Originally posted by fierobear: The MYTH that 97% of climate scientists agree
How can you dispute the significance of the consensus and deny there is a consensus at the same time?
"There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one." Source.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: You may be thinking of CO2's potential for heating the atmosphere, which *is* logarithmic, but CO2's potential heating drops off as you add more CO2.
It was really kind of you to share the source of your misinformation. It wont prevent me from exposing the myths and lies you post. If you're reporting the "truth" like you claim you are, why do you hide your sources?
Ironically, the method used to create the graph is nothing short of fraudulent. It perfectly highlights how Denier's are willing to be deceptive and dishonest to the general public in order to further their narrow minded political agenda. It's no surprise that the "world's most viewed Denier blog" published it and fake skeptics like fierobear simply parrot it without giving it any actual thought.
The author of the model that was used to create the graph flat out says his model is being used for deceptive purposes. Source.
It turns out Archibald manipulated the model by hand to give the results he wanted - the very thing Denier's accuse "warmest" of doing all the time! Talk about a classic case of projection.
The method used, and the resulting graph, are entirely unrealistic. The IPCC reports that for a doubling CO2, the warming will be 3.0*C +or- 1.5, so 1.5*C-4.5*C is the expected range. This value is referred to as "climate sensitivity." This estimate has remained essentially UNCHANGED since 1979! The study fierobear posted here, despite obvious errors in the model in relation to short term changes, states this value will be 1.2*C - 2.9*C.
Archibald, with no scientific backing what so ever, plugged in a completely fabricated value in the model, he set climate sensitivity at 0.4*C! This is nothing short of malicious pseudoscience and a lie. That's 3 times less than the lowest value reported by fierobear's study.
Another Denier Liar Busted.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: I also notice that this graph looks like it is leveling off again in the 2000's.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: This also does not explain the apparent flatting indicated in the graph (2000+) as CO2 production has NOT decreased.
Yeah, let us have a debate based on what we can eyeball, not what science has actually proved with empirical evidence.
Nevermind the fact that there is a mountain of emerical evidence that ties the increasing temperatures to greenhouse gases from studies like this one and this one.
Nevermind the all scientific studies like this one, that confirm and reconfirm, the dominate human role in global warming via greenhouse gases.
Nevermind the fact that observations cannot be reproduced without greenhouse gases. Source.
Denier's continuously ignore reality and the evidence already on the table in order to lower this discussion to the philosophical equivalent of "why did the chicken cross the road?"
From your own link, here's a section you didn't quote: "In the meantime, we can venture two "predictions" on "whither U.S. climate". First, regarding U.S. temperature, we have argued (Hansen et al., 1999a) that the next decade will be warmer than the 1990s, rivaling if not exceeding the 1930s."
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: The temperature anomaly disappears without the adjustments.
"Without those creative adjustments, there is really no difference between 1934 and 2012."
There seems to be no mention of why the data was changed after 2000. I find it odd you didn't bring Steve McIntyre up when you love to exaggerate every detail beyond the truth in order to show "warmists" in bad light.
The reason the dataset was changed in 2007 with scary "adjustments" was due to NASA mistakenly using unadjusted data from 2000. For 7 years they were publishing the wrong data. Steve McIntyre noticed it and notified NASA. NASA fixed it. Yet the way this is written it sounds like NASA "adjusted" 1934 out of the record books for "hottest year in the US" and is continuing to make adjustments to "create" global warming. Not the case, 1934 is the fourth warmest year, behind 2012, 2006, and 1998. But the US is only 2% of the global surface area, so you must keep your sample size in mind. 1934 was the 49th hottest year globally, yet the last 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998.
The scary "adjustments" only changed tenth of a degree in the United States and a thousandth of a degree worldwide. Not much difference at all. Source. Yeah, the temperature really anomaly disappears…
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 02-14-2013).]
Bluster all you want, but OPINION is still not PROOF; OPINION is not FACT. Shouting it loudly does npt make it so. Saying it over and over again does not make it so. Saying it crudely does not make it so.
If "OPINION is still not PROOF" - then all you 'sayers' please refrain from posting warmists opinions/blogs/etc. - IT WORKS BOTH WAYS.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Yeah the graphs are REAL flat. Source.
Yea, but you STILL haven't answered the question as to WHY the warming graph is LINEAR vs. the CO2 graph with has a LOGARITHMIC type of curve to it. And I was also referring to the other graph you posted, here is is YET again:
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree
IF man made CO2 is the MAIN cause like you keep beating the dead horse about, then why is the warming data NOT following the CO2 increase much more closely?
I asked a serious question, that so far, NO one has answered, instead all I see is you just beaking off that this source and this source says that man is responsible, this thread also has many links that this source and this source is saying that man is not responsible - SO WHAT THE F***
Just answer the simple question and show me the published paper that backs your argument.
Your stupid BEST graph that you keep posting in itself is NOT following the CO2 curve. I am also sure you CAN read a graph (since you have been beaking off about that you could in the past). ALSO your (holy grail) BEST graph ONLY goes back to 1993 - - my question was with regards to the leveling off that occurred in about the mid 1940's until about the mid 1970's - yet you focused on my comment about 2000+ (and totally ignored the rest - that or have no argument) - talk about cherry picking.
You posted the graph in question, I asked a couple of questions about it, now you show up picking out one comment (actually 2) and deflecting your argument away from what happened from the 40's to the 70's. Even then your BEST graph still does NOT answer why the temperature is NOT following the CO2 level increase.
While you are at it, also please answer my question about the rate of increase between the 2 time frames I asked about as well - or will you simply skip over that part as well?
I am asking a serious question and so far no real answer to satisfy me - all have have seen is "look at what these studies, they prove man is responsible", if he is, then my specific questions should be easy to answer. That is what "science" is about, finding answers to questions not just rehashing "the data shows this and I don't care about your question as it is irrelevant". In fact, rinselberg (which I thank), was the only one that did try to answer, but that brought up more questions.
IF man made CO2 is the MAIN cause like you keep beating the dead horse about, then why is the warming data NOT following the CO2 increase much more closely?
I asked a serious question, that so far, NO one has answered, instead all I see is you just beaking off that this source and this source says that man is responsible, this thread also has many links that this source and this source is saying that man is not responsible - SO WHAT THE F***
Just answer the simple question and show me the published paper that backs your argument.
