Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Mcveigh]

This is from the link where I got the "hockey stick" graph.

For millions of years the planet has experienced a series of ice ages and warmer inter-glacial periods, driven mainly by changes in the Earth’s orbit.
Even a few degrees change in global temperatures can create a vastly different environment.
During the last major ice age, the global average temperature was only 3-5 ºC cooler than today and sea levels were more than 120*m lower than present.
About 125*000 years ago our ancestors lived through an inter-glacial period in which the polar regions were 3-5 ºC warmer than today, and sea levels were about 4-6 metres higher than in the 20th century.

The hypocrisy spewing from the both of your mouths is bordering on psychotic.

 

[Mcveigh]

How on earth can you place scientific recorded data on a graph that's shows relatively steady and reoccurring levels which then RAPIDLY increase in the last 50 years and NOT make it look like a hockey stick?

Please, someone tell me.

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

Well in a one second glance at your major link reveals:

About 125 000 years ago our ancestors lived through an inter-glacial period in which the polar regions were 3-5 ºC warmer than today


So what caused that jackass ?

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

How on earth can you place scientific recorded data on a graph that's shows relatively steady and reoccurring levels which then RAPIDLY increase in the last 50 years and NOT make it look like a hockey stick?

Please, someone tell me.

Its called selective editing, manipulation and deceit its already been exposed mcveigh, like 3 years ago

 

[Mcveigh]

Well in a one second glance at your major link reveals:

About 125 000 years ago our ancestors lived through an inter-glacial period in which the polar regions were 3-5 ºC warmer than today


So what caused that jackass ?

Nice attempt to avoid the sea level rises associated withose temperature rises.

How many humans were on the planet back then? Do you think 7billion humans can just keep on keeping on with that kind of sea level rise and the associated floods and storms that will come with it?

Ignorance is bliss for you it seems.

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

NASA satellites detect pothole on road to higher seas-

Ah we can all sleep well tonight on this news


http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-nasa-satellites-pothole-road-higher.html

 

[Mcveigh]

It seems you're the poster boy mcveigh

What? You have the wittiness of a shoe, or monckton, whichever is the least witty.

Thank god for the ignore list, unfortunately it won't stop me seeing people quote your childish quips and ignorant rantings.

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

Hey mcveigh heres a quote from your link:

The global average sea level rose by close to 20 centimetres between 1870 and 2007.
Sea levels rose at an average of 1.7 millimetres per year during the 20th century, and 3.4 millimetres per year from 1993 to 2007.

Where in earth did 4-6 metres come from

In that time as the youtube video explains increased solar activity mimicks warming...who would've thought hey...

 

[Ron The Bear]

 

[Monniehawk]

Well in a one second glance at your major link reveals:
About 125 000 years ago our ancestors lived through an inter-glacial period in which the polar regions were 3-5 ºC warmer than today
So what caused that jackass ?

(Trying to retrieve the thread from the recent irrelevant hubris and personal bile.)

The questionable assumptions encased in the above post that seem to leap at me are:
1. Previous climate changes did not affect the development the human race.
Evidence shows that we were almost wiped out by that last big Ice Age and large sections of the population were similarly jeopardised during other high warming periods.
2. These historical fluctuations are natural, and therefore, it stands that our current warming must also be natural - and similarly benign.
The circumstances of natural fluctuations are well beyond our control as a species, but we can still influence them. It is an accepted fact that emissions do affect natural climate events: just how much is a question of continuing controversy and obfuscation.

Bandying links to support given stances is a bit de rigueur and finding sources that aren't stridently biased one way or the other is a bit fraught.
I settled on the US Government site. Admittedly, the US Government has been rather anti climate change and stoicly resisted international carbon controls at Kyoto and others. Doubtless, the commerce/industrial lobby was at the forefront of that policy-making.
Still, the site delivers its info in clear, measured and temperate language and supports each section précis with impressive statistical data. No outlandish claims, no emotive or unsubstantiated predictions, and significantly, no alarmist or denialist rhetoric.
Interestingly, the National Climatic Data Center (sic) comes under control of the US Department of Commerce - as conservative an institution as one would expect. Consequently, it treads very lightly in its conclusions.
Key points from the site that are relevant to this thread, are:
CO2 is a contributor to global warming, but it won't necessarily kill us tomorrow.

