"According to findings from CDP’s annual disclosure process in 2013, many major publicly traded companies operating or based in the United States have integrated an “internal carbon price” as a core element in their ongoing business strategies. Such carbon pricing has become standard operating practice in business planning, in that the companies acknowledge the process of ongoing climate change - including extreme and unpredictable weather events - as a key relevant business factor for which they wish to be prepared."
"In figure 1 on page 3, where no price is shown, companies have stated that the specific price used is confidential business information. However, in responding to pertinent questions in the annual CDP disclosure questionnaire all cited an “internal carbon price” as a planning tool."
"Since 2010, the world has added more solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity than in the previous four decades. Total global capacity overtook 150 gigawatts (GW) in early 2014." Source.
Smithsonian Statement on Climate Change: "Rapid and long-lasting climate change is a topic of growing concern as the world looks to the future. Scientists, engineers and planners are seeking to understand the impact of new climate patterns, working to prepare our cities against the perils of rising storms and anticipating threats to our food, water supplies and national security. Scientific evidence has demonstrated that the global climate is warming as a result of increasing levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases generated by human activities. A pressing need exists for information that will improve our understanding of climate trends, determine the causes of the changes that are occurring and decrease the risks posed to humans and nature..."
"The Smithsonian will continue, as it has for more than a century and a half, to produce basic scientific information about climate change and to explore the cultural and historical significance of these changes. The urgency of climate change requires that we boost and expand our efforts to increase public knowledge and that we inspire others through education and by example. We live in what has come to be called the Anthropocene, or “The Age of Humans.” The Smithsonian is committed to helping our society make the wise choices needed to ensure that future generations inherit a diverse world that sustains our natural environments and our cultures for centuries to come."
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling. There has been a 29 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of 533,000 square miles. In a rebound from 2012's record low, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin. The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific had remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes. One ship has now managed to pass through, completing its journey on September 27. A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century. If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after predictions that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013. Despite the original forecasts, major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997. The original predictions led to billions being invested in green measures to combat the effects of climate change. The changing predictions have led to the UN's climate change's body holding a crisis meeting, it was reported, and the IPCC is due to report on the situation in October. A pre-summit meeting will be held later this month. But the leaked documents are said to show that the governments who fund the IPCC are demanding 1,500 changes to the Fifth Assessment Report - a three-volume study issued every six or seven years – as they claim its current draft does not properly explain the pause. The extent to which temperatures will rise with carbon dioxide levels and how much of the warming over the past 150 years, a total of 0.8C, is down to human greenhouse gas emissions are key issues in the debate. The IPCC says it is “95 per cent confident” that global warming has been caused by humans - up from 90 per cent in 2007 – according to the draft report. However, US climate expert Professor Judith Curry has questioned how this can be true as that rather than increasing in confidence, “uncertainty is getting bigger” within the academic community. Long-term cycles in ocean temperature, she said, suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend. At the time some scientists forecast an imminent ice age. Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, said: "We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.” The IPCC is said to maintain that their climate change models suggest a pause of 15 years can be expected. They have denied that there are any crisis meetings over the report. Other experts agree that natural cycles cannot explain all of the recorded warming.
The cause of climate alarmism has been struck another near-fatal blow by a new study from a NASA research team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
Using a combination of satellite observations and direct measurements taken by a network of 3,000 floating Argo temperature probes, the NASA team set out to calculate temperature changes and thermal expansion in the deep ocean (below 1.24 miles).
What they have found is that the deep ocean has not warmed measurably since at least 2005.
This unfortunate discovery represents a major problem for the climate alarmists because the "missing heat" supposedly hiding in the deep oceans has long been their favoured explanation as to why there has been no measured "global warming" for the last 18 years.
Here, for example, is what Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) told National Geographic in February this year:
"Strong trade winds are bringing cooler water to the surface in the equatorial Pacific and mixing more heat into the deeper ocean."
This meant, National Geographic helpfully summarised, that "the missing heat from global warming is being stored in a deeper warm pool in the western Pacific."
And here is NCAR's Kevin Trenberth, Godfather of the "missing heat hiding in deep ocean" theory, speaking in October last year to Bloomberg.
In fact, there is mounting evidence that deeper regions of the ocean, down to 2000 meters, are absorbing heat faster than ever, Trenberth said in a phone call. His research shows the oceans began taking on significantly more heat at around the same time the surface warming began to slow in 1998. His widely cited work was published just after the cutoff to be included in the IPCC report.
