning of the optics is required from time to time, maybe a bit of showpiece legislation is cobbled together and grandly announced - but the meat is in how it's enforced. Usually it amounts to a grand shell game.


----------



## Macfury

If you're starting from the premise that big companies can avoid any penalty they don't like, then just drop the pretenses and let them run hog wild.

Any system can be self-defeating, but the current one--in which government acts in collusion to limit damages paid out by companies--is never going to result in much of a deterrent to bad corporate citizenship. I'd favour the per barrel spill price over this one any day because at least it places an onus on them to reduce possible bad outcomes. Under the current system, it makes sense to store up your problems until you have a major blow-out in which the damage far exceeds your liability cap.


----------



## Max

Why let them hog wild? Seems to be a sure-fire way for any government that approves it to be turfed out on their asses. It's political poison. The public may not care a lot about substance but it sure does care about optics... and the optics are about the gubbmint keeping a sharp eye out for them pesky big industrial polluters.

For similar reasons, I imagine many of us would be happy to see mandatory car insurance (and the extortionate costs we have to shoulder) eliminated. That is, until we had a car accident and began to experience first-hand what a mess it could be to recoup your losses.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> For similar reasons, I imagine many of us would be happy to see mandatory car insurance (and the extortionate costs we have to shoulder) eliminated. That is, until we had a car accident and began to experience first-hand what a mess it could be to recoup your losses.


When did you ever recoup your losses under mandatory car insurance? When someone knocks my mirror off I keep it a secret to avoid having my own rates raised.


----------



## Max

You don't... true enough. As it is, it's legalized extortion. But without insurance at all, I can see an even bigger mess. Car A with insurance gets smacked by Car B, carrying zip insurance. What happens? I guess you could always go to court. Who wins but the lawyers? Right now the insurance companies and carriers win. I guess it would amount to exchanging two different kinds of evil.


----------



## bryanc

*A sparkle of value emerges in this intellectually forsaken thread!*

Hey! Nice exchange fellas. Good points raised by both of you, and it's a real pleasure to see some rational exchange rather than links and snark.

I have a few comments to add, but rather than replying to each post in turn, I'll try to merge them all into one.



Macfury said:


> If they suggest a temperature I ask them if they would consider releasing more CO2 if the temperature fell below those levels. They recoil in horror.


I suspect this is because those of us with even the most superficial science background understand that the global climate is an extraordinarily complex and dynamic equilibrium, which we understand only in the most superficial way, and therefore the idea of intentionally altering it (given that we all depend on it not only for our prosperity but also for our lives) is horrific in its hubris.

Unfortunately, given that over the past few hundred years (a geological instant) we've oxidized as much reduced carbon as earth's ecosystems and geological processes were able to sequester during the last 100 million years, we may be forced to apply our flint knives and stone axes to the delicate operation of trying to re-establish a global climactic equilibrium.

What I'm thinking most of us are hoping is that, if we stop f*cking with it, it might fix itself.



Max said:


> Perhaps; but it would also be a mistake to leap from that and take the view that human prosperity must always trump concern over the environment.
> 
> Viewed from another angle altogether, it's idiotic to even draw a distinction between the two - this environment _is_ our natural habitat. We are dependent on its air, its soil, its raw materials, its water. We are in a symbiotic relationship with the earth


While I admire the sentiment, I have to object. We are in no way symbiotic with 'earth' or much of its ecosystems. Apart from rats, cockroaches, E. coli and other human commensals, the biosphere (much less earth) wouldn't miss us if we disappeared tomorrow. In contrast, we _are_ entirely dependent on the biosphere for our existence, but we contribute very little, if anything to it. So it would be much more appropriate to characterize our relationship as 'parasitic' than 'symbiotic.'



> What's your proof that wealthy countries have the best [environmental] track record?


I agree with Max here. The only reason wealthy countries have better environments at the moment is that we've exported our environmental disasters to 'developing' countries, or simply had the good fortune to start out with more land and fewer people.



Macfury said:


> They begin to clean up after achieving a certain amount of wealth, ... Sure it's filthy now, as it goes through the same phases North America once did--and other developing countries undoubtedly will continue to do.


A major concern of the environmental movement since the '70s is that we (as a planetary species) cannot afford to have the developing nations go through the same process the West has gone through to get to a level of environmental sustainability (and yes, I know, developed countries are far from sustainable, but I hope you see my point). This is like parents who are undergoing chemotherapy for cancer saying "well, kids, you'll quit smoking when you get cancer too." You can't wait for them to get cancer, you've got to convince them to quit _before_ they get cancer. And it doesn't help if you're sneaking a butt every chance you get yourself.



Max said:


> If people voted with their wallets, big polluters would change their tune in a hurry.


This is my hope. I don't think MacFury's free market will solve the problem for exactly the reasons you've pointed out, and I don't think government legislation will solve the problem for exactly the reasons MF has pointed out. I do think both approaches can be useful, and should be pursued, but fundamentally, citizens have to start taking responsibility for how they spend their money.

I think there can be a role for government (and perhaps the market-driven media) here in providing citizens with accurate information about how corporations behave, but people have to start recognizing the their choices as consumers are every bit as important (and more so) as their choices as voters or the choices they make about how they treat other people.

Money is power, and to the extent you have money, you have the responsibility to use it wisely.


----------



## eMacMan

*I'm a Denier*

Check out the latest parody from M4GW
YouTube - I'm A Denier!
http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/


----------



## Max

bryanc: good point - and yes, I misspoke; the earth would not miss us one iota should humanity disappear. So no, it's not symbiotic in that sense - in fact, it's much more one-sided than I suggested, no matter how much we have historically enjoyed putting ourselves at the very centre of the universe. I merely wanted to point out that we depend on this ball of rock and water much more than we usually care to acknowedge and that we also tend to over-estimate our own importance to its existence. Should be fail as a species, the earth itself would in fact carry on unfazed; new states of equilibrium would be achieved, as ever.

And yeah, good exchange if I do say so myself. I certainly see the virtue of citizens themselves taking responsibility for their choices as consumers and voters alike - that's MF's classic line and I grok it.


----------



## bryanc

*Hypothetical scenario*

I'm going to post this here because I think it's relevant to the topic, but it's really just a thought experiment and I'm curious about how people here would react.

Suppose a back-yard astronomer identifies a new meteor or comet. She brings this to the attention of the astrophysical community, and, after a few years of intensive investigation, 98% of professional astrophysicists agree that this object will impact the earth in 20 years, and, given it's size, it will wipe out all life on the planet. There are, however, a vocal minority of scientists who think the evidence that this object will hit the earth is based on faulty analysis. 

A global intergovernmental consortium is convened to address the threat; a variety of possible strategies are proposed and vigorous debate ensues.

It then transpires that a small fraction of the astrophysicists who have published findings confirming the object's trajectory are now working for one of the companies proposing to launch an interceptor and blow the thing up (at a cost of many trillions of dollars). Some controversy arises because it appears that some of their work in validating the threat of this object may have been biased and/or outright fraudulent, but the consensus of professional astrophysicists remains that this object is going to hit the earth and is a real threat.

So the options are:

1) Ignore it; it's probably a scam concocted by corrupt scientists who are trying to get rich.

2) Postpone action; hope that new research and technologies will provide a solution before it gets here.

3) Deal with it; everyone takes a modest hit to their standard of living and we spend the money on developing the tools to address the problem. 

What do you think?


----------



## Rps

Well if they are Republican nominees for the head of the GOP, the would say your all wrong and that G_D will take care of it as he promised never to destroy the earth again. Outside of that, we're screwed! By the time the earth's government's who can actually fire something with enough "bang bang" to hit the thing get together on this [ and settle the cable news broadcast rights, sponsorship ...Preparation H, the Official Cream of the Asteroid ...] we'd be toast.


----------



## Rps

bryanc, this leads to an interesting question in the matter of science, which is, if we can should we? I often wonder how the world would be if the general populace actually took an interest in the scientific potential discoveries and voted on whether they should proceed, what the world would be like. Take the invention and dropping of the atomic bomb. I wonder what the greatest evil was .... dropping it, or being able to build it. Once Pandora is out of the box things sort of get out of hand. I sometimes think there is a danger in being able to "prove" something that maybe we shouldn't. So to follow along with your question, maybe we should do nothing, because there maybe larger implications if we can prove we can.


----------



## FeXL

OK, I'll take the bait but I'm not going to answer the question.

By comparison, it's a helluva lot easier to work with a known science (mathematics) to determine the trajectory of an object in space than it is to deal with a science completely & totally in its infancy (climate) to determine the cause of global warming.

If you're going to use an analogy, at least find one with a similar degree of difficulty and a like maturity.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> OK, I'll take the bait but I'm not going to answer the question.


I admire your diplomacy 



> By comparison, it's a helluva lot easier to work with a known science (mathematics) to determine the trajectory of an object in space than it is to deal with a science completely & totally in its infancy (climate) to determine the cause of global warming.


It may well be, but unless I miss my guess, there's no one here who can do either. They are both beyond all of us, so as lay people, we either have to take it as given that both can be done by people with appropriate training and tools, or that it's all equally bull****.

The astrophysicists I know (and I do know several) tell me that the math involved in predicting the trajectory of any object with more than a few significant gravitational attractors working on it is effectively intractable with our current computational tools, so it's all done by modelling, and any vehicle sent into space is constantly having its trajectory corrected manually because the modelling is not very close to reality in many cases.

Given that I know how science works, and that bull**** doesn't get very far, I'm inclined to believe that these people actually have some reason to make the claims they do. (BTW, just as a pedantic note, mathematics isn't a science. It's generally considered a branch of philosophy - a sub discipline of symbolic logic. Since it does not deal with the empirically measurable, it's not strictly a science.)

But let's get back to the problem; if science tells us we have a problem that's going to cost a lot of money to deal with, what should we do?


----------



## bryanc

Rps said:


> Well if they are Republican nominees for the head of the GOP, the would say your all wrong and that G_D will take care of it as he promised never to destroy the earth again.


:yikes:

This is what turns my hypothetical scenario into a horror movie.


----------



## bryanc

Rps said:


> I sometimes think there is a danger in being able to "prove" something that maybe we shouldn't.


then you've got nothing to fear from science, because science never proves anything. It only falsifies.

But the question of what aspects of what we learn about nature should be developed into technologies, and how those technologies should be applied is absolutely one that society needs to be more engaged with. And, even more importantly, society needs to be more scientifically literate so that it can engage these issues with more sophistication and less irrational fear.


----------



## Rps

bryanc I would agree except for one rather large 1000 pound elephant in the room ....capitalist run governments.


----------



## bryanc

Rps said:


> bryanc I would agree except for one rather large 1000 pound elephant in the room ....capitalist run governments.


This goes back to my earlier point. The reason capitalists have more power than we would like is that money is power, and we - citizens - choose to give them that money. If people recognized that buying a product is just as much a political decision as it is an economic decision, they may change their behaviour. Sure, you can get something cheaper at Wal-Mart, but only if you don't consider the moral cost of the child slave labour and environmental degradation that went into it. When you make your purchases on the basis of knowing the real costs of a product, you may choose to pay more dollars to get a product that is made in an ethical and environmentally sustainable way (or you may not, but at least that is now an informed choice).


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> And, even more importantly, society needs to be more scientifically literate so that it can engage these issues with more sophistication and less irrational fear.


Ah yes, the normal bryanc position of intellectual superiority over fellow posters. Yeah, that'll really help convince the Dummies. Callin' them down and all, I mean. Good plan.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Ah yes, the normal bryanc position of intellectual superiority over fellow posters. Yeah, that'll really help convince the Dummies. Callin' them down and all, I mean. Good plan.




Do you think the current state of scientific literacy in Canada or the rest of the developed world is adequate? Are you seriously suggesting that improving the general scientific knowledge of our citizenry and legislators shouldn't be a high priority?

Or do you just have a personality issue with science?


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Do you think the current state of scientific literacy in Canada or the rest of the developed world is adequate? Are you seriously suggesting that improving the general scientific knowledge of our citizenry and legislators shouldn't be a high priority?
> 
> Or do you just have a personality issue with science?


Will you NEVER understand?

It's not the masses who have to aspire to the heights of science.

It's science who have to lower their communicative skills to communicate with those masses.

Try small words and reasonable explanations in simple terms.

Today's media writers still strive to write so those with a grade school education can understand their communications.

It's time you got that, isn't it?


----------



## groovetube

brilliant.

absolutely, brilliant.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Will you NEVER understand?
> 
> It's not the masses who have to aspire to the heights of science.
> 
> It's science who have to lower their communicative skills to communicate with those masses.
> 
> Try small words and reasonable explanations in simple terms.


I will try to use small words so you can understand.

Science is complicated (sorry, "complicated" is a big word, but you can look it up in the dictionary).

If you don't like complicated things, let the smart people deal with it.

Just don't expect your 'grade school' opinions to get much respect.


----------



## Rps

Actually SINC I agree with bryanc this time. I don't often, but he does have a valid point here.


----------



## SINC

Agree with him all you will, but when scientists state their cases or findings in too technical terms, the average reader is turned off and skips the press release or story for something they can comprehend without a dictionary, with the exception of those better educated who understand the presentation. And I submit there are more of the former than the latter. Ask any news editor.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> I admire your diplomacy


I'm far too direct to be a diplomat.



bryanc said:


> It may well be, but unless I miss my guess, there's no one here who can do either. They are both beyond all of us, so as lay people, we either have to take it as given that both can be done by people with appropriate training and tools, or that it's all equally bull****.
> 
> The astrophysicists I know (and I do know several) tell me that the math involved in predicting the trajectory of any object with more than a few significant gravitational attractors working on it is *effectively intractable with our current computational tools, so it's all done by modelling, and any vehicle sent into space is constantly having its trajectory corrected manually because the modelling is not very close to reality in many cases.*


Bingo!. You've shot yourself in the foot here. 

The trajectory of an object involves very few unknowns. We may not have a 100% handle on all the knowns but, at the very least, we know they exist and include them in the computational models. The corrections required are minute because the trajectory is in the ballpark. (=high confidence interval)

Having noted that, the climate models employed are largely using only the broadest of criteria and haven't even started using the innumerable smaller indicators. 

To wit: A certain infamous climate model that was so skewed (screwed?) it would present a hockey stick result if *random numbers were inserted into the equation.*

These predictions are not only out of the ballpark, they're barely on the same planet. (=clewless...)

Yet, they continually get cited as some sort of reliable information. Much the same as IPCC AR4 which, in itself, is so full of holes it looks like a swiss cheese.




bryanc said:


> Given that I know how science works, and that *bull**** doesn't get very far*, I'm inclined to believe that these people actually have some reason to make the claims they do.


Once again, bingo. Which is why the belief in AGW by the general populace is dropping like a stone. No, they're not the experts. As I've noted before: the taint of bull**** from all of the 'Gates is acting like smelling salts to all but the most fervently religious. Also as I've noted before: how many holes in your argument are required before the whole swiss cheese becomes immutably transparent and irrevocably indefensible?

As far as to why, there is more & more evidence that many of these people are just tapping into existing grant money. All of them? Not by a stretch.



bryanc said:


> (BTW, just as a pedantic note, mathematics isn't a science. It's generally considered a branch of philosophy - a sub discipline of symbolic logic. Since it does not deal with the empirically measurable, it's not strictly a science.)


Blah, blah, blah...



bryanc said:


> But let's get back to the problem; if science tells us we have a problem that's going to cost a lot of money to deal with, what should we do?


By all means, do it. I don't believe any here would dispute that. 

With one, small, tiny, annoying, niggling, codicil: prove the problem actually exists and state it in terms understandable to the people who are going to foot the bill. No chance I'm taking anyone's word on a multi-trillion dollar deal which could bankrupt the whole planet...

Unfortunately, there is no evidence the AGW group (or whatever the hell the nom du jour is this week) have proven their case and, if so, have not put it into words comprehensible by the general populace. 

If not every day, then at least every week another bite is taken out of the spindly legs of that shaky 3 legged stool they're standing on. Oh, they're a determined bunch, but even spit, duct tape & baling wire require a substrate to attach to. It is simply a matter of time...

The science is NOT settled. Not by a stretch.

You've presented more than one what-if scenario on these boards and, while I admire your tenacity and willingness to philosophize the day away, they've done nothing to address the lack of veracity of the current warmist theories.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> brilliant.
> 
> absolutely, brilliant.


Nothing constructive to add to the discussion?

Toss a barb.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL covered it pretty well but left out or rather failed to adequately emphasize the biggie.

That is that the proposed "solutions"; Carbon taxes and Carbon Credit trading, Cannot and will not impact carbon emissions. Unless of course they steal so much from the poorest segments of the population that they either starve or freeze to death. Course once you kill off the poorest 10% you have to go on to the next group and so on until it is you or I on the bubble.

The money is far better spent addressing known poisons that are being pumped into the environment. Things like Mercury from those trillions of CFB light bulbs we are being forced to use. Particularly bad in Canada where the so called wasted heat is actually used to help heat the room 9 months of the year.


----------



## MannyP Design

How about we teach scientists to communicate better and not mumble while they face the chalkboard? :lmao:


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> You've shot yourself in the foot here.


Perhaps. I'm admittedly well outside of my field of expertise here, but I don't think your argument holds.



> The trajectory of an object involves very few unknowns. We may not have a 100% handle on all the knowns but, at the very least, we know they exist and include them in the computational models.


As I understand it, the mathematics of solving the trajectory of an object in space is theoretically well understood, but practically intractable, because the number of terms scales to the 6th power of the number of objects being considered. There are numerical simulations that can be applied, but these are necessarily approximations.

The interesting core of this discussion is, given that science does not deal with certainties, what degree of confidence should be required before society takes action.

What I have said over and over here is that none of us has the necessary expertise to critically analyze the science on AGW; what we do have is a consensus of 98% of people who do have that expertise.

So the question here is not wether atmospheric models are more accurate than ocean models, or wether the CRU used the right variables in their Navier–Stokes equations, because none of us here know enough about that stuff to formulate a meaningful opinion. The question is what level of confidence would scientists have to reach before we take action.

For those of you who are not convinced by the current 98% consensus, what level of consensus would convince you? 99%? 100%? 

If 100% consensus would not convince you I contend you are taking a completely irrational position. Furthermore, if 98% consensus does not convince you, but 99% would, I contend you're being naive; the culture of science is one of debate, dispute, disagreement, and disproof, not one of consensus. It really does not get better than 98%.



> Also as I've noted before: how many holes in your argument are required before the whole swiss cheese becomes immutably transparent and irrevocably indefensible?


From what I've read, very few if any holes have been found in the argument. When the data that has been drawn into question is removed, the models converge on almost exactly the same solutions.



> I admire your tenacity and willingness to philosophize the day away, they've done nothing to address the lack of veracity of the current warmist theories.


If I were a climatologist, I might make an effort to try to educate you and others here as to the reasoning behind the conclusions. But I'm a biologist, so all I can do is point out that neither you nor I (nor anyone else here) has the expertise to criticize the science, so we either have to accept the consensus of the experts, or invest the time in becoming sufficiently educated to formulate our own opinion. I don't have time for the latter, so I choose the former. If you choose the latter, good for you, get back to us in a decade or two when you've earned a Ph.D. in the field.



> With one, small, tiny, annoying, niggling, codicil: prove the problem actually exists and state it in terms understandable to the people who are going to foot the bill. No chance I'm taking anyone's word on a multi-trillion dollar deal which could bankrupt the whole planet...


I can completely understand and respect this sentiment. However, and this relates to another discussion, we can't "dumb down" the science without loosing the meaning, so we need to increase the general public's scientific literacy.

We're working on this; The Discovery Channel, the Nature of Things, Nova, etc. have all been successful efforts to help the general public become more sophisticated about scientific principles and findings.

This is also what we're doing in undergraduate instruction; a very small proportion of our students are going to go on in research, so our primary objective is to generate scientifically literate citizens. I'll be the first to admit that we need to get much better at this, but not by 'simplifying and using small words.' Rather than dumbing it down to something a journalist would like because it sells advertising, we need to elevate the level of discourse so that people can understand the issues and the complexity, and ultimately, make informed decisions.


----------



## MacDoc

Better yet ask someone who IS a climate scientist

RealClimate: Start here

Gavin and the others are very approachable and it would be interesting for the deniers here to post their misguided views as questions when there are a dozen experts on line to answer.....and demolish the nonsense

_tail between legs _comes to mind....

We don't pretend to understand everything about aerodynamics.....we DO however design and fly planes every day.

There is overwhelming evidence of the impact of fossil fuel use on the global temp - even acknowledged by the fossil fuel company's own scientists.
That is far and away enough to act on.......the science under the ozone damage was far less complete but the world acted on it in the Montreal Accord..

Denying the need to decarbonize our civilization falls into the denial of evolution category....cranks and fools re all that are left.


----------



## eMacMan

^^^
Still failing to address the devastation that carbon taxes and credit trading would do to those who can least afford it.

However if extermination of a major portion of the population is your best answer, might as well line the Gore Gangs pockets in the process.


----------



## MannyP Design

I guess those scientists who disagree are just "denidiots" as well, eh, oh enlightened one? :heybaby:



> We don't pretend to understand everything about aerodynamics.....we DO however design and fly planes every day


:lmao:

When was the last time a pilot issued a revelation that flew in the face how we understand aerodynamics? (No pun intended) Scientists are still coming to terms with new discoveries about climate science that contradict conventional beliefs. How can you spout such crap and ignore the scientists who offer overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Denidiots indeed.


----------



## bryanc

MannyP Design said:


> When was the last time a pilot issued a revelation that flew in the face how we understand aerodynamics?


Actually, I believe there were recently (as in the past few years) several fundamental changes to our understanding of how airfoils work. Not from pilots, but the point remains; the scientific understanding of phenomena need not be perfect before application begins.



> How can you spout such crap and ignore the scientists who offer overwhelming evidence to the contrary?


This 'overwhelming evidence to the contrary' is neither overwhelming, nor even to the contrary to the people who understand it. If this were not the case, the vast majority of professional climatologists would be changing their position.

I can believe that there are a small number of climatologists who are too obstinate, emotionally, or financially invested in the AGW theory to rationally consider new data, but for essentially the entire community to remain steadfast in their support of this theory can only mean that the data you're so excited about does not mean what you think it means.

I make no claims about what the data means or validity of the AGW theory because that would be exactly the same mistake those of you criticizing the theory are making: we're not qualified to judge the validity of this science because we lack the necessary education. We therefore have to either trust those people who have the education, become educated ourselves, or withhold judgment.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> For those of you who are not convinced by the current 98% consensus, what level of consensus would convince you? 99%? 100%?
> 
> If 100% consensus would not convince you I contend you are taking a completely irrational position. Furthermore, if 98% consensus does not convince you, but 99% would, I contend you're being naive; the culture of science is one of debate, dispute, disagreement, and disproof, not one of consensus. It really does not get better than 98%.


I invite you to read the following quote on "consensus" in science.



> However, as a prerequisite it is necessary to clear up a concept commonly misused and abused by the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) defenders: the idea that “science is settled” and that the so-called “scientific consensus” on the subject would be objected to only by some handfuls of diehard “skeptics.”
> 
> For starters, there is no such a thing like “settled science,” neither in Climatology nor in any other branch of science. The body of scientific knowledge is an open-ended and permanently ongoing construction that is always open to new evidences, new hypotheses, debate, questioning and revision – that’s how real science advances.
> 
> Also, “consensus” is a concept alien to science, which is not a “democratic” activity whose advance is driven by the weight of the number of followers of a certain line of thinking or theory – but by a permanent process of convergence between new hypotheses and evidences collected in the physical world.
> 
> Perhaps the best symbol of the meaninglessness of such numbers in science was Albert Einstein’s anthological response to the 1931 pamphlet “100 authors against Einstein,” which was commissioned by the German Nazi Party as a clumsy contradiction to the Relativity Theory, that did not fit the canons of the “Arian science.” He said then: “If I were wrong, then one would have been enough.” [1]


Frankly, I've never been a lemming in my life. I don't care if the number is 2% or 98%, I don't climb on board because the number is bigger.

There are questions unanswered by "warmists" and "deniers" are fleshing out new theories every day. As long as this occurs, then science is, indeed, happening as it should.

Don't try to shut me down because 98% (wherever the hell that number comes from) supposedly agree on something & I don't. I suppose that everyone who questions "warmists" should suddenly change fields of study because all of the answers are obvious and in front of us.

I remind you, once again, of Piltdown Man. I would also like to inform you of the current discussion (easily searchable) concerning Triceratops & Torosaurus, creatures that have been described for well over a hundred years and new evidence is just now surfacing they may be the selfsame animal. 

Why? 'Cause somebody asked the damn question...


----------



## MannyP Design

bryanc said:


> Actually, I believe there were recently (as in the past few years) several fundamental changes to our understanding of how airfoils work. Not from pilots, but the point remains; the scientific understanding of phenomena need not be perfect before application begins.


Hardly earth-shattering, I assure you and nothing that hasn't been done previously. And I find your last sentence quite revealing and just further cements my beliefs with climate science. No need to perfect it, right? I'd cry if I wasn't laughing so hard. :lmao:

But I suppose by that token commercial flight would have been suitable directly after the Wright Bros., eh?


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> I can completely understand and respect this sentiment. However, and this relates to another discussion, we can't "dumb down" the science without loosing the meaning, so we need to increase the general public's scientific literacy.


Ya know Bryan, I'm sure this isn't your intent but this comes across as so demeaning, self-centered and egotistical it makes me wanna hurl. In technicolor.

Horsefeathers and bull pucky.

This is not the public's failing. 

This is the scientist's failing. 

If they do not have the ability to communicate the theory, the research and the conclusion in layman's terms, then they shouldn't be in the position in the first place.

I've said this before. If all the answers are out there, then it behooves the scientists to get them in front of the public, pronto. 'Cause right now they all look like the south end of a north bound skunk...


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> I invite you to read the following quote on "consensus" in science.


I'll try to get through it all this evening, but from skimming it, I find nothing to disagree with apart from the contention that sober advice has been overlooked by the majority of the scientific community. From what I understand (and again, I only work with climatologists, so I can claim no special expertise myself), the data refuting AGW does not in any way refute the many independent lines of evidence supporting the theory.



> Frankly, I've never been a lemming in my life. I don't care if the number is 2% or 98%, I don't climb on board because the number is bigger.


No one is asking you to 'climb on board.' If you want to analyze the data yourself and come to your own conclusion, there's no question the world needs more strong analytical minds working on this problem. But be advised that it will probably take you a decade to get up to speed on the topic, and another decade of working on it before you've got anything novel to contribute. Alternatively, you could accept that as an ignorant layperson on this issue, you can't make any judgement. My only objection is when people who lack the necessary expertise to have an informed opinion loudly proclaim the scientists are wrong. In the article you linked, there is a great quote from Einstein - "The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance." To argue that the vast majority of climatologists are missing something obvious, and that you, as a naive layperson can do their jobs better is the height of arrogance.



> Don't try to shut me down because 98% (wherever the hell that number comes from) supposedly agree on something & I don't.


Here's a link to the peer-reviewed study that came to that conclusion. But that's not meant to "shut you down". I'm simply providing the best figure available regarding the strength of this consensus among people who actually know enough about the topic that we should care what they think.



> I suppose that everyone who questions "warmists" should suddenly change fields of study because all of the answers are obvious and in front of us.


On the contrary, and this is exactly my point. The answers aren't obvious; it takes years of specialized training and rigorous study to get answers to these questions. Without that training, our opinions aren't worth the electrons that transmit them.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Better yet ask someone who IS a climate scientist
> 
> RealClimate: Start here
> 
> Gavin and the others are very approachable and it would be interesting for the deniers here to post their misguided views as questions when there are a dozen experts on line to answer.....and demolish the nonsense.


Approach the throne oh supplicants. These wise ones will tolerate your questions and demolish your false gods!

HAR!!


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Approach the throne oh supplicants. These wise ones will tolerate your questions and demolish your false gods!


Have you actually read any of the stuff on the linked page? Or are you worried you might have to think, rather than rely on your old sophomoric sarcasm?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Have you actually read any of the stuff on the linked page? Or are you worried you might have to think, rather than rely on your old sophomoric sarcasm?


The link was an invitation to approach the golden ones. However, I've read much of their theorizing but have found it wanting.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> If they do not have the ability to communicate the theory, the research and the conclusion in layman's terms, then they shouldn't be in the position in the first place.


Why would you expect someone who's spent decades learning the intricacies of a very esoteric field, and dealing almost exclusively with exceptionally bright, exceptionally well educated people who are almost all just as focused on the same topics to be good at communicating with the general public?

This is the same problem we face WRT undergraduate education; why do we think scientists who've been trained for decades to work in a laboratory to be able to walk into a lecture hall and teach? It's unfair to both the students and the scientists, but "that's the way we've always done it."

While I think it's entirely reasonable to see this failure of communication between scientists and the general public as a huge problem, it's completely unfair to blame either the public or the scientists. Scientists are trained to do science; not to entertain or educate laypeople. The fact that some of us are reasonably good instructors is nothing more than a happy exception to the rule.

I'm not 100% convinced we can solve this problem, or even that we should try - I'd rather the best researchers spend their time doing research and not struggling to teach badly. At many universities, instructional faculty are not researchers, and can focus their efforts on instruction and communication. There are, however, some of us who *like* teaching, and some of us are even pretty good at it, so it's not a black-and-white situation.



> If all the answers are out there, then it behooves the scientists to get them in front of the public, pronto. 'Cause right now they all look like the south end of a north bound skunk...


You're absolutely right, but not surprisingly, the scientific community is almost comically hopeless at this sort of thing, and the opponents of AGW are practised experts with almost limitless cash to throw at the issue. So it shouldn't really surprise me that, despite an almost unprecedented scientific consensus, the general public has been duped into thinking there's a controversy.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> However, I've read much of their theorizing but have found it wanting.


Strange, when I click on the link, I see a collection of tutorials on basic climatology and links to the work of real climatologists, a FAQ addressing many of the misconceptions I see brought up here, and so forth. Not much theorizing. Just some efforts to fight the FUD being spread by the oil corporations.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Strange, when I click on the link, I see a collection of tutorials on basic climatology and links to the work of real climatologists, a FAQ addressing many of the misconceptions I see brought up here, and so forth. Not much theorizing. Just some efforts to fight the FUD being spread by the oil corporations.


They are addressing these "misconceptions" with their own biases.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> To argue that the vast majority of climatologists are missing something obvious, and that you, as a naive layperson can do their jobs better is the height of arrogance.


Words in my mouth?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Words in my mouth?


I'll say one thing: hearing bryanc call someone "arrogant" is the ironic highlight of my day!


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> They are addressing these "misconceptions" with their own biases.


Yes, organizations like the AAAS, Oxford University, the NAS, the NSF, and the NERC are highly biased. Biases like math, internally consistent logic, independently measurable data and rigorous peer-review. You've got a point there.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Words in my mouth?


Sorry, I didn't mean you personally, but in the generic sense: "When, as an ignorant layperson, you claim the experts don't know what they're doing, you are being arrogant."


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I'll say one thing: hearing bryanc call someone "arrogant" is the ironic highlight of my day!


Do you have a field of expertise? Esoteric knowledge that took decades to accumulate and test? Regardless of the topic, if someone with no background in that field told you that you were completely wrong about it, and when you looked at their reasoning, you found that they simply didn't understand the basics of the field, but they persist in calling you an idiot because they're too ignorant to see their own mistake, would you not describe that behaviour as arrogant?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Do you have a field of expertise? Esoteric knowledge that took decades to accumulate and test? Regardless of the topic, if someone with no background in that field told you that you were completely wrong about it, and when you looked at their reasoning, you found that they simply didn't understand the basics of the field, but they persist in calling you an idiot because they're too ignorant to see their own mistake, would you not describe that behaviour as arrogant?


Did you do that?


----------



## MacDoc

Perhaps supreme;ly misguided more to the point....and MF has never ever once defended his misguided position with anything like science based and referenced argument.
Only stated he doesn't like it....

which simply confirms ill informed opinion....nothing more....mostly based on the ideology of it's okay to use the atmosphere as a free sewer and damn the consequences....

nothing new there from the right wing ....


