I just caught the last part of a 60 minute segment on The Science Channel called "Global Weirding".
Since I only saw the last part, I only got some of the sense of it. I came in just when they were talking about The Little Ice Age in Europe from 1650 to 1700. A climate scientist from the U.K. was saying that projected warming of the Arctic would actually cause colder weather in Europe and the U.S., but at the same time, cause warmer weather in Canada and the Mediterranean that would push the net balance towards warming on a global scale.
They were saying that extreme weather events are becoming the new normal.
I would like to see the full 60 minutes. Looked for it on line, but didn't find it. Have to wait until they air it again.
Originally posted by fierobear: And THAT is why I say "game, set, match". Because CO2 is the WORST possible cause of the warming, based on the real world data.
It's not based on real word data. Your information is not even from a scientific source. It's based on fabricated argument from a meaningless correlation. PDO remains flat over the last 100 years while temperature rises. You ignore that fact. The long term trend shows the total energy in Earth's climate system is increasing. PDO reamins flat. You throw out the rising long term trend to make the comparison as if temperatures have been flat the last 100 years. They haven't been flat so the comparison is meaningless.
Further proof of how bunk your interpretation of the "R squared correlation" is the solar irradiance correlation. BEST completely debunked solar output as a driving factor. How can something that has been completely debunked by several studies be "correct" 57% of the time?
The "Mohammed portraits" add a nice touch to climate denial. Didn't we already talk about getting your information from biased political sources? Or have you given up finding a scientific source?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: [scientific consensus] is meaningless. Science isn't done by vote.
It's a good thing it's not a vote because most of the public is totally ignorant of physics.
I can't believe you actually want the people who voted for Obama and nominated Romney to vote on what shape the Earth is.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-06-2012).]
The allegedly received $5000 from ExxonMobil in 1997-98. There is a third-hand report that they received $577,000 from the same source between 2000-2007. The link at "sourcewatch" takes you to a link from "research.greenpeaceusa.org" I wasn't able to find a direct source to Exxon Mobil's list of donations given, only that link to Greenpeace, an organization known to be strong global warming activists. For all we know, they could have made it up. But, let's say they didn't. So what?
edit, add: "sourcewatch" IS Greenpeace. Look at the left of the page. "A Greenpeace project". Hardly an unbiased source of information. Why not just find a source like "climatedeniersarepoopooheads.org"?
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-06-2012).]
The allegedly received $5000 from ExxonMobil in 1997-98. There is a third-hand report that they received $577,000 from the same source between 2000-2007. The link at "sourcewatch" takes you to a link from "research.greenpeaceusa.org" I wasn't able to find a direct source to Exxon Mobil's list of donations given, only that link to Greenpeace, an organization known to be strong global warming activists. For all we know, they could have made it up. But, let's say they didn't. So what?
edit, add: "sourcewatch" IS Greenpeace. Look at the left of the page. "A Greenpeace project". Hardly an unbiased source of information. Why not just find a source like "climatedeniersarepoopooheads.org"?
Agreed. I wouldn't go to Greenpeace for this kind of info. And remember, the article I posted was commentary. That's all it was intended to be, just points to consider.
Originally posted by fierobear: What? What the hell do you think "USHCN" is? From the GOP? The PDO data is from JISAO. Do you know what/who that is? Here, let me help you:
You have zero interpretation skills.
I didn't take issue with the data. I take issue with how the data is used.
So address the rest of the post that illustrates how you are using an illogical process and drawing wrong and fraudulent conclusions from it:
It's based on fabricated argument from a meaningless correlation. PDO remains flat over the last 100 years while temperature rises. You ignore that fact. The long term trend shows the total energy in Earth's climate system is increasing. PDO reamins flat. You throw out the rising long term trend to make the comparison as if temperatures have been flat the last 100 years. They haven't been flat so the comparison is meaningless.
Further proof of how bunk your interpretation of the "R squared correlation" is the solar irradiance correlation. BEST completely debunked solar output as a driving factor. How can something that has been completely debunked by several studies be "correct" 57% of the time?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: What the hell are you talking about? How did you get from "science isn't done by vote" to my wanting science to be done by who votes for president?
You're the one who suggested scientific consensus is meaningless because no one voted on it.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: What the hell is this?
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: I didn't take issue with the data. I take issue with how the data is used.
HUH?
The data IS the data. If it shows no warming, that means no warming. If it shows a poor correlation between temperature and CO2, then so be it. You don't get to choose how data is used just because it disagrees with your conclusion. That, by the way, is what the warmist scientists do.
quote
You have zero interpretation skills
You must be projecting. Here is what YOU said:
quote
It's not based on real word data. Your information is not even from a scientific source.
First, it was "not real world data", then it was "how the data is used". Did you think you'd get away with that? Do you even read your own posts?
AND? How does that invalidate the data on temperature or the PDO/AMO? All of the information/graphs at that site are sourced.
There are several topics there. The Mohammad thing is listed under "interesting things". I guess that's the best you could do at debunking the site, huh? LOL.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-06-2012).]
The data IS the data. If it shows a poor correlation between temperature and CO2, then so be it.
You're manipulating data with an illogical process to get the conclusion you want. That's why it's "not real world data." I illustrated how twice. You ignored it twice. Maybe the third time is the charm. But I doubt it:
It's based on fabricated argument from a meaningless correlation. PDO remains flat over the last 100 years while temperature rises. You ignore that fact. The long term trend shows the total energy in Earth's climate system is increasing. PDO remains flat. You throw out the rising long term trend to make the comparison as if temperatures have been flat the last 100 years. They haven't been flat so the comparison is meaningless.
