Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Kirkhill]

I'm just going to leave this here...

https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green-basic.htm

Thanks for the contribution cld617.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

If you're referencing the Soon and Baliunas findings you should know that their paper was thoroughly debunked and several editors of the journal that published it resigned in embarrassment.

Unless you're referencing data that climate specialists around the world have never seen, or your interpretation is somehow more correct than theirs is, this post adds nothing to the conversation. You've been quoting this European warming nonsense for years. It's junk science.

So how come only your scientists are "right", Kilo?

How come "your" side gets to declare that the science is settled (Gore)? Since when is science ever settled on anything? Does that not become dogma, at that point?

How come Suzuki gets to declare that "deniers" should be jailed, and get a pass? How does that advance science?

My problem with so called global warming (or is it climate change this week?) is not that I do not think that humans have had an impact on climate (I do), I just hapen to believe that that:

It is smaller than the natural variation in the system; and

The cure (solar and wind energy) is worse than the disease.

I also happen to know that those espousing branches of "renewable" energy, don't understand the concept of return on energy investment. In other words, for source of energy to make sense and to support a modern industrial society, it must return 7 times the energy that was invested in it. Wind and solar both fail horribly on those points.

In Canada, where the climate is generally cold and the distances vast, it is difficult to conceive of a non carbon based economy for the next 50-100 years. Unless you intend on depopulating the prairies. Or ceasing all agriculture. Take a pick.

 

[Kilo_302]

"My" scientists are not paid by the petroleum industry, and they outnumber "yours" 100 to 1.

Did you read the article I posted above? It cites a study that concludes the climate models currently being used are even more accurate than previously thought.

Given the fact that neither of us are specialists all we can do is look at what the specialists are in fact saying. "Your" specialists, I'm sorry to say, aren't considered to be practicing valid science by a vast majority of their peers, given who they work for and the quality of their work.

It doesn't matter what you believe, "natural variation" was considered and was ruled out as a primary cause. The data is only getting stronger and more conclusive and this leads me to believe that the vast majority of skeptics are not engaged in this discussion in a rational way.

IF for example, 97% of the world's scientists turned around and announced anthropomorphic climate change was NOT occurring, I would accept that conclusion.

So, we have a vast majority of scientists believing it is occurring, and most of the very tiny minority are funded by the very people whose bottom line depends on continued exploitation of oil/natural gas/coal.

Unless you believe that the "green lobby" is somehow all powerful, to the point of perpetrating a fraud across hundreds of scientific institutions and agencies from countries with widely varying foreign/domestic policies, paying off scientists and convincing them to betray the public trust, this is simply not a debate. It is accepted science.

Do you believe vaccinations work?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Kilo, raising the vaccination question is what's known as a straw man argument. It has no bearing on global warming question. Why did you raise it? As a subtle ad hominem attack on my intelligence, perhaps? Did it make you feel superior?

I am not in the pay of the oil industry. Lord, do I wish I was. And you know nothing of my scientific background, so do not presume, you presumptuous little twit (you earned that ad hominem attack).

Since when did we vote on science? For example, everyone "knew" ulcers were caused by stress. Until some lone scientist (who was ostracized and ridiculed) proved that it was caused by a bacteria. A whole branch of the medical industry saw there livelihood threatened and did not like it one bit. This is not a strawman, BTW- it is an apology.

I do not believe in conspiracies. They are too difficult to keep running. I do, however, believe in both group think and herd mentality. I question "accepted wisdom" because, I have discovered over my life that often it is not what you think it is.

And you telling me that I must believe and stop questioning smacks of both dogma and accords science a quasi religious status it does not deserve. Science must always and forever be challenged- it is the only way in which knowledge is advanced.

I am not going to convince you of anything, and that is okay. I do not care. But, when 40 or 50 years from now, when you are laying in the ruins of what used to be western civilization, do try and remember your part in dismembering it? 

 

[George Wallace]

"My" scientists are not paid by the petroleum industry, and they outnumber "yours" 100 to 1.

LOL!

I am sure that Galileo was outnumbered by more than 100 to 1, yet today we know the world is round.

What is your point?

[Edit to add:]

Are you saying that your '100' scientists can not be WRONG as they were in the days of Galileo?

 

[cld617]

LOL!

I am sure that Galileo was outnumbered by more than 100 to 1, yet today we know the world is round.

What is your point?

[Edit to add:]

Are you saying that your '100' scientists can not be WRONG as they were in the days of Galileo?

Implying those who denounce AGW are on the same level as Galileo. I get the point, but a bit of a stretch.

 

[cupper]

Especially since Galileo was persecuted for claiming the Earth went around the sun.

 

[suffolkowner]

The AGW has certainly attracted more lay opposition than any other scientific theory other than evolution in recent history. I'm not entirely sure why this is so. There may be an alternative explanation that eventually replaces it, so far none have withstood scrutiny. All published articles must make their data available for review as part of the peer review and I know of very few natural scientists that make good money. Most that I know personally make around $30,000. I have not found any of the popular criticisms have withstood my own investigations. I think people need to separate the scientific theory/evidence from some of the proscribed solutions put forward. It is possible to support one and oppose another

 

[cld617]

Especially since Galileo was persecuted for claiming the Earth went around the sun.

This isn't the 1600's, climate science isn't equivalent to geocentric models of our solar system. The attempts to paint them with the same brush is a foolish one.