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Did you do that?


No, I said doing that was arrogant.


----------



## eMacMan

All that to justify attempting to exterminate those on the bottom end of the economic spectrum.

If you seriously want to reduce Carbon Emissions suggest a method that doe NOT double, treble or even quadruple heating, food and electrical bills. There a are lot of people in Canada and the US that cannot afford 10% increases let alone the massive increases associated with carbon taxes and credits.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Perhaps supreme;ly misguided more to the point....and MF has never ever once defended his misguided position with anything like science based and referenced argument.
> Only stated he doesn't like it....
> 
> which simply confirms ill informed opinion....nothing more....mostly based on the ideology of it's okay to use the atmosphere as a free sewer and damn the consequences....
> 
> nothing new there from the right wing ....


That's right MaccyD: the world is on fire, and YOU'RE responsible. 

I take the side of Albert Einstein, who, when confronted with a pamphlet "100 Authors Against Einstein" produced by German scientists simply asked: "Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" 

The cabal of greenhouse gassers simply hasn't made its case, and many "denier" scientists have thrown cold water on their theories. To read and consider these AGW theories is admirable. To base actual policy on them would be madness.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> If you seriously want to reduce Carbon Emissions suggest a method that doe NOT double, treble or even quadruple heating, food and electrical bills. There a are lot of people in Canada and the US that cannot afford 10% increases let alone the massive increases associated with carbon taxes and credits.


This is a completely different issue, and one that I'd like to see a more creative and thoughtful discussion around.

Issue 1 is the science. Science is never settled by definition, but at what point do we, as a society, conclude that we're confident in the current model. I'd say that 98% consensus among notoriously quarrelsome experts is well past that bar.

Issue 2 is what to do about it. It seems to me that some of what we should be doing is obvious and necessary for other reasons as well - reducing our energy consumption being the big one. Fundamentally this all boils down to "too many people" but the population problem will take centuries to solve, so we need to work on other things while we work on that. Developing alternate, sustainable energy technologies and reducing our consumption of fossil fuels should be our short term objectives.

The cap and trade system has been proposed to generate market forces that should facilitate those objectives, but, while I admire the thinking, I don't think it will work; it's too easily gamed. I'm afraid we're going to need top-down (i.e. government) as well as bottom-up (i.e. citizen driven) changes. Unfortunately, businesses won't do anything unless it offers increased short term profits, and many of the most powerful business interests in our society (i.e. the oil companies) are doing everything they can to maintain the status quo for as long as they can.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> TI take the side of Albert Einstein, who, when confronted with a pamphlet "100 Authors Against Einstein" produced by German scientists simply asked: "Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!"


It's funny that the deniers like to ornament their position with Einstein quotes, as if the few remaining idiosyncratic scientists supporting this position were paradigm-defining geniuses, rather than a few beleaguered old-guards that have found a way to get some attention in their waning years.

Einstein developed novel theories that explained the available data _BETTER_ than the existing theories. The few climatologists unconvinced by the ACC model do not have a better theory with which to replace it. This is _why_ the vast majority of currently active climatologists have come to accept the ACC model or some variation on it.

Personally, I'd be much happier if it turned out that our having oxidized hundreds of millions of years worth of naturally sequestered carbon in an instant didn't cause any effects, but it seems pretty unlikely given the way large scale equilibria work. But I'd be ecstatic to learn that climatologists have falsified the ACC model, and the current unequivocal warming has nothing to do with our having changed the global atmospheric chemistry so quickly. But for that to happen, a lot of credible researchers will have to be convinced, and that will only happen if new data becomes available, because all existing data has served to convince 98% of these experts that human activity *has* altered the global climate.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> This is a completely different issue, and one that I'd like to see a more creative and thoughtful discussion around.


It is indeed the same issue. Trying to dissociate the two is like the Catholics turning a blind eye to the slaughter of Jews or the western world turning a blind eye to the slaughter of Muslims. Claiming the science is right so we must therefore accept the proposal to economically destroy those members of our society that are economically weak is madness. The only way to stop the madness is to recognize it as madness.

The above is even more horrifying as the science does not even qualify as iffy. Those proclaiming the validity of CO2 as a primary climate driver, are funded either by governments hoping to institute massive carbon levies and/or the Gore Gang hoping to make massive profits selling the same carbon credits 10 or 20 or 100 times over. Both suggested solutions will be devastating to those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. In both cases the scientists are more concerned with achieving the economically driven objectives than arriving at the truth. Hence the attempts to deny the Maunder Minimum and the Medieval Warming periods.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Einstein developed novel theories that explained the available data _BETTER_ than the existing theories. The few climatologists unconvinced by the ACC model do not have a better theory with which to replace it. This is _why_ the vast majority of currently active climatologists have come to accept the ACC model or some variation on it.


Not at all. The carbon dioxide theory is one of the current theories that have not yet provided enough hard evidence to replace existing climate theories. AGW is populist but is not the status quo.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Issue 1 is the science. Science is never settled by definition, but at what point do we, as a society, conclude that we're confident in the current model. I'd say that 98% consensus among notoriously quarrelsome experts is well past that bar.


You know, my boyfriend is a scientist and his work is in modelling. While he's not a climatologist, work such as his gets used by climatologists for their analyses.

His opinion is that most climatologists ignore some fairly significant flaws in the models they are working on as mere details, because they do not understand these models well enough to understand their limitations--they lack expertise in the area.

Beyond that, he has no opinion on the climate change debate.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> You know, my boyfriend is a scientist and his work is in modelling. While he's not a climatologist, work such as his gets used by climatologists for their analyses.
> 
> His opinion is that most climatologists ignore some fairly significant flaws in the models they are working on mere details, because they do not understand these models well enough to understand their limitations--they lack expertise in the area.
> 
> Beyond that, he has no opinion on the climate change debate.


If you create a model that increases temperature as CO2 numbers are jacked up, then that is what the model will show. It only reflects the theory of the people who order the models--it's not as though they could be surprised by running one of these models to see that CO2 has little or no effect on climate.


----------



## SINC

Sonal said:


> His opinion is that most climatologists ignore some fairly significant flaws in the models they are working on mere details, because they do not understand these models well enough to understand their limitations--they lack expertise in the area.


Now there is something bryanc should be able to grasp. He tell us enough times that we don't understand the science and it would take years of study for us to do so. 

Obviously neither do the climatologists, which has been our complaint all along. Bottom line is that nobody knows for sure. In the meantime, I'm sticking with the "science wants to scare us to raise research dollars" theory and that governments are clamouring to provide those dollars via a world wide carbon tax. See the circle forming yet folks?


----------



## groovetube

It's the damn climatologists. They ain't no scientist, and they're the ones fleecing us for all our hard earned cash.

And someone's boyfriend said the climatologists are dough-heads and don't understand much about the models they work on, so yeah, I'm seein a big circle forming here, yeah.

I'm definitely gonna buy a big SUV, and I'm gonna leave all my lights on when I leave the house just to wind up those damn gullible environmentalists down the street. Tree huggin fools the lot of them.

So this is what I'm gatherin', as an observer here really.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> It's the damn climatologists. They ain't no scientist, and they're the ones fleecing us for all our hard earned cash.
> 
> And someone's boyfriend said the climatologists are dough-heads and don't understand much about the models they work on, so yeah, I'm seein a big circle forming here, yeah.
> 
> I'm definitely gonna buy a big SUV, and I'm gonna leave all my lights on when I leave the house just to wind up those damn gullible environmentalists down the street. Tree huggin fools the lot of them.
> 
> So this is what I'm gatherin', as an observer here really.


LOL!Round and round she goes! Straight talk from Dougie! LOL!


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> It's the damn climatologists. They ain't no scientist, and they're the ones fleecing us for all our hard earned cash.
> 
> And someone's boyfriend said the climatologists are dough-heads and don't understand much about the models they work on, so yeah, I'm seein a big circle forming here, yeah.
> 
> I'm definitely gonna buy a big SUV, and I'm gonna leave all my lights on when I leave the house just to wind up those damn gullible environmentalists down the street. Tree huggin fools the lot of them.
> 
> So this is what I'm gatherin', as an observer here really.


.


----------



## groovetube

nicely nailed macfury! :clap:


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Now there is something bryanc should be able to grasp. He tell us enough times that we don't understand the science and it would take years of study for us to do so.
> 
> Obviously neither do the climatologists, which has been our complaint all along. Bottom line is that nobody knows for sure. In the meantime, I'm sticking with the "science wants to scare us to raise research dollars" theory




Let's see if we can parse this nonsense.

1) It's complicated and I don't understand it.
2) Somebody's friend says they think some of the scientists don't understand it either.
3) I don't have to feel stupid if those eggheads can't understand it.
4) Therefore it's all a scam to get money by confusing us with complicated math!

At least MFs flippancy isn't so obviously driven by insecurity.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> Beyond that, he has no opinion on the climate change debate.


I should've picked up on this earlier. This is a good example of someone who's smart enough to know what they don't know.

I think there are people here with enough expertise in macroeconomics, sociology and politics that there could be a very interesting discussion of *how* we might best deal with the problem, but I don't think anyone here has the expertise to criticize the science identifying the problem. There may well be serious flaws with the science; I don't know, but more to the point, neither does any one else here. If there are flaws, real climatologists will find them. Given the progress in the past two decades, that no longer seems likely, but whatever; none of us here are qualified to argue about it.

So it's perfectly reasonable to have no opinion. What is not reasonable is to criticize a body of peer-reviewed science done by experts without any expertise of your own.

In the final analysis; wether it's due to climate change or other forms of pollution, we have to find economically viable ways of regulating our industries so that their environmental impacts are sustainable. This has been an unsolved problem since... well... forever, so I'd really like to see some of the creative and clever people here direct their attention to that.


----------



## SINC

On the contrary, I feel quite comfortable criticizing the science. Any scientific group that has made as many publicly known mistakes, gaffes, outright wrong predictions and deliberate fudging of the figures deserves criticism. And that leads to no public support which is exactly what they deserve. Now, there's another one you can take and run over to Magic to gloat about.


----------



## Rps

Not meaning to step on a land mine here but, as a tax payer I can criticize. It doesn't matter that I don't understand the way the scientists do .... I'm allowed to develop my own perspective. After all wasn't it you bryanc who indicated that we shouldn't fear science: "you've got nothing to fear from science, because science never proves anything. It only falsifies".

So here is my unscientific response. First, for those who disagree about GHG, okay maybe you're right, but take a look at China. Does the term desertification mean anything to you ... was science behind that or was it developmental greed.

For those who live in Port Hope, you are living on top of radiation laced soil. Is that science or convenience by a non-caring Government. For those of you who live by the lakes, ever see the smog [ it's that brown layer that floats on the horizon ] ever wonder what that might do to your lungs .... funny we ban second hand smoke but not smog. Is that science or another case of profit at any cost. What knowledge we have on certain issues evolved over time ... think back ... in the scheme of things it wasn't that long ago that you were burned at the stake for saying the world was round and that the earth was not the centre of the universe. It's only time and our experience that allows us to make "scientific" truths [ although I think bryanc would call them still to be disproved theories --- I don't mean this as a slight to you bryanc, but isn't that how science treats theories --- all are open to be disproved? ] So I think the same with GHG. Somewhere between is the truth [ until it is disproved ] and what someone would like us to believe. In the final analysis, how does being concerned about our environment, ensuring that our climate can be as predictable as possible, that our children and grandchildren have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink and uncontaminated ground to play on be something that we are fighting about... shouldn't we all want these things.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> On the contrary, I feel quite comfortable criticizing the science. Any scientific group that has made as many publicly known mistakes, gaffes, outright wrong predictions and deliberate fudging of the figures deserves criticism.


I actually see this as reasonable. But what's reasonable here is that you're _not_ criticizing the science; you're criticizing individual scientists, and doing so on the basis of the communications and marketing of a few specific findings. And that _is_ something you're qualified to do.

But you're mixing up specific small groups and a few individual (non-peer-reviewed) analyses with the thousands of scientists and the tens-of-thousands of peer-reviewed research papers that make up the whole field, so you're overgeneralizing (a common problem with journalists).


----------



## bryanc

Rps said:


> Not meaning to step on a land mine here but, as a tax payer I can criticize.


You can certainly criticize the government for allocating your tax dollars in ways you don't approve of, and you can certainly criticize scientists for not being better communicators (though, as I've mentioned, this is like criticizing us for not being good singers or jugglers; it's not what we're trained to do). What you* can't do (at least in any meaningful way) is critique their analysis of the data or their conclusions.

[* unless you're a trained expert in the field, in which case your expertise makes your opinions on the issue worth something]



> I'm allowed to develop my own perspective.


Yes, you're certainly allowed your own perspective, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. My point is that, unlike music or poetry, where everyone's opinion of what's 'good' is equally valid, in science the opinions of people without the requisite knowledge aren't worth as much as the opinions of the people with that expertise.



> So here is my unscientific response. First, for those who disagree about GHG, okay maybe your right, but take a look at China. Does the term desertification mean anything to you ... was science behind that or was it developmental greed.


Good example. As has been the case over and over throughout the past century, scientists observe, hypothesize, and eventually predict problems, but governments and businesses ignore the warnings and march straight into the problem with their chins out.



> In the final analysis, how does being concerned about our environment, ensuring that our climate can be as predictable as possible, that our children and grandchildren have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink and uncontaminated ground to play on be something that we are fighting about... shouldn't we all want these things.


Yes!!! And what's most frustrating to me is that anthropogenic climate change is just another problem that shares many of the same solutions: reduced fossil fuel consumption, increased energy efficiency, and ultimately, lower human population.

So wether you're convinced by the 98% consensus on ACC or not, it's just one of many well-established reasons to do the same things.


----------



## Macfury

Climate skeptic in line to take over House Science Committee - Robin Bravender - POLITICO.com



> The likely next chairman of the House Science Committee says “reasonable people have serious questions” about the science connecting manmade greenhouse gas emissions to global warming.
> 
> Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Texas) on Wednesday vowed to investigate the Obama administration’s climate policies if he becomes chairman.


Your little Greenhouse Gas Bubble is bursting, MacDoc.


----------



## MacDoc

*What the deniers don't get.....they ARE going to pay*

I've just about washed my hands of H Sapiens in regard to not cooking themselves and the rest of the biome.

Obama is now crippled and any small progress there likely to be reversed.

and in Canada an unelected Conservative dominated Senate just killed the last remaining vestige of respectable commitment to reduced carbon without even a debate.



> November 17, 2010
> 
> (Ottawa)* Stephen Harper has done what he promised to never do, allow the Senate to go against the will of the majority of Members of Parliament and the Canadian public. *Last night, Stephen Harper’s Senators voted to defeat the Climate Change Accountability Act (Bill C-311) before the bill even had a chance to be debated.
> 
> “The Climate Change Accountability Act (Bill C-311) has been the only strong piece of climate change legislation before Parliament. It has been supported by a majority of MPs twice, and represents the will of the majority of Canadians who want our government to take strong action on climate change,” says Keith Stewart of Greenpeace Canada. “In using an undemocratic, nineteenth-century institution to avoid dealing with the twenty-first century’s most pressing environmental problem, the Harper government is being both hypocritical and irresponsible.”
> 
> The Climate Change Accountability Act passed through the House of Commons to the Senate in the spring of last year. Because Conservative Senators had chosen not to take the opportunity to debate the bill, the bill had not yet been referred to a committee for study. Instead of doing so, Conservative Senators called a surprise vote last night, and managed to kill the bill while many of its supporters were away from the Senate.
> 
> “It seems clear that the Conservative government doesn’t want to be accountable to Canadians about setting and meeting climate targets,” said Clare Demerse from the Pembina Institute. “This bill would have required the government to publish regular reports explaining its climate policy to Canadians – and as things currently stand, every one of those reports would have created bad headlines for the government.”
> 
> “This manipulation of the democratic process is irresponsible and goes against the campaign promises that Stephen Harper made on accountability, transparency and democratic fairness, not to mention Senate reform,” says Steven Guilbeault of Equiterre. *“The Harper controlled senate has been delaying discussions of this bill for months, and now they have killed it without even the due process in terms of bringing the bill to committee and debating it. It is like a jury arriving at a verdict in a trial without hearing any witnesses or knowing what they need to know about the case.”*
> 
> “In the face of the climate change crisis, and weeks before the United Nations climate talks begin in Cancun, this is a clear signal that this government is refusing to take global warming seriously,” says Graham Saul of Climate Action Network Canada. “Right now, Canada’s government is on track to arrive at the UN climate talks in Cancun with no plan to reach its target and having just killed the country’s best chance to do better, despite majority support from MPs and Canadians for stronger climate action.”


a pox on them all...









Peak oil is coming with a rush and what the denidiots don't seem to get is decarboning is more about that than the atmosphere in the short term.

It looks at this point it will be forced change with huge economic forces at play rather than some level of management of the transition.

The world is going to continue to warm regardless of what steps are taken as at least .6 C addition to the current .6 is now embedded within a few short decades.
That of course will increase as we keep pumping the carbon so coping will be the norm instead of avoiding the worst by limiting to 2 degrees C by 2100.

With 50% more population the peak of cheap fossil will simply come far sooner and force change....maybe in some respects that is better than dragging out a losing battle.

Let it hit the wall hard 

*We have 45% nuclear and 30 % hydro in Ontario and rates are still forecast to rise 46% for electricity within 5 years.
*
This decade is going to be a hell of a ride and I'm already plotting my escape....new SigO has solar hot water and panels and lives in year around warmth.
4 years out I'll be ready to consider settling there if it gets too gnarly.

With the latest failures of carbon control everywhere and the massive economic tsunami's looming ( my opinion - we've not seen nuthin' yet )... I don't see much if any progress except in places like Sweden from a purely atmosphere protection.

There is simply too much cheap coal around and too many lily livered or corrupt politicians and the fools that support them and coal may yet supply fuel ala SASOil process.

Only the recession knocked down emissions a bit last year and I suspect it will not be repeated.
Govs will not be able to afford the high subsidies for alternative power as they are generally broke.

_*This is what people resisting action on carbon emissions don't get*_



> *IEA fears oil spike if climate pledges fail*
> 
> By Javier Blas and Sylvia Pfeifer in London
> 
> Published: November 3 2010 22:30 | Last updated: November 3 2010 22:30
> 
> The global energy watchdog will next week throw its weight behind calls for governments to implement pledges to fight climate change and cut fossil fuel subsidies, warning that a failure to do so would significantly inflate oil prices​


 FT.com / Energy - IEA fears oil spike if climate pledges fail

One way or another there is a cost to be born and it WILL get paid .....we can either decarbon now, or keep BAU, pay through the nose for oil and then STILL have to decarbon anyways......

Total ****wits in charge.....especially in the PM office...
​


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Obama is now crippled and any small progress there likely to be reversed.
> 
> and in Canada an unelected Conservative dominated Senate just killed the last remaining vestige of respectable commitment to reduced carbon without even a debate.


I was going to mention the second point as well, but you beat me to it. I told you before that your Greenhouse Gassiness was a train to nowhere but you refused to believe me. I remember how you believed, almost wistfully, that the Chinese were going to show us some new way out of things... but they were bought off by a 500-year supply of dirt-cheap coal. Oh, the childlike innocence! The godlike beings of Norway would put us all to shame (fed as they were by selling off great gobs of oil). Your dreams of Peak Oil receded ever farther into the future. The hydrogen grid disappeared in wisps of half-remembered dreams. Obama! Yes, here was a man photographed walking on the beach in sandals and that was enough for you to believe in his environmental goodness! Chauncey Gardener in Birkenstocks! You cheered as Dalton McGuinty blew up a coal fired generator and guaranteed that millions of Ontarians would suffer markedly higher electricity costs (welcome back, subsidized electrical prices). I almost shed a little tear for you MacDoc, as the great Carbon Exchange in Chicago traded its last molecule and shut its doors for good last month. And that damned cheap coal, protecting the people from the economic hell of their comeuppance! "Where are my photos of ostriches," you would cry out. "Heads in the sand! The sand!" Ohhh, the denidiots were going to be marginalized. The denidiots would suffer and be humiliated and put in jails for their wrong-headedness.



> This decade is going to be a hell of a ride and I'm already plotting my escape...


Payback's a bitch, ain't it? Don't let the door whomp your ass on the way out


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Payback's a bitch, ain't it? Don't let the door whomp your ass on the way out


Stay classy, MF.


----------



## MannyP Design

bryanc said:


> Stay classy, MF.


I guess you missed MacDoc's clever coining of Denidiots.


----------



## bryanc

MannyP Design said:


> I guess you missed MacDoc's clever coining of Denidiots.


Not one of his high points to be sure. But, like blaming the liberals for doing something stupid before you, it makes a poor excuse for continuing in that vein.


----------



## Max

Why wait, MacDoc? Why not bail simply out now if you're so certain we're going to h3ll in a handbasket? Your own personal paradise awaits, apparently (BTW, congrats on the new SigO) ... I don't get why you're staying put for another few years if you're convinced we're all doomed.

I think you're just floating some histrionic balloons again, complete with a teeny little scowling, red-faced ball, signifying your humongous anger and disgust.

Teh intertubes... always entertaining, always good for some drama.


----------



## kps

Max said:


> Why wait, MacDoc? Why not bail simply out now if you're so certain we're going to h3ll in a handbasket? Your own personal paradise awaits, apparently (BTW, congrats on the new SigO) ... I don't get why you're staying put for another few years if you're convinced we're all doomed.
> 
> I think you're just floating some histrionic balloons again, complete with a teeny little scowling, red-faced ball, signifying your humongous anger and disgust.
> 
> Teh intertubes... always entertaining, always good for some drama.


He's gonna stick around to collect on that 5 year 10% rebate from McGuinty while hydro rates escalate 46%. Then he'll bail. 

Me, I'm going geothermal, solar and wind...as soon as I win the lottery.


----------



## MannyP Design

bryanc said:


> Not one of his high points to be sure. But, like blaming the liberals for doing something stupid before you, it makes a poor excuse for continuing in that vein.


Seems interesting that you choose to speak up when MacFury says something "classy" but not when your buddy in arms does. Convenient.


----------



## Macfury

I do have to take one thing back. I looked in today's paper and saw that Peak Oil is a reality:


----------



## SINC

▲ :lmao::clap:


----------



## MacGuiver

Crap! There's only 5 quarts left!


----------



## MacDoc

do keep denying reality.... - becoming quaint now...sort of Scopes like....


----------



## SINC

So, your point being that three years out of the last, what, 10,000 were a tad warm?


----------



## eMacMan

MD you did not quote your source, which presumably means they were from the discredited NASA guestimates.

Notice that for 2010 Southern Alberta is shown as slightly warmer than normal even though it was an average winter and about the third coldest summer on record.

But hey as long as your shilling for the Gore Gang and Carbon Taxes don't let accuracy stand in your way.


----------



## Macfury

Well, if there's something that's quaint, it's the Op Art that MacDoc flashes on the screen every month or so, no explanation, no apologies.

They're still pulling those numbers out of thin air. Still using those inoperative weather stations. Still scoping the world with malfunctioning satellites. And still shutting down weather stations in the north to emphasize those in the south.

The Emperor is wearing no clothes MacDoc--why do you keep watching him dance?


----------



## bryanc

I do hope you'll all have the personal integrity to apologize for this behaviour, when, over the next 10 to 15 years, all of this science is validated again and again, and as the funding for the FUD your swallowing is exposed.

You think carbon taxes are bad, if the oil industry succeeds in discrediting the science, convincing the public that there's still no scientific consensus, and keeping their pet politicians in power for another decade, we'll be looking at a much bigger problem with vastly greater costs, and you'll be trying to forget the disdain you had for NASA and other research agencies that were trying to get us mobilized earlier.

For the record, if it turns out in ten years that the apparently unequivocal evidence for ACC has evaporated, and the consensus among climatologists was nothing more than an academic echo-chamber, I'll be the first to admit that you deniers were right, and I'll be very happy to eat crow in a world that faces one less threat from our voracious consumption of non-renewable resources. Indeed, I'd far prefer to be wrong about this than right, but falling for the 'scientists are idiots and don't know how to deal with data collection or analysis' FUD is hard to understand.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I do hope you'll all have the personal integrity to apologize for this behaviour, when, over the next 10 to 15 years, all of this science is validated again and again, and as the funding for the FUD your swallowing is exposed.
> 
> You think carbon taxes are bad, if the oil industry succeeds in discrediting the science, convincing the public that there's still no scientific consensus, and keeping their pet politicians in power for another decade, we'll be looking at a much bigger problem with vastly greater costs, and you'll be trying to forget the disdain you had for NASA and other research agencies that were trying to get us mobilized earlier.


I'll be waiting. But I expect no apologies from you. If you were halfway objective about this, you would already be apologizing.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I'll be waiting. But I expect no apologies from you. If you were halfway objective about this, you would already be apologizing.


See edit.

A I said, I'll apologize if any of these conclusions turn out to be wrong. From everything I've seen, whenever faulty data is found and corrected for, the conclusions are not significantly changed.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> See edit.
> 
> A I said, I'll apologize if any of these conclusions turn out to be wrong. From everything I've seen, whenever faulty data is found and corrected for, the conclusions are not significantly changed.



From where I sit, regardless of any faulty data found, the conclusions are not significantly changed


----------



## SINC

The only constant seen by residents of our area is the continued uncovering of scientific error along with the cold winters and very cool summers we continue to suffer in this part of the continent for the past two years. I guess if that's accurate climate science, so be it.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> The only constant seen by residents of our area is the continued uncovering of scientific error along with the cold winters and very cool summers we continue to suffer in this part of the continent for the past two years. I guess if that's accurate climate science, so be it.


Indeed it is. Errors are discovered (that's good science), and the GLOBAL data continues to fit the predictions very well (local temperatures are effectively impossible to predict with climatic models), so that's consistent with good science as well.


----------



## eMacMan

Still having just been through an average winter and very much colder than normal summer in a large area portrayed as having been above average it is pretty obvious that data is being manipulated to support desired conclusions.

Even when I still bought into the Warming Ponzi scam I opposed Carbon Taxes and Gore Gang protection fees. That has not changed in the slightest. I oppose them because they are designed to have zero impact on Carbon emissions while most heavily penalizing the poorest members of society simply for being poor.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Indeed it is. Errors are discovered (that's good science), and the GLOBAL data continues to fit the predictions very well (local temperatures are effectively impossible to predict with climatic models), so that's consistent with good science as well.


it is interesting to note, the very same ones who scoff when summers are extra warm are the very first to line up and shriek when they are colder.

Funny when you sit an observe comments.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> it is interesting to note, the very same ones who scoff when summers are extra warm are the very first to line up and shriek when they are colder.
> 
> Funny when you sit an observe comments.


I only hear gassers shriek about the weather. Most normal people call it a "cold winter" or a "warm summer."


----------



## groovetube

and another "I know you are but.." from the fury of macs.

2 for 2 this am.


----------



## SINC

Now here's some food for thought for some of you warmists who post in this thread:

Doomsday messages about global warming can backfire, study shows


----------



## groovetube

Ah yes. The old cat on a leash theory.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> it is interesting to note, the very same ones who scoff when summers are extra warm are the very first to line up and shriek when they are colder.
> 
> Funny when you sit an observe comments.


Nope I am shrieking because one of the coldest summers on record was being portrayed as warmer than normal and that data was then being used as part of a claim of the warmest summer on record. 

Bad data=false result.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Now here's some food for thought for some of you warmists who post in this thread:
> 
> Doomsday messages about global warming can backfire, study shows


Nice find, SINC. That is an interesting study. I've generally tried to avoid formulating any strong opinions regarding how we should be dealing with the climate change issue*, as I lack the expertise in economics to critically analyze the options. But I've consistently been in agreement with the critics of how these issues are presented, and this study supports my contention that the problem is not with the science, but with the communication of the science to the general public. There are still people who apparently think climate change models are based on obviously flawed and biased remote sensing data! The fact that the groups communicating these research results can't keep up with that sort of silly FUD being spread by anti-science groups is all the evidence one needs to see how science is loosing the PR battle.

* Appart from concluding that no one approach will likely be sufficient; while creative, I don't think the cap-and-trade market approach will work because it's too prone to being manipulated, and I don't think the legislative approach will work because well-financed lobby groups and inefficiency will hamstring any legal approaches.


----------



## eMacMan

Took another look at MDs 2010 map. Showed all of South America as average or above despite their having just gone through one of the most brutal winters on record.

bad data=false results.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> bad data=false results.


That is certainly true. But rather than just assuming that the professional scientists who have been doing this for a living for their whole careers are too stupid to figure this out, why not go to the source and see what data is used and why.

Here's a link to one such place that explains a *tiny* little fraction of how a *tiny* little fraction of the *MASSIVE MOUNTAINS* of data supporting the currently accepted climatic models is obtained.


----------



## MannyP Design

eMacMan said:


> Nope I am shrieking because one of the coldest summers on record was being portrayed as warmer than normal and that data was then being used as part of a claim of the warmest summer on record.
> 
> Bad data=false result.


Even in the instance they show correct data, you'll notice that every chart MacDoc shows really only compares the hottest year we've had (2005-2006) with data from 30 years ago. Never do they show anything post-2006. It's alarmists wearing blinders is what it is.

I've looked at data from a variety of sources (including the ones MacDoc repeatedly linked, ad nauseum) and they all show the same thing: The abnormally warmer patterns continue to decline since the big melt in 2006.

Maybe I'm doing "The Science™" wrong. :lmao:


----------



## bryanc

MannyP Design said:


> Even in the instance they show correct data, you'll notice that every chart MacDoc shows really only compares the hottest year we've had (2005-2006) with data from 30 years ago. Never do they show anything post-2006.


Uh... which ones are you looking at? The one's I've seen are always current data (the last one was for October 2010) and it's always done WRT baseline data going back 131 years.


----------



## MannyP Design

bryanc said:


> Uh... which ones are you looking at? The one's I've seen are always current data (the last one was for October 2010) and it's always done WRT baseline data going back 131 years.


Like I said: MacDoc's charts. He's peppered them throughout the thread (multiple times, actually).


----------



## MannyP Design

A site that I've visited recently (because people tend to bring up the ice caps the most—and one MacDoc has also linked to despite not actually reading) is the Arctic Sea Analysis—the data they've been posting has been showing a gradual (and steady) decrease in melting to the point that it's closing in on the original (average) temperature and recovering from the Big Melt™ in 2006.

But if you ignore the data and just read the overly editorialized write-up, you'll see The Scientists® paint a bleak picture up north. But I guess that's just part of The Science™.

They have a handy tool to compare year over year—but only for the past several years (oddly enough) since they don't have data on hand beyond 2006 which—SUPRISE SURPRISE—when the Big Melt™ happened.


----------



## Max

Easy on the trademarks there, pardner. You're coming down with a bad case of cynicism and it's going to wear thin real soon.


----------



## MannyP Design

Max said:


> Easy on the trademarks there, pardner. You're coming down with a bad case of cynicism and it's going to wear thin real soon.


I happen to have a surplus of trademarks and I have to use them up before year-end. But it's okay—there's no carbon footprint, so we're safe.


----------



## Max

Good to hear.

You can always sell those surplus trademarks on the black market. What the gubbmint doesn't know won't hurt 'em, knowmsayn?


----------



## eMacMan

MannyP Design said:


> A site that I've visited recently (because people tend to bring up the ice caps the most—and one MacDoc has also linked to despite not actually reading) is the Arctic Sea Analysis—the data they've been posting has been showing a gradual (and steady) decrease in melting to the point that it's closing in on the original (average) temperature and recovering from the Big Melt™ in 2006.
> 
> But if you ignore the data and just read the overly editorialized write-up, you'll see The Scientists® paint a bleak picture up north. But I guess that's just part of The Science™.
> 
> They have a handy tool to compare year over year—but only for the past several years (oddly enough) since they don't have data on hand beyond 2006 which—SUPRISE SURPRISE—when the Big Melt™ happened.


Yep they also keep ignoring earlier periods in the 20th Century when people actually were able to navigate the NW passage. Guess its like the Maunder Minimum and the Middle Ages Warming Period, if it contradicts your religious beliefs pretend it never happened.