The irony, says Trenberth, is that when the surface of the planet is unusually sweltering, the Earth actually radiates more heat into the atmosphere, in effect slowing the long-term warming of the planet. And in “hiatus” years, when the surface is cooler, the Earth absorbs more of the sun’s heat deep the oceans, slowly cooking the planet. What you see isn't always what you get.
What has happened here, in other words, is that for years the warmists have been fobbing off their teachers with the excuse that "the dog ate their homework". But it simply won't wash any more because the teacher has now discovered that they don't actually own a dog.
Originally posted by avengador1: Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
That nonsense news article is from last year, when all the deniers were claiming the Arctic was recovering because it was doing better than worst year on record.
How’d it do in 2014? The long term melting trend continued. The ten lowest September Arctic sea ice extents are all in the last ten years. Source.
quote
Originally posted by avengador1: Bad News for the alarmists: 'Missing Heat' from Non-Existent 'Global Warming' isn't Hiding in the Ocean After All
This is a flat out lie. Typical for denierbart to pander to the vacuum of denial.
Originally posted by Puglet01: When the hacked emails came out several years ago that scientists were lying about declining temperatures I was convinced this is all a big lie. It's right up there with "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor and there isn't a smidgen of corruption". Someday it will be shown that this man made global warming crap was the biggest scam ever perpetrated in history.
No. It fell far short of that description. The episode did prompt the agencies involved to offer more transparency in terms of public access to their raw temperature databases, and to the computer software that they use to translate from raw temperature data into what they assert are meaningful statistics.
It's a shame when equal skepticism and scrutiny is not directed at the assertions from individuals and groups that claim that the planet is not undergoing a significant global warming, or that the warming trend could not be mitigated by reductions in human greenhouse gas emissions.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Yes. What if it's not? I'll tell you what if it is not. The global warming scientists have painted MULTIPLE scenarios and have given MULTIPLE DIRE predictions of what will happen. And therefore we must act now!!!!! . . .
Projection of what the planet's climate will be like in 2035, 2050 or 2100 requires ranges for the critical parameters such as sea level, precipitation and temperatures. A low estimate and a high estimate. That's inherent in this kind of science--generally, almost any kind of science. Even the science of measuring the mass of the Higgs boson.
Beyond that, there have to be multiple scenarios because no one can predict how the various national and international interests in reducing human greenhouse gas emissions and other climate mitigation strategies are going to play out as the years go by. The IPCC bases its Year 2100 climate predictions on a range of scenarios, from very aggressive reductions in GHGs (human greenhouse gas emissions) at one end, to no reduction in the currently accelerating rate of global GHGs, and several in-between scenarios.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-09-2014).]
"They also point out that the ice increase to the south is merely 1/3 the amount of ice melt to the north. The extent of Arctic sea ice was measured at its sixth-lowest since 1979."
There's the difference between denial and science. They can admit when they don't know something.
DES MOINES, Iowa – The expected record corn and soybean harvest will be slightly bigger than previously estimated, the result of late summer warmth that helped fill cornstalks with ears and soybean plants with bean pods, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said Friday.
Originally posted by Hudini: DES MOINES, Iowa – The expected record corn and soybean harvest will be slightly bigger than previously estimated, the result of late summer warmth that helped fill cornstalks with ears and soybean plants with bean pods, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said Friday.
Talk about being a fair weather friend of science...
It will be interesting to see if this unexpected surplus rips of the floor out of the market with low prices. Low prices mean farmers don't turn a profit.
It baffles me how much people will bury their heads in the sand and make up excuses for things they don't want to do.
Again. I love big cars and big engines. I drive a 302 V8 AWD Ford Explorer. But I also believe in the scientific method and the integrity of the scientific community. I'm not going to make up excuses for myself just because I want cheap gasoline.
Would you please stop it?
I SAID in this thread that I am not against reducing energy usage. I drive a car that gets 36-38mpg in mostly city driving.
You just accused me of something that is the opposite of what I have stated I actually do.
I also said I refuse to let "scientists" with horrendous prediction records to try to bully governments into making policy that punishes businesses and ultimately consumers.
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: "According to findings from CDP’s annual disclosure process in 2013, many major publicly traded companies operating or based in the United States have integrated an “internal carbon price” as a core element in their ongoing business strategies. Such carbon pricing has become standard operating practice in business planning, in that the companies acknowledge the process of ongoing climate change - including extreme and unpredictable weather events - as a key relevant business factor for which they wish to be prepared."