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point.

Sorry, Dan26!
The 'Greenhouse Effect' exists, naturally.
This we knew, but it poses the question below, then avoids an answer. The reader can draw their own conclusion - doubtless through the filter of their own prejudices!

So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.

The climate is warming - but is the rate really alarming?
Nor do they state one way or the other if human emissions are causal. Warmists can deduce that this is because their political masters are denialists, while denialists would argue the converse!!

Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform....

I found it a good site because it doesn't attempt to proselytise or bully opinions. It assiduously avoids conclusions, in fact.
It's value is in its clear assertion of facts. Each side of the argument can throw its conclusions at the information, and hopefully, it will modify the extreme views.
Much to learn Dan26

 

[Pie eyed]

Good post.

 

[Dan26]

(
Much to learn Dan26

Are you having a go at me, or supporting me?

These are the facts and I have always stood by them.

- C02 is a greenhouse gas
- C02 has a warming effect.
- Humans are putting more C02 into the atmosphere
-The amount of C02 into the atmosphere now is higher than at any other point during humans time on Earth.

I've never argued any of the above points. Nor would anyone.

The debate is whether humans are the MAIN driver of climate (they're not). Whether humans effect on warming is significant (it's not). Is it dangerous? (no evidecne of this at all). Is it so minimal as to be irrelevant? (absolutely.) Is the effect humans have any match for the other bigger influences out there? (It's no match at all.) And is it cost effective to do anything about it, even if there is a problem, which there isn't anyway? (no.)

The clincher is that there is no empirical evidence that human C02 emissions cause dangerous warming.

The alarmists hate that fact beause it destroys them, but its true.

There is no emprical (note that means real life, real world evidence not in a laboratory or ina model) evidence that human C02 emissions cause dangerous (note, what the word dangerous means) warming.

You can source the whole internet if you like, but you won't find one single piece of empirical evidence that human C02 emissions cause dangerous warming.

the real scientific dispute between the skeptics and the alarmists is that the alarmists thought that feedbacks triggered by the original warming would triple it to 3.3 C°, while the skeptics thought the warming would stay at around 1 C°.

But the alarmists rely on computer models and assumptions which have been proven to not be accurate. The feedback situation has destroyed the alarmists. Destroyed them.

For example:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/climate-coup-the-politics/

Air temperatures from 1988
Actual rise was less than the rise predicted for drastic cuts in CO2

Air temperatures from 1990
Over-estimated trend rise

Ocean temperatures from 2003
Over-estimated trend rise greatly

Atmospheric hotspot
Completely missing –> water vapor feedback not amplifying

Outgoing radiation
Opposite to reality –> water vapor feedback not amplifying


The latter two items SEAL THE DEAL, because they show that the crucial amplification by water vapor feedback assumed by the models does not exist in reality.

Modelers guessed that of the forces on temperature, only CO2 has changed significantly since 1750. The water vapor amplification causes two-thirds of the warming predicted by the models, while carbon dioxide only directly causes one third. The presence of the amplification in the models, but not in reality, explains why the models overestimated recent warming.

The feedbacks situation ends the AGW argument. The models made assumptions, which were wrong in reality, and those assumptions dissprove the AGW argument, that humans are the main cause and are heating the world dangerously.

 

[Pie eyed]

Here's a quote you may like Dan.

A theory has only the alternative of being right or wrong. A model has a third possibility: it may be right, but irrelevant.

Manfred Eigen
German Physicist and Biochemist

 

[Final Siren]

When I look at the chart, I see a cessation of the upward trend c.2000. What do you see?

(Re: this.)

Hey Ron, genuine question: really? I ask because I know you know your numbers.