----------



## SINC

Carbon credits are a wonderful incentive for cutting down your own forests and sensitive Orangutan habitat:

Indonesia eyeing $1bn climate aid to cut down forests

Yeah, that's working out well.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Uh... which ones are you looking at? The one's I've seen are always current data (the last one was for October 2010) and it's always done WRT baseline data going back 131 years.


i don't think too many are interested in that.


----------



## MannyP Design

groovetube said:


> i don't think too many are interested in that.


You mean MacDoc, right? Because they're the charts he keeps posting.


----------



## bryanc

MannyP Design said:


> You mean MacDoc, right? Because they're the charts he keeps posting.


While I take no responsibility for what MacDoc posts, the last one he posted was illustrating temperature anomalies for Oct 2010. So I don't understand what you're talking about.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> While I take no responsibility for what MacDoc posts, the last one he posted was illustrating temperature anomalies for Oct 2010. So I don't understand what you're talking about.


Of course the previously pointed out blatant anomalies do make this chart highly suspect.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Of course the previously pointed out blatant anomalies do make this chart highly suspect.


Not at all. Go to the source of the data for that chart and see how the data was collected and processed. You're confusing weather with climate.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Not at all. Go to the source of the data for that chart and see how the data was collected and processed. You're confusing weather with climate.


So a chart with glaring errors that claims to prove that 2010 to be the warmest year ever doesn't give you any problems?


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> So a chart with glaring errors that claims to prove that 2010 to be the warmest year ever doesn't give you any problems?


Not when I go to the source data. And it doesn't claim to prove anything, it's data. The data says that the temperature *ANOMALIES* in 2010 where higher than the temperature *ANOMALIES* in previous years. If you're interested in climate, rather than weather, you look at the anomalies rather than the average specific temerpature in a specific place for reasons that are well explained on the site that hosts the data.

Part of the reason I keep pointing out that many here who are skeptical about the science underlying the concern about global climate change is that, as you have illustrated, the loudest detractors of the science are not even able to read the data, let alone understand the analysis. For example, you're still obviously confused about the difference between climate and weather.


----------



## Macfury

Sure-it's just data. With a label. And a claim.


----------



## BigDL

*NASA releases report of Lake Warming*

Just in



CBC News said:


> A first-of-its-kind NASA study is finding that cool lakes are heating up — even faster than air.
> 
> Two NASA scientists used satellite data to look at 104 large inland lakes around the world and found that on average they have warmed 1.1 degrees (Celsius) since 1985. That's about 2½ times the increase in global temperatures in the same time period.
> 
> Russia's Lake Ladoga and America's Lake Tahoe are warming significantly and the most, said study co-author Simon Hook, a scientist at the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, Calif. Tahoe has heated up by 1.7 degrees since 1985, while Ladoga has been even warmer, going up by 2.2 degrees.




Read more: CBC News - Technology & Science - Lakes warming faster than air



CBC News said:


> NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, who was not part of the study, said the research made sense and adds another independent measuring system to show that the world is warming up. Eleven different indicators — including air temperature, humidity, snow cover, ocean heat content — show statistically significant man-made global warming, while no environmental measurements show otherwise, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.


----------



## Macfury

^^^^^
So 60 per cent of lakes are either cooling or their temperature is of no statistical significance. Nice work, NASA.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> ^^^^^
> So 60 per cent of lakes are either cooling or their temperature is of no statistical significance. Nice work, NASA.


Statistics Fail.



> Overall, 41 lakes increased temperatures in a statistically significant way, with another 59 individually warming but not enough to be considered significant. Only four showed temperature drops, but not significantly


What this means is that 39.4% of lakes showed statistically significant increases in temperature, and none of the other measurements could be distinguished from random variation at this point. However, as more measurements are taken, it appears that the number of lakes showing statistically significant warming will increase.


----------



## eMacMan

I can tell you the lakes around here are all measurably cooler than in 2006 we are talking 10° or more at the same time of year. 

Have not left town in the past two weeks but I am willing to bet that the smaller lakes are already frozen over, at least a month early. Course -32°C overnight temps will do that.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> I can tell you the lakes around here are... [anecdote deleted]


Just to be clear, the plural of anecdote is not 'data.'

And, on an unrelated topic, I encourage anyone who's having trouble understanding why I keep saying that there's a consensus among scientists, but the media says there's still debate to read the PDF available here.

Here's an excerpt:


> In an effort to deceive the public about the reality of global warming, ExxonMobil has under-written the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry misled the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease. As this report documents, the two disinformation campaigns are strikingly similar. ExxonMobil has drawn upon the tactics and even some of the organizations and actors involved in the callous disinformation campaign the tobacco industry waged for 40 years. Like the tobacco industry, ExxonMobil has:
> •	Manufactured uncertainty by raising doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence.
> •	Adopted a strategy of information laundering by using seemingly independent front organizations to publicly further its desired message and thereby confuse the public.
> •	Promoted scientific spokespeople who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings or cherry-pick facts in their attempts to persuade the media and the public that there is still serious debate among scientists that burning fossil fuels has contributed to global warming and that human-caused warming will have serious consequences.
> •	Attempted to shift the focus away from meaningful action on global warming with misleading charges about the need for “sound science.”


The PDF provides all the necessary references and citations to support it's claims.


----------



## BigDL

Hey bryanc, facts can be used to prove anything! Pffft don't try to reason your way out of this. 

Just ask the denyers their opinions. Opinion is all that counts look at the success of Faux News.


----------



## eMacMan

Yep I know all about consensus. Right into the '60s Geologists were having a hard time convincing anyone that Continental Drift was a valid theory, the consensus was still with the Shrinking Apple Theory. Before Einstein the scientific consensus was that there had to be a good sized planet inside the orbit of Mercury as there was no other way to explain the variations in Mercuries orbit.

It comes down to this restore the Maunder Minimum and the hockey stick is shattered. What you have is a straight line that in recent years slightly flattens out, completely contradicting the manmade GW theory.

Is the earth warming? Yes and about at the same rate as going into the medieval warming period. And at an even rate once we got past the Maunder Minimum.

Can an additional 1/1000th of a percent of CO2 in the earths atmosphere cause a cataclysmic climate failure. NO WAY. CO2 is a mere 37/1000th of 1% of the earths atmosphere and man is responsible for at the most 3/1000th of 1% CO2 in the atmosphere. Going by US department of Energy figures man is only responsible for 1/1000th of 1% in the atmosphere so even doubling current numbers mankinds contribution is at best a minimal contribution. Beyond that the Medieval Warming Period clearly proves that even a lot more warming will not be catastrophic.

OTH the aluminum/Barium/Strontium dust being spread in the atmosphere by geo-engineers in an attempt to "combat" GW may well plunge us into an ice-age. For Canadians at least that would be catastrophic.

Man also throws a lot of crap up into the air. Aluminum dust from Chem Trails, Sulphur compounds... Cumulatively the cooling effect of these should far outweigh the pentenary impact of CO2. Yep Sun, Volcanoes, Cosmic radiation, variations in the earths orbit, even dust all have bigger impacts on climate than CO2 but find no place in the IPCC computer models which assume that more CO2 causes higher temps but cannot be bent to explain either the Medieval Warming or the Maunder Minimum periods.

*I am more than willing to embrace Global Warming rather than visit extremely punitive measures on the poorest members of our society in order to fight it. In Canada doubling or quadrupling heating bills could cause* *deaths and lots of them. 

You can call it just local all you want, but when data is manipulated so that my part of the world is claimed to be warmer than normal when in fact we went through one of the coldest summers on record, I do get pissed and I do say something. When the data has been clearly bent in two places that is enough to reject the conclusions.*


----------



## CubaMark

*Rick Mercer, not being funny....*

*Kill Bill: No Debate*



> So why is it such a big deal that Tory senators killed a bill? I mean the senate has killed bills before, right? Well not really, not like this. Because they didn't just kill a bill, they killed a bill without any debate. And that is the entire reason the senate exists. They are, despite the fact that Mike Duffy is a member, the chamber of sober second thought. And the Tory senators took a bill that had been voted on and passed by a majority of the duly elected members of the House of Commons – the people we actually vote for – and killed it without a debate. To put that in perspective, the last time it happened was the 1930s.


(RickMercer)


----------



## SINC

Ah yes, Rick Mercer, the consummate Canadian authority on parliamentary procedure. Him and the CBC. Yeah, right.


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Ah yes, Rick Mercer, the consummate Canadian authority on parliamentary procedure. Him and the CBC. Yeah, right.


As much an authority as any of us, I would think....


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> As much an authority as any of us, I would think....


Perhaps in your mind, but in the real world him appearing on CBC and spouting such views gives him a distinct edge over us who hold the opinions of peons in comparison. 

Nevertheless, his opinions to me, are far below those of my neighbour, for instance. I know and trust him, but he lacks the exposure of Mercer.


----------



## Macfury

And debating a bill that you have no belief in would prove what? I'm glad they expedited that matter and brought that abomination to a close before the climate meeting in Cancun.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Ah yes, Rick Mercer...


Just because it has come up recently, and you apparently didn't get it, this is an example of an _ad hominem_ fallacy.

Because you can't refute the argument being made, you're attacking the person making it. If you actually had an argument, you'd make it, but you don't. So you're trying to discredit the person making it. That's what's meant by an ad hominem fallacy.

Nicely done.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I'm glad they expedited that matter and brought that abomination to a close before the climate meeting in Cancun.


Well yes, I suppose it might be nice to live in an authoritarian dictatorship if you agreed with the dictates of the ruler... at least until you found yourself in disagreement. But the point here is that our duly elected representatives (not to mention Canadians polled on the issue) are in striking disagreement. But please, do go on cheering the dismantling of democracy on this occasion, given that the self-apointed King of Canada happens to agree with you on the issue over which He's dispensing with parliamentary procedure.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Just because it has come up recently, and you apparently didn't get it, this is an example of an _ad hominem_ fallacy.
> 
> Because you can't refute the argument being made, you're attacking the person making it. If you actually had an argument, you'd make it, but you don't. So you're trying to discredit the person making it. That's what's meant by an ad hominem fallacy.
> 
> Nicely done.


I stand by the statement that Mercer is in no way an authority on Canadian parliamentary process. Try including the full quote.


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> I stand by the statement that Mercer is in no way an authority on Canadian parliamentary process. Try including the full quote.


Mercer wasn't editorializing, he was pointing out factual information. Saying you don't like him and the CBC doesn't change the message.


----------



## groovetube

oh but his neighbour, whom we don't know, and haven't heard -his- message, is.

Mercer, regardless of what he said, because apparently this isn't important since it wasn't referred to in any way, is a socialist leech, and even worse, he works for the cee bee cee.


----------



## SINC

mrjimmy said:


> Mercer wasn't editorializing, he was pointing out factual information. Saying you don't like him and the CBC doesn't change the message.


So then, what do you call this?



> "I like it when light shines on the Canadian Senate. Because there's no doubt about it, it is a very strange and unique place. And let's face it, it has been a dumping ground for political hacks and bagmen since Mackenzie King was in short pants."


----------



## BigDL

So Mercer is truthy when he is agreeable?


----------



## groovetube

gee I would have thought that was a 'fact' and greeted with clapping all round.


----------



## mrjimmy

groovetube said:


> gee I would have thought that was a 'fact' and greeted with clapping all round.


Perhaps it's not facts that they are interested in.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Well yes, I suppose it might be nice to live in an authoritarian dictatorship if you agreed with the dictates of the ruler... at least until you found yourself in disagreement. But the point here is that our duly elected representatives (not to mention Canadians polled on the issue) are in striking disagreement. But please, do go on cheering the dismantling of democracy on this occasion, given that the self-apointed King of Canada happens to agree with you on the issue over which He's dispensing with parliamentary procedure.


You probably wouldn't have said a blessed thing if the bill had involved outlawing rainbows--about the intellectual equivalent of the bill that was killed.

Check the Hansards on this carefully. There is a procedure for bringing bills to vote in the Senate and Liberal Senator Grant Mitchell initiated that procedure--to claim he did not know what he was doing is an embarrassment to a sitting senator. I also held that although Stephane Dion's inane power grab was irritating, it followed Canada's rules of Parliament. 

For goodness' sake, the Conservatives don't even have a majority in the Senate! Blame the NDP and Liberals for sitting on their duffs elsewhere when the vote was being taken.


----------



## bryanc

I'm not really surprised, but I had rather hoped that some of the more vociferous detractors of the scientific consensus regarding climate change would read and comment on the PDF I linked earlier in the thread.

Can I conclude from this resounding silence that you all know that the oil industry is spending huge amounts of money to discredit the science, using the same tactics (and in many cases the same companies) as the tobacco industry used to discredit the science linking smoking with lung cancer and heart disease, and choose to believe the FUD anyway?

Does it not concern people that our society is being actively mis-informed by powerful corporate interests pushing an anti-science agenda?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I'm not really surprised, but I had rather hoped that some of the more vociferous detractors of the scientific consensus regarding climate change would read and comment on the PDF I linked earlier in the thread.
> 
> Can I conclude from this resounding silence that you all know that the oil industry is spending huge amounts of money to discredit the science, using the same tactics (and in many cases the same companies) as the tobacco industry used to discredit the science linking smoking with lung cancer and heart disease, and choose to believe the FUD anyway?
> 
> Does it not concern people that our society is being actively mis-informed by powerful corporate interests pushing an anti-science agenda?


That no more concerns me that green technology companies, energy companies, carbon traders and socialists who believe in wealth re-distribution are spending billions to push their views--using the same tactics used by tobacco companies to discredit the science linking smoking with lung cancer and heart disease.

You really do seem to see the world as composed of "little men" buffeted about by forces they can neither withstand or comprehend.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> That no more concerns me that green technology companies, energy companies, carbon traders and socialists who believe in wealth re-distribution are spending billions to push their views--using the same tactics used by tobacco companies to discredit the science linking smoking with lung cancer and heart disease.


Got anything to support this assertion? Or are you hoping we'll just take your word for it?



> You really do seem to see the world as composed of "little men" buffeted about by forces they can neither withstand or comprehend.


You really seem to have no comprehension of my world view at all.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Got anything to support this assertion? Or are you hoping we'll just take your word for it?


All you're bringing to the table is stories of funding by various parties. Does that prove they believe they are lying?


----------



## eMacMan

Let's see the IPCC is the source of almost 100% of the science supporting man made global warming. IPCC is funded by governments and the Gore Gang. Both are mandating that the scientists present this particular view. Governments want this scientific OK to levy massive carbon taxes. The Gore Gang is hoping to sell the same carbon credits many times over thus making trillion$ as well. 

The guy getting kicked in the axis is the one who is already struggling to make ends meet. Has already done everything he could to reduce his heating bill. Is already driving the most economical car he can afford. Nothing he can do will reduce his impact any further, yet he will see major increases in his gas and electric bill, and have his earning abilities further eroded as he just cannot afford to drive to work. And just to add insult to injury the food he eats will also go up.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> All you're bringing to the table is stories of funding by various parties. Does that prove they believe they are lying?


No, it proves the oil industry is behind the media campaign to discredit climatologists. It very clearly lays out what PR companies are involved in this campaign (and the fact that these are the same companies as were hired by the tobacco industry in the 70's and 80's to discredit the scientists who were claiming that there was a consensus on the linkage between smoking and lung cancer), how much money is being spent, etc. etc. etc.

You claim


> carbon traders and socialists who believe in wealth re-distribution are spending billions to push their views


and I'm asking where you get this information. Who are these socialists and carbon-traders? How many billions are being spent? Who's getting these billions? How is the expenditure of these billions analogous to what the tobacco industry did to discredit science?


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Let's see the IPCC is the source of almost 100% of the science supporting man made global warming.


This is entirely incorrect. The vast majority of the science supporting anthropogenic climate change was produced by independent academic researchers from around the world. The IPCC just collected the peer-reviewed science.


----------



## KC4

bryanc said:


> I'm not really surprised, but I had rather hoped that some of the more vociferous detractors of the scientific consensus regarding climate change would read and comment on the PDF I linked earlier in the thread.
> 
> Can I conclude from this resounding silence that you all know that the oil industry is spending huge amounts of money to discredit the science, using the same tactics (and in many cases the same companies) as the tobacco industry used to discredit the science linking smoking with lung cancer and heart disease, and choose to believe the FUD anyway?
> 
> Does it not concern people that our society is being actively mis-informed by powerful corporate interests pushing an anti-science agenda?


Oh bruther Bryan, are you really dragging that old pile of dry crap up again? Did we not beat or muck about in it sufficiently the first or second time it has been linked to this thread, and/or perhaps its predecessor thread?

It's so desiccated, not even the flies are very interested anymore. Maybe if you jiggle it a bit, a new crop of kiddies (and other innocents) will reward you with another collective "EEEEeeeeeeewww" response. 

I'm not sure what you are so shocked about. Why wouldn't a responsible industry or a corporation invest in defending itself? 

I do however, share a concern similar to one you voiced; that some people within our society are so susceptible to being misinformed ....and then they act upon it.


----------



## groovetube

exactly. The tobacco industry was just defending itself.


----------



## KC4

groovetube said:


> exactly. The tobacco industry was just defending itself.


Yup. Another well beaten pile o'crap that was and still is. Hard to believe people still smoke after that was exposed....

Hmmm, is petroleum addictive? Maybe it's just the money associated with it. It's time. We've gotta kick the habit.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> No, it proves the oil industry is behind the media campaign to discredit climatologists.


_Some_ members of the oil industry fund _some_ of the research. Some members of some oil companies also fund green research, You act as though it's this huge monolith instead of thousands of responsible people, scientists, organizations, academics and individuals. 



bryanc said:


> It very clearly lays out what PR companies are involved in this campaign (*and the fact that these are the same companies as were hired by the tobacco industry in the 70's and 80's* to discredit the scientists who were claiming that there was a consensus on the linkage between smoking and lung cancer), how much money is being spent, etc. etc. etc.


Folks, please do a screen cap here. This is a great example of an _ad hominem_ attack to show your kids.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Folks, please do a screen cap here. This is a great example of an _ad hominem_ attack to show your kids.


It would be an ad hominem if I had been arguing against the case being presented by these spin doctors on the basis of their being spin doctors, but I wasn't. I was arguing that YOU have not supported your position, and, as I made no claim that your position was invalid because of your personal characteristics, it is not an ad hominem attack.

Good job evading the question though.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> It would be an ad hominem if I had been arguing against the case being presented by these spin doctors on the basis of their being spin doctors, but I wasn't. I was arguing that YOU have not supported your position, and, as I made no claim that your position was invalid because of your personal characteristics, it is not an ad hominem attack.


You were arguing that the oil companies were somehow tarnished by using PR companies employed previously by tobacco companies.


----------



## Max

Can't wait 'till we get to the part where we start splitting hairs a millionth of an inch thick!


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> You were arguing that the oil companies were somehow tarnished by using PR companies employed previously by tobacco companies.


No, I was illustrating some of the evidence I had provided to support my contention that the oil industry was behind the media campaign to discredit the science, and pointing out that this evidence has specific claims with verifiable citations. In contrast, you have made the claim that "socialists are spending billions" in a similar media campaign that engages in the same kinds of underhanded and dishonest tactics.

I asked you for evidence of this socialist conspiracy, and you responded that this was somehow an ad hominem attack. It is not. And you still have not supported your contention regarding this multi billion dollar socialist conspiracy.


----------



## eMacMan

Hardly a "socialist" conspiracy. The evidence is more than ample. Every climate change meeting centres around how to steal money to finance their agenda. Proposals like a 1% fee on bank transactions, carbon taxes and carbon credit gouging are just a handful of the ideas trotted out. *

They all have one thing in common, the guy being hurt the most is the guy that has already reduced his impact to a minimum. He cannot further reduce but will be mercilessly gouged nonetheless. *


----------



## SINC

> The global average temperature has increased over the past 160 years, but short-term trends in temperature and sea ice seem to be at odds with each other and need more research, the UK Met Office's Hadley Center said.


World warmer, short-term trends need study: report: Scientific American



> However, short-term trends in temperature and sea ice seem to be at odds with each other. *The rate of temperature increases has slowed over the past 10 years, while the level of sea ice has increased.*
> 
> Climate models suggest that the internal variability of the climate system *may be responsible for the recent decrease in the rate of warming, the report said*.
> 
> Changes in solar activity, water vapor, increased aerosol emissions from Asia and changes to the way sea surface temperatures are measured over the past decade could have contributed to some artificial cooling, the report said.
> 
> "We expect warming to increase in the next few years ... However, other future external factors, *such as volcanic eruptions or changes in solar activity, could prolong the current reduction in warming," the report said.*


Emphasis mine.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Emphasis mine.


The level of uncertainty is shocking considering they wish people to build policy around this. Why don't we say that the reduction in CO2 from Russia is causing the cooling, since that makes about as much sense as everything else they're positing here?


----------



## eMacMan

Interestingly, "Scientists see no connection to melting Arctic Ice", even though the timing corresponds perfectly to the recent melting. 



> New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests that a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade.
> 
> Hidden 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) beneath the Arctic surface, the volcanoes can range up to more than a mile (2 kilometers) in diameter and a few hundred yards (meters) tall. They formed along the Gakkel Ridge, a lengthy crack in the ocean crust where two rocky plates are spreading apart, pulling new melted rock to the surface.
> 
> Until now, scientists thought undersea volcanoes only dribbled lava from cracks in the seafloor. The extreme pressure from the overlying water makes it difficult for gas and magma to blast outward.
> 
> But the Gakkel Ridge, which is relatively unexplored and considered unique for its slow spreading rate, is just the place for surprises.


Volcanoes erupting beneath Arctic ice - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com

As previously stated climate science is in its infancy and the assumption that all is known when the current computer models can't even predict the past, becomes more and more absurd as such discoveries come to light.

YouTube - I'm A Denier


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> The evidence is more than ample. Every climate change meeting centres around how to steal money to finance their agenda.


You obviously don't attend the same meetings I do. None of the meetings I've attended regarding the scientific evidence for global warming has involved any discussion of these things.

Could it be that you're confusing science with politics?


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> World warmer, short-term trends need study: report: Scientific American
> 
> Emphasis mine.


Kudos to you for making the effort to read Scientific American regarding this issue. But with all due respect to SA, that's not really akin to understanding the science on the issue. SA is the 'Readers Digest' of the scientific world; anything you read there has been dumbed down to the point of being only vaguely related to the current understanding in the field.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of SA, and I read it myself to keep up with cosmology, astrophysics, and other fields that I don't have enough of the basic background in to understand at any more advanced level. But I wouldn't take having read an article in SA as the basis on which to tell a bunch of the best minds in the field that they don't know what they're talking about.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The level of uncertainty is shocking considering they wish people to build policy around this. Why don't we say that the reduction in CO2 from Russia is causing the cooling, since that makes about as much sense as everything else they're positing here?


This is an extraordinary posting. You take it from a Scientific American article, that there's a shocking level of uncertainty in the field of climatology. This is akin to concluding that Melville was a bad writer, because Moby Dick was really long, and you can read the Cole's Notes on it in a few hours. 

Then you attribute something completely irrelevant to "them", leaving it to us to determine who "they" are. I presume you mean the scientists.

Finally, you suggest that "they" have been posting similarly ridiculous things here, when in fact, as far as I'm aware, there has never been a posting here from a qualified climatologist (which has been one of the major points I have made over and over).

If you can find a way to pack more fallacies into one posting, you may accidentally create a fallacy singularity and destroy the internet.


----------



## Max

Note to Macfury: please do not destroy the internet. I derive too much pleasure from its many hilarious absurdities.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Interestingly, "Scientists see no connection to melting Arctic Ice", even though the timing corresponds perfectly to the recent melting.


Yeah, because, ya know, those scientists have no idea about how water and temperature and complicated things like that work... There's no way they'd have considered this in their paper they published in Nature. Let's not even bother to read it before we assume they're idiots.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Note to Macfury: please do not destroy the internet. I derive too much pleasure from its many hilarious absurdities.


Wouldn't dream of it. Where else could I enjoy explaining the difference between "posting" and "positing" to such effect?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Wouldn't dream of it. Where else could I enjoy explaining the difference between "posting" and "positing" to such effect?


:lmao: Nice catch, and I'll admit it was unintentional, but I think it works better the way I wrote it.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Yeah, because, ya know, those scientists have no idea about how water and temperature and complicated things like that work... There's no way they'd have considered this in their paper they published in Nature. Let's not even bother to read it before we assume they're idiots.


Course these are the same scientists who prior to this discovery, thought such massive volcanoes could not exist at those depths.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Course these are the same scientists who prior to this discovery, thought such massive volcanoes could not exist at those depths.


These are the same guys who've been studying these volcanos since the late '90s, and who've published on their geochemical/geophysical effects extensively. When they say "people thought such volcanoes couldn't exist as such depths" what they're trying to do is emphasize how interesting and exciting their research findings are. It's not like this is some new discovery that hasn't been considered as something that might affect ice thicknesses, and, while it's always possible that they're wrong, if anyone knows how these volcanos might affect the arctic ice, these are them.

It is also not the case that these eruptions coincide with the recent rapid thinning of the arctic ice. The latest major Gakkel eruptions were in 1999.

My point is, until and unless you've read and understood the relevant research, you should not assume the scientists doing it are dummies who can't figure out what their data means. If they say it's not affecting the ice thickness, they have reasons for saying that. If you doubt them, by all means go and look at the data, but don't assume they didn't consider it.


----------



## MannyP Design

I think we all could use a lot less assuming, but I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.


----------



## FeXL

*Sunovagun. The MWP was global...*

...and, "the present state of reduced ice on the western Antarctic Peninsula is not unprecedented" 



> Looking a little further abroad, Hall et al. say their "evidence for reduced ice extent at 700-970 cal. yr B.P. is consistent with tree-ring data from New Zealand that show a pronounced peak in summer temperatures (Cook et al., 2002)," and that "New Zealand glaciers were retracted at the same time (Schaefer et al., 2009)." Moreover, they add that their data "are compatible with a record of glacier fluctuations from southern South America, the continental landmass closest to Antarctica (Strelin et al., 2008)." And, last of all, the timing of the warm interval discovered by Hall et al. (AD 1030-1300) compares well with that of the entire globe, as may be seen on CO2 Science's Interactive Map and Time Domain Plot of their Medieval Warm Period Project.


----------



## FeXL

Linky



> Based on isotopic soil carbon measurements made on 24 modern soils and 30 buried soils scattered between latitudes 48 and 32°N and longitudes 106 and 98°W, Nordt et al. developed a time series of C4 vs. C3 plant dynamics for the past 12 ka (ka = 1000 14C yr BP) in the mixed and shortgrass prairie of the U.S. Great Plains; and because, as they describe it, the percent soil carbon derived from C4 plants "corresponds strongly with summer temperatures as reflected in the soil carbon pool (Nordt et al., 2007; von Fischer et al., 2008)," they were able to devise a history of the relative warmth of the climate of the region over this protracted period.
> 
> Nordt et al.'s data suggest that their region of study was slightly warmer than it has yet to be in modern times during parts of both the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods, and *that it was significantly warmer during a sizeable portion the mid-Holocene Thermal Maximum or Climatic Optimum*, as it is sometimes called.
> 
> It therefore appears that for a broad swath of the midsection of the United States stretching from the center of Texas all the way to the U.S. border with Canada (and probably some distance beyond), the supposedly unprecedented warming of the 20th century (according to claims of the world's climate alarmists) was not unprecedented at all, having likely been surpassed one thousand, two thousand and four to five thousand years ago, when there was much less CO2 in the air than there is today. *This observation thus begs the question of what was the cause of those earlier warmer-than-present periods. The answer of Nordt et al. is that "these warm intervals ... exhibit a strong correlation to increases in solar irradiance," as per the irradiance reconstruction of Perry and Hsu (2000).*


Emphasis mine.

Yet more support for solar effects on climate, as opposed to CO2.


----------



## FeXL

*Compelling Evidence of Cosmic Ray-Climate Relationship*

Linky



> A paper published today in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds "perhaps the most compelling evidence presented thus far of a GCR [Galactic Cosmic Ray]-climate relationship." The galactic cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al explains how small changes in the solar magnetic field during solar cycles can be amplified via effects on galactic cosmic rays, which in turn seed cloud formation to affect global climate.
> 
> Dr. Roy Spencer illustrates the magnitude of poorly-understood cloud effects on climate in his new book, "The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling."
> 
> As also noted in a paper presented earlier this year by physicist Dr. Horst Borchert, satellite measurements show that global warming between about 1980 to 2008 was "not anthropogenic but caused by natural activities of the Sun’s surface" via the GCR-climate relationship.


----------



## eMacMan

Sadly FeXL these have not been peer reviewed by the Global Alarmists and therefore do not count as "real" science.

I believe you will find that disclaimer somewhere in the Gospel according to St. Gore.beejacon


----------



## groovetube

it isn't the 'global Alarmists' who do the peer reviewing.

I think Bryanc is fairly straightforward in his info no?


----------



## SINC

Uh, no, bryanc would be the first to tell you he does not peer review climate data. He has pointed out many times here that even he does not fully understand the science and relies on the research of those qualified in the climate field. In other words he trusts the climate scientists and their peers that review the data. I'm pretty sure that is the case, although I don't want to put words in his mouth. It's just the way I understand his explanations here.


----------



## groovetube

uh, re-read what I said. Your post had nothing to do with mine at all.


----------



## SINC

Sorry, your writing style implied to me that byanc peer reviewed data on climate.


----------



## MannyP Design

Admit it… everyone's just posting for the sake of the contest.


----------



## eMacMan

Sheesh so now we getting into semantics. Obviously I should have said: "The Global Warming Alarmist 'scientists' who are members of the IPCC have not peer reviewed...."


----------



## MannyP Design

eMacMan said:


> Sheesh so now we getting into semantics. Obviously I should have said: "The Global Warming Alarmist 'scientists' who are members of the IPCC have not peer reviewed...."


It's all about the details. :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc

*Pity the kids*



> * Royal Society paints picture of a world 4 °C warmer *
> 
> 
> 
> 11:44 29 November 2010 by *Michael Marshall*
> For similar stories, visit the *Climate Change* Topic Guide
> The average global temperature is likely to be 4 °C higher than in pre-industrial times by 2055 if greenhouse gas emissions are not slowed – that means a 16 °C rise in the Arctic (Source: Met Office Hadley Centre)
> Enlarge image
> 
> As reported by _New Scientist_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> last year, UK Met Office researchers have shown that the world could warm by 4 °C by 2060, devastating much of the Amazon rainforest and disrupting the monsoon cycle. Now the UK's Royal Society has published detailed study of how the world will look when it is 4 °C warmer.
> Water shortages will become more severe, says Fai Fung of the University of Oxford, and colleagues. The extent of the warming depends in large part on our actions. If, by cutting emissions we limit global warming to 2 °C, projections suggest water supplies will dwindle because of demand from the growing population. But at 4 °C, a warmer, drier climate will become the biggest threat to water availability.
> Most of sub-Saharan Africa will see shorter growing seasons, according to Philip Thornton of the International Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi, Kenya, and colleagues. As a result, average maize production will drop 19 per cent and bean production by 47 per cent compared with current levels.
> Extreme weather, sea-level rise and water shortages will will drive many people to migrate, says François Gemenne of the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations in Paris, France. But the poorest may be unable to move. Gemenne says we should make it easier for people to move country.
> Journal reference:  _Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A_


----------



## Macfury

Yes--all based on a *COMPUTER MODEL* that is *programmed* to accept carbon dioxide as the instigator. If I programmed it to accept the passage of time as the instigator it would also show dire results by mid-century. This is the same computer modeling that has failed to predict longer term climate trends for a decade or more. 

Note that the theme of the symposium that generated these reports was called "Four Degrees and Beyond" therefore only people wishing to discuss scenaria of temperature increases of four degrees (and beyond) are included.


----------



## SINC

From Environment Canada Edmonton:



> Another uneventful weather day to wrap up the month of November. After crunching the numbers, both precipitation and daytime highs were bang on for the month. Avg. snowfall for November is 17.9 cm. Nov. 2010 brought in 17.1 cm. Average daytime high is -8.2. Nov. 2010 was a little cooler at -9.2.