I'd also like to see some references as to why AGW is a failed theory. Enough of the criticism and labeling it a church, provide some studies.

 

[Kirkhill]

And this is the reason Brits consider the Pub a sacred institution.

Churches are far too contentious.

 

[a_majoor]

Kilo. while you can play the same moving goal posts game as other AGW alarmists, the historical record is clear and unequivocal. Unless you can demonstrate that the Vikings were busy driving to their conquests in SUV's (and idling outside of the cities they sacked) there is no explanation involving human agency to explain the archeological remains of croft farms in Greenland or the records of Scottish vintners in that period. Or are you a history denier?

I suppose you also expect us to believe that the Little Ice Age is also some sort of hoax as well?

Real science starts with observations, and observations like Vikings were doing a type of farming in Greenland that is not possible today fly directly in the face of the climate change alarmists. The other predicted effects of warmer temperatures, like agricultural distress or violent storms are also not supported in the historical record (indeed the population during the European Warm Period was growing due to better harvests, and there are historical records from parishes to prove this as well), but we are expected to believe that a similar amount of warming that the Vikings experienced is going to create a global disaster for us.

So, Kilo, you can go right ahead and ignore the observations and evidence, since it does not support the narrative, and be sure to call NASA and tell them to stop with all these rovers on Mars idling and raising the surface temperature on that planet as well. (Since they are electric vehicles powered by solar energy, and about as "green" as any piece of human technology in history, you might have to give the NASA people a bit of time to pick themselves off the floor and catch their breaths after they hear from you).

And of course NASA also has this observation about climate change:

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
Forbes By James Taylor
July 27, 2011 3:23 PM

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

Can you remind us which oil companies pay NASA scientists again?

 

[Kilo_302]

Kilo, raising the vaccination question is what's known as a straw man argument. It has no bearing on global warming question. Why did you raise it? As a subtle ad hominem attack on my intelligence, perhaps? Did it make you feel superior?

I am not in the pay of the oil industry. Lord, do I wish I was. And you know nothing of my scientific background, so do not presume, you presumptuous little twit (you earned that ad hominem attack).

Since when did we vote on science? For example, everyone "knew" ulcers were caused by stress. Until some lone scientist (who was ostracized and ridiculed) proved that it was caused by a bacteria. A whole branch of the medical industry saw there livelihood threatened and did not like it one bit. This is not a strawman, BTW- it is an apology.

I do not believe in conspiracies. They are too difficult to keep running. I do, however, believe in both group think and herd mentality. I question "accepted wisdom" because, I have discovered over my life that often it is not what you think it is.

And you telling me that I must believe and stop questioning smacks of both dogma and accords science a quasi religious status it does not deserve. Science must always and forever be challenged- it is the only way in which knowledge is advanced.

I am not going to convince you of anything, and that is okay. I do not care. But, when 40 or 50 years from now, when you are laying in the ruins of what used to be western civilization, do try and remember your part in dismembering it? 

Ironically, a British study was just released that predicts the collapse of industrialized societies around the world by 2040 due to food shortages caused by climate change.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/society-will-collapse-by-2040-due-to-catastrophic-food-shortages-says-study-10336406.html

My question is, which reports are you citing? Which scientists still deny anthropomorphic climate change? It's a very short list of names, and most work for think tanks on an equally short (and predictable) list.

I raised the vaccination question precisely because "anti-vaxxers" share a lot with those who deny anthropomorphic climate change. Those who doubt the efficacy of vaccines tend to fall on the left of the spectrum, but the same unwillingness to examine data, to really try and understand the data is there. Most climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers (I dislike using these labels but they are convenient) in my opinion are not participating in the "debate" in good faith. We're only seeing more and more data confirming that climate change is occurring, yet the deniers keep referencing the same arguments over and over again. If new data won't change your mind, what will?

Kilo. while you can play the same moving goal posts game as other AGW alarmists, the historical record is clear and unequivocal. Unless you can demonstrate that the Vikings were busy driving to their conquests in SUV's (and idling outside of the cities they sacked) there is no explanation involving human agency to explain the archeological remains of croft farms in Greenland or the records of Scottish vintners in that period. Or are you a history denier?

I suppose you also expect us to believe that the Little Ice Age is also some sort of hoax as well?

Real science starts with observations, and observations like Vikings were doing a type of farming in Greenland that is not possible today fly directly in the face of the climate change alarmists. The other predicted effects of warmer temperatures, like agricultural distress or violent storms are also not supported in the historical record (indeed the population during the European Warm Period was growing due to better harvests, and there are historical records from parishes to prove this as well), but we are expected to believe that a similar amount of warming that the Vikings experienced is going to create a global disaster for us.

So, Kilo, you can go right ahead and ignore the observations and evidence, since it does not support the narrative, and be sure to call NASA and tell them to stop with all these rovers on Mars idling and raising the surface temperature on that planet as well. (Since they are electric vehicles powered by solar energy, and about as "green" as any piece of human technology in history, you might have to give the NASA people a bit of time to pick themselves off the floor and catch their breaths after they hear from you).

And of course NASA also has this observation about climate change:

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Can you remind us which oil companies pay NASA scientists again?

The author is "senior fellow for Environment Policy at The Heartland Institute."  You're aware of the storied history of this think tank denying the link between cancer and smoking right? If you're willing to pay, they'll put out anything it seems.