Your stupid BEST graph that you keep posting in itself is NOT following the CO2 curve. I am also sure you CAN read a graph (since you have been beaking off about that you could in the past). ALSO your (holy grail) BEST graph ONLY goes back to 1993 - :wtf: - my question was with regards to the leveling off that occurred in about the mid 1940's until about the mid 1970's - yet you focused on my comment about 2000+ (and totally ignored the rest - that or have no argument) - talk about cherry picking.
You posted the graph in question, I asked a couple of questions about it, now you show up picking out one comment (actually 2) and deflecting your argument away from what happened from the 40's to the 70's. Even then your BEST graph still does NOT answer why the temperature is NOT following the CO2 level increase.
While you are at it, also please answer my question about the rate of increase between the 2 time frames I asked about as well - or will you simply skip over that part as well?
I am asking a serious question and so far no real answer to satisfy me - all have have seen is "look at what these studies, they prove man is responsible", if he is, then my specific questions should be easy to answer. That is what "science" is about, finding answers to questions not just rehashing "the data shows this and I don't care about your question as it is irrelevant". In fact, rinselberg (which I thank), was the only one that did try to answer, but that brought up more questions.
SUN SPOT CYCLE
CO2 is but one factor there are lots of others current big input is our star the sun it hic-cupped recently ie no to fewer then normal spots numbers = less output = less heat
so in simple terms less heat in = less temp rise but the temps didNOT fall as much as past events in fact did not drop below avg just went up less then the no sun hiccup projections
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: WHY... why... why
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: why is the warming data NOT following the CO2 increase much more closely?
The best answer I can give you to this question has already been discussed many times, you obviously didn't get it any of those times, how will you get it now? But I digress...
It has to do with fierobear's much touted but completely debunked "R Squared Correlation." Temperatures go up and down, they oscillate. CO2 does not. It's a gradual rise. You're asking me why a line that zig zags is not exactly like a line that doesn't. The correlation isn't that black and white for reasons that are self evident if you read the sentence prior to this one.
But if we're calling each other out for unanswered questions… how about you address the accusations you made in this post. I addressed your post directly, yet you ignored it and moved on. What were you going to rebuttal? Or did you just fabricate your accusation to attack me?
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 02-14-2013).]
IF man made CO2 is the MAIN cause like you keep beating the dead horse about, then why is the warming data NOT following the CO2 increase much more closely?
I asked a serious question, that so far, NO one has answered, instead all I see is you just beaking off that this source and this source says that man is responsible, this thread also has many links that this source and this source is saying that man is not responsible - SO WHAT THE F***
Just answer the simple question and show me the published paper that backs your argument.
Your stupid BEST graph that you keep posting in itself is NOT following the CO2 curve. I am also sure you CAN read a graph (since you have been beaking off about that you could in the past). ALSO your (holy grail) BEST graph ONLY goes back to 1993 - - my question was with regards to the leveling off that occurred in about the mid 1940's until about the mid 1970's - yet you focused on my comment about 2000+ (and totally ignored the rest - that or have no argument) - talk about cherry picking.
You posted the graph in question, I asked a couple of questions about it, now you show up picking out one comment (actually 2) and deflecting your argument away from what happened from the 40's to the 70's. Even then your BEST graph still does NOT answer why the temperature is NOT following the CO2 level increase.
While you are at it, also please answer my question about the rate of increase between the 2 time frames I asked about as well - or will you simply skip over that part as well?
I am asking a serious question and so far no real answer to satisfy me - all have have seen is "look at what these studies, they prove man is responsible", if he is, then my specific questions should be easy to answer. That is what "science" is about, finding answers to questions not just rehashing "the data shows this and I don't care about your question as it is irrelevant". In fact, rinselberg (which I thank), was the only one that did try to answer, but that brought up more questions.
quote
What causes this climate variability? Ocean cycles shuffle heat around the climate by exchanging heat between the ocean and atmosphere. This can have a strong short term effect on global temperature, the most dominant cycle being the El Niño Southern Oscillation. In 2008, the Pacific Ocean was in a strong La Niña phase, leading to unusually cool temperatures throughout the tropical Pacific Ocean. Additionally, the sun was currently in solar minimum, experiencing the lowest solar levels in a century. Solar activity has an 11 year cycle which is estimated to have an effect of around 0.1°C on global temperatures. The combination of solar minimum and La Niña conditions would have a short term cooling effect on global temperatures.
This demonstrates the danger of drawing conclusions from one small piece of the puzzle without viewing the broader picture. If one focuses on just the last few years, one might erroneously conclude global warming has stopped. However, by looking at several decades of data, we see a climate that shows strong short term variability. By understanding the mechanisms that cause climate variability, we see that the current cooling is short term variation imposed on the long term warming trend. What about a longer time series? Over the past century, are there any periods of long term cooling and if so, what is the significance?
IIRC FlyinFieros responded directly to the assertion that the temperature records were "adjusted" to bias results in a certain way.
The "adjustments" were made to stations that had poor quality data, i.e. began having significant deviations in periodic readings (which indicates an outside influence on the station, such as a recently installed air conditioner, or faulty measuring equipment). This data was still included in the dataset, but it's "weight" was reduced significantly.
Let's pretend we had a measuring station that read 60 degrees F +/- 0.5 F for 4 years. One day it begins measuring 75 F +/- 10 F. Would you blindly include the data? How would YOU, as a scientist or analyst, deal with the issue of potentially inaccurate measuring stations?
Is it coincidence that GISS, NOAA, Hadley CRU and BEST all came up with essentially the same results, using different methods of adjusting data?
I am still unclear what your position is. You began vehemently rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Then you began arguing that it's happening, but its not as bad as once thought. Then you started saying warming would actually be good for us. And now you are rejecting it again because you think the "adjustments" destroyed the data.
Most of the alleged "proof" I've seen you post here is not proof at all, but rather opinion or circular references (i.e. secondary sources quoting each other) or both. [emphasis added]
For reference, your exact assertion was, "When [the trend of the warming rate is not consistent with the rate of CO2 increase], they just lie." I challenged you to prove it.