YIKES! 1° colder on average! Run! An ice age is looming. Seems to fly in the face of those warmist predictions, doesn't it?


----------



## MannyP Design

Funny thing about averages… they can be skewed by a single anomaly.


----------



## FeXL

> UK Met Office researchers have shown that the world could warm by 4 °C by 2060


Is that the same MET that couldn't predict within about 20 degrees and 6 feet of snow what last winter's UK weather was going to be like?

And now they're predicting what's going to happen to the climate half a century ahead?

Am I reading this right?


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> Am I reading this right?


Incredible, ain't it?


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Is that the same MET that couldn't predict within about 20 degrees and 6 feet of snow what last winter's UK weather was going to be like?
> 
> And now they're predicting what's going to happen to the climate half a century ahead?
> 
> Am I reading this right?


Sadly you are. 

What really scares me is that 4° in the other direction would have you and I under about half a mile of snow and ice. Given the METs record for accuracy, the glaciers would seem to be the odds on favourite here.


----------



## MacDoc

> *Earth's Lakes Are Warming, NASA Study Finds*
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> enlarge_
> 
> 
> _Tahoe, seen here from Emerald Bay, was one of the primary validation sites for the global lake study. The lake, which straddles the borders of California and Nevada, is the largest alpine lake in North America. (Credit: NASA-JPL)_
> 
> ScienceDaily (Nov. 29, 2010) — In the first comprehensive global survey of temperature trends in major lakes, NASA researchers determined Earth's largest lakes have warmed during the past 25 years in response to climate change.
> Researchers Philipp Schneider and Simon Hook of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., used satellite data to measure the surface temperatures of 167 large lakes worldwide.
> They reported an average warming rate of 0.45 degrees Celsius (0.81 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade, with some lakes warming as much as 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade. The warming trend was global, and the greatest increases were in the mid- to high-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.
> "Our analysis provides a new, independent data source for assessing the impact of climate change over land around the world," said Schneider, lead author of the study published in the journal _Geophysical Research Letters_. "The results have implications for lake ecosystems, which can be adversely affected by even small water temperature changes."
> Small changes in water temperature can result in algal blooms that can make a lake toxic to fish or result in the introduction of non-native species that change the lake's natural ecosystem.
> Scientists have long used air temperature measurements taken near Earth's surface to compute warming trends. More recently, scientists have supplemented these measurements with thermal infrared satellite data that can be used to provide a comprehensive, accurate view of how surface temperatures are changing worldwide.
> The NASA researchers used thermal infrared imagery from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and European Space Agency satellites. They focused on summer temperatures (July to September in the Northern Hemisphere and January to March in the Southern Hemisphere) because of the difficulty in collecting data in seasons when lakes are ice-covered and/or often hidden by clouds. Only nighttime data were used in the study.
> The bodies studied were selected from a global database of lakes and wetlands based on size (typically at least 500 square kilometers -- 193 square miles -- or larger) or other unique characteristics of scientific merit. The selected lakes also had to have large surface areas located away from shorelines, so land influences did not interfere with the measurements. Satellite lake data were collected from the point farthest from any shoreline.
> The largest and most consistent area of warming was northern Europe. The warming trend was slightly weaker in southeastern Europe, around the Black and Caspian seas and Kazakhstan. The trends increased slightly farther east in Siberia, Mongolia and northern China.
> In North America, trends were slightly higher in the southwest United States than in the Great Lakes region. Warming was weaker in the tropics and in the mid-latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere. The results were consistent with the expected changes associated with global warming.
> The satellite temperature trends largely agreed with trends measured by nine buoys in the Great Lakes, Earth's largest group of freshwater lakes in terms of total surface area and volume.
> The lake temperature trends were also in agreement with independent surface air temperature data from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. In certain regions, such as the Great Lakes and northern Europe, water bodies appear to be warming more quickly than surrounding air temperature.


Earth's lakes are warming, NASA study finds

The Polar Bear club is at risk.....


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Uh, no, bryanc would be the first to tell you he does not peer review climate data. He has pointed out many times here that even he does not fully understand the science and relies on the research of those qualified in the climate field. In other words he trusts the climate scientists and their peers that review the data. I'm pretty sure that is the case, although I don't want to put words in his mouth. It's just the way I understand his explanations here.


:clap:

SINC is exactly correct. 

While I encourage everyone to become more sophisticated and widely read about all fields of science, it is important to have some humility and know our limits. We can't be experts in everything, and when there is a strong consensus among experts in a field in which you lack sophistication, it's silly to argue that they've all got it wrong and you know better.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Earth's lakes are warming, NASA study finds
> 
> The Polar Bear club is at risk.....


Only five days late to the discussion on that one, Mac Doc, but you're improving:

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else...-authoritative-ghg-thread-98.html#post1031980

Do we need any more proof that you don't actually read these threads?


----------



## MacDoc

of course 4 degrees globally has enormous impact locally.....

consider the scale at the bottom


----------



## Macfury

The above is a work of speculative fiction, not any indication of future climate. Why don't you just jack it up by eight degrees and make a movie about it?


----------



## MacDoc

A note on the maturity of AGW.....for those that are under the misguided impression that it's new



> I don’t understand how anyone can neglect these 4 basic facts:
> 
> 1) Greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and re-emit much of it back toward the surface, thus warming the planet (less heat escapes; Fourier, 1824).
> 2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus has the capacity to warm the planet (Tyndall, 1858).
> 3) By burning fossil fuels, humans activities are increasing the greenhouse gas concentration of the Earth (Arrhenius, 1896).
> 4) Increased greenhouse gas concentrations lead to more heat being trapped, warming the planet further (Arrhenius, 1896).
> 
> 
> Anyone that is neglecting these basic facts without some substantial evidence that contradicts them should not be paid much heed.


Pedigree is similar to evolution and plate tectonics and likely far better understood than the latter....

Response 1
RealClimate: So how did that global cooling bet work out?


----------



## Macfury

> 1) Greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and re-emit much of it back toward the surface, thus warming the planet (less heat escapes; Fourier, 1824).


Re-emit _some_ of it back to the planet--and some of it goes back in an upward direction. Fourier never backed up his theories with mathematics or anything more than a series of musings which included some mistaken notion about the effect of the heat of stars on the Earth and attributing warm climates to the thickness of the Earth's crust at various locations.



> 2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus has the capacity to warm the planet (Tyndall, 1858).


And pales in quantity beside water vapour, which is by far the most prominent of the so-called GHGs. The primacy of carbon dioxide has never been established.



> 3) By burning fossil fuels, humans activities are increasing the greenhouse gas concentration of the Earth (Arrhenius, 1896).


By an infinitesimal amount. But not significantly more so than volcanoes and wildfires. Neither has an increase in the levels of carbon dioxide been shown to precede warming. In fact, such an increase in levels appear to _follow_ warming.



> 4) Increased greenhouse gas concentrations lead to more heat being trapped, warming the planet further (Arrhenius, 1896).


Not at all proven. Knut Angstrom disproved most of the meanderings of Arrhenius shortly after his theories were published. Even the notion of the Earth as "greenhouse" is a flawed concept. Fourier created an actual working greenhouse model and then declared that this represented the workings of the Earth. What he needed to do instead was to prove that the Earth acted in the same manner as a greenhouse. He did _not_ do that. Most greenhouse theories assumes a flat Earth anyway, and I suspect even you have moved beyond that notion, MacDoc.

As much as I appreciate the primitive understandings of these two gentlemen, and their willingness to think outside their 19th Century box, they were scientists of their time with a flawed understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and the nature of the Earth. The theory is not new--and it is also not proven.

That you would hold them up as some sort of authorities to prove your Global Warming theories is nothing short of shocking. Although, I will have to admit that I believe that, were Fourier somehow brought back from the dead, he would quickly ascend to the headship of the IPCC.


----------



## SINC

*10 Reasons Why the Cancun Climate Talks Will Fail*



> For the next couple of weeks, thousands of government officials, NGOs, environmental activists and reporters will gather in Cancun, Mexico for international climate negotiations, officially known as the Sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-16) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
> 
> It's fitting that the talks are being held in a vacation resort, where people go to escape -- because only by ignoring what's happening in the rest of the world is it possible to take these U.N. negotiations seriously.
> 
> Heading into the Cancun talks, expectations are low. They aren't low enough. Here are 10 reasons why it will be hard, if not impossible, to bring about meaningful action to curb global warming through this U.N. process.


10 Reasons Why the Cancun Talks Will Fail | Reuters


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> 10 Reasons Why the Cancun Talks Will Fail | Reuters


If the Cancun talks fail, MacDoc will be that much more likely to leave the country. But the talks will fail, since only Obama and a few others seem to go along with the actual intent of the talks--to subsidize the failing economies of other nations.


----------



## Macfury

*Kyoto pulls out of Kyoto!*

I suppose this will be another country MacDoc will not flee to. Japan has just announced it wants nothing to do with the Kyoto Accord and will not attend future climate meetings:



> Speaking for the Japanese government, Jun Arima, an official from his government's economics trade and industry department, left other delegates to the Cancun junket in no doubt about Japan's view of the agreement.
> 
> "Japan will not inscribe its target under the Kyoto Protocol on any conditions or under any circumstances," he said. "It does not make sense [to extend Kyoto]."


Pragmatism wins as Japan pulls the plug on Kyoto | The Daily Telegraph


----------



## eMacMan

The intent of the talks is less to subsidize countries with failing economies, and more to continue funneling funds to the banksters through those countries.

Which make the intent even more evil by a power of about 1000.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> I suppose this will be another country MacDoc will not flee to. Japan has just announced it wants nothing to do with the Kyoto Accord and will not attend future climate meetings:
> 
> 
> 
> Pragmatism wins as Japan pulls the plug on Kyoto | The Daily Telegraph


Make that eleven reasons!


----------



## eMacMan

An excellent article on Henrick Svensmark.
Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts” | Watts Up With That?

Not adequately covered is that he can produce physical evidence that backs his theories and that the theory clearly explains the Medieval Warming period and the Maunder Minimum. Something AGW fails to do so badly, that Mann attempted to write both of these periods out of climate history.

Was also covered on the Nature of Things last night on CBC. Amazingly the evidence was so compelling that Suzuki (AKA Mr Global Warming) actually allowed it to be mentioned without the normal disclaimer. The physical evidence is indeed quite impressive. More importantly not only is the suns magnetic field weakening at this time but earths is as well. This sort of double whammy could indeed have us teetering on the edge of an ice-age. Certainly explains the brutally cold winters in Europe, Western Canada, South America, and Antarctica over the past two years.

In any event it is quite possible that Global Warming Theories will be put on ice in the very near future.


----------



## adagio

The cloud mysteries. Very interesting and worth watching.

"Although Denmark’s top climate scientist, Henrik Svensmark was only a Greenpeace activist’s stone’s throw away from the Climate Summit, he was never invited to address the conference. This world-renowned physicist who works at the National Space Center in Copenhagen, is strictly persona non grata to advocates of the theory of man made global warming. This may seem odd because *Svensmark is to cloud science as Albert Einstein was to the Theory of Relativity*.

***for Bryanc's benefit. I tried searching to find out which oil company is funding Svensmark. Perhaps you know and can pass on this critical information. Thanks!


----------



## eMacMan

Here is noted Canadian climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball's take on oil company sponsorship. He not only has impeccable credentials but a long history of pointing out the weakness of the science behind AGW. 



> In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. *So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> *Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
> 
> 
> I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
> 
> 
> 
> As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. *The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted. *


Entire article here:
Global Warming, climate change facts, articles


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> Here is noted Canadian climatologist Dr. Timothy Balls take on oil company sponsorship. He not only has impeccable credentials but a long history of pointing out the weakness of the science behind AGW.
> 
> 
> 
> Entire article here:
> Global Warming, climate change facts, articles


Dr. Timothy Ball*s*?
:lmao::lmao:

Let's start there. :clap:


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> Dr. Timothy Ball*s*?
> :lmao::lmao:
> 
> Let's start there. :clap:


Trust GT to find a missed apostrophe while missing the point.


----------



## groovetube

and trust true brilliance in quoting someone who's been busted by being funded by the oil $$.

And missing the true hilarity of the mistake...

edit: gawd I hear the google servers screamin' from here.


----------



## Macfury

*The Groovetube greenhouse gas digest*

In case you were worried that you were missing out on some climatological data or something:



groovetube said:


> oh but his neighbour, whom we don't know, and haven't heard -his- message, is.
> 
> Mercer, regardless of what he said, because apparently this isn't important since it wasn't referred to in any way, is a socialist leech, and even worse, he works for the cee bee cee.





groovetube said:


> gee I would have thought that was a 'fact' and greeted with clapping all round.





groovetube said:


> exactly. The tobacco industry was just defending itself.





groovetube said:


> it isn't the 'global Alarmists' who do the peer reviewing.
> 
> I think Bryanc is fairly straightforward in his info no?





groovetube said:


> uh, re-read what I said. Your post had nothing to do with mine at all.





groovetube said:


> Dr. Timothy Ball*s*?
> :lmao::lmao:
> 
> Let's start there. :clap:





groovetube said:


> it ticked you off THAT much that you had to go collect a few posts of me mocking geniuses parroting whatever they could find off google?
> 
> Well you just GO GIRL!


----------



## groovetube

it ticked you off THAT much that you had to go collect a few posts of me mocking geniuses parroting whatever they could find off google?

Well you just GO GIRL!


----------



## Macfury

Got it!


----------



## eMacMan

See he missed the mark again.



> In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies.* That is a lie.* Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?


----------



## groovetube

No I think if you made the text bigger it might make the bull more believable.


----------



## FeXL

New peer reviewed paper shows just how bad the climate models really are.



> One of the biggest, if not the biggest issues of climate science skepticism is the criticism of over-reliance on computer model projections to suggest future outcomes. In this paper, climate models were hindcast tested against actual surface observations, and found to be seriously lacking.


and



> The graph...shows temperature in the blue lines, and model runs in other colors. Not only are there no curve shape matches, temperature offsets are significant as well. In the study, they also looked at precipitation, which fared even worse in correlation. The bottom line: if the models do a poor job of hindcasting, why would they do any better in forecasting? This from the conclusion sums it up pretty well:
> 
> _…we think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms._


From the Abstract:



> We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor.


So...the GCM's can't forecast. They can't hindcast. Aside from chewing up grant money, is there anything they can do?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> So...the GCM's can't forecast. They can't hindcast. Aside from chewing up grant money, is there anything they can do?


Sure--scream and shout over warming predictions ranging within their own stated margin of error.


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> New peer reviewed paper shows just how bad the climate models really are.
> So...the GCM's can't forecast. They can't hindcast. Aside from chewing up grant money, is there anything they can do?


Well, they can come here and claim that those "experts" know what they're talking about. Seems to me though that trust they place in those "climate scientists", who now can't pass a peer review, is pretty much shot to hell, isn't it?


----------



## BigDL

Say fellas have you heard the bull about tobacco causing cancer. What do Doctors know!


----------



## groovetube

I don't think there were any evidences put forward to dispel those bunkum theories, were there.


----------



## Max

Tarnation! They should take all those goldarned climate scientist idjits, put 'em on a boat, and make 'em sail it waaaaaay the heck over to the very edge of the world... and let 'em just fall right off.


----------



## groovetube

shhhh, I'm watching the news sites for something that supports my position.


----------



## MacDoc

How the denidiots get it so wrong....courtesy of a real climate scientist who happens to know what he's talking about.....



> *Coldest Winter in 1000 Years Cometh – not.*
> 
> Filed under:
> 
> Communicating Climate
> Reporting on climate
> — stefan @ 4 December 2010
> *This claim circulates in the internet and in many mainstream media as well: Scientists have allegedly predicted the coldest winter in 1,000 years for Europe. What is behind it? Nothing – no scientist has predicted anything like it. A Polish tabloid made up the story. An interesting lesson about today´s media. *
> _By Stefan Rahmstorf and Olivia Serdeczny
> _
> We had read about it a few times and last Wednesday even were asked by German TV about the allegedly coldest winter in 1000 years, predicted by (depending on the source) Polish or Russian climatologists or meteorologists. Reason enough for us to take a closer look at the story behind the story.
> It did not take much googling to find the source: various articles on the internet name the Polish scientist Michał Kowalewski, sometimes in the Russian spelling version of Mikhail Kovalevski. A few clicks later we arrive at the original article with Kowalewski´s quotes. Except that Kowalewski does not predict a record winter there – the “millennium winter” merely appears in the headline. A closer reading of the article quickly reveals: the quotes were answers to questions concerning the role of the Gulf Stream for Europe´s climate. The frosty temperatures are hypothetical effects of a breakdown of the Gulf Stream – which, as Kowalewski points out, can be pretty much ruled out.
> We asked Kowalewski for his comments on the media coverage and promptly got his answer in an email from Warsaw:The reports in some media are absolutely unbelievable. A journalist who interviewed me for radio had asked me about the theoretical climatic effects of a breakdown of the Gulf Stream. I answered that this purely hypothetic scenario would lead to much colder winters in Poland. A few days later I found on the internet the article of a journalist who mixed his own words with some of my quotes without their context so well that a completely new meaning came out. An absolutely absurd thesis. My quotes as such are correct, so I was not able to demand a correction. ​
> Winter has Europe in its grip: the Süring-building of the Potsdam Institute.
> It’s an interesting and insightful tale how this story spread. Here is a brief chronology:
> *September, 10.* Michał Kowalewski is interviewed by the Polish radio station tok.fm. The same day the website of a Polish tabloid, Gazeta.pl, publishes an article with the headline of a „millennium record winter“ („once-in-a-millennium winter“). A certain Gianluigi Zangari is being quoted at the outset. He has apparently claimed to have found a slow-down of the Gulf Stream in satellite data, which he attributes to the BP oil spill (we did not follow this bizarre claim to the source). Subsequently Kowalewski´s radio interview is brought in – in order to explain the Gulf Stream and its effects on climate in general.
> *September, 12.* „Fakt“, a Polish tabloid, writes „Millennium Winter is Coming!“ Again the BP oil spill is blamed. This time, however, without any reference to Zangari, so readers could easily be left with the impression that this is Kowalewski´s idea.
> *September, 22.* The Voice of Russia reports that the Polish scientist „Mikhail Kovalevski“ is worried about the Gulf Stream breaking down, which Russian scientists counter as being an exaggeration.
> *Oktober, 4.* The Russian RT News Service predicts „The coldest winter in 1.000 years“. Which is explained by the Gulf Stream having slowed down by half. RT refers to Polish scientists: “Polish scientists say that it means the stream will not be able to compensate for the cold from the Arctic winds. According to them, when the stream is completely stopped, a new Ice Age will begin in Europe”. This is where the Russian Vadim Zavotschenkow enters the scene. However, he mentions merely a cold winter: “Although the forecast for the next month is only 70 percent accurate, I find the cold winter scenario quite likely”.
> *Oktober, 4.* The “climate sceptics” website wattsupwiththat, noted for their false reports, takes up the RT piece, presents it together with The Voice of Russia and mentions „Mikhail Kovalevski“. Watts seems to be the bridge for the story´s crossing into the western media. Is it just coincidence that the „record cold winter“ story nicely suits the political agenda of the climate sceptics?
> From then on, the story is repeated on many other European media, including serious newspapers and television.
> It is staggering how one journalist just copied another, sometimes even embellishing the story, without ever bothering to check the source or ask Kowalewski himself. It took us less than ten minutes of googling to get serious doubts about whether this story was real. The familiar pattern of „Chinese whispers“ emerges here once again – the same that widely spread the false whatevergate-stories.
> But the often self-righteous free western press can actually learn a lesson from its Chinese counterpart in this case. The Chinese news agency Xinhua checked the story and issued the following on October, 20.:A forecast attributed to Polish scientists of the coldest European winter in 1,000 years has drawn plenty of media attention recently but investigations by Xinhua reporters have cast doubts on its veracity. ​p.s. There are, by the way, scientifically well-founded attempts to explain the currently cold weather in Europe. The basic check for seriousness: a peer-reviewed journal source is provided, and according to Google Scholar the author has a decent publication record. A millennium-record-winter, however, is not being predicted there.
> p.p.s. Should your newspaper have also reported this turkey, feel free to write a polite letter to the to editors asking for a correction. It is only if readers demand published information to be verified (or if needed corrected) that something will change to the better.
> This article is adapted from the German original at KlimaLounge.


RealClimate

where's Monty Python when you need him....

_*Watts* seems to be the bridge for the story´s crossing into the western media. Is it just coincidence that the „record cold winter“ story nicely suits the political agenda of the climate sceptics?_

fancy that...dear Anthony in the thick of the wrong again.....

bottom line 
*
It's getting warmer ( and REALLY getting warmer in Russia)
We're responsible due to fossil fuel use....*

what will the grand kids say about your denial??

something along the lines....
*
they wasted all the resources and cooked the planet doing so.*......some legacy


----------



## Macfury

Uhh. I don't think any of us were claiming it was the coldest winter in a thousand years. You must have meant to tell this to one of your friends.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> How the denidiots get it so wrong....courtesy of a real climate scientist who happens to know what he's talking about.....


Hmmm, as we begin a second consecutive winter with record low temperatures. Spare me the eye rolling please. tptptptp


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> Hmmm, as we begin a second consecutive winter with record low temperatures. Spare me the eye rolling please. tptptptp


Yep and the record lows being broken were set in 1996 and 2002. Not 100 or even 50 years ago.


----------



## Macfury

Never mind that NOAA has chosen to underrepresent Canada in its data collection circa 2008--so much of the cold weather doesn't even count. It's represented by "proxy data" from warmer climes.


----------



## MacDoc

Perhaps MF will enlighten the world with the physics that will STOP a 4 degree rise......

or perhaps his dissent is entirely speculative fiction without one single shred of climate science to support it....

Of course he knows far more than MIT or The Royal Society.
New MIT Study Shows Risks of Climate Change Doubled from Previous Assessment If No Action Taken Now | Global Warming is Real

...all hail to the emergent polymath......
*not......*


......just tiresome noise.......with rare change in amplitude in the monotone denial.....signal content zero 

Email this scientist....MF - tell him how misguided he is....that you know better.....
do you enjoy being a laughing stock??? Pitting your flawed understanding of your planet against the scientist working in the field......remarkable, and misguided hubris.



> *CO2, Mass Extinction of Species, and Climate Change*
> 
> by Andrew Glikson posted on Wednesday, 24 February 20106 Comments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 1. The terrestrial atmosphere as “lungs of the biosphere” – an analogy.
> 
> The release of more than 370 billion tons of carbon (GtC) from buried early biospheres, adding more than one half of the original carbon inventory of the atmosphere (~590 GtC), as well as the depletion of vegetation, have triggered a fundamental shift in the state of the atmosphere. Raising atmospheric CO2 level at a rate of 2 ppm/year, a pace unprecedented in the geological record, with the exception of the effects of CO2 released from craters excavated by large asteroid impacts, the deleterious effects of pollution and deforestation have reached a geological dimension, tracking toward conditions which existed on Earth in the mid-Pliocene, about 2.8 million years ago.
> Lost all too often in the climate debate is an appreciation of the delicate balance between the physical and chemical state of the atmosphere-ocean-land system and the evolving biosphere, which controls the emergence, survival and demise of species, including humans. By contrast to Venus, with its thick blanket of CO2 and sulphur dioxide greenhouse atmosphere, exerting extreme pressure (90 bars) at the surface, or Mars with its thin (0.01 bar) CO2 atmosphere, the presence in the Earth’s atmosphere of trace concentrations of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, nitric oxides, ozone) modulates surface temperatures in the range of -89 and +57.7 degrees Celsius and a mean of 14 degrees Celsius, allowing the presence of liquid water and thereby of life.
> Forming a thin breathable veneer only slightly more than one thousand the diameter of Earth, and evolving both gradually as well as through major perturbations with time, the Earth’s atmosphere acts as a lungs of the biosphere, allowing an exchange of carbon gases and oxygen with plants and animals, which in turn affect the atmosphere, for example through release of methane and photosynthetic oxygen (_Figure 1_).
> CO2 is 28 times more soluble in water than is oxygen. Above critical threshold CO2 becomes toxic for certain organisms. Marine organisms are more sensitive to changes in CO2 levels than are terrestrial organisms. Excess CO2 reduces the ability of respiratory pigments to oxygenate tissues, and makes body fluids more acidic, thereby hampering the production of carbonate hard parts like shells. Relatively modest but sustained increases in CO2 concentrations hamper the synthesis of proteins, reduce fertilization rates, and produce deformities in calcareous hard parts. The observed pattern of marine extinctions is consistent with hypercapnia (excessive levels of CO2), with related extinction events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 2. The relations between atmospheric CO2-equivalent (including the radiative forcing of methane) and mean global temperature, according to Charney’s climate sensitivity parameter (Hansen et al., 2007, 2008) (IPCC-2007). Circles mark new paleoclimate estimates of atmospheric conditions in the mid-Pliocene (2.8 million years ago) and the mid-Miocene (15 million years ago), with implications to current climate trajectories.
> 
> When the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rises above a critical threshold, climate shifts to a different state. Any significant increase in the level of carbon gases triggers powerful feedbacks. These include ice melt/warm water interaction, decline of ice reflection (albedo) and increase in infrared absorption by exposed water. Further release of CO2 from the oceans and from drying and burning vegetation shifts global climate zones toward the poles, warms the oceans and induces ocean acidification.
> The essential physics of the infrared absorption/emission resonance of greenhouse molecules is indicated by observations in nature and laboratory studies, as portrayed in the relations between atmospheric CO2 and mean global temperature projections (Figure 2).
> During most of Earth history the oxygen-poor composition of the atmosphere resulted in dominance of reduced carbon species in the air and the oceans, including methane and carbon monoxide, allowing mainly algae and bacteria to exist in the oceans (Figure 3). It is commonly held that, about 0.7 billion years ago, in the wake of the Marinoan glaciation (so-called “Snowball Earth”), oxygenation of low-temperature water allowed development of new oxygen-binding proteins and thereby of multicellular animals, followed by development of a rich variety of organisms – the “Cambrian explosion.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 3. An artist’s impression of Earth’s oceans as they may have appeared up to about 1 billion years ago, when the oceans were populated by single celled algae and bacteria.
> 
> 
> *Humans can not argue with the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere. *What is needed are urgent measures including
> 
> 
> Deep cuts in carbon emissions.
> Parallel Fast track transformation to non-polluting energy utilities – solar, solar-thermal, wind, tide, geothermal, hot rocks.
> Global reforestation and re-vegetation campaigns, including application of biochar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The alternative does not bear contemplation.
> *Andrew Glikson*
> _ Earth and paleoclimate scientist, Australian Earth and paleoclimate scientist, Australian National University_


this is what you fail to understand....

*Humans can not argue with the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere.

and you certainly can't 
*


----------



## MacDoc

remainder of article



> The present state of the biosphere, allowing survival of large mammals and of humans on the continents, developed when CO2 levels fell below about 500 ppm some 34 million years ago (end Eocene). At this stage, as well as following warm periods in the Oligocene (c. 25 million years ago) and mid-Miocene (about 15 million years ago), development of the Antarctic ice sheet led to a fundamental change in the global climate regime. About 2.8 million years ago (mid-Pliocene) the Greenland ice sheet and the Arctic Sea ice began to form, with further decline in global temperatures expressed through glacial-interglacial cycles regulated by orbital forcing (Milankovic cycles), with atmospheric CO2 levels oscillating between 180 and 280 ppm CO2 (Figure 4). These conditions allowed the emergence of humans in Africa and their migration all over the world (Figure 5).
> ), based on proxy studies (stomata fossil leaf pore densities; 13C isotopes in carbonate nodules in fossil soil), indicating the onset age of the Antarctic ice sheet (c. 34 Ma), West Antarctic ice sheet and Northern Hemisphere ice sheets (c. 3 Ma). Note the glacial-interglacial approximate upper limits at 500 ppm CO2.”]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 4. CO2 and deep ocean temperature changes during the Cainozoic (since 65 million years-ago [Ma
> 
> Recent paleoclimate studies, using multiple proxies (soil carbonate δ13C, alkenones, boron/calcium, stomata leaf pores), indicate that the current CO2 level of 388 ppm and CO2-equivalent level of 460 ppm (which includes the methane factor), commit warming above pre-industrial levels to 3 to 4 degrees C in the tropics and 10 degrees C in polar regions, tracking toward an ice-free Earth. Small human clans post-3 million years-ago responded to changing climates through migration within and out of Africa. **** sapiens emerged during the glacial period preceding the 124 thousand years-old Emian interglacial, when temperatures rose by about 1 degree C and sea levels by 6-8 meters relative to pre-industrial. The development of agriculture and thereby human civilization had to wait until climate stabilized about 8000 years ago, when large scale irrigation along the great river valleys (the Nile, Euphrates, Hindus and Yellow River) became possible.
> Since the 18th century mean global temperature has risen by about 0.8 degrees C. Another 0.5 degrees C is masked by industrial-emitted aerosols (SO2), and further rise ensues from current melting of the ice sheets and sea ice. The polar regions, acting as the “thermostats” of the Earth, are the source of the cold air current vortices and the cold ocean currents, such as the Humboldt and California current, which keep the Earth’s overall temperature balance, much as the blood stream regulates the body’s temperature and the supply of oxygen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 5. Human evolution in relation to the atmosphere from about 5 Ma (early Pliocene) . Upper blue plot represents paleo-deep sea temperature variations. Black plot represent atmospheric dustiness, corresponding to wind and glacial states. Discontinuous line below represents the duration of Milankovic cycles. Black marks below represent development of grasslands and decrease of organic productivity as the habitats shift from tropical to savannah conditions. Discontinuous lines below represent recorded durations of human species.
> 
> At 4 degrees Celsius advanced to total melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets leads to sea levels tens of meters higher than at present. Further rise of CO2-e above 500 ppm and mean global temperatures above 4 degrees C can only lead toward greenhouse Earth conditions such as existed during the Cretaceous and early Cainozoic (Figure 4).
> A rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration triggers feedback effects due to warming, desiccation and burning of vegetation, releasing more CO2. The onset of methane release from polar bogs and sediments is of major concern. Ice/melt water interaction proceeds as melt water melts more ice, ice loss results in albedo loss and exposed water absorb infrared heat, resulting in an amplified feedback cycle. Because CO2 is cumulative, with atmospheric residence time on the scale of centuries to millennia, stabilization of the climate through small incremental reduction in emission may not be sufficient to avoid runaway climate change and possible tipping points.
> Climate change is appropriately described as a global oxygenation event affecting geological carbon deposits as well as the present biosphere. At 2 ppm/year the pace of carbon oxidation exceeds the highest recorded geological rate of 0.4 ppm/year at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary at 55 Ma, when about 2000 GtC were burnt, triggering an extinction of species.
> Sea level rise constitutes a critical parameter which reflects all other components of climate change. Since the early 20th century the rate of sea level rise increased from about 1 mm/year to about 3.5 mm/year (1993 – 2009 mean rate 3.2+/-0.4 mm/year), representing a nearly fourfold increase since the onset of the industrial age (Figure 6).
> The Earth poles are warming at rates 3 to 4 times faster than low latitudes (Figure 7). The most detailed satellite information available shows that ice sheets in Greenland and western Antarctica are shrinking and in some places are already in runaway melt mode [10]. A new study, using 50 million laser readings from a NASA satellite, calculates changes in the height of the vulnerable but massive ice sheets and found them especially worse at their edges, where warmer water eats away from below. In some parts of Antarctica, ice sheets have been losing 30 feet a year in thickness since 2003.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 6. Sea level changes 1993 – 2009 scanned by the Topex and Jason satellites. University of Colorado, 2009 University of Colorado Global mean sea level
> 
> The consequences of open ended rise in atmospheric CO2 are manifest in the geological record (Frontispiece). The world is in a lag period, when increasing atmospheric energy is expressed by intense hurricanes, increased pressure at mid-latitude high pressure zones and shift of climate zones toward the poles. With ensuing desertification of temperate zones, i.e. southern Europe, southern Australia, southern Africa, the desiccated forests become prey to firestorms, such as in Victoria and California.
> There is nowhere the 6.5 billion of contemporary humans can go, not even the barren planets into the study of which space agencies have been pouring more funding than governments allocate for environmental mitigation to date. At 460 ppm CO2-equivalent, the climate is tracking close to the upper stability limit of the Antarctic ice sheet, defined at approximately 500 ppm [5,7]. Once transcended, mitigation measures would hardly be able to re-form the cryosphere.
> According to Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Climate Impacts Institute and advisor to the German government: “We’re simply talking about the very life support system of this planet”.