"In figure 1 on page 3, where no price is shown, companies have stated that the specific price used is confidential business information. However, in responding to pertinent questions in the annual CDP disclosure questionnaire all cited an “internal carbon price” as a planning tool."
Could you please stop this lunacy?
You cite that business are planning on "internal carbon prices" as some sort of proof that businesses believe in anthropogenic global warming? What in the world?
Business make plans on what they think their cost structure is going to be. So if you have knuckle head governmental leaders like Obama who, whether they actually genuinely believe anthropogenic global warming is real or not, are going to use any excuse to tax businesses and wield power over them, then as a business working in that kind of an environment, you are forced to make plans of the cost of that.
Because a business does that, it is not an acknowledgement of "climate change". It is an acknowledgement of "business climate" created by the government.
So somebody wrote childishly flawed "logic" like this, and this is an example of you "citing sources"? That is an 'eye-roller'.
Originally posted by frontal lobe: So I throw it back to you.
Of course. Why should you actually have to provide legitimate sources.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Could you please stop this lunacy?
Says the guy who blames Obama for businesses accepting scientific fact.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: You cite that business are planning on "internal carbon prices" as some sort of proof that businesses believe in anthropogenic global warming? What in the world?
Wow, some people can deny anything. In what world is it logical that businesses are voluntarily planning on a carbon tax just for the fun of it?
“BP believes that climate change is an important long-term issue that justifies global action.” Source.
“At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change.” Source.
“At ConocoPhillips… We recognize that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.” Source.
“ExxonMobil believes that it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks to society associated with increasing GHG emissions.” Source.
“…CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change.” - Shell Source.
Of COURSE they are going to say those things. They run a business. They don't want public perception against them. They have seen what happens to people that would DARE point out the false conclusions of the global "science" boys. So they just, as businesses do, publicly say the go along, and then get back to planning to run their business. (and notice I said false conclusions. I'm not even nitpicking "the science". It is their laughably inaccurate conclusions and assumptions of what will happen that I am criticizing, and saying they disqualify themselves from any seat at any future planning table.)
Regarding planning for a carbon tax for the fun of it, they don't. They do it for the possible reality of it. People in government that want to rule and don't care what happens to people or businesses--well, that doesn't make business people stupid. They just make plans according to governmental lunacy, and still run a profitable business. They are just going to pass on the cost to the consumer anyway, so what difference does it make to them about a carbon tax, as long as they can plan for it.
What? Did you somehow think THEY were going to eat the cost of the carbon tax? Final point. Why did you completely ignore citing the devastation that the HIGHEST 15 YEAR GLOBAL TEMPERATURES IN HISTORY!!!!!!! have done to the planet? You are big on citing. Uh, because what would you cite?
Originally posted by frontal lobe: I also said I refuse to let "scientists" with horrendous prediction records to try to bully governments into making policy that punishes businesses and ultimately consumers.
You continue to mix the science and politics.
Actively ignoring virtually the entire scientific community on anything is dangerous. While far from perfect, the alternative is disastrous. Since when do scientists bully governments into doing anything?
Their prediction records are far superior to anything else, the pseudo junk science that the deniers use. And their predictions have been much better than you give them credit for. Just because Al Gore said the ice cap would be gone by 2012 does not mean that was the scientific consensus.
Of COURSE they are going to say those things. They run a business. They don't want public perception against them. They have seen what happens to people that would DARE point out the false conclusions of the global "science" boys.
Your conspiracy theory is truly bottomless.
These are some of the most powerful companies in the world. To pretend these companies are just playing along and refuse to question scientific evidence because they're scared is simply naive.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Final point. Why did you completely ignore citing the devastation that the HIGHEST 15 YEAR GLOBAL TEMPERATURES IN HISTORY!!!!!!! have done to the planet? You are big on citing.
This should be pretty straight forward by now.
Where are the predictions that the last 15 years were supposed to be utterly devastating to the planet? Where's your sources?
You haven't provided any sources for this claim yet demand I provide evidence to refute it. Sorry, I wont waste my time on baseless talking points from Rush Limbaugh.
Actively ignoring virtually the entire scientific community on anything is dangerous. While far from perfect, the alternative is disastrous. Since when do scientists bully governments into doing anything?