It would be interesting to see what NASA says about his analysis of their data. In fact, there's a definite pattern here. Here's an article detailing how James Taylor misinterpreted data from another study conducted by Canadian scientists. They contacted him and made it clear his interpretation of their data was incorrect, yet he didn't change anything in his paper.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/19/1608431/heartlands-james-taylor-falsely-claims-new-study-rejects-climate-consensus/

James Taylor, managing editor of The Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News, recently wrote a Forbes blog post about a new study of professional engineers and geoscientists involved in Alberta, Canada’s petroleum industry. According to the authors of the study, however, Taylor got most of the details in his post wrong, and Taylor has not corrected or retracted the blog post even though his errors have been pointed out to him. Furthermore, Taylor republished his deceptive and dishonest post at The Heartland Institute this morning, three days after the study’s authors corrected Taylor. Taylor has a made a habit of distorting scientific studies in the past — his new blog post is no different.

Taylor claims in his post that a study of over a thousand professional geoscientists and engineers in Alberta is somehow representative of all scientists in the world. But the authors of the study, Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer, wrote in a response at Forbes (full comment reproduced below) that


First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” (emphasis added)

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

PHD's are experts in their own fields, so I would listen to a space scientist talking about space, not climate.

This little piece by Thuc. is probably the only intelligent statement in this thread in the last few months.

It's unfortunate that most here, including Thuc. himself, don't take it to heart and draw the proper derivative conclusion from it, which is then that PhD's in climatology are the ones we should listen to on matters of climate science.

Those of us that have been convinced of the scientific reality of Climate Change (meaning here that there is a major and rapid shift about to occur in the planet's climate, that is almost certainly caused by recent human activity in the last hundred years, and will have profound effects on human society, perhaps even existence) DO have climatologists (PhD's and above in climatology) on our side. It is called the IPCC report on Climate Change. The single largest ever peer reviewed scientific consensus.

No one denies the existence of that report, nor that its conclusion is that which I expressed above in parenthesis. So it is up to those not convinced in these pages to provide scientific evidence from climatologists to the contrary as reported in proper scientific peer reviewed papers. Not from pseudo-scientists in other fields, not from social scientists and other forms of lobbyists/Government issues think-thank, nor bloggers or other op-ed sources.

On that basis, let's review Thuc's latest offering:

Kilo. while you can play the same moving goal posts game as other AGW alarmists, the historical record is clear and unequivocal. Unless you can demonstrate that the Vikings were busy driving to their conquests in SUV's (and idling outside of the cities they sacked) there is no explanation involving human agency to explain the archeological remains of croft farms in Greenland or the records of Scottish vintners in that period. Or are you a history denier?

I suppose you also expect us to believe that the Little Ice Age is also some sort of hoax as well?

Real science starts with observations, and observations like Vikings were doing a type of farming in Greenland that is not possible today fly directly in the face of the climate change alarmists. The other predicted effects of warmer temperatures, like agricultural distress or violent storms are also not supported in the historical record (indeed the population during the European Warm Period was growing due to better harvests, and there are historical records from parishes to prove this as well), but we are expected to believe that a similar amount of warming that the Vikings experienced is going to create a global disaster for us.

Yes, Thuc. science starts with observations, but it doesn't stop there and then go right away into a simplistic pseudo-social-sciences battle of false logic such as : "it rained yesterday, so we are not in a drought" or "it was cold two winters ago, so the planet is not warming", or "there were only ten hurricanes last year as opposed to an average of twelve, so the predicted increase in hurricane frequencies is wrong". What science does is collect a large number of data, collate, plot and analyze them then identify trends, identify potential causes for the observed trends, postulate relationship between the various causes and the effects observed, from that develop theories, verify if the theories can be validated or invalidated by their application to past data, and if so if they properly predict future situations.

For instance, we now know, through science, that until about 10,000 years ago, monsoon rains fell in what is now the Sahara desert, making it green and lush for most of the year and causing a wide variety of human and other animal life to flourish there. That, and your Little Ice Age, and the European Warm period you described have been scientifically proven to be the result of variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun, and in its spin axle and in sun activity changes. However, those variations and there effects are known facts that were incorporated and are taken into consideration by the climatologists models that led them to conclude in the existence of Global Warming.

So, your reference to them and their historical existence is irrelevant to the science, which has already taken note of it and incorporated it in its conclusion.

Let's now turn to your alleged supporting evidence, using here the tools of proper peer-reviewed social science research:

And of course NASA also has this observation about climate change:

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Can you remind us which oil companies pay NASA scientists again?

First of all, it is simply a lie that NASA "has this observation". You refer to an article, in Forbes.com, which is an Op-Ed piece by one James M. Taylor. Forbes is not a NASA magazine, nor even a scientific publication; Mr. Taylor, who is not a scientist at all (as we will see a little further on), has no connection to NASA whatsoever, and nowhere in the article is there any reference to an actual statement, official or not, of a NASA representative, to the effect stated in the title. Bluntly put, Mr. Taylor's opinion piece does not report NASA's position in any way, form or shape.

Second, as indicated, I call Mr. Taylor's piece an "opinion". Why? Because he himself presents it as such ( https://www.heartland.org/james-m-taylor-jd ).