Further proof of how bunk your interpretation of the "R squared correlation" is the solar irradiance correlation. BEST completely debunked solar output as a driving factor. How can something that has been completely debunked by several studies be "correct" 57% of the time?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: AND? How does that invalidate the data on temperature or the PDO/AMO?
None of my sources have links to "Mohammed portraits" for political reasons. Simply illustrating how poor your sources are.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-06-2012).]
Originally posted by fierobear: The data IS the data.
You, and everyone else for that matter, have yet to address BEST and its conclusion that the Earth is warming as a result of human activity. But I understand why. It's hard to move a mountain of evidence out of sight.
You're manipulating data with an illogical process to get the conclusion you want. That's why it's "not real world data." I illustrated how twice. You ignored it twice. Maybe the third time is the charm. But I doubt it:
Oh, and because you agree with the manmade argument, these people are obviously not manipulating data??? Did you forget about those emails that talked about changing data - wait I suppose those were manipulated as well?
Just because you agree with a certain group do NOT mean that they are also not manipulating data to fit their cause either, so that means the rest are.
I can go into the lab right now and run an experiment and get result that I want, if not I can make a small and simple seeming insignificant change to get the result I want. I can then publish a paper saying I did this and this and got this. Many other people come around, do the same steps and get the same result so therefore it MUST be true. How is this any different? There are many instances in science today were a certain theory was held true for many years only to be discovered several years later that it was wrong.
But I guess, all of us that go against this particular way of thinking, should all be labeled as heretics and be burned at the stake since we are going against the flow of what the ‘masses’ are saying is true. How many people lived in fear in the middle ages for this reason of speaking out against the church even though they were right, but no one believed them because the evidence at the time said otherwise?
You should be thankful that there are those of us that are questioning this, after all if no one did, we would still be in the dark ages following what the church says is the way the universe works. Don’t forget all the people that laughed at Christopher Columbus and though he was an idiot and would sure die when he sailed of the edge of the earth – we all know how that turned out now did we.
BTW, how is it that they have determined that there is an increase in global temperature of xx°C? Ok, sure they have monitored the temperature over the earth, but how many samples points did they use, was it enough to say that they have covered 90% of the earth, was it random points (and not all around the rim of an active volcano - extreme I will admit, but you 'should' get the picture)? Not likely and how can you get an accurate picture of the temperature when you sample a small portion? Could it be that they left out certain areas (and you are sure that they did not)? What about the areas in which several glaciers are growing, surely the temperature in those areas have not increased as how would you explain the growth? There are also several other areas in which the average temperature has decreased.
There is also that famous NASA picture floating around the internet showing how much Antartica has warmed along teh western side, BUT WAIT, it just couldn’t possibly have anything at all to do with the fact that the entire western side of the Antarctic continent and peninsula is dotted with volcanoes. Recent discovery of new volcanic activity isn’t mentioned at all - how is that not manipulating data?
You have a lot of questions you can easily answer on your own by being genuinely curious about the answer. I suggest you update your knowledge with one particular study: http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/
There is a difference between skepticism and denial. Skepticism is healthy. Denial is not. There is zero scientific evidence to suggest people should still be skeptical about climate change.
Indisputable is the scientific consensus that has been reached: the temperature change we have measured can only be attributed to CO2. There is zero evidence to suggest something else is at fault.
You have yet to dethrone CO2 as the culprit. You have been reaching for far out improbabilities that have already been analyzed and debunked.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Oh, and because you agree with the manmade argument, these people are obviously not manipulating data???
This has been covered here many times. BEST released all their data. They released their methodology that denier's signed off and approved. They released all their software. They did this for the public to double check their work. You know what? NOT A PEEP.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Did you forget about those emails that talked about changing data - wait I suppose those were manipulated as well?
You have a lot of questions you can easily answer on your own by being genuinely curious about the answer. I suggest you update your knowledge with one particular study: [There is a difference between skepticism and denial. Skepticism is healthy. Denial is not. There is zero scientific evidence to suggest people should still be skeptical about climate change.
Indisputable is the scientific consensus that has been reached: the temperature change we have measured can only be attributed to CO2. There is zero evidence to suggest something else is at fault.
You have yet to dethrone CO2 as the culprit. You have been reaching for far out improbabilities that have already been analyzed and debunked.
...still in denial yourself? Just as many that labels those heretics, remember those people were all told they are wrong and that there was undeniable proof as well and turns out they were right.
As for dethroning CO2 as the culprit, you have seen the graphs that show an increase in CO2 comes AFTER a rise in temperature, yet you still choose to ignore it yourself (like everyone else, you are cherry picking what you want to see - but you like to single out the non-believer group). Like I said, anyone can make data read what they want, especially when there is a lot of money out there for the taking, everyone wants a piece of the pie.
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: … Did you not know climategate is a conspiracy?
...oh, really, says who? Just because you say so, makes it right and that you covered my theory. Did you not know that man made global warming is a conspiracy? How's that?
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 12-06-2012).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: There is also that famous NASA picture floating around the internet showing how much Antartica has warmed along teh western side, BUT WAIT, it just couldn’t possibly have anything at all to do with the fact that the entire western side of the Antarctic continent and peninsula is dotted with volcanoes. Recent discovery of new volcanic activity isn’t mentioned at all - how is that not manipulating data?
Volcanos are not being excluded from the discussion.
I haven't seen the evidence that would make volcanos a significant factor, however.