Their prediction records are far superior to anything else, the pseudo junk science that the deniers use. And their predictions have been much better than you give them credit for. Just because Al Gore said the ice cap would be gone by 2012 does not mean that was the scientific consensus.
I[/b] am not the one mixing science and politics. It is the anthropogenic global warming science community. They want to try to use any political body they can to force countries to ACT NOW!!!!!! And, of course, [b]helpfully they have an outline of what actions should be imposed on governments and people.
The justification for attempting to influence governments to bully businesses and rule over people is that "the alternative is DISASTROUS!!!!!!!"
Yet I have asked multiple times now what the consequences have been for having the hottest 15 year period in recorded history of the planet. And despite that opportunity, nothing has been said. Because nothing disastrous has happened.
So then we are left with this huge gap between this impending disaster that you allude to and what is actually happening around us every day. Regarding the predictive accuracy of "consensus, real scientists" vs. junk science deniers, and "real scientists" doing better, I don't care. "I suck less than you suck". Wow. That's supposed to be a supportive argument? Also regarding predictive accuracy, you are referring to what their prediction of temperatures would be, as they define them. I don't care one way or another.
What I care about is what YOU said shouldn't happen. The "scientists" don't stop at their predictions. They take their predictions, and they make CONSEQUENCE predictions of what is going to happen due to the effect of their increased temperature predictions. And based on those supposed dire consequences, promote POLITICS to force governmental behaviors and business behaviors. Well, their predictive record of consequences is horrendous. But people were supposed to ACT NOW!!!!!! based on those laughably inaccurate predictions. None of that is my fault. I'm pointing out that if they want to stick to science, that is kind of fun to watch along. If THEY want to therefore bully businesses and try to coerce politics, NO. They have failed so miserably they are disqualified from that conversation by their own pathetic performance.
Where are the predictions that the last 15 years were supposed to be utterly devastating to the planet? Where's your sources?
You haven't provided any sources for this claim yet demand I provide evidence to refute it. Sorry, I wont waste my time on baseless talking points from Rush Limbaugh.
I already gave you examples of predictions. I could have gone on and on.
I get it. You can't provide any consequences because there aren't any.
I also get it. These must be baseless talking points from Rush Limbaugh. Even though I never listen to Rush Limbaugh and have no idea what he said about it. Regarding business:
I suppose GM built the Volt because they really believed in global warming. I doubt it was because they were bullied into it by governmental pressure. Yes, business likes to sell cars at huge losses.
YOU were the one that cited a businesses response to the political environment as somehow substantiation for agreement with "the science".
But I could go on and on. I work in the health care industry. We have all been planning to work within the affordable healthcare act changes. SEE!!!!!!!!!! That therefore means that they believe the affordable healthcare act is good and is what is best for the country!!!!!
And btw. We aren't "scared". And neither are energy companies. We react to what is going on, plan around governmental policies, stupid or otherwise, and run our business. Because just because government is stupid doesn't mean we are.
And I've been around this block with you 3 times now. If you still don't get it, it is because you don't want to. What you really want is to have your anthropogenic global warming religion. Which I am fully supportive of freedom of religion. And you want to be a preacher of it and try to get converts and disciples. I get it. I like science. I like evaluating their observations. But to have the religious faith in their predictions, and support their coersion of businesses and governments based on the level of grossly, wildly flawed predictive consequences that they have promoted over the past 20 years? No. But, hey, Jim and Tammy Faye had a LOT of followers, too, and it took them a long time to realize their faith wasn't placed in the right place, too.
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Yet I have asked multiple times now what the consequences have been for having the hottest 15 year period in recorded history of the planet. And despite that opportunity, nothing has been said. Because nothing disastrous has happened. ... Well, their predictive record of consequences is horrendous.
Examples of this record are...?
You rant on and on about how bad the scientist's record is yet provide zero examples of what you're talking about.
Originally posted by frontal lobe: I[/b] am not the one mixing science and politics. It is the anthropogenic global warming science community. They want to try to use any political body they can to force countries to ACT NOW!!!!!! And, of course, [b]helpfully they have an outline of what actions should be imposed on governments and people.
The justification for attempting to influence governments to bully businesses and rule over people is that "the alternative is DISASTROUS!!!!!!!"
Who stated that global warming "would be disastrous" in year 2014? Al Gore?