But moving on to the third point, If as you stated above Thuc, you listen to PhD's in a given field as the proper expert (my starting point in this post), then what field is Mr. Taylor from? See the link above to his employment with the Heartland institute: He is a "Jd" - meaning he has completed his law degree - he is a lawyer but doesn't present himself as such, probably because he is not a member of any Bar and has never practiced. HAs he other qualifications? Yes, he has a bachelor's degree. In what, we don't know. He states that "received his bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College where he studied atmospheric science and majored in government. So the major is in government studies. The statement that he "studied atmospheric science" however is unqualified and can stand for the fact that he took a basic low level course in that subject as one of his elective. None of this makes him an expert in anything.

Then we have to look at where he comes to us from: The Heartland institute. Who are these people? Well, THEY claim to be " a 31-year-old national nonprofit research organization dedicated to finding and promoting ideas that empower people." Their mission statement is: "Mission: Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems." (source: https://www.heartland.org/about)

See any reference there to peer reviewed climatology science? I don't. And a quick review of their "expert" panel of collaborators indicate an organization that is 99% made up of business administration professors, law professors and other jurists, government affairs professors and economists. This is NOT a scientific (in the sense of "hard" sciences) organization at all.

Turning now to Mr. Taylor's opinion, I find it to be a sophisticated piece of falsity by unwarranted association. First of all, the constant reference to data from NASA and NOAC is presented to make one believe that it is contradicting in itself the whole Global Warming science and that the scientist who put out the paper basically rejected the validity of the IPCC models and "blew them out", which is completely false: They never reach that conclusion in their paper (I have attached the paper for reference for any one who cares, as I did to read it and try to understand it). Then Mr. Taylor refer to the "press release" of the University to support HIS own view of what he wants them to mean, not the scientist's view.

What are the scientist's real conclusions then? The current models generally used by scientists part of the IPCC review hypothesized that the dissipation of heat in the upper atmosphere from any given warming event would not begin until the maximum of the event is reached and would cease when the minima of the warming event is reached. The article in this case compares various such models with the observed data from a system located ON a NASA satellite during the last ten years and concludes that there is a time lag between the observed data and the models' predictions of heat dissipation, such that dissipation actually begin to occur before the maxima and continues for some times after the minima is reached. As a result, the scientists conclude that it might be that there is a greater amount of dissipation from warming event than currently predicted, so it might be that the upper atmosphere of the planet may not warm up as fast as the models predict.

At no point do the scientist: (1) reject the current overall models; (2) conclude in any way that their research contradicts Global Warming; or that (3) the current models are "alarmists" and there is in fact no danger/Global Warming.

They do conclude, however, that after 20 years of research and modelling, it remains difficult to distinguish from one another the contributions of the various factors influencing climate change and that their research does not permit better distinguishing, which remains elusive.

What those scientists have down is taken data as observed and shown that, for one of the aspects of the modelling, it currently does not match in timing and may not match in total amount either. Now, other scientists will review this research and either confirm it or prove it incorrect and will then work to develop better potential explanations, refine the model accordingly and adjust the results predicted as a consequence.

This is all in the future, probably by many decades, and may ultimately mean no change, little change or big change in the ultimate conclusion. Right now, no one can know for sure, other than the fact that the rest of the modelling is unchanged and the overall observed results continue to pan according to the current state of research. Anyone who expands this to mean that Global Warming has been debunked is an idiot with no understanding whatsoever of the scientific method.
 

 

 

[Kilo_302]

Here's an interesting bit on how the constant predictions of doom (and the resulting personal attacks) are actually affecting climatologists:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/

[size=14pt]

[size=14pt][size=12pt]Scientists are problem solvers by nature, trained to cherish detachment as a moral ideal. Jeffrey Kiehl was a senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research when he became so concerned about the way the brain resists climate science, he took a break and got a psychology degree. Ten years of research later, he's concluded that consumption and growth have become so central to our sense of personal identity and the fear of economic loss creates such numbing anxiety, we literally cannot imagine making the necessary changes. Worse, accepting the facts threatens us with a loss of faith in the fundamental order of the universe. Climate scientists are different only because they have a professional excuse for detachment, and usually it's not until they get older that they admit how much it's affecting them—which is also when they tend to get more outspoken, Kiehl says. "You reach a point where you feel—and that's the word, not think, feel—'I have to do something.'

This accounts for the startled reaction when Camille Parmesan of the University of Texas—who was a member of the group that shared a Nobel prize with Al Gore for their climate work—announced that she'd become "professionally depressed" and was leaving the United States for England. A plainspoken Texan who grew up in Houston as the daughter of an oil geologist, Parmesan now says it was more about the politics than the science. "To be honest, I panicked fifteen years ago—that was when the first studies came out showing that Arctic tundras were shifting from being a net sink to being a net source of CO2. That along with the fact this butterfly I was studying shifted its entire range across half a continent—I said this is big, this is big. Everything since then has just confirmed it."

But she's not optimistic. "Do I think it likely that the nations of the world will take sufficient action to stabilize climate in the next fifty years? No, I don't think it likely."

She was living in Texas after the climate summit failed in 2009, when media coverage of climate issues plunged by two thirds—the subject wasn't mentioned once in the 2012 presidential debates—and Governor Rick Perry cut the sections relating to sea-level rise in a report on Galveston Bay, kicking off a trend of state officials who ban all use of the term "climate change." "There are excellent climate scientists in Texas," Parmesan says firmly. "Every university in the state has people working on impacts. To have the governor's office ignore it is just very upsetting."