CO2, Mass Extinction of Species, and Climate Change | The LA Progressive


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, of all of the stuff you vomited on the page, only one nonsense phrase needs to be highlighted:

*Humans can not argue with the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere. *

Of course they can! Even the greenhouse gas theory has holes in it big enough to drive a truck through. We still can't decide whether increases in CO2 precede or follow an increase in temperature. You posted a half-page of gobbledygook about 17th and 18th Century scientists a few days back that was supposed proof of the theories to which you describe. When I tore those statements to ribbons you just blithely moved on and pretended that you hadn't done a massive face plant.

You're watching the Cancun talks fail. You're watching Japan pull out of any future climate talks, You're watching scientific dissent finally screwing up the courage to disagree with the rest of the pack. The carbon trading houses are closing down. People are downright frightened of nutballs like Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, who talks openly of seeding the upper atmosphere with sulfur dioxide to "cool down the planet."

Can I prove that the world won't warm by four degrees by the end of the century? No more than I can prove that it will cool by four, or stay the same. because we simply don't know enough about the physics of the real climate (not "toy" computer models) to make any successful predictions. Yes, I know the difference between weather and climate. I also know that when various august scientific bodies fail to predict the weather for 50 years running, then they have cumulatively failed to demonstrate an understanding of the climate as well.

I can inject a huge degree of uncertainty into almost all of the stuff you've copied down from a "progressive" web site and simply demolish other parts of it. But why bother? You never read what anyone writes here, and the moment I've removed one pile of manure, you're squatting afresh somewhere down the road.


----------



## groovetube

Sorry macdoc, anything over 5 lines is "vomiting on a page". You gotta dumb'er down for the masses.

this is rather interesting, coming from a tory in Harper's government...
Tory MP wants Harper to move faster on climate change - Politics and the Nation



> Mr. Speaker, the manufactured controversy known as “Climategate” has now been debunked by five reviews, including Britain's Royal Society and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. All concluded that scientists had not, as critics alleged, distorted scientific evidence about global warming.


bad tory, baaaaaaaad tory MP.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Hmmm, as we begin a second consecutive winter with record low temperatures. Spare me the eye rolling please. tptptptp


Gee on the Eastern shores we have just dealt with a Hurricane except after Dec. 01 they're not called Hurricanes.

The centre of low pressure was lower than Hurricane Igor. It came ashore bringing warmer southerly winds and storm surges near where I live.

Now for the startling news, *weather*, is not climate.


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> Now for the startling news, *weather*, is not climate.


GASP!!!!!

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?????

You doth blaspheme.


----------



## Macfury

Nice post GT--4 lines long I see.

It certainly has never been debunked, but "reviewed" by parties friendly to the accused of ClimateGate.


----------



## groovetube

sigh. Macfury you're just incorrigible.

First you complain about macdoc's "vomit", and when someone keeps'er simple, you still whine.

And my post had less to do with -proving- climategate's credibility than having a smile that a tory MP would stand up and defy the ruler.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> sigh. Macfury you're just incorrigible.
> 
> First you complain about macdoc's "vomit", and when someone keeps'er simple, you still whine.
> 
> And my post had less to do with -proving- climategate's credibility than having a smile that a tory MP would stand up and defy the ruler.


The "vomit" refers to the fact that this is just a huge splash of undisciplined posting. It makes no particular point, but merely regurgitates a large portion of another website.

Since I've never suggested that the government is a dictatorship, why should I be surprised that the occasional MP steps up to the plate with fears of global warming? Chong was already convinced enough to support Kyoto in 2004, so no surprise now,


----------



## groovetube

who said anything about a dictatorship? It's well known the PMO's obsession with muzzling MPs. Call that what you will.

And I was going to say, but I guess it's really just an unsaid that if a tory MP steps 'off-message' that there's some kind of backhanded swipe forthcoming.


----------



## MannyP Design

BigDL said:


> Gee on the Eastern shores we have just dealt with a Hurricane except after Dec. 01 they're not called Hurricanes.
> 
> The centre of low pressure was lower than Hurricane Igor. It came ashore bringing warmer southerly winds and storm surges near where I live.
> 
> Now for the startling news, *weather*, is not climate.


According to MacDoc's vomiting links-aplenty, it is. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

MannyP Design said:


> According to MacDoc's vomiting links-aplenty, it is. :lmao:


The rules of this are well established. If it supports global warming theory, then it's climate. All else is weather.


----------



## MannyP Design

Macfury said:


> The rules of this are well established. If it supports global warming theory, then it's climate. All else is weather.


Of course. Anyone else find it funny that one of the links actually had a reference to Wayne's World in the headline? :lmao:


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> Now for the startling news, *weather*, is not climate.


Well, according to Merriam-Webster, the two are very closely entwined. Pardon me if I opt for their definition over your statement. One cannot have climate without weather.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> One cannot have climate without weather.


And one cannot consistently make cumulative errors in predicting weather patterns and still claim credit for being correct on climate.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> And one cannot consistently make cumulative errors in predicting weather patterns and still claim credit for being correct on climate.




I'm surprised you would post this, as it is trivially obvious that a system that predicts climate with very good accuracy can be completely incapable of predicting weather.

This is almost as bad as trying to used dictionary definitions to explain to researchers why they are wrong about their own field.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> This is almost as bad as trying to used dictionary definitions to explain to researchers why they are wrong about their own field.


Geez, I had no idea BigDL was a climate researcher, as it was he the post was directed at, not researchers. And yes, even scientists likely know that you cannot have climate without weather and vice versa.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> even scientists likely know that you cannot have climate without weather and vice versa.


The point is our ability to predict either one is unrelated to our ability to predict the other.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> The point is our ability to predict either one is unrelated to our ability to predict the other.


I see. You are saying that climate scientists predict the earth's temperature will rise. And therefore temperature is not weather.

Gee, the weather guys on TV will be disappointed to know that, giving us the temperatures and the averages for the time of year, and historical high and low temperatures every single day.

OK, I get it now. Temperature is not weather.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> I see. You are saying that climate scientists predict the earth's temperature will rise. And therefore temperature is not weather.


Are you just being sarcastic, or do you really not understand this? I can't tell.


----------



## SINC

I understand it perfectly. Climate is made up of weather patterns and temperatures over eons. Without weather (patterns and temperature), climate could not exist.


----------



## FeXL

From MacDoc's "Coldest Winter in 1000 Years Cometh" post (Oh, and, once again, notice his name calling. Where's a mod when you need one?):



> It is staggering how one journalist just copied another, sometimes even embellishing the story, without ever bothering to check the source


Where are the Real Climate criticisms of the exact same procedure repeated ad nauseum in the warmist bible, the IPCC AR4?

Another:



> A Polish tabloid made up the story. An interesting lesson about today´s media.


Same question, same bible. 

Oh, and this little gem. Grit your teeth & actually click on the hotlink in the original post (you can wash up afterwards).



> the same that widely spread the false whatevergate-stories.


They don't actually address all the "whatevergate-stories", they say it's all just bad reporting. So, none of the 'Gates actually exist. It's just MSM schlepping a headline to sell copies. I guess if you don't acknowledge them they'll just go away. 

What about the 30% of the non peer reviewed sources in the same AR4 report? What is Real Climate's stance on that? Where is the indignation? The hue? The cry?

C'mon, MacDoc, speak up. I can't hear you!

(More name calling in 3, 2, 1)


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> I understand it perfectly. Climate is made up of weather patterns and temperatures over eons. Without weather (patterns and temperature), climate could not exist.


But that has nothing to do with the relationship between predicting the weather and predicting the climate (which is that there isn't one).


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> But that has nothing to do with the relationship between predicting the weather and predicting the climate (which is that there isn't one).


And round and round we go.

If you are predicting a rise in average temperature, you are predicting a change in a specific weather pattern (ie: temperatures). With temperature being an integral part of weather, the two are entwined and cannot be separated.


----------



## MannyP Design

FeXL said:


> From MacDoc's "Coldest Winter in 1000 Years Cometh" post (Oh, and, once again, notice his name calling. Where's a mod when you need one?):


It's okay when you call no one in particular names. :baby: :lmao:


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> And round and round we go.


From you're continued posting on this, I'm going to assume you aren't kidding, and really don't understand this. But I will apologize in advance if this comes across as patronizing.

Taking the issue of temperature, the weather relates to the temperature on any given day, so in February in St. Albert that might be -40, and in July it might be +40. But that has almost nothing to do with the climate. The climate in central Alberta has a mean temperature of 3.9˚C. The actual temperature at any given time will almost never be 3.9˚C, but that *mean* temperature is what is being considered in climate research.

If you local weather forecast predicts a daytime high of -16, and absolutely nails it, that has no bearing on our understanding of the climate. Similarly, if you have a record cold winter (even for 5 years in a row), that will have very little effect on the measured mean temperature for the region (unless you also have record cold summers and these temperature anomalies are very wide spread). Indeed, one of the major predictions of the climate change models is that, while the mean temperatures will rise, the extremes will also become more extreme, so "global warming" probably means colder winters.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Similarly, if you have a record cold winter (even for 5 years in a row), that will have very little effect on the measured mean temperature for the region (unless you also have record cold summers and these temperature anomalies are very wide spread).


And that is exactly what has been happening in Alberta for the past two years in a row. Record cold, both summer and winter.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> And that is exactly what has been happening in Alberta for the past two years in a row. Record cold, both summer and winter.


I did some googling and could not find data to support this. Do you have links showing that the *MEAN* temperatures were significantly (statistically) below historic mean temperatures? If so, that would be interesting. But two years is not very long. Furthermore, it is both possible and expected that specific regions could experience lower average temperatures while others experienced higher average temperatures, and the resulting global average temperature increases. I don't know enough about the climate models to say wether any predict a shift in the average position of the arctic high pressure zone, but it wouldn't surprise me if they do.

At this time, the data strongly supports a continuing increase in global average temperatures consistent with global climatic models driven by anthropogenic climate forcing by atmospheric pollution.

My point has been that the weather in St. Albert is not particularly relevant to this observation.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> My point has been that the weather in St. Albert is not particularly relevant to this observation.


And there is where we differ in our opinions. I submit that the weather in St. Albert is a part of overall world weather, albeit a very tiny sliver. But every area on this planet has changes in their weather, just like we do, up and down or cold and hot. The cumulative total of all those parts make up global weather, which is in fact global climate as an average or mean temperature for the globe. 

The fluctuations in weather from every corner of the planet are what makes up climate change. To state that weather is separate from climate is in my opinion, flat our wrong. No one will ever convince me that weather does not have an effect on climate. Not even a suspect group of bungling scientists.


----------



## Max

Sinc, I think you are mixing up science and opinion. I have an understanding of what you think of bryanc and of scientists in general, but the fact remains you are using faulty logic (your simplistic distinction between climate and weather) to back up your opinion. Plus there's that telling bit, "no one will ever convince me." That's an impressive brick wall of an obstacle.


----------



## SINC

Max, first let me be clear that you are wrong about what I think of bryanc. I respect the man and his opinions and salute him for his patience in trying to sell others his beliefs. Of that there is no question. As for climate scientists, I simply do not trust them. And finally I contend that weather patterns form overall climate. There is not confusion about that on my part. Climate change is a result of weather change. What changes that weather is still a mystery and while greenhouse gases are certainly a contributor, no one has yet to prove any one substance is the single cause, and likely never will.


----------



## eMacMan

Lets see. We normally get 5 days above 30°C we got none this year. We have been setting record lows going into winter, we had perhaps 10 warm days all summer and somebody reading stats tries to tell us it was warmer than normal this year. 

It's not the mean temps, it is the hourly average. In summer this should be closer to the high than the low. This year that was reversed continuing the normal winter trend of being closer to the low than the high. Since stats only show the low and the high a true picture is not always revealed.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, you can stay in Canada! Looks like NASA has eased off its predictions of 4 degree rises over the next century and cut that down to a piddling 1.64 degrees, even if CO2 levels double.

New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64°C warming ? The Register



> The NASA and NOAA boffins used their more accurate science to model a world where CO2 levels have doubled to 780 parts per million (ppm) compared to today's 390-odd. They say that world would actually warm up by just 1.64°C overall, and the vegetation-cooling effect would be stronger over land to boot – thus temperatures on land would would be a further 0.3°C cooler compared to the present sims.


----------



## eMacMan

Lovely quote there. MacFury.

In order for atmospheric CO2 to rise from .0390 (a bit high BTW) to .0780% Mans .003% (max) contribution would have to increase by over 1000%. Realistically we can call that 1.6°C increase .16°C


----------



## FeXL

Ran across that earlier on my morning perusal.

That, along with the refuting of Real Climate contributor Steig _et al's_ 2009 Nature cover article on the extent of West Antarctic warming by Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre and Jeff Condon accepted by the prestigious Journal of Climate will be bitter pills to swallow.


----------



## Macfury

Cue MacDoc with some 18th Century treatise and last year's climate maps.


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> Ran across that earlier on my morning perusal.
> 
> That, along with the refuting of Real Climate contributor Steig _et al's_ 2009 Nature cover article on the extent of West Antarctic warming by Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre and Jeff Condon accepted by the prestigious Journal of Climate will be bitter pills to swallow.


Wow! What a huge loss of face for still more climate scientists "cooking the books" to suit their theory. That about does it for me. Their cred is dead.


----------



## FeXL

Is the warming in the 20th century extraordinary?

A little ice core research...



> Conclusion
> Nature has provided us with data telling a simple story: For periods on earth comparable with today, we see many examples of temperature increases in the magnitude of 1 K for all kinds of natural reasons. Very rarely does any temperature rise (via supposed positive feedbacks) reach 3 K within 100 years.
> 
> It is thus surprising that IPCC and others with big confidence can claim large temperature rises of up to 3 – 6 K as most likely result from just a minor temperature increase, for example induced by CO2 warming.
> 
> More, it appears (fig 4.) that the temperature rise of 0,7K from 1900 to 2010 is as normal as can be when comparing with other temperature rises during other warm periods.


Have a gander @ Fig 4. Little bit telling, non?


----------



## FeXL

Consensus? What consensus?



> More than 1000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 320-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from 2007's groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 1000 international scientists, *including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC*. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit being held in Cancun.
> 
> The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.


Emphasis mine.

I thought about posting the whole 321 page report here _a la_ some warmists who post on ehMac. Reality dawned & suddenly I realized that it must be solely for their benefit as the balance of us are intelligent enough to just click the link if we want to peruse anything more than a brief precis...


----------



## FeXL

Thank You!



> U.S. Sens. David Vitter and John Barrasso today introduced S. 4015, the Public Access to Historical Records Act, which would dramatically improve the transparency and accuracy of NASA’s historical records and guarantee public access to the data.
> 
> “Recent incidents, such as the investigation showing that the Obama administration manipulated data to justify the drilling moratorium, have raised concerns that some scientists and government agencies are using misleading data to support their favored viewpoints,” said Vitter. “This bill would open NASA’s temperature records to public scrutiny and establish an objective set of data to ensure that influential climate research is protected from political agendas.”


----------



## FeXL

bryanc, perhaps you can help out here. Does this sound legit?



> Phil Jones, the director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (the source of the Climategate e-mails), told a UK parliamentary committee in March that, in all his years of publishing papers in reputable journals such as Nature and Science, *no one has ever asked to examine his raw data or his computer code.*


Emphasis mine.

Link is here. The article is only tangentially related. My question is on the quote above.

I truly hope he was lying through his teeth. There's gotta be a better peer review process in place than that...


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> bryanc, perhaps you can help out here. Does this sound legit?


That sounds entirely normal for research dealing with vast quantities of individually meaningless measurements. For example, a paper on genomic analysis would never include the raw sequencing chromatograms, and current genomics consortia generally keep that data secret for several years (until they've harvested the high impact papers) before adding it to GenBank. Reviewers can request more information about the algorithms or other data processing that was used, but only under the most unusual circumstances would a reviewer be provided with raw lab or instrument data.

Even in my field, in which I might measure something in 50 embryos, I would almost never report or be asked to provide all 50 of those measurements to a reviewer. I would report a mean and standard error (or standard deviation, if that would be more appropriate).

Similarly, computer code implementing some algorithm would rarely be examined by a reviewer, as the algorithm is what matters, and it's assumed that anyone could implement an algorithm in whatever syntax they choose. However, in my field at any rate, it's very common for people to share their code, and it would certainly be available for review should any referee want to examine it (the exception being commercial software, which, IMHO is far too widely used, especially when free, open source alternatives are available).

Given the controversy surrounding this topic (which I'm convinced is a manufactured controversy calculated to discredit the science exposing our ravenous consumption of reduced carbon compounds as the environmentally damaging process it so obviously is), I do think it's entirely appropriate to make all the raw data accessible to the general public with the following caveat: amateurs and oil company shills will doubtlessly be reporting all kinds of scientifically unsupportable nonsense about how the data says something entirely different from what the climatologists have been saying. So, in the event that these data sets do become available, we will have to be much more skeptical and critical of claims made on the basis of 'reanalysis' of this climate data.

Nevertheless, in order to clear the air, I think it would be good if the climatologists make their data public, primarily so other professional climatologists can say that not only do their analyses of their own independently collected data corroborate the results of other studies, but that they have independently analyzed each other's data and got the same results.

Obviously, doing all this redundant analysis is going to cost time and money, but it should be done to silence the FUD.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc: I don't intend to put words in your mouth here, but are you saying that someone who falsifies raw data can easily survive peer review, provided the resulting research paper appears sound?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> bryanc: I don't intend to put words in your mouth here, but are you saying that someone who falsifies raw data can easily survive peer review, provided the resulting research paper appears sound?


Only if their results are so uninteresting that no one ever tries to reproduce their work.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Only if their results are so uninteresting that no one ever tries to reproduce their work.


Right, but unreproduced the study could withstand peer review?


----------



## MacDoc

Another denier "faint hope" theory postulating a negative feedback for clouds bites the dust.....and reaffirms the models.....*through observation of the predicted effect*



> *Cloud 'Feedback' Affects Global Climate and Warming*
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> enlarge_
> 
> 
> _Changes in clouds will amplify the warming of the planet due to human activities, according to new research. (Credit: iStockphoto/Tamara Kulikova)_
> 
> ScienceDaily (Dec. 10, 2010) — Changes in clouds will amplify the warming of the planet due to human activities, according to a breakthrough study by a Texas A&M University researcher.
> Andrew Dessler, a professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, says that warming due to increases in greenhouse gases will cause clouds to trap more heat, which will lead to additional warming. This process is known as the "cloud feedback" and is predicted to be responsible for a significant portion of the warming over the next century.
> Dessler used measurements from the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instrument onboard NASA's Terra satellite to calculate the amount of energy trapped by clouds as the climate varied over the last decade. He also used meteorological analyses provided by NASA's Modern Era Retrospective-Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA) and by the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.
> "It's a vicious cycle -- warmer temperatures mean clouds trap more heat, which in turn leads to even more warming," Dessler explains. His work is published in the Dec. 10 issue of _Science_ magazine and is supported by a NASA research grant.
> [HILITE] While climate models had long predicted that the cloud feedback would amplify warming from human activities,* until recently it was impossible to test the models using observations.*
> *"This work suggests that climate models are doing a pretty decent job simulating how clouds respond to changing climates*," Dessler says.
> [/HILITE]


more

Cloud 'feedback' affects global climate and warming


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Right, but unreproduced the study could withstand peer review?


If it's not reproducible, it's not science. That being said, analyses of data sets recorded in the past (or obtained from ancient samples like ice cores or bubbles trapped in amber) are something of a special case. And in those special cases, I think it's fair to say that original instrumentation data must be made available to reviewers (i.e. if you make the case that someone can't reproduce your data because you had access to special samples, then you've got to make your raw data available. In my field, this is never the case, as anyone who doubts you can use currently available material to reproduce your observations).


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Another denier "faint hope" theory postulating a negative feedback for clouds bites the dust.....and reaffirms the models.....*through observation of the predicted effect*


Unfortunately I do not have access to the complete text. However, I was able to access the Abstract & download a PDF of a podcast interview transcript and, as a layperson, I have some...observations.

From the Abstract:



> Over this period, the short-term cloud feedback had a magnitude of *0.54 ± 0.74* (2σ) watts per square meter per kelvin, meaning that it is likely positive.


Does this not indicate that the signal is all but disappearing in the noise?

From the podcast:



> Interviewee – Andrew Dessler
> Well, it’s *10 years of data* from when they turned the instrument on in March of 2000 to the last data they’ve analyzed, which is February of 2010, so it’s a short period, climatically speaking, and that’s one of the reasons – *it’s probably the biggest single source of uncertainty in this analysis. *
> 
> Host – Robert Frederick
> The cloud feedback?
> 
> Interviewee – Andrew Dessler
> That’s right. *In my estimation of the magnitude of the cloud feedback, the shortness of the data record is the primary source of uncertainty.* If I had a hundred years of data, I would be able to give you a much more precise estimate.


Ten years is pffft as far as climate is concerned. Dessler even acknowledges that. 

As important as his research may be, right now all I get get is a lot of ifs, maybes & likelys.

The interview continues:



> I should add that there are lots of ways you could have done this analysis – there’re sort of lots of arbitrary choices with exactly how you’d do the calculation of energy being trapped by clouds – and the key is that whatever choices you make in analyzing the data, you have to analyze the models exactly the same way. So, everything I did to the data, I also did when I was analyzing the models, so it’s really an apples to apples comparison between the observations and the models. And so, someone else could come along and they could say, “Well, I’m going to analyze this a little different way,” and that would be fine, as long as you also analyze the models in exactly the same way. It’s important for me to point out that what I analyzed here was the cloud feedback in response to short-term climate variations – these El Niño/ La Niña cycles – and *what we really want to measure, as far as long-term climate change goes, is the cloud feedback in response to long-term warming, which may or may not be the same as the cloud feedback in response to these short-term climate variations that I looked at.*


Again, shoulda, woulda, coulda.

Once more:



> Unfortunately, it’s going to be decades before we can make a direct measurement of the long-term cloud feedback, you need 50 or 100 years of data, and we just don’t have that, and by the time we do have it, *if climate change is as bad as it might be*, that knowledge may not do us any good in 50 or 100 years. So, what I’ve done by looking at these short-term cloud variations is the best we can do right now, but unfortunately *it doesn’t necessarily tell us what the long-term effect of clouds is* – that’s one of the big caveats in my analysis.


Again, nothing even close to definitive: if & might be.



> Host – Robert Frederick
> So, a hundred years of data is what you’d really like. If we wait that long, climate change…
> 
> Interviewee – Andrew Dessler
> Yes, your goose is cooked. The problem with waiting is carbon dioxide has a really long atmospheric lifetime, and the longer you wait to make a decision to reduce emissions sort of the more committed warming that you’ve locked into the system. *If you wait a hundred years, you know, we’re committed to several degrees of warming.*


And if the warmist theory is wrong, then we've bankrupted the planet attempting to attain the unattainable. Just recently the estimates have gone from what, 4 degrees to 2 degrees?

You want public support for the theory? I, and I'm sure one or two others on this planet, are going to need a bit more than if, might be and likely.



> Host – Robert Frederick
> And the result, also, it sounds like meshes with the current long-term climate change models.
> 
> Interviewee – Andrew Dessler
> That’s right. The feedback I get in response to short-term climate fluctuations is very similar to the climate feedback in response to long-term climate change, so it *might be that the feedbacks are exactly the same, but I haven’t really proven that in my paper*.


No long term correlation, yet.

I think there is some interesting research going on here. 

However, aside from a possible warming situation based on 10 years of satellite data, there is nothing.

And, really, my biggest issue here is the use of computer models. No, let me clarify that. Accurate computer modeling is fine. However, as has been shown by an article I recently linked to on these boards, that dog don't run. 

All emphasis mine.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc, thx for weighing in on that other topic.

I guess I'm just a bit surprised.


----------



## MacDoc

Creaking and groaning but some steps forward globally - apparently Mexico did a great job stick handling the various issues to bring about an agreement.:clap:



> *A Comeback in Cancun: Countries Move Forward with Climate Agreement*
> 
> December 11, 2010
> Location: CANCUN, MEXICO
> 
> Jennifer Morgan, director of WRI's Climate and Energy program
> 
> The Cancun climate talks concluded today with countries agreeing by consensus to move ahead with an international agreement on climate change.
> 
> Following is a statement from Jennifer Morgan, director of the climate and energy program at the World Resources Institute (WRI):
> 
> “Modest expectations gave way to promising results, as the Cancun climate meeting wrapped up with a new but fragile international climate agreement. Under the watchful eye and strong management of the Mexican presidency, delegates agreed to establish a platform for international climate action, while recognizing that much more needs to be done to tackle climate change.
> 
> “This agreement was a remarkable turnaround for a multilateral approach to address climate change, including commitments on emissions from all the world’s major economies.
> 
> “By consensus, countries agreed to a ‘balanced package’ that includes targets and actions, increased transparency, the creation of a climate fund, and other important mechanisms to support developing countries. Delegations also recognized the urgency of keeping global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, with the ability to strengthen the response in the coming years.
> 
> “Over the next year, countries will have to work to resolve many complex challenges. The agreement did not resolve the issue of legal form, leaving that to be determined in the future. Countries must also further develop the climate fund to ensure developing countries receive financial support through an effective and transparent mechanism to assist with adaptation, reduction of emissions from deforestation, and de-carbonization efforts.
> 
> “Ultimately, the world will need to take bolder steps to tackle the challenges of climate change. On its current pace, global temperatures will exceed 2 degrees Celsius, leaving people more vulnerable to severe droughts, melting glaciers, and rising seas, along with more extreme weather events around the world.
> 
> “Countries must build on the momentum at Cancun to deliver real change on the ground in response to the growing threat of climate change.”


A Comeback in Cancun: Countries Move Forward with Climate Agreement | World Resources Institute


----------



## FeXL

Further observations on the GCM's (general circulation models).

From the summary:



> Both papers, one discussing the atmosphere and the other the ocean, explicitly note that this thermostatic effect is not correctly simulated by the climate models (GCMs). The Marchitto paper is very clear about exactly why. It is because of one of the most glaring and under-reported shortcomings of the models. Here’s Marchitto again, in case you didn’t catch it the first time through (emphasis mine):
> 
> _In contrast, fully coupled general circulation models (GCMs) lack a robust thermostat response because of an opposing tendency for the *atmospheric circulation* itself to *strengthen under reduced radiative forcing* (7)._
> 
> Say what? Model circulation strengthens under reduced forcing?
> 
> In a natural heat engine, when you add more heat, the heat engine speeds up. We can see this daily in the tropics. As the radiative forcing increases, more and more thunderstorms form, and the atmospheric circulation speeds up. It’s basic meteorology.
> 
> In the models, amazingly, as the radiative forcing increases, the atmospheric circulation actually slows down. I might have missed it, but I’ve never seen a modeller address this issue, and I’ve been looking for an explanation since the EOS paper came out. Although to be fair the modellers might have overlooked the problem, it’s far from the only elephant in the model room. But dang, it’s a big one, even among elephants.
> 
> So yeah, I can see why the models are missing the proper thermostatic feedback. If your model is so bad that modelled atmospheric circulation slows down when the forcing increases, anything’s possible.


Emphasis from the original.

Once again: the models are the issue.


----------



## MacDoc

*Watts is not a climate scientist
Eschenbach is not either - why do you hang your hat on that ridiculous nonsense...




Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends
Category: Global Warming
Posted on: December 9, 2009 2:21 PM, by Tim Lambert

Click to expand...

this the "quality" of your source




Willis Eschenbach
Amateur Scientist and Construction Manager

Click to expand...

on the other real climate scientists from various nations and disciplines compile this report each year...

Arctic Report Card




Return to previous Arctic conditions is unlikely

Record temperatures across Canadian Arctic and Greenland, a reduced summer sea ice cover, record snow cover decreases and links to some Northern Hemisphere weather support this conclusion

Click to expand...





Atmosphere
Arctic climate is impacting mid-latitude weather, as seen in Winter 2009-2010

Sea Ice
Summer sea ice conditions for previous four years well below 1980s and 1990s

Ocean
Upper ocean showing year-to-year variability without significant trends

Land
Low winter snow accumulation, warm spring temperatures lead to record low snow cover duration

Greenland
Record setting high temperatures, ice melt, and glacier area loss

Biology
Rapid environmental change threatens to disrupt current natural cycles

Click to expand...

as to the models - just what problem is that?
or are you swallowing Watts et al crap....

Once more, actual climate science and reality that destroys another denier faint hope for some negative feedback from clouds......in fact it's just the opposite...




Cloud 'feedback' affects global climate and warming, says Texas A&M study
Published: Thursday, December 9, 2010 - 14:39 in Earth & Climate

Changes in clouds will amplify the warming of the planet due to human activities, according to a breakthrough study by a Texas A&M University researcher. Andrew Dessler, a professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, says that warming due to increases in greenhouse gases will cause clouds to trap more heat, which will lead to additional warming. This process is known as the "cloud feedback" and is predicted to be responsible for a significant portion of the warming over the next century.

Dessler used measurements from the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instrument onboard NASA's Terra satellite to calculate the amount of energy trapped by clouds as the climate varied over the last decade. He also used meteorological analyses provided by NASA's Modern Era Retrospective-Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA) and by the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.

"It's a vicious cycle – warmer temperatures mean clouds trap more heat, which in turn leads to even more warming," Dessler explains. His work is published in the Dec. 10 issue of Science magazine and is supported by a NASA research grant.

While climate models had long predicted that the cloud feedback would amplify warming from human activities, until recently it was impossible to test the models using observations.

"This work suggests that climate models are doing a pretty decent job simulating how clouds respond to changing climates," Dessler says.

Click to expand...

more
Cloud 'feedback' affects global climate and warming, says Texas A&M study | e! Science News

Predicted and now confirmed by observation....

If you want to examine how models are done then go to the scientists that engaged in it as their life work....




FAQ on climate models

Click to expand...

*


> — group @ 3 November 2008 - (Svenska)
> 
> We discuss climate models a lot, and from the comments here and in other forums it’s clear that there remains a great deal of confusion about what climate models do and how their results should be interpreted. This post is designed to be a FAQ for climate model questions – of which a few are already given. If you have comments or other questions, ask them as concisely as possible in the comment section and if they are of enough interest, we’ll add them to the post so that we can have a resource for future discussions. (We would ask that you please focus on real questions that have real answers and, as always, avoid rhetorical excesses).


RealClimate: FAQ on climate models

and part II

RealClimate: FAQ on climate models: Part II

Now compare your " amateur scientist to the real thing....




> Gavin A. Schmidt
> 
> — gavin @ 6 December 2004
> 
> Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He has worked on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, including solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases.
> 
> He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He serves on the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection Panel and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences.* He has over 60 peer-reviewed publications.*


Where do you think the credible information and analysis is coming from...
the likes of Eschenbach???  NOT!


----------



## Macfury

Sour grapes. We've gone to triumphant stories of proof, to Dessler's admission that he's produced an interesting paper covering 10 years of *WEATHER*, or does MacDoc now switch gears and call a decade *CLIMATE*? Critics of Dessler's paper also point out that he hasn't even successfully proved causation--are clouds producing warming, or does warming produce clouds?


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Creaking and groaning but some steps forward globally - apparently Mexico did a great job stick handling the various issues to bring about an agreement.


If I were a greenhouse gasser, I'd be really disappointed with news like that.



> * the wealth redistribution lobby *might* have been happy with the news that wealthy countries are supposed to be on the hook for a Green Climate Fund of $100 billion a year in aid for poor countries.
> 
> *EXCEPT*
> 
> This has to happen by 2020 but it is also not yet clear how the $100 billion a year will be raised.