The actual science shows that global warming WILL BE a huge concern 50-100 years from now if we continue to do nothing. The science has largely been correct. The fact that we aren't burning alive in a raging inferno TODAY means nothing in context of climate science.
quote
Yet I have asked multiple times now what the consequences have been for having the hottest 15 year period in recorded history of the planet. And despite that opportunity, nothing has been said. Because nothing disastrous has happened.
It's not the current temperature that's has people worried, its the RATE OF CHANGE of temperature. What's the next 30 years going to look like? How about the 30 after that?
quote
So then we are left with this huge gap between this impending disaster that you allude to and what is actually happening around us every day.
You mean how you can't just look out the window and determine if the Earth is warming or not? That's why we have scientists who do research on it for a living.
quote
Regarding the predictive accuracy of "consensus, real scientists" vs. junk science deniers, and "real scientists" doing better, I don't care. "I suck less than you suck". Wow. That's supposed to be a supportive argument?
Again, scientists have predicted the climate much better than you give them credit for.
They have, correctly, predicted a warming trend that is slightly less severe than the initial projections. Somehow this makes them no better than junk science deniers that do no research at all? Junk science deniers that have obvious ties to fossil fuel industries and have obvious motivations to downplaying global warming concerns?
quote
Also regarding predictive accuracy, you are referring to what their prediction of temperatures would be, as they define them. I don't care one way or another.
What I care about is what YOU said shouldn't happen. The "scientists" don't stop at their predictions. They take their predictions, and they make CONSEQUENCE predictions of what is going to happen due to the effect of their increased temperature predictions. And based on those supposed dire consequences, promote POLITICS to force governmental behaviors and business behaviors. Well, their predictive record of consequences is horrendous. But people were supposed to ACT NOW!!!!!! based on those laughably inaccurate predictions. None of that is my fault. I'm pointing out that if they want to stick to science, that is kind of fun to watch along. If THEY want to therefore bully businesses and try to coerce politics, NO. They have failed so miserably they are disqualified from that conversation by their own pathetic performance.
Remind me of these "laughably inaccurate" and "miserable" predictions and where they came from. You keep referring to these "miserable failures" but haven't produced any sources. Why haven't there been any decent, peer reviewed literature if the science is really as flawed as you say? A huge conspiracy of evil scientists? Is there any explanation other than there are no reasonable alternatives?
If your doctor told you that smoking a pack a day would kill you by age 65, and you manage to live until 66 - Does that mean that doctors don't know anything and that smoking isn't bad for you?
Originally posted by frontal lobe: I already gave you examples of predictions. I could have gone on and on.
No, you haven’t.
You provided a purposefully made up scenario that you thought was real. You thought they were actual predictions. You thought the paper was written by scientists. None of that is true. I brought this up but you totally ignored it.
This is on the front page of your “example”: "The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller. "
The only other “examples” provided were news articles. Like the IPCC looks to news articles for it’s projections of the global climate system in 2100.
And I don't doubt you could go on and on with crap examples. Your standard of evidence is appalling.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: I get it. You can't provide any consequences because there aren't any.
What consequences were there supposed to be? Provide evidence, not empty rhetoric.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: I suppose GM built the Volt because they really believed in global warming. I doubt it was because they were bullied into it by governmental pressure. Yes, business likes to sell cars at huge losses.
Oh wow. Now with the red herrings. I bet you bring up Obamacare next.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: YOU were the one that cited a businesses response to the political environment as somehow substantiation for agreement with "the science".
When an oil company like Shell says "CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change” it's pretty clear they agree with "the science".
If you think Shell only says that because the government forced them to, your tin foil hat is on too tight.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: But I could go on and on. I work in the health care industry. We have all been planning to work within the affordable healthcare act changes. SEE!!!!!!!!!! That therefore means that they believe the affordable healthcare act is good and is what is best for the country!!!!!
There it is, the Obamacare red herring.
What a terrible example at that. You’re working towards actual legislation that was passed.
What legislation forced these companies to adopt a internal carbon price? What legislation forced these oil companies to admit GHG’s are a problem?
Crickets? Thought so.
Further, look at how much Obamacare was contested! Look how much it’s still contested! Candidates are still running on the premise of repealing Obamacare.
Yet, according to you, these oil companies who clearly state GHG's are a problem just rolled over instantly. In what world are those two examples even slightly congruent?
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: And btw. We aren't "scared". And neither are energy companies. We react to what is going on, plan around governmental policies, stupid or otherwise, and run our business. Because just because government is stupid doesn't mean we are.