The politics took its toll. Her butterfly study got her a spot on the UN climate panel, where she got "a quick and hard lesson on the politics" when policy makers killed the words "high confidence" in the crucial passage that said scientists had high confidence species were responding to climate change. Then the personal attacks started on right-wing Web sites and blogs. "They just flat-out lie. It's one reason I live in the UK now. It's not just been climate change, there's a growing, ever-stronger antiscience sentiment in the U. S. A. People get really angry and really nasty. It was a huge relief simply not to have to deal with it." She now advises her graduate students to look for jobs outside the U. S.


No one has experienced that hostility more vividly than Michael Mann, who was a young Ph.D. researcher when he helped come up with the historical data that came to be known as the hockey stick—the most incendiary display graph in human history, with its temperature and emissions lines going straight up at the end like the blade of a hockey stick. He was investigated, was denounced in Congress, got death threats, was accused of fraud, received white powder in the mail, and got thousands of e-mails with suggestions like, You should be "shot, quartered, and fed to the pigs along with your whole damn families." Conservative legal foundations pressured his university, a British journalist suggested the electric chair. In 2003, Senator James Inhofe's committee called him to testify, flanking him with two professional climate-change deniers, and in 2011 the committee threatened him with federal prosecution, along with sixteen other scientists.

Now, sitting behind his desk in his office at Penn State, he goes back to his swirl of emotions. "You find yourself in the center of this political theater, in this chess match that's being played out by very powerful figures—you feel anger, befuddlement, disillusionment, disgust.

"[/size]

 

[a_majoor]

While a person from the Heartland Institute publicized it and Forbes published it, trying to use these as ad hominem disqualifies is hilarious, since they are directly quoting a NASA report, which they themselves neither commissioned nor payed for (outside of their tax dollars funding NASA in general). In essence, the argument seems to be that "a scientific study done by NASA does not count because it was highlighted and publicized by people who do not support the narrative", which of course fails to address the observations in the report (helpfully highlighted and bolded), much less refute them. Just another example of goalpost moving to avoid dealing with the actual evidence.

I might also note that on this thread there have been many deconstructions of the "peer review" process used by the IPCC, or who exactly is in support of or against the conclusions (or even the deconstruction of the idea that science works by "consensus"; which is patently false). Since real world evidence does not support the predictions of the IPCC and climate alarmists, then the scientific method tells us the predictions are in error, and if the predictions are in error, then there is something wrong with either the methodology being used or the underlying hypothesis being promoted. This is the first and primary source of opposition to the climate change alarmists; it does not match the real world. Instead the alarmists refuse to acknowledge they are in error and instead use the language of religious zealots to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with their conclusions, rather than examining their premises and methodology.

The second thing which drives opposition is the relentless campaign by the alarmists to prevent raw data, algorithms and other tools they use to derive their conclusions from being widely available. Once again, the scientific method depends on transparency and the ability of anyone to reproduce results. If the results cannot be reproduced, then the science behind the results is wrong. (Alternatively, you can always reproduce the results of correct science anywhere and at any time. High school science students do this as part of learning the scientific method).

The third thing driving opposition are revelations that the process is being manipulated. "Hide the decline", pressuring journals not to publish  articles that do not support the narrative, even revelations that supporters were attempting to manipulate so called carbon exchanges were all exposed in the Climategate emails, which should give any serious person pause when considering the motivations behind this narrative. If you want to dismiss thousands of emails by hundreds of climate change alarmists discussing how to manipulate the process, but are willing to accuse climate change skeptics of manipulation, then it suggests a certain bias in your world view.

Lastly, what are the motivations? The people getting the fat cheques from governments and flying (with huge carbon emissions) to international conferences about climate change are not the people opposing the alarmist narrative; quite the opposite. Politicians and bureaucrats are thrilled with a narrative which they can use to expand their powers, so have every incentive to promote that. When the solar cycles come to a minimum in the 2030's I don't think anyone should be surprised to see demands for greater government powers to stop the cooling crisis, promote agricultural growth, mitigate the increasingly severe weather, transfer trillions of dollars of wealth and so on.

Since alarmists cannot or will not address these issues, you should see why rational people will view the skeptics more favourably.

 

[c_canuk]

When the IPCC stops supporting measures that do nothing to address climate change in favour of global wealth distribution, I'll care what they have to say.

The Doom and Gloom crowd consistently pushes worst case scenarios and scare mongers. In case you don't remember we're supposed to all be dead with hundreds of feet of water over our heads by now.

Pressure is being applied and change is happening, even in China they are working on curbing emissions.

Is AGW real? it's a possibility and that's good enough for me to look at changing our energy economy when coupled with the links to autism, cancer rates and respiratory problems that our burning of fossil fuels is responsible for. Is it enough for me to support systematic disassembling of our infrastructure to go live in a cave while millions perish, not a chance.

AGW has a huge image problem based on who represents it and who associates with it.

SJW trying to redistribute wealth.
People edging on eugenics (population control)
Boutique cause supporters... the sort to protest Walmart's purchasing from china, while taking selfies at the rally on their iPhone.
By politicians grandstanding with little to no subject matter knowledge, looking for photo ops.
By Solar and Wind proponents selling their scam.


In addition we start to get suspicious when poor statistical analysis that wouldn't fly anywhere else, including an introduction to statistics class, is used as concrete proof.