After at least three rounds you have presented no "proof" of your assertion that "they just lie," rather you keep attempting to change the subject. I must conclude that you have no such proof to present.
(At this point I just shrug, shake my head, and walk away.)
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose:
If "OPINION is still not PROOF" - then all you 'sayers' please refrain from posting warmists opinions/blogs/etc. - IT WORKS BOTH WAYS.
There's nothing wrong with opinion, as long as someone doesn't try to misrepresent it as fact. If people want to be taken seriously, though, they do do need to be prepared to present a rational basis for how they formed their opinions. And I do agree with you that "it works both ways."
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-15-2013).]
After at least three rounds you have presented no "proof" of your assertion that "they just lie," rather you keep attempting to change the subject. I must conclude that you have no such proof to present.
(At this point I shrug, shake my head, and walk away.)
Delay - Check
Deflect - Check
Soon we may see the usual plethora of regurgitated posts to try and move the thread in another direction as it will be "new and improved" proof.
The best answer I can give you to this question has already been discussed many times, you obviously didn't get it any of those times, how will you get it now? But I digress...
It has to do with fierobear's much touted but completely debunked "R Squared Correlation." Temperatures go up and down, they oscillate. CO2 does not. It's a gradual rise. You're asking me why a line that zig zags is not exactly like a line that doesn't. The correlation isn't that black and white for reasons that are self evident if you read the sentence prior to this one.
But if we're calling each other out for unanswered questions… how about you address the accusations you made in this post. I addressed your post directly, yet you ignored it and moved on. What were you going to rebuttal? Or did you just fabricate your accusation to attack me?
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: As for the ocean part, when they say that the global temperature has increased by xx%, does 'global' not mean net temperature (ie. all things account for)? This is the problem, if we are talking net increases - the net increase is linear, not following the logarithmic increase in CO2. If they are not talking about a 'net' increase, then can I not assume that they are simply leaving data out?
If they are going to talk about a net CO2 increase and not split it up into the different types of CO2, they should be doing the same for 'global' temperatures. If they want to split up land and ocean, it should be fair for them to split up the CO2 and do specific measurements of each type and what each source is responsible for each type instead of just grouping it all together.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Temperatures go up and down, they oscillate. CO2 does not.
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: The correlation isn't that black and white for reasons that are self evident if you read the sentence prior to this one.
...well, from WHAT YOU are saying is that it is "black and white" that man made CO2 is responsible for the rise in temperature (you are "95% sure") - there is no doubt about that, now you are telling me that it is NOT "black and white".
Also from your link referenced above:
quote
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).
Even among this group that there are 25% papers that are NOT saying that man is responsible (however they are also NOT saying that man is NOT) - so not all publications are say it is so like you are leading me to believe.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: "There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one."
Um, http://heartland.org/about - oh wait, I forgot, according to your biased view (since they do not agree with you) they are a nobody except a group of people that have a political agenda.
AS for attacking you - the same can be said about you attacking me. I also never asked you to start criticizing my posts either, so technically you started it and now you are getting all pissy about it when I am calling you out? If you don't want to argue about it, fine - let's just leave it be now, and don't be going around cherry picking specific sentences I post without addressing the whole post.
Let's just let the preponderance of evidence affect our opinions! We can always change our opinions when confronted with new evidence. The way I see it is if we are wrong and do nothing it can have disastrous consequences. If we take the recommended steps and are wrong we will have squandered our money. I have to weigh the two options. One may be irreversible.
How would YOU, as a scientist or analyst, deal with the issue of potentially inaccurate measuring stations?
You posed the question to fierobear, whom I am most definitely not, but I will offer an answer anyway.
In the early 1960s I attended what was, at the time, arguably the most prestigious educational institution in the U.S. for the physical sciences. There I was taught that scientific integrity requires that you always record experimental or observational data exactly as you measure it. If preliminary analysis indicates that original data could be "improved" or clarified by adjustments, which is often the case, that issue has to be approached very carefully. Step 1 is to preserve and protect the original, unaltered, data. Step 2 is to carefully document what data is being altered, how it is being altered, and explain, in adequate detail, the rationale for the adjustments. Step 3 is to present the results for both raw and adjusted data, if possible. Step 4 is to make both raw and altered data sets, as well as the methodology used to obtain them, available to other researchers so that they can duplicate the results (or not) for themselves.
There is nothing inherently wrong with adjusting experimental or observational data, which is often very "noisy" or includes long runs of "uninteresting" measurements. In fact, noise filtering is probably the most common "adjustment" applied to data during analysis. It usually is considered unethical, however, not to preserve the original raw data or not to disclose the filtering applied. Sometimes it turns out that there is important information buried in the "noise" itself. (Example: At the receiver, GPS signals typically have a signal-to-noise ratio worse than -40 dB ... i.e. the background noise is more than 10,000 times stronger than the actual GPS signal itself. It is a miracle of modern information theory and filtering techniques that the weak GPS signal is usable at all, much less at the order of precision currently available from receivers costing less than $100.)
In the particular case of "1934 temperature data" I see nothing fundamentally wrong with the adjustments applied, if there were indeed any significant adjustments. Temperature observations are inherently "noisy" and subject to many short-term local aberrations. Both the raw data and the "adjusted" data is available to researchers. The nature of any adjustments, as well as the rationale for them, has been disclosed. Subsequent analysis comparing the adjusted and unadjusted data sets shows that the adjustments have an inconsequential effect on the long-term temperature trend.
A second fundamental principle of research I remember being taught was, "If you begin with a working hypothesis, you must always report all your data ... not only that which supports your hypothesis, but also that which may refute it." But when climate researchers do that, it is immediately seized upon by climate-change deniers as "conclusive evidence" that discredits the entire body of research, rather than as the uncertainty that it actually represents. For ethical scientists it has always been thus. The current political climate just raises it to a level perhaps not seen since Galileo.
For those who care (and can read), I highly recommend reviewing the transcript of Richard Feynman's commencement address presented at Caltech in 1974, subsequently published under the title Cargo Cult Science, for an excellent exposition on the topic of integrity in science:
"The first principle [of scientific integrity] is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool."
I will only add that if you begin any research or analysis with a political agenda, you have already fooled yourself, before you've even begun.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-15-2013).]