On the contrary:
ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2008) — The first evidence of a volcanic eruption from beneath Antarctica's most rapidly changing ice sheet has been reported. The volcano on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet erupted 2000 years ago (325BC) and remains active. . . .
Co-author Professor David Vaughan (BAS) says,"This eruption occurred close to Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The flow of this glacier towards the coast has speeded up in recent decades and it may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration. However, it cannot explain the more widespread thinning of West Antarctic glaciers that together are contributing nearly 0.2mm per year to sea-level rise. This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters."
The question of volcanic eruptions on polar ice came up on Realclimate a while back, and I did some crude estimations of the effect of a Vesuvius size eruption on the Arctic Ice cover (and dropped a zero, thereby overestimating the effect by an order of magnitude). After correcting that error, the volume of ice is melted by a Vesuvian eruption is roughly equal to ten meters thickness over an area slightly larger than the state of Massachusetts (~3e4km2). Given the area of West Antarctica is ~7e6km2 (>200 times larger) and average ice sheet thickness is ~2500m (250 times larger), the effect of even such a massive event as a Vesuvius size eruption would be miniscule. If it the melt was constrained to full thickness cylinder in an area of average thickness(not a likely outcome), it would result in an impressively deep lake about (very roughly – its 3 AM and I’m doing the math in my head) 20 km across, about the same as Lake Okeechobee in Florida. The volcanoes that erupted under the Arctic Ocean left a thermal signature in the deep ocean layers of a few hundreths of a degree – The associated event plumes in the water column are well surveyed and described in http://psp.tamu.edu/geos-489-689/Edmonds_6spp.pdf.
A plume of relatively “warm” water – temperature anomaly less than 1/10 degree – reaches a minimum water depth of about 1700 m, its center being around 2500 m water depth. It is obvious that Arctic sea ice is not influenced by the heat released from Gakkel Ridge eruptions, and the West Antarctic Ice sheet is similarly not going to be affected by volcanic eruptions either.
A recent study discovered active volcanoes on the floor of the Arctic Ocean, and some people have wondered if they are causing sea ice to melt.
While volcanic eruptions surely warmed the ocean in the immediate vicinity of the eruptions, the amount of heat they produced compared to the large volume of the Arctic Ocean is small. The Arctic Ocean covers 14 million square kilometers (5.4 million square miles), about 1 ½ times the size of the United States or 58 times the size of the United Kingdom. In its deepest spots, the Arctic Ocean is 4,000 to 5,500 meters (13,000 to 18,000 feet) deep. The heat from the volcanoes would have dispersed over an enormous volume and had little effect on ocean temperature, much as a bucket of boiling water emptied into a lake would have little effect on the lake’s temperature.
Second, the eruptions would have introduced heat deep below the sea ice that floats on the ocean surface. The tops of even the tallest undersea volcanoes are more than 1,000 meters (3,000 feet) deep. The Arctic Ocean is strongly stratified, which prevents layer mixing and makes it difficult for any deep water, even deep water warmed by heat from volcanoes, to reach the surface and melt the ice. This layering results from a strong density gradient: water layers near the surface are less salty and therefore less dense, while bottom waters are the densest. Unlike most oceans, where density gradients are determined by both salinity and temperature, Arctic Ocean waters are heavily stratified primarily because of variations in salinity.
Moose, you quoted my post with this link edited out. How about taking the time to address the scientific consensus rather than ignoring it: http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Just as many that labels those heretics, remember those people were all told they are wrong and that there was undeniable proof as well and turns out they were right.
Remember it was the SCIENTISTS who were called heretics, like Giordano Bruno, Nicolaus Copernicus, and Galileo Galilei. And it turns out the SCIENTISTS were right. You are not standing on the side of scientific consensus. You are standing on the side of 'the church.'
"The heresy of one age becomes the orthodoxy of the next." - Helen Keller
You hold a view the church would have held years ago and punished those for thinking too advanced for their time. You cannot support your dogmatic views with scientific evidence at all. You stroll into this thread without acknowledging any of the discussing taking place, don't bother to read any of the posts, nor do you bother to acknowledge people who have replied directly to you, and spew forth ramblings of highly unsubstantiated conjecture. You do this mostly in the form of questions that you don't bother looking into the validity of at all. I am not Google. Google your own questions, see if any posses validity, and then come back with an organized argument. Spreading your own uncertainty and doubt is not scientific nor is it evidence.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: As for dethroning CO2 as the culprit, you have seen the graphs that show an increase in CO2 comes AFTER a rise in temperature, yet you still choose to ignore it yourself
I didn't ignore anything. I directly responded to you the first and second time you suggested this ludicrous theory. I was not the only person to set the record straight on your theory. Rather than trying to back up your theory with a rebuttal you instead replied with, and I quote, "sarcasm." I didn't even get that much of a reply from you. You ignored my second reply and focused on water vapor - a heavily debunked argument that I again debunked for you. You then moved on rather than following up with rebuttal or acknowledgement of your wrong water vapor theory.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Like I said, anyone can make data read what they want, especially when there is a lot of money out there for the taking, everyone wants a piece of the pie.
No, they can't "make the data read what they want." The fact you suggest this demonstrates your lack of understanding of the scientific studies that have taken place.
Numbers do not magically change. BEST released their data. BEST released their methodology. BEST released their software.
A key fact you refuse to acknowledge: BEST cannot manipulate data because they exposed to everyone how they arrived at the conclusion. It's like open source science.