Should we move off fossil fuels, definitely. But the largest problem I have is that the majority of AGW supporters are anti nuke.

Nuclear reactors would be able to provide 100% base and peak loads of our power requirements using off peak power to replace our fossil fuels with synthetically created hydrocarbons made from the CO2 already in our atmosphere. Everyone wins here, AGW get to eliminate CO2 Emissions and even reduce the total content perhaps, and everyone gets to keep their current standard of living or even increase it.

That the AGW movement has not embraced this technology over the last 35 years of fighting to do something is indicative that they don't think the problem is urgent, or that Eliminating CO2 emissions is not their goal.

This movement started in the 80s, in that time a few 10s of people have died, and cancer rates have been increased marginally from accidents from reactor designs that have long since been improved on. 10s of people and a marginal cancer rate sounds bad until you compare it to the 10s of 1000s from fossil fuels and the large increases in cancer rates from coal alone.

iirc yearly, coal fired power plants release as much radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere as all nuclear accidents combined have (excepting Chernobyl iirc).

so why is this not an effective compromise? Why is the AGW movement not willing to work on this? Why is it not the primary objective of the AGW movement?

Edit: Spelling

 

[George Wallace]

Some good points there c_canuk.

You have overlooked "hydro-electric".  Niagara Falls Generating Plant can produce more electricity than it currently does, but due to current Ontario Government direction it is not.  Solar and Wind Farms are not capable of generating enough power to meet Ontario's demands, and in some cases it is being questioned as to the fact that they may in fact be health hazards.  Why the Ontario Government has cut back on the generation of electricity through its nuclear power plants and hydro-electric dams is quite puzzling to me.

 

[Kilo_302]

While a person from the Heartland Institute publicized it and Forbes published it, trying to use these as ad hominem disqualifies is hilarious, since they are directly quoting a NASA report, which they themselves neither commissioned nor payed for (outside of their tax dollars funding NASA in general). In essence, the argument seems to be that "a scientific study done by NASA does not count because it was highlighted and publicized by people who do not support the narrative", which of course fails to address the observations in the report (helpfully highlighted and bolded), much less refute them. Just another example of goalpost moving to avoid dealing with the actual evidence.

I might also note that on this thread there have been many deconstructions of the "peer review" process used by the IPCC, or who exactly is in support of or against the conclusions (or even the deconstruction of the idea that science works by "consensus"; which is patently false). Since real world evidence does not support the predictions of the IPCC and climate alarmists, then the scientific method tells us the predictions are in error, and if the predictions are in error, then there is something wrong with either the methodology being used or the underlying hypothesis being promoted. This is the first and primary source of opposition to the climate change alarmists; it does not match the real world. Instead the alarmists refuse to acknowledge they are in error and instead use the language of religious zealots to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with their conclusions, rather than examining their premises and methodology.

The second thing which drives opposition is the relentless campaign by the alarmists to prevent raw data, algorithms and other tools they use to derive their conclusions from being widely available. Once again, the scientific method depends on transparency and the ability of anyone to reproduce results. If the results cannot be reproduced, then the science behind the results is wrong. (Alternatively, you can always reproduce the results of correct science anywhere and at any time. High school science students do this as part of learning the scientific method).

The third thing driving opposition are revelations that the process is being manipulated. "Hide the decline", pressuring journals not to publish  articles that do not support the narrative, even revelations that supporters were attempting to manipulate so called carbon exchanges were all exposed in the Climategate emails, which should give any serious person pause when considering the motivations behind this narrative. If you want to dismiss thousands of emails by hundreds of climate change alarmists discussing how to manipulate the process, but are willing to accuse climate change skeptics of manipulation, then it suggests a certain bias in your world view.

Lastly, what are the motivations? The people getting the fat cheques from governments and flying (with huge carbon emissions) to international conferences about climate change are not the people opposing the alarmist narrative; quite the opposite. Politicians and bureaucrats are thrilled with a narrative which they can use to expand their powers, so have every incentive to promote that. When the solar cycles come to a minimum in the 2030's I don't think anyone should be surprised to see demands for greater government powers to stop the cooling crisis, promote agricultural growth, mitigate the increasingly severe weather, transfer trillions of dollars of wealth and so on.

Since alarmists cannot or will not address these issues, you should see why rational people will view the skeptics more favourably.

Just about everything Roy Spencer as written on climate change is called into question at this link. These are rational people. If Roy Spencer had found something new, I have no doubt it would be examined in responsible way using proper scientific method.

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/roy-spencer-persecuted-by-own-data/

Climatologists Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo posted a short response to the paper on the RealClimate blog.  They showed that Spencer and Braswell had made a statistical blunder by failing to include error bars.  If you want to show that one data set is different than another, you have to perform statistical tests like this.  In this case, they pointed out that S&B were comparing a 10-year period in the data with a 100-year period in the models.  So they broke up the 100 years into 10-year periods, calculated error bars for the model response, and showed that now the data fell within the error bars.  What’s more, they showed that some of the models (not shown in S&B’s figure) actually did REALLY WELL at mimicking the data.  Which models did well?  The ones that were already known to do a good job of mimicking El Niño cycles, which is what dominated weather changes over the past decade.  Therefore, Trenberth and Fasullo concluded that the skill exhibited by the models in reproducing the pattern S&B identified had nothing to do with climate sensitivity.  They also pointed out that the “simple climate model” used by S&B to interpret their results was too simple to include the processes associated with El Niño cycles, and they pointed to my critique of Spencer for evidence that Spencer has a history of abusing simple climate models.