Let's just let the preponderance of evidence affect our opinions! We can always change our opinions when confronted with new evidence. The way I see it is if we are wrong and do nothing it can have disastrous consequences. If we take the recommended steps and are wrong we will have squandered our money. I have to weigh the two options. One may be irreversible.
Don't get me wrong, I would rather see money spent solving pollution, and I am talking about real solutions not some stupid carbon tax or credit scheme that does NOTHING to fix the problem other than to line some peoples pockets.
The money should also NOT just be focused on air pollution, but the amount of garbage we produce as well. We are not only polluting the air, but the ground and oceans as well. There are many cities that are having issues with dealing with the amount of garbage that each produces and where to put it. Why is the ONLY focus on 'man made' global warming? Are other forms of pollution not as important? Well I can simply answer that, because those topics are not as POLITICALLY visible as "man made" global warming. Talk about a political agenda.
But wasting money of carbon capture and storage, for one example, is a big waste to me - has any real study been done on the future effects that this may have? Or is it simply a quick fix to make it look the goberment(s) are doing something about the problem to appease the 'greenies' and 'both' sides currently don't care about the future? Sure they like to talk about it, but they are just looking for a quick and easy fix now without thinking of the real consequences.
While on the topic, I surely don't see these 'greenies' making a big effort at solving the problem, they just travel around the world protesting (adding more pollution unless they are walking - which I hardly doubt).
I don't know the details on capture and store or the long term effects. I don't know the details on carbon tax either. I suspect that is a way for polluters to go on polluting as per Al Gore and his way too big house. Anything we propose should be looked at in detail before being massively implemented. Anyway let's put ALL the options out there so that we can look at them pro and con.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 02-16-2013).]
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Celebrities and environmental activists, including lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and civil rights leader Julian Bond, were arrested Wednesday after tying themselves to the White House gate to protest the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada.
Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune also was arrested — the first time in the group's 120-year history that a club leader was arrested in an act of civil disobedience. The club's board of directors approved the action as a sign of its opposition to the $7 billion pipeline, which would carry oil derived from tar sands in western Canada to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast.
Activist Bill McKibben, actress Daryl Hannah and NASA climate scientist James Hansen also were arrested, along with more than 40 others. They were charged with failure to disperse and obey lawful orders, and released on $100 bond each.
The protesters are demanding that President Barack Obama reject the pipeline, which they say would carry "dirty oil" that contributes to global warming. They also worry about a spill.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 02-16-2013).]
CO2 is but one factor there are lots of others current big input is our star the sun it hic-cupped recently ie no to fewer then normal spots numbers = less output = less heat
so in simple terms less heat in = less temp rise but the temps didNOT fall as much as past events in fact did not drop below avg just went up less then the no sun hiccup projections
Sorry, now I am confused, FlyinFieros said that the whole sun spot theory can not explain the warming, now you are saying that the sun's active cycles resulted in cooling period and now the warming period? No net increase would also imply no net decrease.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Sun Output vs Temperatures: Even though sun output data is only available since the satellite era (can't do it on Earth), you'll notice there's a correlation between sunspot numbers and output. With a really high number of sunspots (150) we get 1 watt more per meter squared consistently. Unfortunately for the denier "sunspot" argument there's no net increase.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Political agenda? You mean like this?
Kinda puts those temperature "adjustments" into perspective.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Celebrities and environmental activists, including lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and civil rights leader Julian Bond, were arrested Wednesday after tying themselves to the White House gate to protest the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada.
Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune also was arrested — the first time in the group's 120-year history that a club leader was arrested in an act of civil disobedience. The club's board of directors approved the action as a sign of its opposition to the $7 billion pipeline, which would carry oil derived from tar sands in western Canada to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast.
Activist Bill McKibben, actress Daryl Hannah and NASA climate scientist James Hansen also were arrested, along with more than 40 others. They were charged with failure to disperse and obey lawful orders, and released on $100 bond each.
The protesters are demanding that President Barack Obama reject the pipeline, which they say would carry "dirty oil" that contributes to global warming. They also worry about a spill.
[sarcasm]Hey, that doesn't count - only "deniers" can have a "political agenda" - don't cha know.[/sarcasm]
What I would really like to know is, how is it that Canada's oil is any "dirtier" than the oil from over seas? These are 'apparently educated' people and they are saying that the Canadian oil is worse for the enviroment than the other oil - and I would assume they have proof of this? Didn't think so, and if they are talking about the open pit mine - well how is that any different than all active the open pit mines in the US? Guess that means that everything James Hansen says is pure garbage.
Like fierobear mentioned - nothing but a "political agenda" because it makes a big splash in the media.
edit: one should note that all the 'big' names in here, these people all have a job and obviously they don't care that building this pipeline would help the jobless rate in the US (plus the workers needed to refine it) - never mind helping to reduce NA dependancy on oil from an unstable region. Just a pretty good example of the rich putting the 'beat down' on the middle and lower classes.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 02-16-2013).]
[sarcasm]Hey, that doesn't count - only "deniers" can have a "political agenda" - don't cha know.[/sarcasm]
What I would really like to know is, how is it that Canada's oil is any "dirtier" than the oil from over seas? These are 'apparently educated' people and they are saying that the Canadian oil is worse for the enviroment than the other oil - and I would assume they have proof of this? Didn't think so, and if they are talking about the open pit mine - well how is that any different than all active the open pit mines in the US? Guess that means that everything James Hansen says is pure garbage.
You live in Alberta and don't know why Tar Sands Oil is considered dirtier than other oil?
It has been discussed in detail many times. There is virtually no benefit to us in the keystone line. Just lots of risk so that the final product can be exported for corporate profit. I have signed more than one petition against it and if I were closer I would have jumped at the chance to pay a $100 fine and stand next to those awesome people.
Posted on February 17, 2013 by Guest Blogger Inter-temporal investment appraisal of the Sanders/Boxer carbon tax bill
by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Standard climatological and economic techniques, combined in an investment appraisal of the proposed Sanders/Boxer carbon dioxide tax (U.S. Senate, 2013), show that even at a zero inter-temporal discount rate the cost of the Bill’s proposed CO2 mitigation if applied worldwide over ten years is 15 times greater than the benefit in the cost of warming-related damage avoided by the intended cut in CO2 emissions, which is here assumed to be – but is in reality unlikely to be – achievable at the stated cost.