> Countries set an agreement to limit a rise in average world temperatures to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6F) over pre-industrial times.
> 
> *EXCEPT*
> 
> There was, no progress on how to extend the Kyoto Protocol, which obliges almost 40 rich nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Japan put the nail in the coffin of the agreement by pulling out of the agreement and all future talks. They also have no mechanism by which to control the temperature of the planet.


Essentially the huge success that MacDoc touts is that they agreed to meet again soon to have another happy climate party--as no issues have been resolved or agreed to. Only an agreement that they will need to agree at some future time to some nebulous proposals, the details of which have not yet been determined.

Here MacDoc, have a few applause icons on me:

:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## eMacMan

Given that Copenhagen suffered a major blizzard and Can Cun set five record low temps during their respective conferences, I suspect the alarmists will have trouble finding a host for their next CO2 wasting conference. 

Were they to simply handcuff all of those delegates to a pole for the next five years they could almost meet their carbon emission reduction goals.


----------



## eMacMan

Lord we knew as a group the Cancun bunch were about 100 beers short of a 12 pack but this???:
Cancun COP16 attendees fall for the old “dihydrogen monoxide” petition as well as signing up to cripple the U.S. Economy | Watts Up With That?


----------



## SINC

eMacMan said:


> Lord we knew as a group the Cancun bunch were about 100 beers short of a 12 pack but this???:
> Cancun COP16 attendees fall for the old “dihydrogen monoxide” petition as well as signing up to cripple the U.S. Economy | Watts Up With That?


:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::clap:

One more case of "goodbye, our cred is dead". :lmao:


----------



## eMacMan

I suspect St. Gore has even fewer worshippers today, at least in Minnesota. Despite IPCC warnings, there will be no palm trees or alligators in the land of a thousand lakes.



> MINNEAPOLIS – A storm that spanned parts of eight states continued to dump heavy snow in the upper Midwest on Sunday, collapsing the Metrodome in Minneapolis and forcing numerous road closures.
> 
> The storm was moving eastward a day after it dumped 20 inches of snow in some places. A Sunday NFL football game between the New York Giants and the Minnesota Vikings had already been pushed to Monday because the Giants couldn't get to Minneapolis to play when the inflatable Metrodome collapsed Sunday. It's uncertain when that game will now be played.
> 
> A blizzard warning was in effect Sunday for Chicago and much of northern Illinois, all of Iowa, large sections of southern Minnesota and Wisconsin, and smaller areas in North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri and Michigan, according to the National Weather Service. Most of the rest of the region was under a winter storm warning or a hard freeze watch.


Rest of it here:
Minn. Metrodome collapses in Midwest blizzard - Yahoo! News


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> *Watts is not a climate scientist*


Blah, blah, blah...

Seeing as standard text doesn't seem to work for some people, rather than bolding my whole post I thought I'd use a colour that is s'pose ta be soothing to the savage beast. Just in case he's anywhere near popping an artery or sumthin'...

So Watts isn't a climate scientist. So what? If you go throughout history you can find many examples of people, some scientists, some not, who managed to make significant contributions to life as we know it, many times outside of their "classification". If you really require a list, Google is your friend.

Again, so Watt's isn't a climate scientist. Neither is Steve McIntyre but he was instrumental in revealing the flaws of the hockey stick graph.

In addition he, along with his coauthors, have managed to refute a paper that members of the elite "hockey team" produced. That, and get it published in the prestigious Journal of Climate, despite a brutal peer review process. Maybe that's why you're so pissed off at the world.

You don't have to be a rocket surgeon (or a climate scientist) to ask a question MacDoc. That's all these people are doing, myself included.

So you say Eschenbach was caught lying. I don't know & I feel no need to confirm or deny. If that is what it takes to lose face in the climate science community what about the hockey stick? What about all the 'Gates? Or, do you still believe in that "crap"?

Eschenbach posted some interesting observations &, rather than address them, all you can do is call him a liar.

You've got a wonderful little selection of titles listed ranging from Biology to Atmosphere in your post. There isn't one occurrence on that list that has not happened in the past, distant or not. I won't bother posting examples, save one. Greenland (Record setting high temperatures, ice melt, and glacier area loss-oh, the horror!) was farmed (Farmed! As in cereal crops & cattle, like just down the road from me) by the Vikings just a few hundred years ago. Wonder how they managed that on a glacier. Ice cream, fresh out of the cow!

Ah, the models & what the problem is. If the models are so wonderful, they should be able to hindcast, as well as forecast, non?. Does that not just make sense? Is that too simple to compute? I recently posted a link to an article describing efforts to do just that. Punch a few numbers into the existing models & out comes a reasonably accurate assessment of our recent climate history, right?

Not. Period. It did not happen. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Want a model with credibility? Make the sucka hindcast accurately, too. That would catch my attention...

"Predicted and now confirmed by observation...." [read: OMG, WE FINALLY GOT ONE! (Well, for a 10 year period, anyways. That'll show 'em...)]

I already posted my response to the article & it stands. There is damn little confirmed except for the uncertainty. This is going to take a long time if you keep on posting the same articles twice.

Ah, the Gavin Schmidt card. NASA & GISS already have question marks against them for reasons posted earlier in the thread but, seeing as you like NASA, how about the link Macfury posted earlier about NASA revising their temperature rise over the next century to 1.64 degrees, even if CO2 doubles. Perhaps they even used Schmidt's models! Ha, the irony!

You never did address that. 

Come to think of it, you rarely address anyone's posts, points or questions. Is it simply beneath you? Is it difficult in your old age to reach down from the ivory tower & touch the unwashed masses? Do you simply not have the answers? Are the climate gods on the hockey team unable to furnish you with ammunition to fire back with? Perhaps everyone is busy worshipping at the climate alter?

At any rate, you have a good long draught of that sacrificial wine & have a great day. Me, I'm gonna fire up the wood burning stove & 'Cue, grille some red meat & make an offerring to my favorite deity, Silenus (Greek god of beer). 

Pink off, big guy...


----------



## eMacMan

^^^
Maybe if we both get a big fire going we can get out of this snow pattern.


----------



## FeXL

*Sunovagun. I'm not the only one that thinks the climate models need a little work...*

...and I'm just a dumb biker.

OK, I also pack a camera around.

Some days.

However, if you require more, a genuwyne, certified, peer reviewed perspective is available here:



> "To distinguish between simultaneous natural and anthropogenic impacts on surface temperature, regionally as well as globally," authors Lean and Rind performed "a robust multivariate analysis using the best available estimates of each together with the observed surface temperature record from 1889 to 2006."
> 
> Lean and Rind report that "contrary to recent assessments based on theoretical models (IPCC, 2007) the anthropogenic warming estimated directly from the historical observations is more pronounced between 45°S and 50°N than at higher latitudes," which finding, in their words, "is the approximate inverse of the model-simulated anthropogenic plus natural temperature trends ... which have minimum values in the tropics and increase steadily from 30 to 70°N." Furthermore, as they continue, "the empirically-derived zonal mean anthropogenic changes have approximate hemispheric symmetry whereas the mid-to-high latitude modeled changes are larger in the Northern hemisphere."
> 
> Because of what their analysis revealed, the two researchers concluded that "climate models may therefore lack -- or incorrectly parameterize -- fundamental processes by which surface temperatures respond to radiative forcings."


Unfortunately I was unable to find a link going through WUWT, so I'm unable to pick that scab at this moment...


----------



## Macfury

*Cancun deal falls flat*

I don't know what some jubilant greenhouse gassers were smoking when they pointed to the success of the Cancun talks:



> The climate change conference in Cancún appears to have sealed the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding treaty to combat climate change, and left countries squabbling over the substance and form of a new treaty for the future.
> 
> During the two-week meeting in Cancún, which ended Saturday, Japan said it would not commit to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions under the protocol after the first term of obligations for industrialized countries expires at the end of 2012. In effect, that means any emissions reductions by major industrial nations will be voluntary and at their own discretion – a far cry from the enduring, global commitment to reduce global warming agreed to in Kyoto 13 years ago.


Cancún climate change deal falls flat, Kyoto Protocol on life support - CSMonitor.com


----------



## Macfury

I love the up-front explanation of the Cancun "deal" by the reporter from _The Times of India _

Cancun pact inked, Kyoto on way out - The Economic Times



> Under this new deal, each country will be allowed to offer whatever it wishes to pledge for emission reductions on its own volition. There shall be no cumulative target to reach. No one shall ask if the individual targets are collectively adequate or not. The new regime will only check if the pledges have been acted upon or not. Rich countries, including the US, will offer emission reduction targets and others , such as India will offer their mitigation actions as part of a new deal which can be said to be defined by the bottoms up approach.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Under the agreement India will get off easy. Because it let others off easy as well.* The link to science has got weakened though promises have been made to adhere to science . *But the developing world and the poor countries have got something to sweeten the deal as well. They have got the architecture of an Adaptation Fund , a Green Climate Fund and a technology developing regime.*


----------



## SINC

The search for the truth continues:

*“Climate Change” is Not About the Environment, but About Redistributing Wealth"*



> "The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War," proclaimed Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and cochair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, reports in Investors Business Daily.


Cathie Adams Report #2


----------



## Macfury

SINC: The delegates are becoming much more obvious about such things. It's barely a secret any longer, because certain world leaders, including Obama, agree with those goals.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> SINC: The delegates are becoming much more obvious about such things. It's barely a secret any longer, because certain world leaders, including Obama, agree with those goals.


Yep the goal is wealth re-distribution. However the 2 point print explains; whatsoever crumbs of that redistributed wealth that happens to escape the clutches of the banksters will find its way to the Gore Gang's vault.


----------



## MacDoc




----------



## MacDoc

Meanwhile, back in the real world.....those who produced the warming will be paying for the consequences....



> 2010 to be among three warmest years: U.N.
> By Alister Doyle
> and Timothy GardnerPosted 2010/12/02 at 4:15 pm EST
> 
> CANCUN, Mexico, Dec. 2, 2010 (Reuters) — This year is set to be among the three warmest since records began in 1850 and caps a record-warm decade that is a new indication of man-made climate change, the United Nations said on Thursday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _A young boy plays at a water fountain in Montreal August 31, 2010. REUTERS/Shaun Best_
> 
> *"The trend is of very significant warming," Michel Jarraud, head of the World Meteorological Organization,* told a news conference on the sidelines of a meeting of almost 200 nations in the Caribbean resort of Cancun trying to curb global warming.
> 
> He said 2010 so far was slightly warmer than both 1998 and 2005, the previous top two, but could slip if December is a cool month.
> 
> The WMO said that land and sea surface temperatures so far in 2010 were 0.55 degree Celsius (1 F) above a 1961-1990 average of 14 degrees C (57.2 degrees F). The years 2001-10 were the warmest 10-year period, it said.
> 
> "There is a significant possibility that 2010 could be the warmest year," he said. A final ranking for 2010 is due to be published early in 2011.
> 
> Asked if the data were new evidence that human emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels were warming the climate, he said, "Short answer: yes."
> 
> "If nothing is done ... (temperatures) will go up and up," he said, saying the findings would guide negotiators meeting in Cancun from November 29 to December 10.
> 
> Temperatures have already risen by about 0.8 degree C since pre-industrial times.
> 
> CURRENT PROPOSALS 'ARE NOT ENOUGH'
> 
> The Cancun talks are trying to build on a nonbinding deal at the Copenhagen summit last year to limit overall temperature rises to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F). Curbs promised by emitters led by China and the United States are too little to reach the goal.
> 
> "It's becoming ever more clear that the current proposals are not enough to stay below 2 degrees," said Peter Wittoeck, head of the Belgian delegation in Cancun that holds the European Union presidency.
> 
> Cancun will seek a modest package of measures, including a new "green fund" to help channel aid to developing nations, a new mechanism to share clean technologies and to protect carbon-absorbing tropical forests.
> 
> The WMO said warming had been especially strong in Africa, parts of Asia and parts of the Arctic. Pakistan, hit by devastating floods, recorded a record temperature of 53.5 degrees C (128.30 F), the warmest in Asia since 1942.
> 
> Environmentalists said the data should spur action in Cancun. "This is yet another warning from the planet that it is feeling the heat," said Wendel Trio, international climate policy director for Greenpeace.
> 
> Jarraud said that the decade-long trend was most relevant to negotiators in Cancun seeking to avert more floods, droughts, desertification and rising sea levels.


NewsDaily: 2010 to be among three warmest years: U.N.


----------



## SINC

Finally, a self portrait from MD! :clap:


----------



## Dr.G.

Strange, but here in St.John's, after our coldest month of June, we had our hottest July ........... and then after our coldest month of November, we are having our warmest month of December. So, we are getting it from both ends.


----------



## bryanc

Dr.G. said:


> here in St.John's, after our coldest month of June, we had our hottest July ........... and then after our coldest month of November, we are having our warmest month of December.


As always, we can't confuse weather with climate. However, part of the predictions of climate models is that more extreme weather events (both cold and hot) will occur as the mean temperature rises.

I can say with certainty that here in NB, we're happy the storm that just passed dumped its massive precipitation as rain, rather than snow. It was certainly bizarre to have a thunderstorm in the middle of December, and the flooding river is bad news for some, but if that quantity of water had come down as snow, we'd have been buried for weeks.


----------



## MannyP Design

MacDoc, You do your parents proud. Much more original than your coining denidiots—NOT!. :lmao:


----------



## Dr.G.

bryanc said:


> As always, we can't confuse weather with climate. However, part of the predictions of climate models is that more extreme weather events (both cold and hot) will occur as the mean temperature rises.
> 
> I can say with certainty that here in NB, we're happy the storm that just passed dumped its massive precipitation as rain, rather than snow. It was certainly bizarre to have a thunderstorm in the middle of December, and the flooding river is bad news for some, but if that quantity of water had come down as snow, we'd have been buried for weeks.


No confusion here, bryanc. Our climate is changing ......... with cooler or non-existent Springs, hotter summers, colder winters and now winters with less snowfall. I have seen the changes over the past 34 years. As well, looking out around the entire province of NL, Labrador has been experiencing similar trends as we have here in St.John's.

Weather is day by day, but over many years, these day by day trends are showing us the changes in our climate. For example, May 24th was usually the date when we would get our last frost. Now it seems to be the date we might get our last snowfall. It is pointless to plant things out in the garden until Canada Day due to the cold we are getting in June. 

It has been 20 years since our last Christmas morning with no snow on the ground, and I am hoping for a repeat of that condition. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## eMacMan

climate is weather


bryanc said:


> As always, we can't confuse weather with climate. However, part of the predictions of climate models is that more extreme weather events (both cold and hot) will occur as the mean temperature rises.
> 
> I can say with certainty that here in NB, we're happy the storm that just passed dumped its massive precipitation as rain, rather than snow. It was certainly bizarre to have a thunderstorm in the middle of December, and the flooding river is bad news for some, but if that quantity of water had come down as snow, we'd have been buried for weeks.


Nope climate is nothing more than weather averaged out over a long period of time.

Those that worship at the alter of St. Gore and offer their fellow man in bloody sacrifice need to remember: 

Even though the Mann denies it, there was indeed a Maunder Minimum and a Medieval warming period. That means the hockey schtick was frozen in liquid nitrogen then shattered beyond repair. Also means that the sky is not going to fall. Sadly LA and NY will not drown. The only real threat are the AGW types who wish to steal what little wealth the banksters have not already plundered and divert it to the Great Gore Vault and/or Big Brother.

The earth has been warming since the end of the minimum. It has done so at a fairly linear pace however there have been ~30 year cycles, warming faster than normal, followed by a cooling cycle. We are now entering a cooling cycle and like it or not the weather is indeed a reflection of that.

IOW those of us in northern climates can forget about palm trees and running nude in December. Instead we need to cover our a55e5 with several layers just like we had to do in the 50s, 60s and 70s.


----------



## eMacMan

From Minnesotans For Global Warming:
Minnesotans For Global Warming



> As you may or not know one of our many clever slogans for Minnesotans For Global Warming is "Turn Your Snow Shovels Into Lawn Chairs". Playing off the verse from Isaiah 2:4."They shall beat their swords into plowshares". I figured with the advent of Global Warming, we will need to do something with all of those unused snow shovels. I made this prototype of the "Shovel Chair 2000" at the beginning of November when we were having unusually warm weather. The media was saying it was because off Global Warming and we better get used to it. Now with the worst blizzard in 20 years hitting Minnesota. I am thinking of taking it apart to shovel a path from the RV to the SUV.


...



> It's for reasons like this that I started Minnesotans For Global Warming in the first place. Minnesota winters are taxing enough, we don't need to be taxed for the CO2 we emit just trying to survive. Especially under the guise of CO2 causing winters to warm a bit, it just doesn't make any sense.


Be sure to watch the "Frozen Wasteland" video. Even if you don't like the messages there are a couple or three great photos.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> climate is nothing more than weather averaged out over a long period of time.


Exactly. So any given weather observation, or even year's worth of weather observations, are negligible and of no significance in discussions of climate.

When you've got decades of data scattered over all continents, you're starting to have a data set worth considering. 

Until then, it's like the Leafs winning a game.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Meanwhile, back in the real world.....those who produced the warming will be paying for the consequences....


And in the really real world, those who have their arms stretched out for that cash aren't actually going to be getting it--because the Cancun "agreement" provides neither a mechanism for raising the funds nor one for dispersing it.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> And in the really real world, those who have their arms stretched out for that cash aren't actually going to be getting it--because the Cancun "agreement" provides neither a mechanism for raising the funds nor one for dispersing it.


You can bet that the banksters or the Great Gore will be entrusted with any funds raised.


----------



## Aurora

Next month it will be 30 years since Gore started his crap. According to him, Halifax and NY City should be underwater now.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Exactly. So any given weather observation, or even year's worth of weather observations, are negligible and of no significance in discussions of climate.
> 
> When you've got decades of data scattered over all continents, you're starting to have a data set worth considering.
> 
> Until then, it's like the Leafs winning a game.


Nope the warming trend of the 20s and 40s, nor the cooling trend from the 50s through the 70s, nor the following warming trend into the first half of this decade, nor the current cooling trend do not represent climate change. What does is the average warming since the end of the Maunder Minimum. It is almost a straight line that is currently tailing off just a bit. What it is not, is the MM hockey stick. 

Conclusion: Man-made CO2 is not nearly as efficient at raising the planets temp as the Church of Climatology would have us believe. Remember the first 3-400 years of that straight line increase saw almost zero CO2 contribution from man. Therefore there are other more powerful forces causing the very gradual rise in temps.

The Medieval Warming is also important as it proves that the planet can and probably will withstand a good deal more warming without destroying itself.

*More important than all of these is standing up to the Climatology Elders and telling them that sacrificing societies poorest members to line the churches vaults is just plain wrong.*


----------



## FeXL

Arctic Oscillation spoiling NASA GISS party

From MacDoc's favorite denier. (Hey, maybe you don't like the messenger. Fine. Just refute what he has to say.)



> Bob Tisdale has relevant posts on Watts Up With That that here shows how NASA GISS removed Arctic and Southern Ocean sea surface temperature data and *then used 1200km smoothing that uses land stations to refill in the data (resulting in a warming)* and here how leftover warm water from a strong El Nino gets spun up into the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension (KOE) where it continues to release heat to help explain why the ‘global warmth’ has persisted into the early stages of the current La Nina.
> 
> See in this Steve Goddard post here how *Hansen blamed the cooling in recent years on La Nina but now has decided this El Nino warming is global greenhouse warming*.
> 
> Even Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, admitted here: *“We have seen rapid warming recently, but it is an example of natural variation that is associated with changes in the Pacific rather than climate change.”*
> 
> We have shown how NASA and the other data centers have mined the data for warmth and manipulated the data – new and old – to enhance the apparent warming. This includes a cooling (up to a quarter degree or more celsius) of the pesky warm period from the 1920s to 1950s right up to 1980. This includes the NASA GISS base period for anomalies of 1951 to 1980. Numerous data issues post 1980 have exaggerated the warmth.


Emphasis mine.

Lots of visuals in the article, good read.

Carry on.


----------



## Macfury

Even the notion of the globe having an "average temperature" is nigh-on ludicrous. Average at what time? At what altitude? Over what period? Any number assigned as "the average temperature of the Earth" is just a guess, with the researcher's bias deciding how the numbers are reported.


----------



## KC4

New report by the Royal Society of Canada on everybody's favorite beating bush, the Alberta oilsands:

Society's oilsands report pulls no punches


> On the issue of greenhouse gas emissions -- often another flash-point -- the report puts it in the proper perspective. The amount of GHG associated with oilsands activity, which has decreased per barrel produced, is five per cent of what Canada emits in total -- a bigger culprit is coal-fired power, with the biggest cause of GHG in the country being linked to transportation.


----------



## bryanc

KC4 said:


> New report by the Royal Society of Canada on everybody's favorite beating bush, the Alberta oilsands:
> 
> Society's oilsands report pulls no punches


Those numbers are more congruent with my intuitive picture, so that's somewhat comforting. I was always skeptical of reports that put tail-pipe emissions anywhere but at the top of the list.

That being said, if the oil sands are emitting 5% of Canada's CO2 in the process of *producing* the oil (which is then used as fuel for the other 95%), it's a pretty major contributor.

So in the final analysis, as always, the bottom line is that we need to move away from fossil fuels.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> o in the final analysis, as always, the bottom line is that we need to move away from fossil fuels.


...when they're used up!


----------



## eMacMan

At the risk of being repetitive, I will again say CO2 is irrelevant. If we put all of Canada out on ice flows there would be no difference in the net CO2 in the atmosphere. There would be 30 million dead Canadians.

However poisons such as benzene in the air and numerous others in tailings ponds do need to be addressed aggressively.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> At the risk of being repetitive, I will again say CO2 is irrelevant.


And, at the risk of being repetitive, I will say again, you're opinion on the matter isn't worth the electrons it inconvenienced being posted. You know essentially nothing about climatology, so your posts on the topic are worthless.

You're entitled to your opinion, but don't expect anyone who understands anything about science to take your opinions seriously until you've studied the matter far more deeply than you have.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> And, at the risk of being receptive, I will say again, you're opinion on the matter isn't worth the electrons it inconvenienced being posted. You know essentially nothing about climatology, so your posts on the topic are worthless.
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion, but don't expect anyone who understands anything about science to take your opinions seriously until you've studied the matter far more deeply than you have.


So you are saying that it is more important to reduce CO2 emissions knowing that 5% of 1% of 3% of .037% CO2 in the earths atmosphere would reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration from .037% to .03699945% is more important that reducing the actual poisons being put into the atmosphere by the oil sands?

Note: I went with the US department of energies claim that man is responsible for just over 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Picked them only because they are the only ones that seem to have studied it at all. The numbers do range from under 2% to Al Gore's idiotically absurd 50%. No one even AG believes the last one. Even if you accept the more common 10% the oil sands contribution is too small to worry about.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> So you are saying that it is more important to reduce CO2 emissions....


No. I am saying that if you want to know what is important in determining global climate, ask a climatologist (or better yet, spend a few decades studying the science and formulate your own opinion). But relying on blogs of dubious scientific merit to inform your opinions is a fool's game.


----------



## eMacMan

*I still maintain that our main efforts should be aimed at poisons man is putting into air, sea and water. Dilution is not really the solution to pollution.*

And I steadfastly refuse to join the Church of Climatology, because the support for the science is so obviously motivated by cold hard cash.

I am no more a politician than I am a scientist but in either field I am old enough to instantly recognize the odour of BS. 

Al Gore is the self appointed Grand Pooper of the CoC. You can tell how completely he believes in the science. He flies around in private jets. Has A/C limos running the entire time he is out proselytizing. Buys beach front property as he spreads fear of oceans rising and sweeping it away. Uses 25 times (and rising) the national power average on just his main home....

Then there is St Gore's favourite disciple Michael Mann. Can't get his computer models to back-predict known moderate climate markers like the Maunder Minimum and the Medieval Warming Period. Does he re-examine his data or his assumptions? No he tries to re-write both off as non-events. When that fails he tries to present them as localized anomolies. To do so he has to ignore mounting evidence that both were world wide events. Beyond that is his extreme reluctance to share either raw data or his computer models. When he does share raw data turns out he had to apply a fudge factor to make it fit his model. I am not a scientist but I do know this so-called scientific approach would get anyone an F in just about any freshman science course you care to name.

Finally we come to the proposed solutions: A carbon tax and boatloads of cash diverted to The Crypts of The Church of Climatology. Neither is intended to reduce CO2 emissions. Both are designed with corruption in mind. If these do became so onerous that they actually impact CO2 emissions, the ones suffering the most would be the ones who already live a very lean lifestyle out of sheer necessity. While I know that St. Gore, disciple Mann and governments worldwide do not share this belief; I believe it is wrong to sacrifice the poor and the elderly on St Gore's bloody alter.

However I would never deny anyone their religious beliefs. So to all those who truly believe; Join Al Gore's Church of Climatology. Tithe 15% of your after tax earnings to St. Gore. Tithe an additional 15% above and beyond your taxes to the federal government and earmark them for CO2 reduction projects. Seems to me if you can drum up sufficient followers and the proposed solutions really can reduce CO2 emissions; in a few short years temps will drop so dramatically that every one will just have to believe.beejacon


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> And I steadfastly refuse to join the Church of Climatology


I commend you on this position, given that you're understanding of the science is obviously so poor that any position you take on this issue can only be one of faith.


----------



## groovetube

I'm a little curious about how all those scientists are all in on this 'cold hard cash' thing. Are they all in the employ of the 'cold hard cash' company too?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I'm a little curious about how all those scientists are all in on this 'cold hard cash' thing. Are they all in the employ of the 'cold hard cash' company too?


No, but they survive on research grants and build their reputations on being published. Guess which type of studies attract more funding--and which type of articles are more readily accepted for publication?


----------



## MacDoc

oh indeed there were "scientists" in quotes as I use the term rather too broadly in on the cash.......



> *Exxon Exposed: Oil Giant Funds Climate Change Denial Groups*
> 
> Exxon continued to fund climate denial in 2009
> Posted by: Kert Davies | 20 Jul 10
> 
> ExxonMobil gave approximately $1.2 million to climate denial organizations last year. This has been reported by The Times (London) after being provided information by Greenpeace Research Department. (The Times is unfortunately a subscription-only paper online, but a version of the story can be found syndicated at The Australian).
> 
> Greenpeace tabulated this figure - as we have done every year - from Exxon’s annual corporate Worldwide Giving Report. This year's Giving Report was way late on arrival, only published online in late June rather than the customary delivery in May before Exxon's annual general shareholders meeting.
> 
> The Times concluded that Exxon had broken its pledges dating back to 2005 to stop payments to climate change deniers. After significant pressure from numerous bodies including ExxonSecrets, the Royal Society of London and Senators Snowe and Rockefeller, Exxon admitted its campaign of diversion.
> 
> In its 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report, published in May 2008, the oil giant stated,
> “In 2008, we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups, whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in a responsible manner.”
> And indeed, over the past four years, Exxon has reduced its grants to prominent climate change deniers from the peak spending in 2005 of over $3.5M in checks to some 51 denier organizations. Greenpeace’s research shows a $2.2 million reduction in funding to these orgs down to roughly $1.3 million in 2009. The number of groups funded has dropped from 51 to 24 from 2005-2009.
> 
> So they are down to about half the organizations and about one third of the funding. But is that good enough? Does this mean Exxon gets credit for finally ditching the deniers?
> 
> Clearly not.
> 
> In 2009, Exxon was still giving significant contributions to organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the Annapolis Center, the American Enterprise Institute, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the Harvard- Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Washington Legal Foundation, each of which has a long history of climate change denial. (see complete list of 2009 funding below).
> 
> Exxon has told The Times that it is no longer funding Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the Pacific Research Institute and the Media Research Center, the former nest of Marc Morano (ex- Sen. Inhofe staffer and now CFACT blogger).
> The 2009 funding to these groups was:
> $100,000 to Atlas Economic Research Foundation
> $75,000 to the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
> $50,000 to the Media Research Center
> We'll report on the veracity of that statement NEXT year when Exxon publishes this year's funding.
> 
> Exxon drops denial groups, but picks up denier scientists instead
> Importantly, during the same period where Exxon bent to the pressure on its campaign of denial and cut all funding to hard core deniers like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, The George C. Marshall Institute and others, it began funding (at least publicly) the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) in 2005.
> The 2009 ExxonMobil funding to SAO was $ 76,106, for a grand and odd total of $417,212 since 2005. SAO is the home of Dr. Willie Soon and Dr. Sallie Baliunas, two scientists who have worked both together and as individuals on publishing junk science for nearly two decades. Both have been heavily involved with many of the groups running denier campaigns today.
> 
> For example, Soon and Baliunas’ article “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years,” concluded (incorrectly) that the warming of the globe experienced today is not at all unique and that the twentieth century is not the warmest on record, contradicting well established science. *This paper was partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute. The flawed peer review process that led to its publication caused several editors at Climate Research (where it was published) to resign.*
> In 2007, just ahead of a crucial decision by the US Federal Government about whether to list polar bears as "endangered" from climate change, Soon was funded by ExxonMobil for his work in a paper that argued that polar bears were not under threat (because climate change wasn't happening). Soon is an expert in astrophysics, not polar bears, but Exxon saw fit to fund this work.
> 
> Baliunas has individually authored a 1994 report entitled “The Ozone Crisis,” claiming that science denies CFC’s affect on the ozone. She has been a resident expert at the George C Marshall Institute for years, alongside other serial deniers such as S Fred Singer.
> So much more is detailed in our "Dealing in Doubt" report. It is a campaign of denial that goes back some 20 years. It continues to this day as the stakes get higher and higher. 2010, so far, has set global records for high temperatures. Corporate and private funders of the organizations who continue to deal in misinformation about climate science and climate policy will someday be held accountable for their destructive actions.
> 
> 24 organizations in ExxonSecrets database were funded in 2009.
> Leading recipients were:
> AEI American Enterprise Institute $ 235,000
> Atlas Economic Research Foundation $ 100,000
> National Taxpayers Union Foundation $80,000
> Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory $76,106
> Annapolis Center $75,000
> Communications Institute $75,000
> National Black Chamber of Commerce $75,000
> Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy $75,000
> Heritage Foundation $50,000
> Manhattan Institute  $50,000
> Media Research Center $50,000
> ALEC American Legislative Exchange Council $47,500
> Mercatus Center, George Mason University $40,000
> Washington Legal Foundation $40,000
> Center for American and International Law
> (formerlycalled the Southwestern Legal
> Foundation) $33,500
> Foundation for Research on Economics and
> the Environment $30,000
> American Council for Capital Formation Center
> for Policy Research $25,000
> American Spectator Foundation $25,000
> National Association of Neighborhoods $25,000
> Texas Public Policy Foundation $20,000
> Federalist Society $15,000
> Pacific Legal Foundation $15,000
> Landmark Legal Foundation $10,000
> Mountain States Legal Foundation $10,000


and



> *Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial
> *
> Read the letter in full here (pdf)
> 
> * David Adam, environment correspondent
> * The Guardian, Wednesday 20 September 2006
> * Article history
> 
> Exxon petrol station Photograph: Matt Slocum/AP
> 
> Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.
> 
> In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
> 
> The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading".
> 
> *In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change.*


Yet the fossil fuel fossils KNEW from their own scientists the reality of AGW in 90s

and the fossil fuel companies knew this in the mid 90s



> *Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate*
> 
> By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009
> 
> For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
> 
> “The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.
> 
> But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion,* its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.*


Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2

at least a few of the others have been onside on the science



> Ex*xon historically has been more comfortable look*ing to the past, howev*er. In 1997, BP and Shell broke with the industry and said, yes, there is a climate change problem, *while Exxon held its ground. It's a saga that played out roughly 10 years ago as geological evidence showing that carbon emissions were a serious problem grew, recalls Bryan Lovell, a researcher at Cambridge University and a former BP geologist whose new book, Challenged by Carbon, traces the oil industry's grappling with the issue. Exxon CEO Lee Raymond, who retired in late 2005, "got left behind by the science," Lovell says. "He got left behind by the industry's tactics. Exxon was saying, 'We are an oil company; if you are worried about the environmental stuff, go away and talk to someone else.' "
> 
> *Meanwhile, BP and Shell, reading the science and public mood, felt that it would be smarter to acknowledge climate change and shape their responses in advance.*
> 
> Resistance. Goodwin recalls a meeting with an Exxon executive several years ago at which Rockefeller family members brought up their frustration with the company's approach. For years, Exxon had been using quarter-page newspaper ads "to put forth their skepticism that climate change was uncertain and [that] we don't know what's causing it," she says. The executive, she says, admitted, "We know we have a problem with the public. Someone ought to be fired." To which she said: "I'll tell you who ought to be fired: the person who does those quarter-page ads."


a good read here
Can Exxon Evolve From Oil Giant to Green Company? - US News and World Report

and now the tin hat crowd trots out money conspiracy 








as a last gasp of disgruntlement that they might have to pay for using the atmosphere as a sewer to build their comfortable lives these last 100 years.

sorry TANSTAAFL ......you made the mess....pay for it.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> Well deserved insults and you'd never read a link anyways.......you chairing the fossil club their Sinc??......know better than the climate scientists AND the fuel companies themselves???
> 
> NOT!