Like, forget it's about climate change; I just don't get how you would look at a chart like that and feel comfortable declaring there's no more upward trend.

 

[Monniehawk]

Are you having a go at me, or supporting me?

These are the facts and I have always stood by them.

Actually, yes!
I wonder if you are on commission. The raucous, repetitive tone of your posts, totally unconvincing statements about your "conversion" from the left, parroting of denialist rhetoric, frenetic anti-left bias and obvious lack of scientific knowledge have created a hernia in my B.S. meter!
Despite others offering counter evidence, you choose to ignore it and parrot the denialist line of "it's all a conspiracy", "the facts are lies forced out of scientists by corrupt governments" and "computer modelling is deliberately distorted to skew the facts for "alarmists".
I expect the "Grassy Knoll" to appear in your next offerings!
Your posts became personal and abusive, lacked rigour and balance and are entirely off-putting.
Other than that, well done!

 

[Ron The Bear]

(Re: this.)

Hey Ron, genuine question: really? I ask because I know you know your numbers.

Like, forget it's about climate change; I just don't get how you would look at a chart like that and feel comfortable declaring there's no more upward trend.

It shows no increase in the last decade, which isn't to say the pause can't be temporary. I guess the alarmist stance is, it's about to start climbing again at any moment; skeptics say let's wait and see.

I mean, how much confidence do you have in the BoM's forecast for next Thursday?

 

[Final Siren]

It shows no increase in the last decade, which isn't to say the pause can't be temporary. I guess the alarmist stance is, it's about to start climbing again at any moment; skeptics say let's wait and see.

Wouldn't you say, though, that if you take a short term view of a long-term trend, you would expect to find plenty of short spans that run contrary to the trend?

I mean, I can see lots of approximately 10-year spans during which the average temperature was no higher at the end than the beginning. But the underlying trend over the longer term is obvious.

If this trend continues unabated for the next 100 years, we would expect to encounter more such spans, during which a person could argue, "It's stopped, let's wait and see."

I agree that this graph is in no way definitive evidence that the trend will continue, but, statistically, I would have thought you'd find that pretty compelling.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Wouldn't you say, though, that if you take a short term view of a long-term trend, you would expect to find plenty of short spans that run contrary to the trend?

Sure. But frame it in the context of when global warming first came to prominence as a political issue, and the shortfall between observed and predicted temperatures since, and you come closer to understanding the perspective of skeptics.

 

[ash_78]

Other countries are indeed acting already and have been for some time. Make no mistake, we are a long way behind the rest of the 1st world when it comes to sustainability.

And to the 30-odd% of you who think climate change is a lie, just wow. I wonder if you could please enlighten us and the 99% of scientists of exactly how the facts they're basing their opinions on are wrong.

Doesn't take much web searching to find articles such as this one, in today's SMH, summarising current research and recently published articles in scientific journals:

A clutch of recent studies reinforces evidence that people are causing climate change and suggests debate should now move on to a more precise understanding of its impact on humans.

The reports, published in various journals in recent weeks, add new detail to the theory of climate change and by implication cast contrarians in a more desperate light.

...

The basics of climate change are now understood and serious doubt is left only in the minds of those who cultivate it.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/worl...-melts-more-20120406-1wg35.html#ixzz1rFNmQt68

 

[Dan26]

And to the 30-odd% of you who think climate change is a lie, just wow. I wonder if you could please enlighten us and the 99% of scientists of exactly how the facts they're basing their opinions on are wrong.

If you think 99% of scientists agree with the alarmsit view on climate change, then you are an idiot.

The well-known phrase, "97% of climate scientists agree" is nothing but a statstical joke. It's 75 people. Yes 75 (out of 77) respondoing to 2 questions worded in such a way that even I would answer yes to them.

Click below.

97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE IS A LIE

I can name 30,000 scientists who are sceptical. http://www.petitionproject.org

Most of the few remaining who are alarmist scientists, are funded by the government. And many of them have bene exposed as manipulating and hiding data in the climate gate emails. They KNOW it's a fraud and they KNOW they are wrong.