Fraction of global CO2 emissions abated: By 2023, on business as usual, U.S. CO2 emissions will be 5589 Tg CO2, 8.5% down (EIA, 2013) on the 6108 Tg CO2 (EPA, 2012) emitted in 2005. En route to Sanders/Boxer’s proposed 2025 cut of 20% compared with 2005, the cut in 2023 will be 18.5% against 2005, or an additional 10% or 611 Tg CO2, representing a cut of 10.9% in 2023 against business as usual. Since U.S. CO2 emissions represent 17% of world emissions (derived from Boden & Marland, 2010 and Boden, 2010), even if the tax succeeds as intended it will abate just 10.9% of 17%, or a mere 1.9%, of global CO2 emissions.
CO2 concentration abated: Without the carbon dioxide tax, CO2 concentration in 2023 would be 422 μatm (IPCC, 2007, Table 10.26) against 397 μatm in 2013 (updated from Conway & Tans, 2011). If the tax worked as intended, CO2 concentration in 2023 would be 422 minus 1.9% of (422 – 397), or 421.522 μatm.
CO2 forcing abated (IPCC, 2007; Myhre, 1998), would be 5.35 ln(422/421.522), or 0.006 W m–2.
A suitable climate sensitivity parameter is multiplied by the CO2 forcing to determine warming over the ten-year term. Garnaut (2008) is one of many who recommend keeping greenhouse-gas rises to 450 ppmv CO2-equivalent above the 280 ppmv prevalent in 1750, to hold 21st-century warming since then to below 2 K. So the implicit climate sensitivity parameter is 2 K / {5.35 ln[(280 + 450)/280] W m–2}, or 0.39 K W–1 m2.
Global warming abated by the tax from 2014-2023 would be 0.39(0.006) = 0.00237 K.
Projected warming over the term: CO2 forcing represents 70% of all manmade forcing (IPCC, 2001, 2007). Thus, warming officially projected for the ten-year term is 0.39[5.35 ln(422/397)] / 0.7 = 0.182 K.
The percentage of projected global warming abated over the ten-year term is 0.00237/0.182 = 1.3%.
The cost of abating global warming via the U.S. carbon tax over ten years is given as $1.2 trillion.
The mitigation cost-effectiveness of the tax, i.e. the cost of abating 1 K global warming by worldwide measures as cost-effective as the tax, is $1.2 trillion / 0.00237, or $507 trillion per Kelvin abated. The cost of abating the 3 K warming predicted by the IPCC to 2100 would exceed $1.5 quadrillion.
Global abatement cost: The cash cost of abating this projected 0.182 K warming over the term, again by measures as cost-effective as the tax, is 0.182 x $507 trillion, or $92 trillion, which, divided by the global population of 7 billion, is $13,200 per head, or, divided by $803 trillion global GDP over the ten-year term (from World Bank, 2011 assuming 3% annual GDP growth from $66 trillion in 2013), 11.5% of global GDP.
Benefit in averted warming-related damage cost: Stern (2006, p. vi), estimates that the cost of abating the 3 K 21st-century global warming expected by the IPCC will be 1.5[0, 3]% of 21st-century global GDP.
The cost-benefit ratio is 11.5/1.5 = 7.7. Accordingly, based on the optimistic assumption that $1.2 trillion will buy as much CO2 mitigation in the U.S. as Sanders/Boxer assume, and taking a zero discount rate, which maximally favors future generations, it is almost 8 times costlier to mitigate CO2 emissions by typical abatement measures such as the Sanders/Boxer carbon tax than to take no action at all and to endure the later cost of climate-related damage arising from the resultant warming.
The bottom line is that if global warming of 0.14 K/decade in the 22 years since 1990 (the least-squares trend on the monthly temperature anomalies in HadCRUt3gl, 2011) continues at half of the 3 Cº central estimate in IPCC (1990), so that only half the benefit in damage costs averted is achievable, CO2 mitigation today will be at least 15 times costlier than adaptation the day after tomorrow.
Conclusion: More complex analysis would be unlikely to change the outcome sufficiently to render the U.S. carbon tax, or any policy to mitigate CO2 emissions, at all cost-effective. Removal of some of the simplifying assumptions would tend to worsen the cost-benefit ratio still further, for most of them lead to understatement of it. Results from other case studies broadly confirm the outcome in the Sanders/Boxer case. Therefore, future adaptation where needed is sensible, but present-day mitigation is unjustifiable. Congress should reject the Bill, which would reduce the current $2 trillion U.S. annual deficit by only $30 billion, or just 1.5%.
References
Boden and Marland, 2010a. Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring, 1751-2007. Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.
Boden et al., 2010b. Ranking of the world's countries by 2007 total CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring. Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.
IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.
Murphy, 2008. Some Simple Economics of Climate Changes. Paper presented to the MPS General Meeting, Tokyo, September 8.
Myhre et al., 1998. New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases. Geophysical Research Letters 25:14, 2715–2718, doi:10.1029/98GL01908.
Stern, N., 2006, The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.
After at least three rounds you have presented no "proof" of your assertion that "they just lie," rather you keep attempting to change the subject. I must conclude that you have no such proof to present.
I don't see the point, given the fact that he already said it is impossible to prove someone is lying. So if he believes it can't be proven, why would I waste time trying to prove the impossible?
While it is true that proving someone is lying is difficult, if not impossible, that is not the case in science. If someone presents provably false data, manipulates the data or commits a lie of omission, and you can show that the author *knew* about the removed or truncated data, you can show that the author is being dishonest.
My first response to the challenge about climate scientists lying was to be about Michael Mann, one of the authors of the two (now discredited) "hockey stick graph" papers. But...what luck! Just in the last few weeks, we have fresh examples of Mann committing a lie of omission by truncating a data set that not only goes against his theory, but actually helps to nullify it. We know that he knew, because the data set he used was longer than what he presented, and at a time much later than the date he chose to end the use of the data set.