As for motivation, did you read the Esquire article I posted above? Climate scientists in the US have their personal integrity attacked, are threatened with lawsuits (and violence), and as a result have a tendency to quit their jobs and relocate for saying what they believe is the truth about anthropomorphic climate change. The discourse has become political, not scientific.



What do you think is easier, suggesting that the very foundations of our global political economy must change to ensure our survival? Or taking money from industries who rely on humanity to stay the course in order to turn a profit?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Thuc: I give up. You are beyond hope. I will only make some minimum comments on your post, by putting my comments in colour within it, after underlining your portion I wish to adress:

While a person from the Heartland Institute publicized it not "publicizing it, but seeking such scientific articles (which most people on the planet, including Mr. Taylor, do not posses the scientific background to understand, and then brandying it about by adding ad hominem comments , such as ALWAYS adding the qualifier "alarmist" to qualify every reference to climate change models or making wild statements that the "paper" debunks climate change, two things that appear NOWHERE in the underlying scientific article and are not even conclusions of this scientific paper. and Forbes published it Forbes put this in its opinion pieces section, makes no claim that it endorses it, does not indicate anywhere that it is one of its staff writer's piece, and more likely than not either published it merely because it was submitted and they need content or more likely as is the case with such articles from lobby groups/think thank, because it was paid to publish it, trying to use these as ad hominem disqualifies is hilarious, since they are directly quoting a NASA report, No they are not. I wish you would learn to read scientific papers. First of all it is a scientific article - not a report. Second, if it was NASA's it would clearly and unambiguously say so. It does not.  It clearly states that it is a paper by two professor of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, with credit to the University, and published by MDPI in its scientific journal Remote Sensing, an open source scientific peer-reviewd publications specialist based in Switzerland. The fact that the scientists used some raw data obtained from a system on one of NASA's research satellites does not make it any more of a NASA report than if I wrote an article presenting an alleged new scientific theory and used as my raw data before processing the weather data from Toronto's Pearson Airport would make it an Environment Canada report. BTW the fact that these scientists, which you claim "contradict" the science of climate change, had access to NASA raw data contradicts one of the point you make later on that these data are being suppressed. which they themselves neither commissioned nor payed for (outside of their tax dollars funding NASA in general). In essence, the argument seems to be that "a scientific study done by NASA does not count because it was highlighted and publicized by people who do not support the narrative" Incorrect statement on two counts: First as indicated this is NOT a NASA scientific study; send, I never said it doesn't count. What I said is all the incredible conclusions that MR Taylor invents out of this article, which itself does not contain any of these conclusions, are what doesn't count. From a scientific point of view, see the ensuing process that should follow. And BTW, the paper quoted by Mr. Taylor is published in 2011 in a reviewed scientific journal. The latest IPCC fifth synopsis report reviewed the state of scientific literature up to and inclusive of 2012 - so this was considered and its proper place in the overall state of science already determined , which of course fails to address the observations in the report (helpfully highlighted and bolded) I attached the scientific paper underlying Mr. Taylor's article to my post. This scientific paper does not contain ANY highlighted or bolded  observations whatsoever, as is proper for scientific papers. Any underlined/bolded portion in Mr. Taylor's article is his own decision on what to highlight, and in all cases were short extracts, selected by him and out of context, from the PRESS RELESE of the University - not scientific positions. , much less refute them. Just another example of goalpost moving to avoid dealing with the actual evidence.

I might also note that on this thread there have been many deconstructions of the "peer review" process used by the IPCC, or who exactly is in support of or against the conclusions (or even the deconstruction of the idea that science works by "consensus"; which is patently false Actually, science does work by "consensus": You start with one scientist propounding a scientific explanation, or "theory" for why and how something happens. Other scientist see if they can poke holes in the "theory" in itself, and if they can't, then move on to devising possible experiments that would INVALIDATE the "theory". If they can't invalidate it and more and more experiments support the theory as a result, it becomes the generally accepted theory for that scientific situation (examples:the Theory of general relativity or the theory of evolution), though it can be abandoned once refuted by experiments.). Since real world evidence does not support the predictions of the IPCC That is simply Bull. Right now, the observed facts on the planet conform to IPCC reviewed science predictions and climate alarmists, then the scientific method tells us the predictions are in error, and if the predictions are in error, then there is something wrong with either the methodology being used or the underlying hypothesis being promoted. This is the first and primary source of opposition to the climate change alarmists; it does not match the real world. Instead the alarmists refuse to acknowledge they are in error and instead use the language of religious zealots to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with their conclusions, rather than examining their premises and methodology.

The second thing which drives opposition is the relentless campaign by the alarmists to prevent raw data, algorithms and other tools they use to derive their conclusions from being widely available. Once again, the scientific method depends on transparency and the ability of anyone to reproduce results. That is utterly false. In experimental science, the experiment must be reproducible so that you may compare the results of your experiment with those results published. When you are dealing, as we are here, with modelling, you do not have to explain every step you took to develop the model. You provide the final model you propose, the results you obtained and list your sources of data, which has been done in all IPCC reviewed research, But on top of that it is not so that  EVERYONE can reproduce them. It is so proper scientists in that field can reproduce this. The lament by non-scientific, conspiracy-theorists, bloggers and assorted joe-bloes that they should be provided the data, when in fact all they want is to abuse it to destroy any way they can, a theory or model that have already discounted, and denying it is science when they are denied is simply comical. If the results cannot be reproduced, then the science behind the results is wrong. (Alternatively, you can always reproduce the results of correct science anywhere and at any time Bull again: For instance, I very much doubt if there are more than two places in the world where you could carry out confirmation experiments for quantum physics, or and more than a few dozen of individuals who would be able to do so and interpret the results. Climatology is likely in the same, though slightly larger, situation. High school science students do this as part of learning the scientific method).