Another key fact you refuse to acknowledge: Denier's approved and even praised BEST's method. BEST incorporated the skeptical argument because most of the scientists involved with the study were skeptical from the outset. But when the BEST scientists themselves analyzed the data they were forced to change their own mind about climate change.
BEST didn't do this study behind locked doors and shout the result to the masses from a balcony like you're acting. BEST released all their work as the proof. BEST showed the Earth is warming and CO2 from human activity is the strongest contender. BEST also confirmed the results of previous studies (NASA GISS, NOAA, and Hadley) who used different methods, by different people in different countries, and even different data (BEST used more data).
How is this article relevant to any of your positions? Here's the conclusion:
Anthropogenic global warming is based on very solid science. The discussion in the scientific climate change community is about how much anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but not about whether or not anthropogenic global warming is happening at all. The contrarian arguments raised by Alexander Cockburn lack scientific validity.
This is not to say that Cockburn and other skeptics should not have raised some of the questions they have. Science demands constant scrutiny and the misuse of science, when it occurs, is everyone’s concern. But it is also important to recognize a truth when it has been established. The verdict is in. Modern global warming stemming to a considerable extent from anthropogenic causes is real and constitutes a serious threat to life on the planet as we know it. It is time to stop debating its reality and to do something about it, while there is still time.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: ...oh, really, says who?
CLIMATE CHANGE CRITICS. "Climate change critics and others denying the significance of human caused climate change argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy"
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Just because you say so, makes it right and that you covered my theory.
Your own side said it was a conspiracy theory. I debunked your theory with factual piece of evidence: they released all their data, there's zero room for the fraud you suggest is taking place. You suggested your theory with conjecture and zero evidence.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Did you not know that man made global warming is a conspiracy? How's that?
There's a highly discredited conspiracy theory ABOUT man made global warming, but global warming or climate change itself is not a conspiracy theory. There's a conspiracy theory we didn't land on the moon. However the moon is real and you can see evidence of man landing on the moon with a telescope. Man made climate change is real and you can see the evidence in several studies and a scientific consensus.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-07-2012).]
2012 Will Probably Be Warmest Year On Record, Thanks To A Balmy November
Posted: 12/07/2012 2:48 pm EST
From Climate Central's Michael D. Lemonick:
With just more than three weeks left in the year, it’s virtually certain that 2012 will displace 1998 as the warmest year on record for the contiguous U.S. according to NOAA. The agency’s monthly State of the Climate Report, released on Thursday, shows that temperatures across the lower 48 states averaged 44.1°F for November -- 2.1°F higher than the 20th century average.
This means that while November, 2012, was only the 20th warmest November since modern record-keeping began (tied with 2004), it was still balmy enough to make the first 11 months of the year, from January through November, the warmest such period in NOAA’s record books.
November was also drier than normal, capping the 12th driest 11-month January-November period on record. That’s no surprise, since the worst drought to strike the nation since the 1950’s has stubbornly refused to loosen its grip on the nation, and in fact, has expanded slightly since October. The final U.S. Drought monitor report for November showed 62.7 percent of the contiguous U.S. experiencing moderate to exceptional drought, up 2.5 percentage points from the end of October.
Average rainfall (or the snowfall equivalent) was 1.19 inches across the contiguous states, 0.93 inch below the long-term average. That makes November the eight driest. For the autumn season so far, average precipitation was 5.71 inches, precisely 1 inch less than the 20th century average.
While drier-than-average conditions were seen across much of the lower 48, November’s relative warmth was skewed toward the mountain West, where Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming saw temperatures in November among the top 10 warmest on record. In the East, temperatures were actually cooler than average; North Carolina, in particular, saw one of the 10 coolest Novembers on record.
It wasn’t just the averages that were unusual for the first 11 months of 2012, either: the U.S. Climate Extremes Index, which keeps track of extreme highs and lows in temperatures, precipitation, drought and tropical cyclones in the contiguous U.S., reported that the January-November period was the most extreme on record. Extremes in warm temperatures and in the area affected by drought were major contributors — although Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Isaac surely played a role as well.
The German media report that only a totally lame climate treaty compromise was reached in Doha: Kyoto I will be extended until 2020.
For those calling for rapid reductions in CO2 emissions, the result in Doha can only be described as an utter disaster. The Doha agreement will do absolutely nothing to curb CO2 growth, let alone cut net CO2 emissions.
One reason is that few countries are left taking part. Online FOCUS magazine reports only a few countries have signed on to extending Kyoto I, which FOCUS calls a “minimal compromise”. Only 37 of 194 countries signed on. That means the treaty is internationally non-binding.
The only thing that is certain is that there are going to be many more climate junkets in the future, wasting more taxpayer money.
The left wing TAZ reports that these 37 countries are “responsible for about 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. And it still remains open how high the planned reductions will be.” Those that signed on to make reductions couldn’t even tell us how much.
The conservative FAZ reports on financial assistance to developing countries: “…there were lots of declarations of intent – and voluntary commitments from a few European countries.” But nothing binding here either.
The green activist Die Zeit also comments on aid to developing countries, writing: “there were only vague promises in the agreement. Indeed it says that ‘beginning in 2020 at least 100 billion dollars a year will flow from public, private and other sources’. But there is no agreement on where the money will come from or how much will be made available in the years leading up to 2020.” Here, too, lots of empty promises.
Finally Spiegel writes that USA has never signed the treaty and that Canada has dropped out. Spiegel didn’t even bother putting the news of the Doha result on its online front page.
If you’re among those who are very serious about curbing CO2, then this agreement can be considered only one thing: PATHETIC!