You would struggle to find one retired or independent climate scientist who has an alarmist view on human made global warming.

 

[Chops_a_must]

If you think 99% of scientists agree with the alarmsit view on climate change, then you are an idiot.

The well-known phrase, "97% of climate scientists agree" is nothing but a statstical joke. It's 75 people. Yes 75 (out of 77) respondoing to 2 questions worded in such a way that even I would answer yes to them.

Click below.

97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE IS A LIE

I can name 30,000 scientists who are sceptical. http://www.petitionproject.org

Most of the few remaining who are alarmist scientists, are funded by the government. And many of them have bene exposed as manipulating and hiding data in the climate gate emails. They KNOW it's a fraud and they KNOW they are wrong.

You would struggle to find one retired or independent climate scientist who has an alarmist view on human made global warming.

I work with scientists.

I guess you may call me some kind of scientist.

I don't know any of the 20-30 I work with that are against AGW theory and published results. I reckon you could ask most science departments around Australia and that 75 of 77 would hold when extrapolated.

 

[Dan26]

totally unconvincing statements about your "conversion" from the left

And with that one statement you have totally exposed how people like you think.

You think I'm a convert form the "left"? Are you also stupid?

I've never been "of the left" in my life. What I have been is an alarmist, because up until a few years ago, that was all the info we had all ben fed.

I changed my view because the evidence had piled up.

Your comment means you associate left-wing with being alarmists and right-wing with being sceptics. That has nothing to do with the science, and it totally exposed your way of thinking. For people like you, it's always about the politics. Hence your abhorrent above post.

You can't comprehend that I used to be and alarmist yet was also right-wing at the same time. That's because I'm not politically motivated or influenced, and never have been in this debate and never will be. EVER.

This is about the science and if the evidence piles up that we are all going to die because of human C02 emisisons, I will change my view again. But all the recent evidence points to C02 not being a problem.

You think changing views on this scientific debate means "converting" from left-wing to right-wing??????????

Unbelievable. *shakes head in utter disbelief*

As I've said before to you Monniehawk it's okay for you to still be a Labor or Greens voter and also be sceptical of alarmist climate change. The fact that you don't understand this, shows that to you, this is all about the politics and you aren't interested in changing your religious view on this subject no matter how much evidence piles up against it.

 

[Dan26]

I I reckon you could ask most science departments around Australia and that 75 of 77 would hold when extrapolated.

Rubbish. Absolute unmitigated exaggerated rubbish of the worst kind.

So, these 30,000 scientists are in the "minority" are they?

http://www.petitionproject.com


97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE IS A LIE
"The small number of climate scientists actually supporting the Al Gore/IPCC claims of catastrophic global warming and the actual AGW “predictions” has always been a major embarrassment. As a result, the left/liberal/greens have been forced to fabricate bogus support that can’t stand up to any form of scrutiny.

First, it was the claim that 2,500 IPCC-related scientists agreed with the 2007 IPCC report. Soon afer it was discovered that the actual number of scientists who actually agreed with the report contents was only 25."


And no one is going from sceptic to alarmist. No one.

They are ALL going from alarmists to sceptics.


These are scientists who have CHANGED THEIR VIEW. Can you name any that have gone the other way? I repeat the below scientists are people who USED to be alarmsits who have changed their minds.

Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, says “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is “unknown.”

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta once set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the Kyoto Protocol but recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor’s New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.”

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award-winning scientists, “believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence.”

Atmospheric scientist Dr. Joanna Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.” Formerly of NASA, she has authored more than 190 studies.

Mathematician and engineer Dr. David Evans devoted six years to carbon accounting, building an award winning model for the Australian Greenhouse Office. He wrote FullCAM that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol in the land use change and forestry sector. Evans became a skeptic in 2007.

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed one of the “Fathers of Meteorology,” became a leading global warming skeptic in the last few years before passing away in 2008.

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University, and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.”