Be sure to note the bolded text toward the end. Scientist Naomi Oreskes commits a logical fallicy, if not a stupid blunder, that climate skeptics have forced scientists to downplay their projections of disaster, and goes on to say that the projections would be higher (worse climate conditions) if not for this pressure from skeptics. In other words, the divergence between computer model projections and actual temperatures would be GREATER. So, the projections would be even further off from the truth!
I posted links to the pictures and graphics, because they're .png files, and I didn't want to go through all the work of translation and posting. Just click on the links to see the graphics.
There has been considerable recent discussion of the fact that observations have been running cooler than models – see, for example, Lucia’s discussion of IPCC AR5 SOD Figure 9.8 (see here). However, Michael Mann at AGU took an entirely different line. Mann asserted that observations were running as hot or hotter than models. Mann’s assertion was taken even further by Naomi Oreskes, who asserted that climate models were under-estimating relative to observations. Oreskes squarely placed the blame for the supposed underestimates on climate skeptics.
In today’s post, I’ll look closely at the illustration in Mann’s AGU presentation, an illustration that gave an entirely different impression than the figure in the IPCC draft report. The reason for the difference can be traced to what I’ve termed here as “Mike’s AGU Trick”.
The IPCC AR5 SOD Graphic
An excerpt from IPCC AR5 SOD Figure 9.8 is shown below, clearly showing that the multimodel ensemble (red) is running noticeably hotter than observations (black). In my opinion, the difference is not merely “noticeable” but “statistically significant”, but that’s a story for a different day.
Mann’s AGU Presentation However, Mann at AGU asserted that observations were running as hot or hotter than models. Mann’s model comparandum was Hansen’s Scenario B, which is widely regarded as the most reasonable scenario to use to interpret Hansen’s “forecast” – see past CA points on this issue.
Figure 2. Mann’s AGU slide comparing observations to Hansen’s 1988 Scenario B projection. I took the photo with a new phone, with which I was then unfamiliar and unfortunately can only provide a muddy zoom on the graphic. Despite the muddiness, you can see that observations (red) appear to cohere with Hansen’s 1988 forecast (blue). In the loop below, I’ve overplotted data for models and observations to show more clearly what was shown to the AGU audience. (There was a bit of detective work in figuring this out – see below.) Click on the figure below for a loop illustrating the components of the zoomed figure). (Note: see below for Mann’s use of his AGU Trick to hide the divergence in a presentation a few months earlier at Rutgers).
Figure 3. Blowup of Mann’s slide comparing Hansen’s Scenario B to observations. Blue – Hansen’s Scenario B; red – “observations”.
Mann’s AGU slide obviously has a completely different rhetorical impression than the IPCC graphic. Whereas the discrepancy between observations and models was immediately noticeable in the IPCC graphic, Mann’s AGU graphic showed no such discrepancy. There were two reasons for the difference, the combination of which I’ll call “Mike’s AGU Trick” and will analyse below. Hansen 1988 versus Observations
First, I’ll show that Mike’s AGU Trick does not result from using Hansen’s Scenario B, as opposed to the IPCC multimodel ensemble. The next graphic compares Hansen’s original graphic (with Scenario B highlighted in blue) against observed GISS global land-and-ocean temperature (red). During the past decade, as with the IPCC multimodel ensemble, a noticeable divergence between observations and Scenario B has developed, reaching over 0.5 degrees C in 2012.
Figure 4. Annotated version of Hansen 1988 showing Scenario B (blue) and observed GISS land-and-ocean (red.) All data centered on 1958-1977. In the preparation of this graphic, I noticed something interesting about the centering of Hansen’s scenarios – an issue that occasioned considerable controversy in blog commentary: Hansen’s Scenarios are almost certainly centered on 1958-1977. The averages of both Scenario B and Scenario C are 0 to five significant digits with this centering. All data was accordingly centered on 1958-1977 for the present comparison. For GISS observations, the difference between 1958-1977 and 1951-1980 centering is -.0175 deg C – the difference is not material to comparisons, but there’s no reason not to do it as precisely as possible. Mann and Kump, 2008
Analysis of Mann’s AGU graphic is fortuitously assisted by the use of a similar graphic in Mann and Kump, Dire Predictions, as illustrated in the loop below. Mann and Kump, published in July 2008, compared Hansen’s Scenario B to observations to 2005, though data was then available up to 2007. In addition, although GISS model results are obviously for Land-and-Ocean, Mann and Kump used Land-Only data (which runs hotter) [click on figure for loop]
Figure 5. Comparison of Hansen 1988 to observations in Mann and Kump, Dire Predictions – see https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/141
Mike’s AGU Trick
There were two components to Mann’s AGU trick. First, as in Mann and Kump, Mann compared model projections for land-and-ocean to observations for land-only. In addition, like Santer et al 2008, Mann failed to incorporate up-to-date data for his comparison. The staleness of Mann’s temperature data in his AGU presentation was really quite remarkable: the temperature data in Mann’s presentation (December 2012) ended in 2005! Obviously, in the past (notably MBH98 and MBH99), Mann used the most recent (even monthly data) when it was to his advantage. So the failure to use up-to-date data in his AGU presentation is really quite conspicuous.
Had Mann shown a comparison of Hansen’s Scenario B to up-to-date Land-and-Ocean observational data, the discrepancy would have been evident to the AGU audience, as shown in the loop below.
Figure 6. Excerpt from Mann’s AGU presentation. Loop 1- showing Mann’s actual diagram with GISS Land-Only to 2005; Loop 2 – showing GISS Land-and-Ocean to 2012.
Pierrehumbert Condemns Data Truncation
In a 2007 realclimate article, Raymond Pierrehumbert condemned use of non-updated temperature data, when the effect of the failure to use up-to-date data was that the image gave an entirely different impression to the reader. In that situation, Pierrehumbert even called into question the ethics of the author. there is no legitimate reason — in a paper published in 2007 — for truncating the temperature record at 1992 as they did. There is, however, a very good illegitimate reason, in that truncating the curve in this way helps to conceal the strength of the trend from the reader, and shortens the period in which the most glaring mismatch … occurs.
There does not appear to be any relevant difference between Mann’s AGU technique and the graphic so vehemently criticized by Pierrehumbert, though, to my knowledge, Pierrehumbert has not taken exception to Mann’s AGU Trick.