But if you think the whole CO2 issue is nothing but a huge scam, then you can breath out yet another sigh of relief. Saved again from another dumb treaty. Better yet, it is becoming increasingly clear that most of the planet no longer takes the issue seriously – a mindset that will only increase as time goes by.
Other reactions:
Friends of the Earth on BBC: “It’s an empty deal.”
Klimaretter.de: “We are on the path to a 4°C world…Doha is a flop. [...] International diplomacy still has not recovered from the disaster of the Copenhagen Summit 2009. [...] It’s like the self-delusion of an alcoholic who says: Next week I’m going to quit drinking. But then every week he means next week.”
Hahahahaha, another failed "climate summit". Thank God... Klimaretter.de: “We are on the path to a 4°C world…Doha is a flop. [...] International diplomacy still has not recovered from the disaster of the Copenhagen Summit 2009. [...] It’s like the self-delusion of an alcoholic who says: Next week I’m going to quit drinking. But then every week he means next week.”
Yes it's hilarious to see whose interests are being served....
"The COP process is very disappointing," said Baltodano, who has attended two previous ones. "It's very clear that countries' economic interests dominate the negotiations."
Countries are mainly influenced by the corporate sector and civil society has very little interaction or influence there, she said. "There is a huge space we don't reach." "We're not talking about how comfortable your people (in developed world) may live but whether our people live," the delegate said. "The lives of our people are on the line here."
Originally posted by newf: Yes it's hilarious to see whose interests are being served....
I would find it hilarious if it weren't the biggest scam in world history. It isn't about the science, the environment, or the planet. It is about socialist wealth redistribution. Don't believe me, believe officials like this one from the IPCC:
Now, a high-ranking member of the U.N’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has admitted that climate policy has little to do with environmental protection.
On Sunday, Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and IPCC Co-chair of Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, told the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (translated) that “climate policy is redistributing the world's wealth” and that “it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”
Edenhofer went on to explain that in Cancun, the redistribution of not only wealth but also natural resources will be negotiated, adding that:
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.
And another shot at playing Robin Hood with Americans’ money. As I addressed yesterday:
Now consider the U.N. plan to levy a climate reparations tax on the developed world (read that United States) on everything from airline flights and international shipping to fuel and financial transactions to the tune of $100 billion annually. That scheme is backed by both Obama advisor Lawrence Summers and radical anti-American billionaire George Soros as a means to meet the annual figure “international leaders” agreed to in Copenhagen and will be a primary goal at Cancun in a few weeks.
A couple of weeks ago the great global warming bandwagon coughed and spluttered to a halt in Doha, the latest stop on its never-ending world tour. The annual UN climate conference COP18 is no small affair. This is a bandwagon whose riders number in the thousands: motorcades of politicians, buses full of technocrats and policy wonks and jumbo-jets full of hippies travelling half way round the world, (ostensibly) to save the planet from the (allegedly) pressing problem of climate change — Andrew Montford, The Spectator 9 December 2012
At the end of another lavishly-funded U.N. conference that yielded no progress on curbing greenhouse emissions, many of those most concerned about climate change are close to despair. –Barbara Lewis and Alister Doyle, Reuters, 9 December 2012
The United Nations climate talks in Doha went a full extra 24 hours and ended without increased cuts in fossil fuel emissions and without financial commitments between 2013 and 2015. However, this is a “historic” agreement, insisted Qatar’s Abdullah bin Hamad Al-Attiyah, the COP18 president. –Inter Press Service, 10 December 2012
The conference held in Qatar agreed to extend the emissions-limiting Kyoto Protocol, which would have run out within weeks. But Canada, Russia and Japan – where the protocol was signed 15 years ago – all abandoned the agreement. The United States never ratified it in the first place, and it excludes developing countries where emissions are growing most quickly. Delegates flew home from Doha without securing a single new pledge to cut pollution from a major emitter. –Barbara Lewis and Alister Doyle, Reuters, 9 December 2012
Climate negotiators at the most recent conference on global warming were unable to reduce expectations fast enough to match the collapse of their agenda. The only real winners here were the bureaucrats in the diplomacy industry for whom endless rounds of carbon spewing conferences with no agreement year after year mean jobs, jobs, jobs. The inexorable decline of the climate movement from its Pickett’s Charge at the Copenhagen summit continues. The global green lobby is more flummoxed than ever. These people and these methods couldn’t make a ham sandwich, much less save Planet Earth. –Walter Russell Mead, The American Interest, 9 December 2012
Britain faces even tougher green taxes if a climate change deal is signed in Doha that could force it to reduce emissions by another third. The country is signed up to a target to cut carbon emissions by 34 per cent by 2020, but this could go up to 42 per cent under a new United Nations deal. Experts last night warned that the new target could add hundreds of pounds to energy bills every year, and industry leaders said new carbon taxes would make British businesses less competitive. Benny Peiser, of Lord Lawson’s think tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the cost to industry would be passed on to consumers. “The more renewables you build, like wind, the more you need subsidies so it pushes energy bills up. If business has to pay higher bills the costs of products goes up.” –Louise Gray and Rowena Mason, The Daily Telegraph, 8 December 2012
The UN climate conferences have descended into ritual farce, as naked money-grabbing on behalf of poor countries contrasts with finagling impossible solutions to what is likely a much-exaggerated problem. One leading question is how dubious science, shoddy economics and tried-and-failed socialist policies have come to dominate the democratic process in so many countries for so long. The answer appears to be the skill with which a radical minority — centred in and promoted by the UN, and funded by national governments and, even more bizarrely, corporations — has skilfully manipulated the political process at every level. –Peter Foster, Financial Post, 7 December 2012
It’s green, it’s cheap and it’s plentiful! So why are opponents of shale gas making such a fuss? If it were not so serious there would be something ludicrous about the reaction of the green lobby to the discovery of big shale gas reserves in this country. Here we are in the fifth year of a downturn. We have pensioners battling fuel poverty. We have energy firms jacking up their prices. We have real worries about security of energy supply – a new building like the Shard needs four times as much juice as the entire town of Colchester. In their mad denunciations of fracking, the Greens and the eco-warriors betray the mindset of people who cannot bear a piece of unadulterated good news. –Boris Johnson, The Daily Telegraph, 10 December 2012
Originally posted by fierobear: I would find it hilarious if it weren't the biggest scam in world history. It isn't about the science, the environment, or the planet.