So it’s your position when ExxonMobil says they support a carbon tax to combat the threat GHG’s pose to the planet - they’re just lying and victims of government pressure?
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: And I've been around this block with you 3 times now. If you still don't get it, it is because you don't want to.
Talk about projection.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: What you really want is to have your anthropogenic global warming religion. Which I am fully supportive of freedom of religion. And you want to be a preacher of it and try to get converts and disciples. I get it.
Anthropogenic global warming isn’t a religion, it’s a scientific fact. You know, we actually have evidence to support it.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: But to have the religious faith in their predictions, and support their coersion of businesses and governments based on the level of grossly, wildly flawed predictive consequences that they have promoted over the past 20 years?
Again you provide zero examples to show you’re not making it up.
And you cite absolutely zero sources during your unsubstantiated rant.
Color me surprised.
He counts as a source, since he was using himself as the subject matter.
This isn't high school, there is no need to act like that. It really feels like no matter what is posted, for whatever reason, that you will argue it. Even if you are later found to be wrong.
I just read through the past five pages of this thread.
I still have seen zero evidence that global warming is man made. zero, zilch, nada, nuthin.
Yet whenever I say that I don't believe in mmgw, I'm attacked.
I've never said I don't believe in Global Warming, I think we are coming out of an ice age still. I've simply said that I don't believe that man is causing any warming trends, and there is no evidence tying warming to man.
But name calling, attacking intelligence, and mocking people is a certain way to get them on your side.
I'm going to go burn some brush in honor of this thread.
Government-funded climate alarmists claim their forecasts of dangerous man-made global warming relies on “settled science.”
Their “settled science” is a mare’s nest of computer models, resting on a few match-sticks of science, surrounded by tall forests of uncertainty.
It is indeed settled science all gases in the atmosphere can affect the exchange of heat between the sun, the Earth and outer space, and this can affect global temperatures. It is also agreedcertain gases like water vapour and carbon dioxide can absorb and redirect radiant energy passing through the atmosphere.
However, though seldom mentioned, the warming potential of each additional unit of carbon dioxide is progressively less, and is trivial at and above current levels. In addition, water vapour has a far greater “greenhouse effect”, because it is fifty times more abundant than CO2, and affects more radiation wavelengths. All of this is settled science!
However, still open to debate is whether the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the main controller of global temperatures. Nor is it settled man’s production of carbon dioxide is harmful to life on Earth, or that it will cause catastrophic global warming.
The official climate models are based on a theory the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere drives surface temperature changes. However, none of the dozens of computer models the IPCC relies upon predicted flat-lining temperatures over the last 17 years. This indicates their carbon-centric assumption is wrong. At last count, there were 53 different explanations for these failures. This is hardly “settled science.”
The models ignore important climate controllers such as solar cycles, ocean oscillations, clouds, vegetation cover and volcanoes. These all have significant effects on surface temperature.
The models err in assuming most feedbacks are strongly positive, thus multiplying the initial small effect. This is not settled science. As surface temperatures rise, evaporation from the vast oceans will transfer heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere, where much of the heat is radiated to space and where the shading from the additional clouds tends to offset and stabilise the initial surface heating. Carbon dioxide has naturally exceeded today’s levels in the past but this did not cause runaway global warming. Also, official climate models fail to account for the interconnected variables of the solar system, the restless atmosphere, the changing biosphere and the vast oscillating oceans.
In short, climate science is not settled and there is no consensus.
Unsettled Science by Viv Forbes October 15, 2014 ... So much for the science being settled.
[sarcasm] Yeah ... right! The scientific evidence ... indeed, possibly all of science ... has been overturned by a single denier blog posted by an Australian "geologist, financial analyst, and farmer" at The American Wanker, and then reposted a month later on the Heartland Institute blog site. [/sacrasm]
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 10-21-2014).]
Originally posted by Fats: I've simply said that I don't believe that man is causing any warming trends, and there is no evidence tying warming to man.
You’re trying to claim greenhouse gases are a myth. That’s ridiculous.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 10-24-2014).]
During a recent debate between Congressional candidates Todd Rokita (R) and John Dale (D), environmentalists in the audience criticized Rokita for daring to question their claim of “settled science” on the so-called global warming crisis. The only thing Democratic candidate Dale seemed to be able to say over and over was, “I tend to agree with the 97 percent (of climate scientists who support the claim)” and little else to substantiate it. All this, of course, was followed shortly thereafter by a letter to the editor shouting Chicken-Little hysterics about the end of the world’s food supply, coastal destruction and loss of life.