Wingman Naomi
Mann’s AGU Trick appears to have wrongfooted his mini wingman, Naomi Oreskes.
Like Mann, Oreskes gave three AGU presentations (sessions PA13B – Countering Denial and Manufactured Doubt of 21st Century Science I; GC22B – Communicating Climate Science—Seeking the Best of Old and New Paradigms I; GC33F – Construing Uncertainty in Climate Science I). Oreskes’ starting point was that models had supposedly under-estimated relative to observations – a starting-point that seems oddly disconnected to the IPCC graphic shown above but, hey, Oreskes is an expert in manufactured disinformation. If Oreskes was not in fact wrongfooted by Mann, then one would like to know the provenance of her assertion that models were “underestimating” observed temperature increases.
Oreskes then purported to ponder on the institutional factors that supposedly caused such under-estimates by climate scientists. Oreskes had no doubt as to where the “blame” lay. Not with the scientists themselves. of course not. Oreskes placed the blame squarely on climate skeptics. According to Oreskes, their intimidation had led climate scientists to pull their punches and make forecasts that were too conservative.
[Note (March 2, 2013 4:22 pm.] While I was mostly offline, it turns out, as a reader below points out and as Pielke Jr has communicated to me by email, that Oreskes has published the argument outlined in her AGU presentation here. Pielke Jr has an excellent review of the Oreskes article here. Pielke Jr quoted the following from the Oreskes article – a quote which is very much consistent with the AGU presentation:
[O]ne possible reason why scientists may have underestimated the threat of anthropogenic warming is the fear that if they don’t, they will be accused by contrarians (as was Schneider) of being alarmist fear-mongers. That is to say, pressure from skeptics and contrarians and the risk of being accused of alarmism may have caused scientists to understate their results.
In other words – and this is the implication of Oreskes’ presentation not what she told the audience – were it not for the moderating influence of climate skeptics, the discrepancy between observations and the models that climate scientists would have presented in an Oreskes world, would have been even larger than the present discrepancy.
Surely this is an outcome that should cause Oreskes to thank skeptics, rather than condemn them. But, needless to say, no such thanks were forthcoming at the AGU of Oreskes, Gleick, Lewandowsky and Mann.
Update: As reader DGH observed in a comment below, Mann’s presentation at Rutgers also employed Mann’s AGU Trick to hide the divergence between Hansen Scenario B and observed temperature, not showing data after 2005. As noted above, not using up-to-date data in virtually identical circumstances was characterized by Pierrehumbert as “ugly” and “illegitimate”:
As reader ^ pointed out, in 2006, Hansen did his own comparison of his 1988 scenarios to observations, a diagram that appears to be the iconographic predecessor of Mann’s AGU diagram, a diagram that clearly shows an important difference between Hansen’s ethics and Mann’s ethics. Hansen’s article included up-to-date temperature data. In contrast, Mann’s AGU diagram, over 6 years later, still used 2005 data. In addition, Hansen showed both Land-Only and Land-and-Ocean data sets, showing the greater divergence between models and Land-and-Ocean data (arguing, not entirely convincingly, for an intermediate.) In contrast, Mann only showed the most advantageous version.
From the previous post, this really stood out. No bias or agenda here, noooo
Like Mann, Oreskes gave three AGU presentations (sessions PA13B – Countering Denial and Manufactured Doubt of 21st Century Science I; GC22B – Communicating Climate Science—Seeking the Best of Old and New Paradigms I; GC33F – Construing Uncertainty in Climate Science I)
From the previous post, this really stood out. No bias or agenda here, noooo
Like Mann, Oreskes gave three AGU presentations (sessions PA13B – Countering Denial and Manufactured Doubt of 21st Century Science I; GC22B – Communicating Climate Science—Seeking the Best of Old and New Paradigms I; GC33F – Construing Uncertainty in Climate Science I)
yes bear we know the bro's K stand to make a few less billions with attempts to limit CO2 so we also know whatever you post reflects their fears and bias [ AND FUNDING]
that doesNOT PROVE THE OTHER SIDES [ WARMERS] BIAS
IF and yes it is a big if the warmers are right and we do nothing we lose fla and lots of other sea coast ports and islands [sea levels] plus all the other climate shifts dust bowls floods ect
or if the deniers are right but we limit CO2 anyway your tea party funding bro's K 's huge fortune grows a little less and to joe worker energy costs go up a little
really good cost / benefit / risk ? lose fla or bro's K 's fortune grows less quickly but then I am bias as I live about 12ft above sea level in fla
Furthermore, had you BOTHERED to educate yourself there is NO tar mixed with the oil that is being removed - it is called bitumen. Is the process used to extract the oil better than drilling it? No - but until the world comes up with a decent alternative to oil, this will continue to go on - and if you rather see your money going to feed an economy in another country - have at it.
Fact is, man is destroying the planet in all forms, but certain 'special interest groups' are only targeting one aspect because it current makes the BEST POLITICAL argument.
BTW - the mining here in Alberta is far from discouraging your 'neighbors' from moving here for a job.
Furthermore, had you BOTHERED to educate yourself there is NO tar mixed with the oil that is being removed - it is called bitumen. Is the process used to extract the oil better than drilling it? No - but until the world comes up with a decent alternative to oil, this will continue to go on - and if you rather see your money going to feed an economy in another country - have at it.
Fact is, man is destroying the planet in all forms, but certain 'special interest groups' are only targeting one aspect because it current makes the BEST POLITICAL argument.
BTW - the mining here in Alberta is far from discouraging your 'neighbors' from moving here for a job.
Wow, you got a way more from my response there, way more than what I asked.
You are projecting. Read my post again!
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-04-2013).]
Furthermore, had you BOTHERED to educate yourself there is NO tar mixed with the oil that is being removed - it is called bitumen. Is the process used to extract the oil better than drilling it? No - but until the world comes up with a decent alternative to oil, this will continue to go on - and if you rather see your money going to feed an economy in another country - have at it.
Fact is, man is destroying the planet in all forms, but certain 'special interest groups' are only targeting one aspect because it current makes the BEST POLITICAL argument.
BTW - the mining here in Alberta is far from discouraging your 'neighbors' from moving here for a job.
quote
Originally posted by newf:
Wow, you got a way more from my response there, way more than what I asked.