Except you don't have any evidence to support your crazy conspiracy.
What's it like to play alone with your imaginary ball after all your friends run off embarrassed?
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Except you don't have any evidence to support your crazy conspiracy.
I have plenty of evidence, and have been posting it for YEARS. Your unilateral declaration that I have no evidence does not make it so.
Your seemingly one track obsession with the BEST study is misguided. It is as if this is supposed to settle the question totally, completely and finally. Sorry, wrong.
Except you don't have any evidence to support your crazy conspiracy.
That's the thing about conspiracies and their followers, hints and innuendo are plenty to keep them alive. Their are those who still think the moon landing were faked, their are plenty on here that still aren't convinced Obama is a U.S. citizen for God's sakes.
Originally posted by fierobear: I have plenty of evidence, and have been posting it for YEARS. Your unilateral declaration that I have no evidence does not make it so.
I have only seen jokes and politically derived conspiracy theory nonsense that you have been posting for years. Like the meaningless "R squared correlation" that you didn't even understand yourself. You have yet explain how solar activity is a 'meaningful' 57% correlation when there's zero net increase on output. Totally pathetic and embarrassing arguments.
This thread was only intended to be a blow off valve for your "avengador1" quality news articles:
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Lost in all of this is the fact that science is NEVER settled, and that debate should NEVER stop.
Is the world still flat in your world because that's still being settled? It would explain a lot, actually.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Your seemingly one track obsession with the BEST study is misguided. It is as if this is supposed to settle the question totally, completely and finally. Sorry, wrong.
The BEST study does settle this question totally, completely and finally. BEST confirmed previous studies. BEST directly addressed skeptical arguments. BEST demonstrated with hard data how over hyped all the issues raised by Deniers are.
Your silence for 6 straight pages on how BEST is flawed says it all. You've got nothing. Absolutely nothing.
How about citing some scientific papers and sources? You said you were going to stick to scientific papers and sources but you only cite political news articles and bloggers who are college drop outs.
The BEST study does settle this question totally, completely and finally. BEST confirmed previous studies. BEST directly addressed skeptical arguments. BEST demonstrated with hard data how over hyped all the issues raised by Deniers are.
LOL
This shows you are DELUDED. A topic such as climate cannot have anything settled in ONE study or paper.
quote
Your silence for 6 straight pages on how BEST is flawed says it all. You've got nothing. Absolutely nothing.
This thread is over 50 pages long. You have no point here. And you are WRONG, because I have provided answers contrary to the BEST (non-peer reviewed) paper in this thread. Whether they were in the last 6 pages is irrelevant.
quote
How about citing some scientific papers and sources?
Oh, you mean peer reviewed papers? We know that warmists have rigged the peer review process. Nice try, though. Several warmist scientists have made the same claim, some of them were the same ones who blocked peer review of dissenting papers. But I see you've fallen for this one hook, line and sinker.
How ironic that that you criticize my side of the debate regarding lack of peer review, when your OWN BEST STUDY isn't peer reviewed!
I have only seen jokes and politically derived conspiracy theory nonsense that you have been posting for years. Like the meaningless "R squared correlation" that you didn't even understand yourself. You have yet explain how solar activity is a 'meaningful' 57% correlation when there's zero net increase on output. Totally pathetic and embarrassing arguments.
I gave you the source for my data. What was yours?
Besides, even if solar is only a 57% fit, then it STILL is better than CO2 at 44% for prior to 1998, and ZERO percent since. But thank you for yet another pathetic argument. Which leads me to...
quote
Is the world still flat in your world because that's still being settled? It would explain a lot, actually.
That is a bullshit, "red herring" argument and you KNOW IT.
Here's another bullshit argument...
quote
You said you were going to stick to scientific papers and sources but you only cite political news articles and bloggers who are college drop outs.
...which is called the "ad homenim", or "against the man" or "against the person."
I HAVE posted numerous sources from scientists. Your argument is simply false.
Paper from a prominent (and warmist) scientist (pdf file, pgs 10-11) who has concerns about the IPCC, specifically the overblown "consensus" or "thousands" of scientists. He specifically states that the consensus is "only a few dozen experts" (newf, are you paying attention?)
Consensus and Uncertainty
Since its origins, the IPCC has been open and explicit about seeking to generate a ‘scientific consensus’ around climate change and especially about the role of humans in climate change. Yet this has been a source of both strength and vulnerability for the IPCC. Understanding consensus as a process of ‘truth creation’ (or the more nuanced ‘knowledge production’) which marginalises dissenting voices – as has frequently been portrayed by some of the IPCC’s critics (see Edwards & Schneider, 2001; Petersen, 2010) – does not do justice to the process.