But the inconvenient truth is the huge number of scientists out there who oppose the theory of human-caused global warming. For example, there are more than 31,000 scientists in the United State who disagree that global warming is caused by humans, and have signed a petition stating so at www.petitionproject.org. This petition included an analysis from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine that scientifically concludes, “There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of (carbon dioxide), (methane) and other minor green house gases as has been proposed.”
And let’s expose the “97 percent of climate scientists” myth. Statistics can often be manipulated to artificially support the conclusion a researcher desires. For instance, environmental extremists try to back up this 97 percent claim by referencing a 2004 article in the journal Science by Naomi Oreskes, despite that its research was later found to be flawed, it made unsubstantiated claims, and it left out data from prominent scientists (Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso, Patrick Michaels) who questioned the man-made global warming theory. In another article environmentalists like to reference, a survey was taken of 3146 people, but the “97 percent” figure in its survey was only based on the answers from 79 of them. It never asked whether the person surveyed thought humans played a significant role in global warming, and it didn’t include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change. It only included those who listed “climate science” as their area of expertise. The 97 percent claim cannot be taken seriously.
In fact, only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. And according to a survey published in “The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,” only one in four American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming.
We should remember that climate scientists have a financial interest in trumping up the global warming hysteria. Most scientific research is done at universities and is funded by grants from the federal government. The more they can incite the public to believe this man-made global warming theory, the better the chance their grant application will be approved by the National Science Foundation, and so the better chance they will get their research money. If they can steer their results to “prove” man-made global warming is real, they are rewarded. We would all hope that their love for scientific truth would guide their behavior, but we need to remember they are also human and vulnerable to temptation like anyone else. And since they are using your and my federal tax dollars to fund their research, every one of us have a right to question it.
The real danger of following this myth is the harm it will do the most vulnerable in our society. Draconian environmental restrictions, especially on Indiana’s coal industry, will significantly increase the price of electricity. Those in poverty are least able to pay bigger electric bills, and will result in many having their electricity shut off. Local industries who are heavily dependent on electricity, such as Nucor Steel, will be significantly impacted. To avoid going out of business, industry will have to reduce employees. So much for economic development and job growth.
Congressman Rokita is doing the most important thing an elected official can do. He is protecting our individual liberty and economic liberty against those factions who are hell-bent on imposing a government-controlled economy and society.
Originally posted by avengador1: Statistics can often be manipulated to artificially support the conclusion a researcher desires.
Despite the entire article reeking of politiCOAL bias and laughable evidence like the Spice Girls petition project, this line stuck out.
quote
Originally posted by avengador1: And according to a survey published in “The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,” only one in four American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology launches MIT Climate Change Conversation "The Committee should seek broad input from the Institute community on how the US and the world can most effectively address global climate change. The Conversation should explore pathways to effective climate change mitigation, including how the MIT community – through education, research and campus engagement – can constructively move the global and national agendas forward. Possible activities for the Campus Conversation could include a lecture series, panels and a survey in which all points of view of the MIT community are sought, presented and discussed."
RAN Applauds Move by U.S. Banks to Reject Australian Coal Port "Rainforest Action Network commended the move by leading U.S. investment banks to rule out financing the Abbot Point coal export project in Queensland, Australia. Under pressure from RAN, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and JPMorgan Chase all issued written commitments—released publicly for the first time today—to not bankroll the controversial project, which would involve dredging part of the Great Barrier Reef."
Department of Defense 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap: "Among the future trends that will impact our national security is climate change. Rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, climbing sea levels, and more extreme weather events will intensify the challenges of global instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict. They will likely lead to food and water shortages, pandemic disease, disputes over refugees and resources, and destruction by natural disasters in regions across the globe. "
National Bureau of Economic Research - Climate and Conflict: "Looking across 55 studies, we find that deviations from moderate temperatures and precipitation patterns systematically increase the risk of conflict, often substantially, with average effects that are highly statistically significant." Source.
EU leaders agree on 2030 Climate and Energy Policy – world's most ambitious climate and energy goals: Summary: 24 October 2014, Brussels - EU Heads of State and Government have agreed the headline targets and the architecture for the EU framework on climate and energy for 2030. The agreed targets include a cut in greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, an EU-wide binding target for renewable energy of at least 27% and an indicative energy efficiency target of at least 27%.
.