The third thing driving opposition are revelations that the process is being manipulated. "Hide the decline", pressuring journals not to publish  articles that do not support the narrative, even revelations that supporters were attempting to manipulate so called carbon exchanges were all exposed in the Climategate emails, which should give any serious person pause when considering the motivations behind this narrative. If you want to dismiss thousands of emails by hundreds of climate change alarmists discussing how to manipulate the process, but are willing to accuse climate change skeptics of manipulation, then it suggests a certain bias in your world view. I won't even try to address such a biased view, other than to point out that the worldwide conspiracy that would be required is beyond achievement on this planet even if just for political reasons, and to point out that on the flip side, it does NOT provide proof that the opposing view would be any truer.

Lastly, what are the motivations? The people getting the fat cheques from governments and flying (with huge carbon emissions) to international conferences about climate change are not the people opposing the alarmist narrative; quite the opposite. Politicians and bureaucrats are thrilled with a narrative which they can use to expand their powers, so have every incentive to promote that. When the solar cycles come to a minimum in the 2030's I don't think anyone should be surprised to see demands for greater government powers to stop the cooling crisis, promote agricultural growth, mitigate the increasingly severe weather, transfer trillions of dollars of wealth and so on.

Since alarmists cannot or will not address these issues, you should see why rational people will view the skeptics more favourably. You are using the vey dubious strategy which you accuse, without evidence, your opponents to use (which in fact they do not, but which in fact is exactly what Mr. taylor - who probably learned it from Ann Coulter - is doing): YOU are electing to automatically add unilaterally the term "alarmist" to each one of your reference to any one (and that includes most scientists on the planet) who has been convinced by the science behind GW, while simultaneously calling people like yourself who deny it, without any proof I might add, as "rational". Pot this is ...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

C Canuck: My few comments in yellow in your post below:

When the IPCC stops supporting measures that do nothing to address climate change in favour of global wealth distribution, I'll care what they have to say. IPCC has proposed no measure, and other than more research is needed in the effects, has not supported any measures. the measures are proposed by politicians, but the scientists are staying out of the picture.

The Doom and Gloom crowd consistently pushes worst case scenarios and scare mongers. In case you don't remember we're supposed to all be dead with hundreds of feet of water over our heads by now. No, it's due for fifty years from now.

Pressure is being applied and change is happening, even in China they are working on curbing emissions. Probably a good thing in any event, just from an air pollution point of view in China  :nod:

Is AGW real? it's a possibility and that's good enough for me to look at changing our energy economy when coupled with the links to autism, cancer rates and respiratory problems that our burning of fossil fuels is responsible for. Is it enough for me to support systematic disassembling of our infrastructure to go live in a cave while millions perish, not a chance. Agree.

AGW has a huge image problem based on who represents it and who associates with it.

SJW trying to redistribute wealth.
People edging on eugenics (population control)
Boutique cause supporters... the sort to protest Walmart's purchasing from china, while taking selfies at the rally on their iPhone.
By politicians grandstanding with little to no subject matter knowledge, looking for photo ops.
By Solar and Wind proponents selling their scam.


In addition we start to get suspicious when poor statistical analysis that wouldn't fly anywhere else, including an introduction to statistics class, is used as concrete proof.

Should we move off fossil fuels, definitely. But the largest problem I have is that the majority of AGW supporters are anti nuke.

Nuclear reactors would be able to provide 100% base and peak loads of our power requirements using off peak power to replace our fossil fuels with synthetically created hydrocarbons made from the CO2 already in our atmosphere. Everyone wins here, AGW get to eliminate CO2 Emissions and even reduce the total content perhaps, and everyone gets to keep their current standard of living or even increase it.
Agree again, and I am keeping my fingers crossed that the US engineers currently working on a new type of reactor that would be able to use up to 80% of the energy in uranium, as opposed to the current 10% only, will succeed in the ten to fifteen years horizon they gave themselves.

That the AGW movement has not embraced this technology over the last 35 years of fighting to do something is indicative that they don't think the problem is urgent, or that Eliminating CO2 emissions is not their goal.

This movement started in the 80s, in that time a few 10s of people have died, and cancer rates have been increased marginally from accidents from reactor designs that have long since been improved on. 10s of people and a marginal cancer rate sounds bad until you compare it to the 10s of 1000s from fossil fuels and the large increases in cancer rates from coal alone.

iirc yearly, coal fired power plants release as much radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere as all nuclear accidents combined have (excepting Chernobyl iirc).Quite correct: 2011 Japanese Tsunami and earthquake killed or disappeared more than 18 thousand people. Number of death caused by the ensuing nuclear accidents at two nuclear plants: zero.

so why is this not an effective compromise? Why is the AGW movement not willing to work on this? Why is it not the primary objective of the AGW movement?

Edit: Spelling