Consensus-building in fact serves several different goals. As Horst and Irwin (2010) have explained, seeking consensus can be as much about building a community identity – what Haas (1992) refers to as an epistemic community – as it is about seeking the ‘truth’. Equally, as Yearley (2009) explains, IPCC consensus-making is an exercise in collective judgement about subjective (or Bayesian) likelihoods in areas of uncertain knowledge. Consensus-making in the IPCC has been largely driven by the desire to communicate climate science coherently to a wide spectrum of policy users – ‘to construct knowledge’ (Weingart, 1999) - but in so doing communicating uncertainties have been down-played (van der Sluijs, 1998). As Oppenheimer et al. (2007: 1506) remark: “The establishment of consensus by the IPCC is no longer as critical to governments as [is] a full exploration of uncertainty.”
Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.
========================================
Oh, and for an added bonus, Hulme adds a bit of criticism of the IPCC's peer review process (hmmm...there's that peer review thing again), pages 9-10
And legitimacy is what has been tested in the recent controversies surrounding various ‘errors’ in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. This has been a test for the leadership and transparency of the IPCC and of its peer-review system. Shackley’s perspective on the IPCC from 1997 is again prescient, warning of the “... danger(s) of the IPCC peer reviewing process becoming too self-contained and insulated from criticism at the paradigm level” (Shackley, 1997: 79). Yearley (2009) has also made similar observations with respect to peer-review and the IPCC, suggesting again that sociology, and the social sciences more generally, has much to offer those responsible for the leadership and management of the IPCC.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-12-2012).]
Paper from a prominent (and warmist) scientist (pdf file, pgs 10-11) who has concerns about the IPCC, specifically the overblown "consensus" or "thousands" of scientists. He specifically states that the consensus is "only a few dozen experts" (newf, are you paying attention?)
Consensus and Uncertainty
Since its origins, the IPCC has been open and explicit about seeking to generate a ‘scientific consensus’ around climate change and especially about the role of humans in climate change. Yet this has been a source of both strength and vulnerability for the IPCC. Understanding consensus as a process of ‘truth creation’ (or the more nuanced ‘knowledge production’) which marginalises dissenting voices – as has frequently been portrayed by some of the IPCC’s critics (see Edwards & Schneider, 2001; Petersen, 2010) – does not do justice to the process.
Consensus-building in fact serves several different goals. As Horst and Irwin (2010) have explained, seeking consensus can be as much about building a community identity – what Haas (1992) refers to as an epistemic community – as it is about seeking the ‘truth’. Equally, as Yearley (2009) explains, IPCC consensus-making is an exercise in collective judgement about subjective (or Bayesian) likelihoods in areas of uncertain knowledge. Consensus-making in the IPCC has been largely driven by the desire to communicate climate science coherently to a wide spectrum of policy users – ‘to construct knowledge’ (Weingart, 1999) - but in so doing communicating uncertainties have been down-played (van der Sluijs, 1998). As Oppenheimer et al. (2007: 1506) remark: “The establishment of consensus by the IPCC is no longer as critical to governments as [is] a full exploration of uncertainty.”
Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.
========================================
Oh, and for an added bonus, Hulme adds a bit of criticism of the IPCC's peer review process (hmmm...there's that peer review thing again), pages 9-10
And legitimacy is what has been tested in the recent controversies surrounding various ‘errors’ in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. This has been a test for the leadership and transparency of the IPCC and of its peer-review system. Shackley’s perspective on the IPCC from 1997 is again prescient, warning of the “... danger(s) of the IPCC peer reviewing process becoming too self-contained and insulated from criticism at the paradigm level” (Shackley, 1997: 79). Yearley (2009) has also made similar observations with respect to peer-review and the IPCC, suggesting again that sociology, and the social sciences more generally, has much to offer those responsible for the leadership and management of the IPCC.
I am indeed paying attention but not to the right wing bloggsphere (haven't you learned from the past election yet that they are skewing most things one way for a reason?)
You'll see this argument used a lot by deniers but it's a good idea to look closely at the time period they are showing. No change or very little change over a short period is not significant, Climate Change is longer term than that and can be effected by many factors short term (El Nino, sun spots etc...).
There is without much doubt a general warming in the earths temp in the past 100 or so years that can be attributed to the effects that humans are having on the earth if you look at the science.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-12-2012).]
fierobear, With each post you demonstrate how far along you are into your decent into lunacy. Yet again I will try to bring you back to reality with… reality. I'm curious if this is just pushing you further into lunacy or actually helping but time will tell. On a positive note you have stopped talking about Al Gore. Good Job!
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: This shows you are DELUDED. A topic such as climate cannot have anything settled in ONE study or paper.
I did not suggest BEST settled everything on the 'climate.' What I have said numerous times is BEST settled the controversy over the planet warming and human emissions being the strongest contender with nothing else coming close to even being the ball park. This confusion on your part arrises from your poor interpretation skills that I will address.
BEST is not just "one study" - BEST confirmed the results of NASA, NOAA, and Hadley. The temperature has undisputedly risen *.9C in the last 50 years. BEST was the fourth study to confirm this. BEST also directly debunked arguments skeptic's said invalidated NASA, NOAA, and Hadley: urban heat, poor station quality, and bias, fraud, or incompetence.
BEST released everything and skeptics have had over a year to review it and find errors that would invalidate the study. Skeptics who are honest with themselves have been forced to change their mind.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: This thread is over 50 pages long. You have no point here.
The Berkley Earth Study has zero mention in your thread prior to my arrival. You conveniently ignored the study for a year or your political news feeds must have forgot to mention it.