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, a professor of earth sciences at Flinders University, says: “I started with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself.”

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic.

Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist, says warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher, says “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way around …”

Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden notes, “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly [from promoting warming fears], without having their professional careers ruined.”

Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered.”

 

[Monniehawk]

If you think 99% of scientists agree with the alarmsit view on climate change, then you are an idiot.
The well-known phrase, "97% of climate scientists agree" is nothing but a statstical joke. It's 75 people. Yes 75 (out of 77) respondoing to 2 questions worded in such a way that even I would answer yes to them.
Click below.
97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE IS A LIE
I can name 30,000 scientists who are sceptical. http://www.petitionproject.org
Most of the few remaining who are alarmist scientists, are funded by the government. And many of them have bene exposed as manipulating and hiding data in the climate gate emails. They KNOW it's a fraud and they KNOW they are wrong.
You would struggle to find one retired or independent climate scientist who has an alarmist view on human made global warming.

Look mate, time to put up or shut up!
1. YOU do not know 30k scientists at ALL. You only know of the existence of a list of names on a patently non-science, politically extreme web site that PURPORTS the signatories to be scientists and actual, real people. Even YOU could enter names on the list and invent any qualifications you want. There is no validation!
2. Warmist scientists are paid to lie by the government??
Are you 12?
Most scientists are paid by governments. Including your beloved denialists. Governments would prefer to ignore climate issues. It is expensive and politically dangerous to address it, so they want it to go away! China, India, Australia and the US have shown that at Kyoto and Copenhagen.
Remaining scientists are largely paid by industry - either by funding academic research or employment in industrial/commercial laboratories. Are those scientists going to do the bidding of their masters? You betcha! Most industrialists do not want to acknowledge climate change issues because it impinges on their profits. History repeatedly tells us this.
This same site offers an astounding statistical gem!!

The real consensus of scientists who agree with Climate Religion is 0.73% (75 divided by 10257).
Which does beggar the question if Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, then why do 99.27% of scientists disagree?

WHAAAATTT! Even you wouldn't accept that rubbish! How on earth can this site be taken seriously?
It is an extreme right wing Neo-Nazi site - anti immigration, anti alternative energy, anti left or moderate and authored by a single, self-described "Conservatve Political Blogger, Climate Realist, Tea Party supporter and NRA member. I dont buy into the Man Made Global Warming Scam." (sic)
However, from another source...

On the contrary, the basics of climate change are now understood and serious doubt is left only in the minds of those who cultivate it. (SMH 6/4/12)

Also not a scientist, but a journalist. Still, he carries about the same weight as another of your heroes - the non-scientist/journalist, Monckton. (Except that the SMH journalist does not have a history of deception about his political position or occupation.)
All 'evidence' you post and quote is drawn from just these two extremist sites. They are patent propaganda, without any scientific expertise and are driven by lone extremists. The data is fanciful (99,27% of scientists disagree with global warming!!!) and deliberately manipulated to suit the extremist point of view. Only the truly gullible could entertain the content as factual.
Why not visit established scientifically corroborated sites that don't have a rabid political imperative? You do seem to shy away from them.
There is no credible evidence shown, related or substantiated in either of your sites. Check for yourself instead of gullibly swallowing the rhetoric. The facts are not substantiated with any credible evidence or objective analysis - just the usual outlandish rhetoric of the extremists. And you have been sadly misled, young man!
And I am pleased to see that you have dropped your Born Again lefitst fantasy. That is truly embarrassing.
I've had quite enough of your juvenile nonsense and will now leave you play alone in the sandpit.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Doesn't take much web searching to find articles such as this one, in today's SMH, summarising current research and recently published articles in scientific journals:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/world...#ixzz1rFNmQt68

One-dimensional cheerleading. Anyone reading this would conclude that no credible opposing argument exists, at least among the scientific community.

The reality is that alarmists, in playing on the disaster movie-inspired fears of the public, have by now either won us over or they haven't, and only the coming reality will sway us.