I learned a long time back that abrasiveness does not earn respect. Obviously you missed that lesson along the line.

And by the way, its NOT "their" Sinc, It's there SINC.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Well deserved insults and you'd never read a link anyways.......you chairing the fossil club their Sinc??......know better than the climate scientists AND the fuel companies themselves???
> 
> NOT!


Another sad post from you. It's called advocacy of a position--not "denial." 

Besides, you were practically wetting yourself when some Shell Oil exec embraced the AGW religion.


----------



## MannyP Design

MacDoc said:


> Well deserved insults and you'd never read a link anyways.......you chairing the fossil club their Sinc??......know better than the climate scientists AND the fuel companies themselves???
> 
> NOT!


Ironic… you haven't even read half the sh!t you post here.

As far as insults go, clearly you're overcompensating for a fragile ego. Or maybe it's blue balls? Who knows. :lmao:

You know, it's amazing that you keep slinging sh!t like a little monkey and yet whenever someone returns the favour you whine like a little bitch and pout until you get your way.


----------



## groovetube

good god.

carry on.


----------



## FeXL

MannyP Design said:


> Ironic… you haven't even read half the sh!t you post here.
> 
> As far as insults go, clearly you're overcompensating for a fragile ego. Or maybe it's blue balls? Who knows. :lmao:
> 
> You know, it's amazing that you keep slinging sh!t like a little monkey and yet whenever someone returns the favour you whine like a little bitch and pout until you get your way.


Thank you!


----------



## Macfury

MannyP Design said:


> Ironic… you haven't even read half the sh!t you post here.
> 
> As far as insults go, clearly you're overcompensating for a fragile ego. Or maybe it's blue balls? Who knows. :lmao:
> 
> You know, it's amazing that you keep slinging sh!t like a little monkey and yet whenever someone returns the favour you whine like a little bitch and pout until you get your way.


+1

And I encourage the mayor to actually invoke the terms of service here for referring to other EhMac members as idiots.


----------



## groovetube

Don't get too excited, I doubt there's too many awards for civility handed out around here in these er, controversial type threads.


----------



## ehMax

MacDoc said:


> Well deserved insults and you'd never read a link anyways.......you chairing the fossil club their Sinc??......know better than the climate scientists AND the fuel companies themselves???
> 
> NOT!


 Any valid arguments get immediately lost with childish insults.

It's also not permitted on ehMac and you should know better. 

Some days, I just want to wipe out any political discussions on ehMac.


----------



## MacDoc

Maybe if you learned something about the changes the planet is undergoing thanks to our activity .....of which Alberta is just about the world villain ....the acronyms would not be so mysterious....

Consequences



> NTARCTIC MELTING AS DEEP OCEAN HEAT RISES
> Big melting along the Antarctic coast has researchers realizing that the deep sea has been holding Earth's warming.
> 
> By Larry O'Hanlon
> Tue Dec 14, 2010 09:54 AM ET
> 
> Oceans have been hiding a lot of Earth's warming by burying it in the deep sea.
> The deep waters are now surfacing and melting ice on the Western Antarctic Peninsula.
> The trend means that we're already locked into long term melting and sea level rise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.discovery.com/earth/2010/12/14/penguins-278x225.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> Adelis penguins approach the water on the Antarctic Peninsula. Warming ocean waters there are wiping out populations of these penguins. Click to enlarge this image.
> Getty Images
> 
> Global warming is sneaky. For more than a century it has been hiding large amounts of excess heat in the world's deep seas. Now that heat is coming to the surface again in one of the worst possible places: Antarctica.
> 
> New analyses of the heat content of the waters off Western Antarctic Peninsula are now showing a clear and exponential increase in warming waters undermining the sea ice, raising air temperatures, melting glaciers and wiping out entire penguin colonies.
> 
> "In the area I work there is the highest increase in temperatures of anywhere on Earth," said physical oceanographer Doug Martinson of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Martinson has been collecting ocean water heat content data for more than 18 years at Palmer Island, on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula.
> 
> "Eighty-seven percent of the alpine glaciers are in retreat," said Martinson of the Western Antarctic Peninsula. "Some of the Adele penguin colonies have already gone extinct."
> 
> Martinson and his colleagues looked not only at their very detailed and mapped water heat data from the last two decades, but compared them with sketchier data from the past and deep ocean heat content measurements worldwide. All show the same rising trend that is being seen in Antarctica.
> 
> "When I saw that my jaw just dropped," said Martinson. The most dramatic rise has happened since 1960, he said.
> 
> What the rising water heat means, he said, is that even if humanity got organized and soon stopped emitting greenhouse gases, there is already too much heat in the oceans to stop a lot of impacts -- like the melting of a huge amount of Antarctic ice.
> 
> "There's the potential that we're locked into long term sea level rise for a long time," Martinson told Discovery News. Martinson presented his latest ocean heat results on Monday at the meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.
> 
> As for how fast the ice will melt and in what locations, that depends largely on whether the upwelling warm water comes in contact with the thick ice shelf that crowds the coast and holds the block the glaciers from reaching the sea.
> 
> That, in turn, depends on the winds which drive away the surface waters and make it possible for the deeper waters to rise to the surface, said senior researcher Robert Bindschadler of NASA's Goddard Earth Science and Technology Center and the University of Maryland-Baltimore County.
> 
> "It can destroy the ice shelf if that heat can get to it," said Bindschadler, who at the same meeting presented his work from the melting Pine Island Ice Shelf in Antarctica.
> 
> Now that the upwelling deep sea water is the clear cause of the melting ice shelf, rather than summer melt water, as had been thought in the past, it's a question of how winds will change in a warming world and whether they will drive more warm water into the ice shelves.
> 
> "So we have thrown the problem back over the fence to the climate modelers," said Bindschadler.
Click to expand...


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, would you please pay attention to what you're posting and stop repeating the photo captions and copyright information?

Besides, you've only pointed out that some people believe the ocean is warming--not that we can do anything about it.

"Click to enlarge this image"


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Besides, you've only pointed out that some people believe the ocean is warming


And that these, and the many other people who agree with them, have come to these conclusions on the basis of empirical evidence collected from many independent sources and analyzed by people who actually know what they're doing.

In other words, the scientists aren't making this sh!t up.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> Maybe if you learned something about the changes the planet is undergoing thanks to our activity .....of which Alberta is just about the world villain ....the acronyms would not be so mysterious....
> 
> Consequences


And maybe if you took the time to open your mind to both sides, you would know that Alberta’s contributions to greenhouse gases constitutes a mere 5% of Canadian emissions:

RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada

Making generalized statements like those above from a point of ignorance furthers nothing. Alberta is far removed from being "the world villain" as you wrongly claim.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> And that these, and the many other people who agree with them, have come to these conclusions on the basis of empirical evidence collected from many independent sources and analyzed by people who actually know what they're doing.
> 
> In other words, the scientists aren't making this sh!t up.


In this case I believe the data is real. Not MacDoc's conclusions or extrapolations.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> In this case I believe the data is real.


That was not clear from the very ambiguous



> Besides, you've only pointed out that some people believe the ocean is warming


Given that some people believe Elvis is still alive and that the earth is flat, I took this to mean you were equating the scientific consensus as a similar 'belief.'

Part of the problem here is that Exxon and other powerful interests allied with the status quo have invested in a massive FUD campaign. This, not surprisingly, has worked beautifully in the scientifically ignorant and media-saturated US, and it's been disturbingly effective in the rest of the developed world. Consequently, we now have substantial proportions of our citizenry who have been deliberately misinformed about the fundamental facts, let alone the scientific consensus on the meaning of those facts.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Part of the problem here is that Exxon and other powerful interests allied with the status quo have invested in a massive FUD campaign. This, not surprisingly, has worked beautifully in the scientifically ignorant and media-saturated US, and it's been disturbingly effective in the rest of the developed world. Consequently, we now have substantial proportions of our citizenry who have been deliberately misinformed about the fundamental facts, let alone the scientific consensus on the meaning of those facts.


Thanks for the Big Corporate conspiracy theory. Shell Oil has bought into the AGW marketing already.


----------



## FeXL

ehMax said:


> Any valid arguments get immediately lost with childish insults.
> 
> It's also not permitted on ehMac and you should know better.
> 
> Some days, I just want to wipe out any political discussions on ehMac.


Thank you!


----------



## FeXL

Now, back to work.

Pliocene Warm Period 3 C Warmer Than Today

(from the link in the article)



> Bering Sea was ice-free and full of life during last warm period, study finds
> 
> December 13, 2010 By Donna Hesterman
> 
> UCSC ocean scientist Christina Ravelo and Alan Mix of Oregon State University show off a record-breaking sediment core section during the Bering Sea expedition. Ravelo (below) was co-chief scientist of the expedition on the RV Joides Resolution. Photo credit: Carlos Alvarez Zarikian, IODP/TAMU.
> 
> Deep sediment cores retrieved from the Bering Sea floor indicate that the region was ice-free all year and biological productivity was high during the last major warm period in Earth’s climate history.
> 
> ...
> 
> The researchers drilled down 700 meters through rock and sludge to retrieve sediments deposited during the Pliocene Warm Period, 3.5 to 4.5 million years ago.
> 
> “Evidence from the Pliocene Warm Period is relevant to studies of current climate change because it was the last time in our Earth’s history when global temperatures were higher than today,” Ravelo said.
> 
> Carbon dioxide levels during the Pliocene Warm Period were also comparable to levels today, and average temperatures were a few degrees higher,


The observation?



> I’m sure the Warmistas will try to spin this that the CO2 caused the warming, but who was burning all the oil and driving SUVs then? Hmmm? Oh, and there is the little problem of the 800 year lag between warming and when the CO2 shows up…
> 
> So to me it’s pretty dramatic confirmation that CO2 levels NATURALLY were higher at the same time it NATURALLY was warmer; *and the warmth drove the CO2 out of the ocean just as the gas laws predict.*


Wait for it...(in a high, annoying, screeching voice)



> *"Predicted and now confirmed by observation...."*


Thunder! You don't say!

Have a look. It's a good read.


----------



## SINC

Yep, those SUVs way back then had forests growing on Ellesmere Island too.

Mummified Arctic forest may yield climate clues

Seems we've been there, done that before and it wasn't man caused then either.


----------



## vancouverdave

bryanc said:


> And that these, and the many other people who agree with them, have come to these conclusions on the basis of empirical evidence collected from many independent sources and analyzed by people who actually know what they're doing.
> 
> In other words, the scientists aren't making this sh!t up.


+1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan

First off some portions of the ocean are warming, some cooling. Just ask them in Scotland, Russia and western Canada about those warmer ocean temps. We got the frost bite to prove it just ain't so. 

The steadfast refusal of the Church of Climatology to look at volcanic activity at the bottom of the oceans as a prime factor in oceanic temperature variations is absolutely mind boggling, perhaps even boon doggling.


----------



## MannyP Design

MacDoc said:


> Maybe if you learned something about the changes the planet is undergoing thanks to our activity .....of which Alberta is just about the world villain ....the acronyms would not be so mysterious....
> 
> Consequences


Gee, and yet scientists are baffled as to why the ice in the Antarctic has been growing. Clearly a sign of the greenhouse effect—er, should I say global warming. 

I guess you must have missed that post earlier in the thread. :heybaby:


----------



## chasMac

*UK, March 2000: No more snow*

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent



> Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.
> 
> Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.
> ...
> 
> Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.
> 
> However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
> 
> "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.


----------



## eMacMan

Take away the CO2 nonsense and it does explain the record low temps being set all over the Northern Hemisphere. 

Does not explain how NOAA and IPCC manage to spin record lows into warmer than normal but we can't have everything.beejacon


----------



## chasMac

MacDoc said:


> a warming Arctic changes the polar weather patterns and last time I checked - a cold air mass and an increasingly water vapour laden global air mass = snow.
> Perhaps reading the science instead of the tabloids would inform you about your planet



I think Monckton's hippie said the same thing better:


> "But don’t you realise," said the bearded, staring enviro-zomb with the regrettable T-shirt, “that global cooling is what we must expect because of global warming?”
> The climate bugaboo is the strangest intellectual aberration of our age - Telegraph


BTW, the original article I posted was ardently pro-agw. I wonder why, if it's so bloody obvious about "water vapour laden global air mass =snow" that the CRU fellow was so wrong in his prediction.


----------



## FeXL

*Kiwi-Gate fixed!*

Well, almost.



> The Australian Bureau of Meteorology, specifically nominated by NIWA to peer-review their work, give only cautious support to the document. All it will say is that evidence provided by NIWA generally supports (but does not prove) the corrections they made.
> 
> “The letter contains no such endorsement. All it says is the evidence NIWA provided supports the corrections they made. The BoM says they will assess ‘the ideas, methods and conclusions of the papers’ for ‘scientific error, internal consistency, clarity and scientific logic’. But they say nothing about that assessment and give only cautious support to the document.


However:



> “*Almost all of the 34 adjustments made by Dr Jim Salinger to the 7SS have been abandoned, along with his version of the comparative station methodology.*
> 
> “NIWA is clearly not prepared to defend the adjustments exposed in Are we feeling warmer yet? But it took a court case to force them into a corner.
> 
> “*NIWA makes the huge admission that New Zealand has experienced hardly any warming during the last half-century*. For all their talk about warming, for all their rushed invention of the “Eleven-Station Series” to prove warming, this new series shows that no warming has occurred here since about 1960. *Almost all the warming took place from 1940-60, when the IPCC says that the effect of CO2 concentrations was trivial. Indeed, global temperatures were falling during that period.*
> 
> “*The new temperature record shows no evidence of a connection with global warming*. Since that’s the reason this tempest in a teacup has brewed in the first place, it should simmer down now.”


Emphasis mine.

So, Surreal Climate. Any comments?


----------



## ehMax

Reading through the past couple pages of this thread. Any post that contains the slightest comment directed to the poster as opposed to the issue has been zapped. Don't care if it contains any other information, I'm zapping the post and will zap any future post. 

Here's a simple theory anyone can get:

Make arguments about the topic. NOT comments about the poster.


----------



## screature

ehMax said:


> Reading through the past couple pages of this thread. Any post that contains the slightest comment directed to the poster as opposed to the issue has been zapped. Don't care if it contains any other information, I'm zapping the post and will zap any future post.
> 
> Here's a simple theory anyone can get:
> 
> Make arguments about the topic. NOT comments about the poster.


:clap:

I agree 100%. Let's apply this rule to *ALL* threads and posts and ehMac and all its citizens will be the better for it.

There aren't enough emoticons to represent how strongly I feel about this matter.

Here is a proposal for an amendment to the Rules of ehamac:

Any reported personal assaults/insults verified and agreed upon by the Mayor should result in a week long vacation.

Seconders....?


----------



## eMacMan

ehMax said:


> Reading through the past couple pages of this thread. Any post that contains the slightest comment directed to the poster as opposed to the issue has been zapped. Don't care if it contains any other information, I'm zapping the post and will zap any future post.
> 
> Here's a simple theory anyone can get:
> 
> Make arguments about the topic. NOT comments about the poster.


Unfortunately I go with the theory that when someone attacks or insults me, it's 'cause they realize their arguments or reasoning fail to stand up under critical examination.  

Still it should improve the overall tone of the thread.:clap:


----------



## MacDoc

do recall it is "climate change"

From the Arctic Report Card



> Atmosphere
> J. Overland1, M. Wang2, and J. Walsh 3
> 1NOAA, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, WA
> 2Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
> 3International Arctic Research Center, Fairbanks, AK
> October 14, 2010
> Summary
> While 2009 showed a slowdown in the rate of annual air temperature increases in the Arctic, the first half of 2010 shows a near record pace with monthly anomalies of over 4°C in northern Canada. There continues to be significant excess heat storage in the Arctic Ocean at the end of summer due to continued near-record sea ice loss. There is evidence that the effect of higher air temperatures in the lower Arctic atmosphere in fall is contributing to changes in the atmospheric circulation in both the Arctic and northern mid-latitudes. Winter 2009-2010 showed a new connectivity between mid-latitude extreme cold and snowy weather events and changes in the wind patterns of the Arctic; the so-called Warm Arctic-Cold Continents pattern.
> The annual mean air temperature for 2009 over Arctic land areas was cooler than in recent years, although the average temperature for the last decade remained the warmest in the record beginning in 1900 (Fig. A.1). The 2009 average was dominated by very cold temperatures in Eurasia in February (the coldest of the decade) and December, while the remainder of the Arctic remained warm (Fig. A.2). The spatial distribution of annual temperature anomalies for 2009 has a pattern with values greater than 2.0°C throughout the Arctic, relative to a 1968–96 reference period (Fig. A.3). These anomalies show the major feature of current Arctic conditions, where there is a factor of two (or more) amplification of air temperature relative to lower latitudes.
> 
> 
> 
> and further
> 
> 
> Winter 2009-2010 showed a major new connectivity between Arctic climate and mid-latitude severe weather, compared to the past. Figure A7a shows normal early winter atmospheric conditions with low geopotential heights of constant pressure surfaces over the Arctic (purples). These fields indicate the tendency of wind patterns: winds tend to blow counter clockwise around the centers of lower heights, parallel to the height contours. In Figure A7a for example, winds tend to blow from west to east, thus separating cold arctic air masses from the regions further south.
> 
> *In December 2009 (Fig. A7b) and February 2010 (Fig. A7c) we actually had a reversal of this climate pattern, with higher heights and pressures over the Arctic that eliminated the normal west-to-east jet stream winds. This allowed cold air from the Arctic to penetrate all the way into Europe, eastern China, and Washington DC. As a result, December 2009 and February 2010 exhibited extremes in both warm and cold temperatures with record-setting snow across lower latitudes.* Northern Eurasia (north of 50° latitude to the Arctic coast) and North America (south of 55° latitude) were particularly cold (monthly anomalies of -2°C to -10°C). Arctic regions, on the other hand, had anomalies of +4°C to +12°C. This change in wind directions is called the Warm Arctic-Cold Continents climate pattern. *The most extreme winter (December, January, February) Arctic high-pressure event in 145 years of the historical record occurred in Winter 2009-2010.*
> 
> Arctic Report Card


more extremes more often....welcome to the Anthropocene


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, two years ago you you were reporting that the "Anthropocene" would merely cause the Arctic ice to melt. Essentially then, there is no longer a possibility of the occurrence of any "weather" or accumulated weather (that which we call "climate") which would not fit your model. Warm, cold, stable, violent, unpredictable, melting ice sheet, growing ice sheet--it's all part of the "Anthropocene."

Think carefully about what I'm going to say next. It is no longer possible for any input data to disprove your theories to you. If all possible weather, and all possible climate support your theory then why would you even discuss it any further?


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> do recall it is "climate change"
> 
> From the Arctic Report Card


Do recall that last week your "Climate Change" was AGW. When the wheels fell off that wagon, it was suddenly changed to today's nom du jour. Following next week's train wreck, it will be called something equally as unspectacular and just as full of holes as the last two have been.

I realize that the Surreal Climate hockey team is struggling these days, perhaps you can pass the message on to them: as far as your Arctic Report Card is concerned, WEATHER, not climate.

You certainly wouldn't allow one of the opposition to use the current blizzard streak in the UK as an example against global warming, would you? 

Please, let's try to keep the two differentiated, n'est-ce pas?


----------



## FeXL

New Paper: Solar UV activity increased almost 50% over past 400 years

So what, you ask?

From the analysis:



> A peer-reviewed paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds that reconstructions of total solar irradiance (TSI) show a significant increase since the Maunder minimum in the 1600's during the Little Ice Age and shows further increases over the 19th and 20th centuries. The TSI is estimated to have increased 1.25 W/m2 since the Maunder minimum as shown in the first graph below. Use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation indicates that *a 1.25 W/m2 increase in solar activity could account for an approximate .44C global temperature increase [the HADCRU global warming from 1850 to 2000 is .55C].* A significant new finding is that *portions of the more energetic ultraviolet region of the solar spectrum increased by almost 50% over the 400 years since the Maunder minimum (second graph below). This is highly significant because the UV portion of the solar spectrum is the most important for heating of the oceans due to the greatest penetration beyond the surface and highest energy levels. Solar UV is capable of penetrating the ocean to depths of several meters to cause ocean heating. whereas long wave infrared emission from "greenhouse gases" or the sun is only capable of penetrating the ocean surface a few microns with all energy lost to the phase change of evaporation with no net heating of the ocean.* Solar UV irradiance also "exerts control over chemical and physical processes in the Earth's upper atmosphere" such as ozone levels.


Emphasis mine.

So, what's warming the oceans? CO2? Nope. The sun? Yeppers.

Abstract:



> *Solar irradiance is the main external driver of the Earth's climate. Whereas the total solar irradiance is the main source of energy input into the climate system, solar UV irradiance exerts control over chemical and physical processes in the Earth's upper atmosphere.* The time series of accurate irradiance measurements are, however, relatively short and *limit the assessment of the solar contribution to the climate change.* Here we reconstruct solar total and spectral irradiance in the range 115–160,000 nm since 1610. The evolution of the solar photospheric magnetic flux, which is a central input to the model, is appraised from the historical record of the sunspot number using a simple but consistent physical model. The model predicts *an increase of 1.25 W/m2, or about 0.09%, in the 11-year averaged solar total irradiance since the Maunder minimum.* Also, *irradiance in individual spectral intervals has generally increased during the past four centuries, the magnitude of the trend being higher toward shorter wavelengths. In particular, the 11-year averaged Ly-α irradiance has increased by almost 50%.* An exception is the spectral interval between about 1500 and 2500 nm, where irradiance has slightly decreased (by about 0.02%).


Emphasis from the original.

Once again, good ol' Sol.

Who knew?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL: those models tend to work, whether forecasting or hindcasting, yet the models that are chock full of problems and fail to either forecast or hindcast reliably are touted as worthy of further attention.


----------



## FeXL

An article that compares 3 different CO2 concentration proxy data (ice cores, plant stomata & GEOCARB).

I'll jump right to the conclusions:



> *Ice core data provide a low-frequency estimate of atmospheric CO2 variations of the glacial/interglacial cycles of the Pleistocene. However, the ice cores seriously underestimate the variability of interglacial CO2 levels.
> *GEOCARB shows that ice cores underestimate the long-term average Pleistocene CO2 level by 36ppmv.
> *Modern satellite data show that atmospheric CO2 levels in Antarctica are 20 to 30ppmv less than lower latitudes.
> **Plant stomata data show that ice cores do not resolve past decadal and century scale CO2 variations that were of comparable amplitude and frequency to the rise since 1860.*
> 
> Thus it is concluded that:
> 
> *CO2 levels from the Early Holocene through pre-industrial times *were highly variable and not stable as the Antarctic ice cores suggest.*
> *The carbon and climate cycles are coupled in a consistent manner from the Early Holocene to the present day.
> **The carbon cycle lags behind the climate cycle and thus does not drive the climate cycle.*
> *The lag time is consistent with the hypothesis of a temperature-driven carbon cycle.
> **The anthropogenic contribution to the carbon cycle since 1860 is minimal and inconsequential.*


Emphasis mine.

Very readable, very sensical. Have a look.


----------



## FeXL

*Hey, anybody want a job?*

IPCC is looking for a PR person.

I think somebody from the hockey team should step right up!


----------



## FeXL

Climate Controlling Ocean Thermostat Discovered



> The influence of the Sun on Earth’s climate over time scales of centuries and millennia is all but ignored by current climate change dogma, with many climate scientists dismissing solar variation as too feeble to have much of an impact. Though it was recently discovered that variation at ultraviolet wavelengths is considerably greater than at lower frequencies, the change in total solar irradiance over recent 11-year sunspot cycles amounts to <0.1%. New research on longer time scales finds the change in total irradiance sufficient to affect the dynamics of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Detailed model studies of the Little Ice Age (~1400 to 1850 AD) conclude that the Sun controls an “ocean dynamical thermostat” that affects climate variability over large regions of the globe. It was also found that fully coupled general circulation models (GCMs), the kind used by the IPCC to make predictions of future global warming, lack a robust thermostat response. *This means that the sensitivity of the climate system to solar forcing is underestimated by current GCMs—the climate models are proven wrong again.*


...



> Why does all this matter? La Niña has historically been associated with stronger summer monsoons over Asia, as both are linked to strong easterlies over the tropical Pacific. Solar forcing of La Niña and persistent, decadal-scale droughts over the southwestern United States indicates a connection between solar-activity maxima and dry conditions. “Taken together with our SST record, these observations are consistent with solar-induced dynamical cooling of the ETP and provide predictions for millennial-scale fluctuations in the hydrologic balance over the western United States during the early Holocene,” the authors state.


Emphasis mine.

It's the sun...


----------



## FeXL

I am so waiting for these results...

Court Orders University to Surrender Global Warming Records



> The University of Virginia (U.Va.) had stalled since last year in handing over its record relating to accusations against a former academic employee implicated in the Climategate controversy of November 2009.
> 
> The researcher in the hot seat is global warming doomsayer, Professor Michael Mann who now works at Penn. State University. Mann, a Lead Author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been under increasing scrutiny since the climate fraud scandal hit the headlines over a year ago.


and



> According to Horner U.Va. has offered "a series of twists" on a novel defense of 'academic freedom.' *It has spent half a million dollars on legal fees trying to prevent Virginia’s Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli acquiring any access to the records.* Cuccinelli filed his petition for access on behalf of the state’s taxpayers last year.
> 
> Horner writes, “Virginia's transparency statute FOIA gives the school one week to produce the documents, and offers no exemption for claims U.Va. is using to block Cuccinelli's inquiry.”
> 
> From the start the university tried to deny it still possessed such records. Horner opined, “U.Va. stunningly dropped this stance. For this reversal, the taxpayers of Virginia owe Cuccinelli a debt of gratitude.”


Emphasis mine.

Just what is U.Va. afraid of?


----------



## MacDoc

> *What Carbon Cycle? College Students Lack Scientific Literacy, Study Finds*
> 
> ScienceDaily (Jan. 7, 2011) — Most college students in the United States do not grasp the scientific basis of the carbon cycle -[HILITE]- an essential skill in understanding the causes and consequences of climate change, [/HILITE]according to research published in the January issue of BioScience.


more
What carbon cycle? College students lack scientific literacy, study finds

Why am I not surprised :garfield

and now we begin to document the large scale energy transport changes.....

welcome to the Anthropocene....



> *Atlantic currents have seen 'drastic' changes: study*
> January 4, 2011 The cold northern Labrador Current may be having a declining influence on the Atlantic Ocean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _A woman celebrates after participating in the annual Coney Island Polar Bear Club New Year's Day swim in New York._
> 
> Scientists have found evidence of a "drastic" shift since the 1970s in north Atlantic Ocean currents that usually influence weather in the northern hemisphere, Swiss researchers say.
> 
> Scientists have found evidence of a "drastic" shift since the 1970s in north Atlantic Ocean currents that usually influence weather in the northern hemisphere, Swiss researchers said on Tuesday.
> 
> The team of biochemists and oceanographers from Switzerland, Canada and the United States detected changes in deep sea Atlantic corals that indicated the declining influence of the cold northern Labrador Current.
> 
> They said in the US National Academy of Science journal PNAS that the change "since the early 1970s is largely unique in the context of the last approximately 1,800 years," and raised the prospect of a direct link with global warming.
> 
> The Labrador Current interacts with the warmer Gulfstream from the south.
> 
> They in turn have a complex interaction with a climate pattern, the North Atlantic Oscillation, which has a dominant impact on weather in Europe and North America.
> 
> Scientists have pointed to a disruption or shifts in the oscillation as an explanation for moist or harsh winters in Europe, or severe summer droughts such as in Russia, in recent years.
> 
> One of the five scientists, Carsten Schubert, of the Swiss Federal Institute of Acquatic Sciences and Technology (EAWAG), underlined that for nearly 2,000 years the sub polar Labrador current off northern Canada and Newfoundland was the dominant force.
> 
> However that pattern appeared to have only been repeated occasionally in recent decades.
> 
> "Now the southern current has taken over, it's really a drastic change," Schubert told AFP, pointing to the evidence of the shift towards warmer water in the northwest Atlantic.
> 
> The research was based on nitrogen isotope signatures in 700 year old coral reefs on the ocean floor, which feed on sinking organic particles.
> 
> While water pushed by the Gulfstream is salty and rich in nutrients, the colder Arctic waters carried by the Labrador current contain fewer nutrients.
> 
> Changes could be dated because of the natural growth rings seen in corals.
> 
> "*The researchers suspect there is a direct connection between the changes in oceanic currents in the North Atlantic and global warming caused by human activities*.


Atlantic currents have seen 'drastic' changes: study

Dump fossil carbon in the atmosphere....there are consequences...


----------



## Macfury

The fact that American students are not good at sciences does not change either the weather or the climate. It is not evidence of anything, except a failure to improve educational outcomes by throwing more money at the education system.

As for the Atlantic current study--the current may be changing, but the authors have produced no link to human causes, except their suspicions. The effect is unique in the context of the past 1800 years? What caused it 1800 year ago? Certainly not humanity.


----------



## SINC

*Abrupt Climate Change: Should We Be Worried?*



> Are we overlooking potential abrupt climate shifts?
> 
> Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. *This line of thinking, however, fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario.* It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future.
> 
> F*ossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth’s climate can shift gears within a decade, establishing new and different patterns that can persist for decades to centuries. In addition, these climate shifts do not necessarily have universal, global effects. They can generate a counterintuitive scenario: Even as the earth as a whole continues to warm gradually, large regions may experience a precipitous and disruptive shift into colder climates.*
> 
> This new paradigm of abrupt climate change has been well established over the last decade by research of ocean, earth and atmosphere scientists at many institutions worldwide. But the concept remains little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of scientists, economists, policy makers, and world political and business leaders. Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.1
> 
> It is important to clarify that we are not contemplating a situation of either abrupt cooling or global warming. Rather, abrupt regional cooling and gradual global warming can unfold simultaneously. Indeed, greenhouse warming is a destabilizing factor that makes abrupt climate change more probable. A 2002 report by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) said, “available evidence suggests that abrupt climate changes are not only possible but likely in the future, potentially with large impacts on ecosystems and societies.”2


Emphasis mine.

Much more here.


----------



## Dr.G.

MacDoc said:


> more
> What carbon cycle? College students lack scientific literacy, study finds
> 
> Why am I not surprised :garfield
> 
> and now we begin to document the large scale energy transport changes.....
> 
> welcome to the Anthropocene....
> 
> 
> 
> Atlantic currents have seen 'drastic' changes: study
> 
> Dump fossil carbon in the atmosphere....there are consequences...


Coastal Labrador and the area around St.John's just experienced the warmest months of December in recorded history. Both areas have also seen a lack of snow, with coastal Labrador having just over a foot of snow on the ground, and St.John's having no snow at all on the ground, as of today. Something is happening here with the Labrador Current, as we are the first to have it influence our day to day weather ........... and possibly our year to year climate. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury

Dr. G;: Our early lives were characterized by unusual stability in weather patterns. It consistently colours our expectations.


----------



## vancouverdave

Another potential contributer to 'desertification' and subsequent poverty in our (children's) future. 