Your reply to my first post claimed the BEST study had been debunked. You didn't elaborate at all and have remained silent for 6 pages.
That's the point.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: And you are WRONG, because I have provided answers contrary to the BEST (non-peer reviewed) paper in this thread. Whether they were in the last 6 pages is irrelevant.
I am not wrong one bit, you are. The BEST study is peer reviewed, but I'll get it that. Simply providing contrary arguments is meaningless. Especially if you are incapable of backing up your arguments with scientific studies. And especially if you are incapable of relating your arguments to the methods and data used in the BEST study and studies like it. You are free to invent contrary arguments all day long but no one will take you seriously if they have no merit. Yours have zero merit.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Oh, you mean peer reviewed papers?
I asked you to cite some scientific studies to backup your radical theories instead of pathetic political news articles. You replied with a post quoting THREE pathetic political news articles that further your radical theories and ZERO scientific studies.
I say again. You have nothing. Absolutely nothing on BEST.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: We know that warmists have rigged the peer review process. Nice try, though. Several warmist scientists have made the same claim, some of them were the same ones who blocked peer review of dissenting papers.
The news article you cite clearly states the emails were taken out of context. The fact you continue to regurgitate this debunked conspiracy theory highlights how desperate you are to disprove all of science.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: How ironic that that you criticize my side of the debate regarding lack of peer review, when your OWN BEST STUDY isn't peer reviewed! link
You continue to show how out of date your information is.
Originally posted by fierobear: On a related note, a fellow climate scientist points out that BEST hides the flat temperatures for the last 16 years. Ooops. link
I already commented on the technicalities that flaw Daily Mail graphs at the bottom of this post.
If you throw out the unreliable data points based on only 47 stations in the Antarctic instead of 14,488 worldwide and look at 17 years of data you get the following: Source.
Originally posted by fierobear: I gave you the source for my data. What was yours?
Besides, even if solar is only a 57% fit, then it STILL is better than CO2 at 44% for prior to 1998, and ZERO percent since. But thank you for yet another pathetic argument. Which leads me to...
Four times I have explained the flawed logic behind your "R Squared Correlation" theory. Four times you have ignored it. I'm not introducing any new data so there is no data to provide a source for. My source is basic elementary school logic that you are seriously lacking.
You lack an understanding of what the graphs are actually comparing. You are making the exact same fatal mistake Arns85GT made when he decided two unrelated lines on a graph had to be related because "the shapes are similar." This is not the first instance of you posting a graph that is completely untrue due to flawed logic. newf immediately called you out on that rubbish and you ignored him. Just like you're ignoring me for debunking your "game, set, match" argument.
I will again, making this five times, explain the flawed logic behind your graph.
The shapes of the lines are similar mathematically. Your imagination concludes the lines must be influencing each other, and you conclude this without explaining the physics that accompany such a correlation. A 57% 'solar' correlation is only mathematical and not present in the real world. Solar activity's influence on temperature is scientifically documented as being almost zero.
So explain how a imaginary 57% solar correlation is meaningful when it isn't supported by real world data?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: That is a bullshit, "red herring" argument and you KNOW IT.
It was a serious question. If you're living hundreds or thousands of years in the scientific past you might be waiting for some "new physics" like the standard model. It would explain your lack of understanding of CO2 and the conservation of heat role it plays in our atmosphere.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: ...which is called the "ad homenim", or "against the man" or "against the person."
Not even close.
YOU set the standard for this thread in your first post. YOU said you were going to stick to scientific papers and sources. YOU said you would OCCASIONALLY be posting from news articles and bloggers. YOU violate your own rules by only relying on political sources for scientific information. Political sources rely on hype and BS - two things YOU said you were going to avoid.
Consider how YOU would feel if I were perpetuating an argument supported by college drop outs and political news articles, not real world scientific data.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: I HAVE posted numerous sources from scientists. Your argument is simply false.
Where are all these scientific sources that discredit the BEST study? I go to great lengths to place my argument and sources out in front regardless of how many times I'm asked to debunk the same nonsense.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-12-2012).]
I was going to try to answer all of this in one post, but it is getting absurdly long. So I'll break it down.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Where are all these scientific sources that discredit the BEST study? I go to great lengths to place my argument
and sources out in front regardless of how many times I'm asked to debunk the same nonsense.
Given the fact that the BEST study is, at best, IN peer review (but there's no sign that peer review is completed), and it isn't PUBLISHED, then the study hasn't actually proven anything. How about you get back to us AFTER it passes peer review AND AFTER it has been published?
quote
I did not suggest BEST settled everything on the 'climate.' What I have said numerous times is BEST settled
the controversy over the planet warming and human emissions being the strongest contender with nothing else coming
close to even being the ball park.
This is what you said:
quote
The BEST study does settle this question totally, completely and finally. BEST confirmed previous studies.
BEST directly addressed skeptical arguments.
That sounds awfully final. More like wishful thinking on your part. You WANT this to be the final word on all that but sorry, no dice.
I asked you to cite some scientific studies to backup your radical theories instead of pathetic political news articles. You replied with a post quoting THREE pathetic political news articles that further your radical theories and ZERO scientific studies.
First of all, those posts weren't for you. This thread isn't all about you, and it is not all about BEST. Get over yourself.
quote
I say again. You have nothing. Absolutely nothing on BEST.
That is a complete and total LIE. I have made SEVERAL posts on BEST. The fact that you'd say that calls into question your honesty, if not your reading comprehension or attention span. It isn't the first time you've said something that is completely false.
HUH?