You are projecting. Read my post again!
...ok, I edited my post since you didn't read it - your answer is underlined (and in bold). I still stand by my statement - the oil is the same - the process of extracting it isn't.
AND
I want you to explain to me why these people are not protesting the other things I posted? SIMPLY because the "dirty oil" is all about making a the current big political statement (even though the rest is just as damaging to the environment, but it isn't so news worthy to protest gold mining).
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: I want you to explain to me why these people are not protesting the other things I posted? SIMPLY because the "dirty oil" is all about making a the current big political statement (even though the rest is just as damaging to the environment, but it isn't so news worthy to protest gold mining).
That was a B.S. statement
Environmentalists oppose Arizona copper mine March 5, 2013
...ok, I edited my post since you didn't read it - your answer is underlined (and in bold). I still stand by my statement - the oil is the same - the process of extracting it isn't.
AND
I want you to explain to me why these people are not protesting the other things I posted? SIMPLY because the "dirty oil" is all about making a the current big political statement (even though the rest is just as damaging to the environment, but it isn't so news worthy to protest gold mining).
I read your post but you seem to be missing the point of what is considered dirty oil and arguing semantics. To say the oil is exactly the same would be incorrect as well IMO but then that would be arguing semantics as well. I got your point when you say the oil is the same.
As for your question you would have to contact those who you think are protesting, I don't speak for any group.
there are no drowning and starving polar bears, the low islands have not been inundated there are not unusually high numbers of hurricanes and..................................... Al Gore is still filthy rich off his speaking tours and illegitimate awards.
Warming fastest since dawn of civilization, study shows
Temperatures are rising faster today than they have at any point since at least the end of the last ice age, about 11,000 years ago, according to a new study.
The finding is based on a global reconstruction of temperature records inferred from ice cores, fossils in ocean sediments and other sources. While previous studies reached similar conclusions, they covered only about 2,000 years. The new reconstruction extends the global record through the Holocene, the most recent geologic epoch.
"Another way to think of it is the period where human civilization was born, created, and developed and then progressed to where we are now," Shuan Marcott, a climate scientist at Oregon State University who led the study, told NBC News.
. . .
Overall, Marcott and colleagues note Thursday in the journal Science, the planet today is warmer than it has been for about 75 percent of the Holocene. Given the rate of warming projected by climate models, the planet will be warmer by 2100 than at any point since at least the last ice age.
. . .
Mann’s only concern with the study is that the temperature records are biased toward higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, where a known long-term cooling trend due to Earth’s orbital position was pronounced.
"It suggests that the true conclusions might even be stronger than their already quite strong conclusions regarding the unprecedented nature of recent warming," he said. "It may be that you have to go even further back in time to find warmth comparable — at the global scale — to what we are seeing today."
there are no drowning and starving polar bears, the low islands have not been inundated there are not unusually high numbers of hurricanes and..................................... Al Gore is still filthy rich off his speaking tours and illegitimate awards.
Arn
Dailymail has a history of cherry picking data.
However, I think about 30 pages of this thread have been dedicated to showing that warming is MUCH faster now than it ever has been in the past via natural cycles.
The whole "global warming stopped 16 years ago" idea has been repeated and defeated many times over as well. The PDO/AMO cycles often toted by skeptics / deniers could easily cause a short term flattening of temperatures.
Conversely, the PDO/AMO cycles can't reasonably contribute to a long term warming trend that we are witnessing. There is no alternate theory to CO2 driven warming that withstands any level of scientific scrutiny. If CO2 isn't the main driver, show something else that is.
Obviously Al Gore is a hack and a hypocrite to the largest extent possible - and an easy target - but that has nothing to do with the climate.
There's more to say about this, but for now... what caused the warming the other 25% of the time? Seriously, does anyone who reads these stories actually THINK about this?
There's more to say about this, but for now... what caused the warming the other 25% of the time? Seriously, does anyone who reads these stories actually THINK about this?
If you look at your own link you'll see a long term graph that clearly shows a gradual rise. Year after year the highest and lowest points are higher than the year before it. It is a gradual rise, exactly as I said.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: ...well, from WHAT YOU are saying is that it is "black and white" that man made CO2 is responsible for the rise in temperature (you are "95% sure") - there is no doubt about that, now you are telling me that it is NOT "black and white".
Remember, what you are asking is why the CO2 graphs don't look exactly like the temperature graphs.
The attribution for the warming anomaly is black and white. CO2 is the best match because there is no evidence for a different leading cause. What's not black and white is the entirety of Earth's climate system that governs its average temperature.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Um, http://heartland.org/about - oh wait, I forgot, according to your biased view (since they do not agree with you) they are a nobody except a group of people that have a political agenda.
You consider the Heartland Institute a "scientific institution" because they have the word "institute" in their name?
They're a political lobby group that is completely irrelevant in a scientific discussion. Even Ray Charles could see that. The Heartland Institute was hired by a tobacco company to spread doubt on the dangers of cigarette smoke and to lobby congress against taking action. They're doing the exact same thing with global warming, I'm so surprised.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: AS for attacking you - the same can be said about you attacking me.
Addressing the nonsense you post is not attacking you. This thread is about discussion. If you don't want to have your demonstratively wrong information called into question with facts than simply stop posting it. While you're at it, try to research your ill-conceived thoughts on global warming instead of assuming you're the first person in the world to think of this or that so therefore your thoughts must have merit.
Here's a post that shows how petty Watts is on this issue: link
His first sentence makes a judgement about the movie solely based on the cover. Since the cover is a photoshop it "speaks volumes about the content of the film."
He's upset they photoshopped an oil slick on top of the water instead of using real oil which is against the law. Never mind the guy sitting in a chair levitating on top of the water like he's jesus! Yeah, the photoshopped oil slick is REAL misleading Watts...
- my question was with regards to the leveling off that occurred in about the mid 1940's until about the mid 1970's - yet you focused on my comment about 2000+ (and totally ignored the rest - that or have no argument) - talk about cherry picking.
I also never asked you to start criticizing my posts either, so technically you started it and now you are getting all pissy about it when I am calling you out? If you don't want to argue about it, fine - let's just leave it be now, and don't be going around cherry picking specific sentences I post without addressing the whole post. 