Spend now, pay later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Dr. G;: Our early lives were characterized by unusual stability in weather patterns. It consistently colours our expectations.


My "early life" was spent in New York City. The only color back then was the color of smog. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

vancouverdave said:


> Another potential contributer to 'desertification' and subsequent poverty in our (children's) future.
> 
> Spend now, pay later.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


These tapatalk one-liners don't provide enough detail to make any sense of the post.


----------



## MacDoc

*Kiss the world we know goodbye.....*

short of active removal of carbon.....we've already altered it beyond recognition

no risk eh......



> *Climate change to continue to year 3000 in best case scenarios: research*
> January 9, 2011
> 
> New research indicates the impact of rising CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere will cause unstoppable effects to the climate for at least the next 1000 years, causing researchers to estimate a collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet by the year 3000, and an eventual rise in the global sea level *of at least four metres.*
> 
> The study, to be published in the Jan. 9 Advanced Online Publication of the journal *Nature* Geoscience, is the first full climate model simulation to make predictions out to 1000 years from now. It is based on best-case, 'zero-emissions' scenarios constructed by a team of researchers from the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (an Environment Canada research lab at the University of Victoria) and the University of Calgary.
> 
> "We created 'what if' scenarios," says Dr. Shawn Marshall, Canada Research Chair in Climate Change and University of Calgary geography professor.
> 
> "What if we completely stopped using fossil fuels and put no more CO2 in the atmosphere? How long would it then take to reverse current climate change trends and will things first become worse?" The research team explored zero-emissions scenarios beginning in 2010 and in 2100.
> 
> The Northern Hemisphere fares better than the south in the computer simulations, with patterns of climate change reversing within the 1000-year timeframe in places like Canada. At the same time parts of North Africa experience desertification as land dries out by up to 30 percent, and ocean warming of up to 5°C off of Antarctica is likely to trigger widespread collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, a region the size of the Canadian prairies.
> 
> Researchers hypothesize that one reason for the variability between the North and South is the slow movement of ocean water from the North Atlantic into the South Atlantic. "The global ocean and parts of the Southern Hemisphere have much more inertia, such that change occurs more slowly," says Marshall. "The inertia in intermediate and deep ocean currents driving into the Southern Atlantic means those oceans are only now beginning to warm as a result of CO2 emissions from the last century.
> 
> *The simulation showed that warming will continue rather than stop or reverse on the 1000-year time scale."*


continues

Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology - JREF Forum

and how many hundreds of millions live near the coasts?



> *It turns out that two-thirds of world's largest cities — cities with more than five million people — are at least partially in these low areas. *That's important, because people are increasingly moving to cities.


Study: 634 Million People at Risk from Rising Seas : NPR

That is NOT a long time span......the oldest building in Venice was built in 639 - 1300 plus years ago.
The next thousand will see it meters underwater as a diving site.....

Along with most of Manhattan, London et al ...but Harpo loves his oil sands....and damn the consequences.....


----------



## Max

Macfury said:


> These tapatalk one-liners don't provide enough detail to make any sense of the post.


I dunno. Made sense to me, MF.

MacDoc: all this dire talk of 1000 years from now and you're laying the blame on Harper? I think you're conflating things, big time.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> *Kiss the world we know goodbye.....*
> 
> short of active removal of carbon.....we've already altered it beyond recognition
> 
> no risk eh......hat is NOT a long time span......the oldest building in Venice was built in 639 - 1300 plus years ago.
> The next thousand will see it meters underwater as a diving site.....
> 
> Along with most of Manhattan, London et al ...but Harpo loves his oil sands....and damn the consequences.....


MacDoc, it's easy to find science fiction risks when you look at such sites. I recommend putting them on "Ignore perm" and voila, the sea levels cease their relentless rise! Here's a hint: you will see more such alarmism, the further the world turns away from the climate change mantra.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> I dunno. Made sense to me, MF.


OK then, what will lead to the desertification of what? On what will we spend now, before we pay later?


----------



## Max

Yeah, made sense to me, alright.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Yeah, made sense to me, alright.


I agree. A hearty handclasp, then?


----------



## Macfury

Professor Tim Flannery, Chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council, expressed his views on the religious basis for actions by warmists on Australian television: 



> *...warmist guru Tim Flannery on the ABC's Science Show on January 1:*
> 
> I think that within this century the concept of the strong Gaia will actually become physically manifest. I do think that the Gaia of the Ancient Greeks, where they believed the earth was effectively one whole and perfect living creature, that doesn't exist yet, but it will exist in future...
> 
> With our technology now, particularly computer based surveillance systems in agriculture and in the oceans and whatever else, we're developing a sort of nervous system that allows us to convey that message to the planet. We'll never be able to control the earth, there's no doubt about it. We can't control its systems. But we can nudge them and we can foresee danger. Once that occurs, then the Gaia of the Ancient Greeks really will exist.This planet, this Gaia, will have acquired a brain and a nervous system. That will make it act as a living animal, as a living organism, at some sort of level.


Batty as a walllaby, methinks.


----------



## Macfury

By the way, Maccy D, 2010 turned out *not* to be the warmest on record, despite your assertions that it would be so.


----------



## CubaMark

An interesting read...

*RealClimate: Forbes’ rich list of nonsense*



> While it is no longer surprising, it remains disheartening to see a blistering attack on climate science in the business press where thoughtful reviews of climate policy ought to be appearing. Of course, the underlying strategy is to pretend that no evidence that the climate is changing exists, so any effort to address climate change is a waste of resources.





> Whether the enemy is the “mercenary” scientific community, the “power hungry” liberal politicians or the “sensationalist” press matters little. What matters is to suggest the public has been manipulated, before starting the manipulation in earnest. The strategic point is to divert attention from what most scientifically informed people consider the key facts: the climate is changing as a result of human intervention. The longer we delay taking policy action, the more damage we will take and the more an effective policy will cost. It is conceivable and increasingly foreseeable that we will delay long enough that useful policy becomes infeasible and both human civilization and the biosphere will be permanently damaged.


(RealClimate.org)


----------



## FeXL

There seems to be some *denial* on behalf of the warmists as to the extent of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) who believe that the effect was localized to Europe. I've posted links contrary to that belief before, here are analyses of a couple more.

For your reading pleasure, I present links to further evidence of both the MWP & LIA in China & now, South America. I believe, along with the previous links outlining the effect in North America & New Zealand, that makes it worldwide, no?

China



> Zhang et al. conclude that their proxy climate data "reveal that the North Atlantic MWP and the LIA were accompanied by climate changes on the northeastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau," while their comparison with Esper et al.'s data indicates that their data are also well correlated with long tree-ring chronologies from much of the Northern Hemisphere. The research team thus provides important evidence for the broad geographical reach of both the MWP and the LIA, which indicates that these climatic phenomena extended far beyond the North Atlantic Ocean and the lands immediately surrounding it.


South America



> In the introduction to their paper, Kellerhals et al. state that the terms Little Ice Age (LIA) and Medieval Warm Period (MWP) can be validly employed to describe the "extensive advances of alpine glaciers in Europe from the 16th to the 19th century and the comparatively warm conditions in Europe from the 10th to the 13th century," but they add that the implication that these terms represent "globally synchronous cold and warm periods" has been dismissed by most of the world's climate alarmists. Therefore, in light of their newest findings, it is extremely significant that Kellerhals et al. conclude that the "relatively warm temperatures during the first centuries of the past millennium and subsequent cold conditions from the 15th to the 18th century suggest that the MWP and the LIA are not confined to high northern latitudes," and that they "also have a tropical signature." *These observations thus add to the growing body of evidence that demonstrates the global extent of the millennial-scale oscillation of climate that produced both the MWP and the LIA, and which has likely been responsible for the bulk of the warming that has led to the establishment of the Current Warm Period. CO2, if anything, would thus appear to have been but a bit player in the forcing of earth's climate since the end of the Little Ice Age.*


Emphasis mine.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc may not hear you for some time FeXL, as he is on board an airplane traveling to South Africa.

CO2 generated is .39 lbs/passenger mile = 3,232 pounds each way.


----------



## FeXL

When the Chicago carbon trade closed down it was a nickel a ton.

That's what, a little over 15 cents to assuage a guilty conscience...


----------



## FeXL

You may not have heard of the massive fire in Israel last year. The flames destroyed over 5000 hectares of forest and was noted as the worst in Israel's history.

Our good friends at Greenpeace immediately pointed the finger at global warming as the cause. The interesting thing about pointing a finger is that when you do, there are three pointing back.



> Greenpeace wishes to emphasize that this fire is a direct expression of the effects of climate change and global warming which threaten us all. Climate change is already here and it is taking a heavy human toll!
> 
> Israel must take this warning sign seriously and take immediate measures in order to eradicate the effects of climate change. Israel must cancel its plans to construct another coal plant, reduce use of fossil fuels, and realize that we are dealing with an international struggle.


Good, solid conclusion with a scientific foundation, right?

More like typical hippie rhetoric.

From the Jerusalem Post:



> The cause of this particular fire was, sadly enough, the good intentions of a participant in the Rainbow Festival that was being held at the site. For ecological reasons, she burned toilet paper she had used so as not to leave it in nature, and in normal circumstances, that would have been the thing to do. However, due to the strong winds and the unseasonable hot air, the dry grasses caught on fire immediately, and the fire spread in four different directions simultaneously.


No retraction from Greenpeace has been issued...


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

What does that cartoon have to do with the topic?


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> By the way, Maccy D, 2010 turned out *not* to be the warmest on record, despite your assertions that it would be so.


It was in Nunavut and Newfoundland and Labrador. Those are the only two I know of for sure, however, at least here in Canada.


----------



## FeXL

IPCC Nobel Laureates Lack Scientific Credibility

The International Pack of Climate Crooks still gets quoted as an authority (how, I'll never understand) so this bears posting...



> To sum up, therefore, a significant number of IPPC insiders believe many of their colleagues possess inferior scientific credentials. They believe these people’s participation in the IPCC is a result of concerns that have nothing to do with science.
> 
> Instead, they were chosen because they are of the right gender or the right nationality. They were chosen because they are pals with the person who makes such decisions in a particular country. They were chosen because they are considered politically “safe” by their own governments.
> 
> All of these people – no matter how little they actually contributed to the IPCC process – are now Nobel laureates.


Have a look at the observations. Worth a read.


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> IPCC Nobel Laureates Lack Scientific Credibility
> 
> The International Pack of Climate Crooks still gets quoted as an authority (how, I'll never understand) so this bears posting...
> 
> 
> 
> Have a look at the observations. Worth a read.


"International Pack of Climate Crooks" :clap:

Why does none of this surprise us?


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> "International Pack of Climate Crooks" :clap:
> 
> Why does none of this surprise us?


Define your lack of surprise. Define us please.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> Define your lack of surprise. Define us please.


I seldom respond to direct orders.

That stated, It is no surprise to find out many members of the IPCC are inexperienced and out of their element. And since it is not obvious to you, us refers to those of us who believe the IPCC is exactly that, an "International Pack of Climate Crooks".


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> I seldom respond to direct orders.


He did say "please".


----------



## SINC

Dr.G. said:


> He did say "please".


And I did answer him, although I though it was pretty obvious in its original form.


----------



## FeXL

A research paper fresh off the presses reduces by 44% the amount the IPCC claims the effect of CO2 has.

In a nutshell, an increase in solar magnetic fields deflects galactic cosmic rays & reduce the formation of low level clouds over the earth.



> Analyzing the data between 1960 and 2005, Rao found that lesser GCRs were reaching the earth due to increase in solar magnetic field and thereby leading to increase in global warming.
> 
> "Consequently the contribution of increased CO2 emission to be observed global warming of 0.75 degree Celsius would only be 0.42 degree Celsius, considerably less than what predicted by IPCC," the paper said to be published in Indian Journal Current Science had said. This is about 44 % less than what IPCC had said.


Perhaps even more significant:



> "I just want to expand scientific debate on impact of non-Green House Gases on climate change," Ramesh said, when asked whether he was again challenging the IPCC. *"Science is all about raising questions."*


Emphasis mine.

I've rallied this cry all along. Anytime anyone (scientists and especially politicians & mainstream media) tells me "the science is settled", alarm bells & flashing lights go off in my head.

Science is a *continually* evolving field. What was accepted as truth yesterday may not be the same today and completely different tomorrow.

There is no such thing as "settled science".

Ask the question, people.


----------



## CubaMark

*Whoops. A little problem with a carbon sequestering test project...*

*Carbon Not-So-Captured*



> One proposed strategy for reducing the effects of carbon emissions is to try to capture the carbon as it is emitted and to bury it underground. But the technology is controversial. And a story from Saskatchewan is adding support to opponents of the technology. A farm couple whose land sits atop a carbon capture site commissioned an independent report into their land quality, and say that it appears to indicate that the so-called "captured" carbon has actually leaked into their land.





> Two ponds on their land, which had never shown such symptoms before, suddenly was sprouting algae blooms and red, yellow, and silver-blue scum. They found dead cats, rabbits, and goats littering the sides of the pond. They started hearing explosions in the night, and would run out to see foam shooting out, "just like you shook up a bottle of Coke,"


(Full story at FastCompany)


----------



## chasMac

And our provincial government is spending $2 billion on this 'proven' technology.


----------



## Macfury

Burying carbon is completely idiotic. Future generations will be splitting their sides laughing. They'll run films of the IPCC crowd in fast motion like a Charlie Chaplin film.


----------



## groovetube

speaking of idiotic... "dr" Tim Ball is at it again.
Apology to Dr. Andrew Weaver

Nothing like a little backtracking. But I find often many deniers more than happy to shriek lies regardless of whether it's even true or not. Perfect example.




Macfury said:


> Burying carbon is completely idiotic. Future generations will be splitting their sides laughing. They'll run films of the IPCC crowd in fast motion like a Charlie Chaplin film.


I don't think they were talking about "buying"... carbon.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> Nothing like a little backtracking. But I find often many deniers more than happy to shriek lies regardless of whether it's even true or not. Perfect example.


Hey, he back tracked. Give him credit.

Unlike the wonderful people on the warmist side of the agenda who not only plagiarized but, when the issue was brought to light, amended the text & didn't provide a change notation.



> On January 14, 2011, I reported here that Trenberth’s AMS presentation had lifted text verbatim or near-verbatim from Hasselmann 2010 with no citation in most cases and, in the one case where Hasselmann 2010 was cited, the citation was insufficient under standard academic practices given the lengthy near-quotation. Trenberth’s original presentation is here.
> 
> This post has obviously been brought to Trenberth and/or AMS’s attention, as they have deleted the original version of Trenberth’s presentation and replaced it with an amended version, without a change notice.


Yeah, that's professional.


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> Hey, he back tracked. Give him credit.
> 
> Unlike the wonderful people on the warmist side of the agenda who not only plagiarized but, when the issue was brought to light, amended the text & didn't provide a change notation.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's professional.


Oh it doesn't appear that "he" backtracked. The CFP is disassociating itself from completely untrue slams from this guy who always seems to pop up as the scientist who asserts there is no climate change from carbon emissions, and it seems he gets caught as a fraud or a liar each and every time.

You would think the anti climate changers would completely disassociate themselves from this guy altogether, but no there he is...

If you can't debate someone on facts, just lie.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> Oh it doesn't appear that IPCC backtracked. The mainline media is disassociating itself from completely untrue slams from the IPCC who always seems to pop up as the scientists who asserts there is climate change from carbon emissions, and it seems they get caught as a fraud or a liar each and every time.
> 
> You would think the climate changers would completely disassociate themselves from the IPCC altogether, but no there they are...
> 
> If you can't debate someone on facts, just lie.


Here, let me fix that post for you...


----------



## SINC

Yep, works both ways, doesn't it? Good point FeXL.


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> Here, let me fix that post for you...


Did that make the public apology go away?

The I know you are but what I routine really falls flat here.

This, and the discovery that "climategate" was much ado over absolutely zip, though anti climate changers are desperate to hold on to that one at all costs.

Tim Ball really isn't helping your cause.


----------



## FeXL

My cause is to educate people, to get people to ask the question, rather than get shovel fed alarmist bull***** by politicos & MM that serves nothing more than to sell headlines.

Tim Ball does nothing for me because I'm still a fence sitter. Although there is much solid evidence showing mankind's hand in Global Warming is less & less, I haven't made up my mind.

So you don't like Tim Ball. Fine. I don't care. My example was to illustrate he is hardly the only person or the only side worthy of criticism in this debate.

BTW, Climategate is not over. The chickens will come home to roost...


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> My cause is to educate people, to get people to ask the question, rather than get shovel fed alarmist bull***** by politicos & MM that serves nothing more than to sell headlines.
> 
> Tim Ball does nothing for me because I'm still a fence sitter. Although there is much solid evidence showing mankind's hand in Global Warming is less & less, I haven't made up my mind.
> 
> So you don't like Tim Ball. Fine. I don't care. My example was to illustrate he is hardly the only person or the only side worthy of criticism in this debate.
> 
> BTW, Climategate is not over. The chickens will come home to roost...


I listen to both sides. What I don't appreciate, are clear fraudsters like Tim Ball, who is often the 'scientist' held up on the shoulders of those against the climate change theories. He is touted over and over, despite being nailed all the time. You'd think, at some point, those who disbelieve the theories would figure this out, and move on. I was pointing out the obvious nonsense, and public apology over just bald faced lies.

Tim Ball isn't the only one doing it I'm sure, but once again, the I know you are but what am I argument always gets trotted out to neutralize the nonsense, it seems I have seen this from conservative supporters on a constant basis since this lying promise breaking incompetent Canadian government took office.

It's always 'ok' cause someone else did it. It never is, regardless of which side did it.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> this lying promise breaking incompetent Canadian government took office.


WTF does this have to do with global warming?


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> WTF does this have to do with global warming?


I'm outing this ridiculous notion that if someone else did it, it makes what you did ok, or less of an issue. I'm seeing this practice in full use by this conservative government currently, more than I have ever recalled another government in the past doing it. It won't be limited to the conservatives as when and if the liberals get their turn, they'll now employ it because it has become very accepted because all supporters are now doing it.

You employed it in your response, and I'm pointing it out. I don't -care-, if someone else did it. It does not in any way, lessen the BS. It just justifies it. If anyone is going to come to any kind of reasonable conclusion, the swinging of bull crap like this isn't going to further it.

edit: to add. Let's not get too far down the argue road. I'm too exhausted with work to go there. I hear what you are saying that it isn't only one side capable of these shenanigans. But it strikes me one side seems to rely on it more. But, that's my opinion, perhaps bias.


----------



## FeXL

It's that kind of circuitous ad hominem rationalization that does nothing more than take up blog space and adds nothing to the discussion.

In reply, I said I don't care if you don't like Tim Ball.

There was nothing political discussed or implied. Period.

You wanna go dump on the gov't? Fine.

Go elsewhere.


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> It's that kind of circuitous ad hominem rationalization that does nothing more than take up blog space and adds nothing to the discussion.
> 
> In reply, I said I don't care if you don't like Tim Ball.
> 
> There was nothing political discussed or implied. Period.
> 
> You wanna go dump on the gov't? Fine.
> 
> Go elsewhere.


circuitous?

Your reply started that, by using the old, well they did it too.

As I already said, I drew a parallel to this government (since almost all climate change deniers are overwhelmingly conservative) where every time they are caught lying or breaking a promise, they use the same, tactic. Over and over, and over again, to the point that it's almost become a joke.

And this, was before, you said you didn't care if I liked Tim Ball or not. So the "ircuitous ad hominem rationalization" was already well taken care of by your reply thank you. Your post reply immediately said well the IPCC did it too...

To summarize, don't bother with the old "well someone else did it too!!" argument.

Period.


----------



## MacDoc

Harking back to the OP - one wonders what debate that would be?? Scopes??





> *New Melt Record for Greenland Ice Sheet; 'Exceptional' Season Stretched Up to 50 Days Longer Than Average*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The figure above shows the standardized melting index anomaly for the period 1979 – 2010. In simple words, each bar tells us by how many standard deviations melting in a particular year was above the average. For example, a value of ~ 2 for 2010 means that melting was above the average by two times the ‘variability’ of the melting signal along the period of observation. (Credit: M. Tedesco CCNY/CUNY)
> ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2011) — New research shows that 2010 set new records for the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, expected to be a major contributor to projected sea level rises in coming decades.
> 
> "This past melt season was exceptional, with melting in some areas stretching up to 50 days longer than average," said Dr. Marco Tedesco, director of the Cryospheric Processes Laboratory at The City College of New York (CCNY -- CUNY), who is leading a project studying variables that affect ice sheet melting.
> 
> "Melting in 2010 started exceptionally early at the end of April and ended quite late in mid- September."
> 
> The study, with different aspects sponsored by World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the National Science Foundation and NASA, examined surface temperature anomalies over the Greenland ice sheet surface, as well as estimates of surface melting from satellite data, ground observations and models.
> 
> In an article published in Environmental Research Letters, Professor Tedesco and co-authors note that in 2010, summer temperatures up to 3C above the average were combined with reduced snowfall.
> 
> The capital of Greenland, Nuuk, had the warmest spring and summer since records began in 1873.
> 
> Bare ice was exposed earlier than the average and longer than previous years, contributing to the extreme record.
> 
> "Bare ice is much darker than snow and absorbs more solar radiation," said Professor Tedesco. "Other ice melting feedback loops that we are examining include the impact of lakes on the glacial surface, of dust and soot deposited over the ice sheet and how surface meltwater affects the flow of the ice toward the ocean."
> 
> WWF climate specialist Dr. Martin Sommerkorn said "Sea level rise is expected to top 1 metre by 2100, largely due to melting from ice sheets. And it will not stop there -- the longer we take to limit greenhouse gas production, the more melting and water level rise will continue."
> 
> Dr. Tedesco's continuing research on ice sheets can be followed on Cryocity.org.
> 
> For more on Arctic climate change, visit WWF - The Arctic.


There are major changes afoot in the ocean currents as well which will have significant impact on a variety of areas as well as ocean fish and mammal habitats....










large scale global experiment we are conducting with our carbon emissions....and the consequences are unfolding.....



> Published online 25 April 2010 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2010.201
> News
> *An oceanic 'fast-lane' for climate change*
> A deep-sea current moves millions of cubic metres of water northward every second.
> 
> Richard A. Lovett


An oceanic 'fast-lane' for climate change : Nature News


----------



## Macfury

But MacDoc, the effect is only achieved by being selective about the years studied. Over the long haul, the figures are virtually meaningless.


----------



## Sonal

Hey, this is my boyfriend's area of research. He took a quick look, and pointed out that they don't have data going back far enough to conclude that there is a dramatic change going on. Research is ongoing.


----------



## SINC

If you do the math, MacDoc's graph flat lines with as many ups as downs over that period of years. Result? ZERO change.


----------



## SINC

Yeah, it's evident that the content of a post can indeed go right over a person's head.


----------



## groovetube

I'm sorry sinc, but at the end of the day, you just have to step back and look at what is being posted and have a chuckle.

The gnip gnopping happening here is almost hilarious. I posted a rather interesting news piece showing the notorious mr. Tim Ball to be the absolute liar we all knew he was, only to met with, well the other guy did it, some snorting from you, and the typical macfury in for a knife throw. That's what passes for debate now? pffft.

You can't take this stuff seriously, honestly. It's a joke. There's only a couple posters here I find interesting and knowledgeable, but funny enough they don't post often (wonder why).


----------



## SINC

Missed it again I see.


----------



## groovetube

oh yes I've completely and totally missed the absolutely spell bounding mind boggling erudition of epic proportions, that the google kings have bestowed upon us here.

Yes and my mocking it some and having a chuckle, is maddening. I know.

Hold a drink up high, and know that we have proved something!


----------



## SINC

Still no light on? Oh well.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Hey, this is my boyfriend's area of research. He took a quick look, and pointed out that they don't have data going back far enough to conclude that there is a dramatic change going on. Research is ongoing.


There you go Sonal, groovetube trumps your boyfriend's expertise--after all, he only does this for a living. That 'ol cuss ioyfriend of your'n is just book learnin' and web linkin' and that don't amount to a hill o' spit. Yeee-hawwwww!


----------



## groovetube

I don't think I could possibly have hoped for better.

classic example, the news report highlighting the lies of celebrated anti climate change 'scientist', all but forgotten in a sea, of 5 year old antics of, I know you are but what am I, "you're too stupid to unner-stand", and the dive bomb jabs of conserva... er, liberatrian (we're never quite sure) I'm just mad and I'm gonna say it.

How anyone can take this so seriously, is simply, amazing.


----------



## Macfury

Excellent post!


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> large scale global experiment we are conducting with our carbon emissions....and the consequences are unfolding.....


I'm sorry, did you post this from Africa?

No hypocrites on these boards, nosiree.

Oh, I know all about the carbon credits you purchased, all 17 cents worth. BTW, if you paid more than that, you got took big time.

In response to your observation about new melt records & warmest temps since 18-whatever in Greenland, how would you respond to the growing of grains & raising of cattle by Vikings in Greenland 1000 years ago?

Dem poor buggers musta shoveled snow for years in order to accomplish that feat. Wait, I keep forgetting. Warmists don't believe in the MWP, do they?

Lemme give ya a little tip. There is more to the earth's climate than the last 150 years. Some of the periodicities are longer than 150 years. Read about it, learn it, then you can come play in the sandbox.

There is an excellent paper out there that will inform you that out of the last 10,000 years, 9200+ have been warmer than 2010. I'd provide the link but it's easily searchable & I jes' knows you likes searchin'...


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> There you go Sonal, groovetube trumps your boyfriend's expertise--after all, he only does this for a living. That 'ol cuss ioyfriend of your'n is just book learnin' and web linkin' and that don't amount to a hill o' spit. Yeee-hawwwww!


I'll have to tell him that Ph.D. was a waste of time and money. Well, maybe not if it gets him into that geophysics conference in Vienna this spring. I always wanted to go to Vienna.

There are unusually high temperatures in Greenland right now. What is not known is if this is historically normal or not, as the data doesn't go back that far, and the impact of this is still not certain.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> well we all know, a Ph.D automatically means you are the smartest, most rightest individual ever. All you have to do, is say you got one. BAM! You win.
> 
> And you get a trip to Vienna!
> 
> Bonus.


----------



## Sonal

groovetube said:


> well we all know, a Ph.D automatically means you are the smartest, most rightest individual ever. All you have to do, is say you got one. BAM! You win.
> 
> And you get a trip to Vienna!
> 
> Bonus.


Yes. Lucky for me.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Greenland ice cores.



> The δ18O data clearly show remarkable swings in climate over the past 100,000 years. In just the past 500 years, Greenland warming/cooling temperatures fluctuated back and forth about 40 times, with changes every 25-30 years (27 years on the average). None of these changes could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2 because they predate the large CO2 emissions that began about 1945. Nor can the warming of 1915 to 1945 be related to CO2, because it pre-dates the soaring emissions after 1945. Thirty years of global cooling (1945 to 1977) occurred during the big post-1945 increase in CO2.


While the article does raise a couple of questions for me (the biggest being using the Arctic temp record as a proxy for the whole planet, as pointed out in the comments I'd like to see corresponding ice core data from the Antarctic. However, as the exalted IPCC paints the planet with Arctic temps, sauce for the gander & all...) I believe it answers more than it asks.



> Figure 2 shows comparisons of the largest magnitudes of warming/cooling events per century over the past 25,000 years. *At least three warming events were 20 to 24 times the magnitude of warming over the past century and four were 6 to 9 times the magnitude of warming over the past century. The magnitude of the only modern warming which might possibly have been caused by CO2. (1978-1998) is insignificant compared to the earlier periods of warming.*


Emphasis mine.

That should about cover the Greenland problem.

Next?


----------



## CubaMark

*Amazing...*



> *Melting sea ice forces polar bear to swim for nine days*
> 
> _By Rob Hastings_
> Wednesday, 26 January 2011
> 
> 
> 
> In a remarkable feat of endurance, a polar bear has been tracked swimming for nine days continuously in a desperate bid to reach new ice floes, covering 426 miles in the process.
> 
> The bears are excellent swimmers and are known to travel long distances in search of seals. But scientists working for the US Geological Survey, who logged the animal's plight using a GPS tracking collar, said the animal's exertions were exceptional – and further evidence of the extent to which the melting of the bears' natural habitat due to global warming is threatening their very existence.
> 
> The research, published in the Polar Biology journal, found that swims of such extreme distances "may result in high energetic costs and compromise reproductive fitness".
> 
> The journey did not end happily for the tracked animal. As well as shedding 22 per cent of her body weight, she also lost her young cub. (UK Independent)


----------



## Macfury

The original research paper merely states that during summers where ice melt is more significant than other summers, some polar bears may need to swim long distances to find ice. It is not a paper on global warming. The bear would have had to swim the same distance during the 1920s and other decades when similar melts occurred.


----------



## FeXL

Article giving a brief overview of a paper published in _Quaternary Science Reviews_ wherein midge populations from Alaskan lake core samples are translated to average July temperatures over the last 6000 years.



> In discussing their results, the seven scientists write that "comparisons of the TJuly record from Moose Lake with other Alaskan temperature records suggest that the regional coherency observed in instrumental temperature records (e.g., Wiles et al., 1998; Gedalof and Smith, 2001; Wilson et al., 2007) extends broadly to at least 2000 cal BP," while noting that (1) climatic events such as the LIA and the MWP occurred "largely synchronously" between their TJuly record from Moose Lake and a δ18O-based temperature record from Farewell Lake on the northwestern foothills of the Alaska Range, and that (2) "local temperature minima likely associated with First Millennium AD Cooling (centered at 1400 cal BP; Wiles et al., 2008) are evident at both Farewell and Hallet lakes (McKay et al., 2008)."
> 
> In closing, it is instructive to note that even with the help of the supposedly unprecedented anthropogenic-induced increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration that occurred over the course of the 20th century, *the Current Warm Period has not achieved anywhere near the warmth of the MWP or RWP, which suggests to us that the climatic impact of the 20th-century increase in the air's CO2 content has been negligible*, for the warming that defined the earth's recovery from the global chill of the LIA -- which should have been helped by the concurrent increase in the air's CO2 content -- appears no different from the non-CO2-induced warming that brought the planet out of the Dark Ages Cold Period and into the Medieval Warm Period.


Emphasis mine.


----------



## ehMax

I went back last couple of pages and quickly deleted quite a few posts that had nothing to do with the topic. 

If this thread can't stay on topic, I will close the thread.


----------



## SINC

*Just one more little hiccup for the International Pack of Climate Crooks to wear:*



> *Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating*, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century.
> 
> Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather than shrinking.
> 
> The discovery adds a new twist to the row over whether global warming is causing the world's highest mountain range to lose its ice cover.
> 
> It further challenges claims made in a 2007 report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the glaciers would be gone by 2035.
> 
> Although the head of the panel Dr Rajendra Pachauri later admitted the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research, *he maintained that global warming was melting the glaciers at "a rapid rate", threatening floods throughout north India.*
> 
> The new study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himlaya, are in fact advancing and that *global warming is not the deciding factor in whether a glacier survives or melts*.


Emphasis mine.

Link.


----------



## groovetube

this is rather old news.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> this is rather old news.


No, this is a _new_ study on the Himalayan glaciers. Read the actual link.


----------



## groovetube

the subject is old news. Google it.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> the subject is old news. Google it.


All subjects become old news eventually. SINC provided new information on a subject of interest to the people who visit this thread. Please don't come here merely to snipe at someone's contribution.


----------



## groovetube

ah macfury strikes again.

I merely said this was not new information, this has been talked about for years. It presented as if it were some new revelation, and I had my opinion on that.

Now get off my back and go pester someone else.


----------



## ehMax

Looks like this study *was just published on January 23rd, 2011*. 

The report seems to comment on glacier change being affected by debree cover. 



> More than 65% of the monsoon-influenced glaciers that we observed are retreating, but heavily debris-covered glaciers with stagnant low-gradient terminus regions typically have stable fronts. Debris-covered glaciers are common in the rugged central Himalaya, but they are almost absent in subdued landscapes on the Tibetan Plateau, where retreat rates are higher.


----------



## ehMax

This thread has become unsalvageable. Closed.


----------

