Society/Culture Climate Change put on hold for a few decades

[morgoth]

No, but if you hadn't noticed Reps are still in the minority.

Still avoiding the tough questions though I see? You're wrong on so many points yet you are so sure of yourself that AGW is just a big hoax that you will screech with schadenfreude delight at the prospect of climate change action failing? So what happens if you are wrong? What are you going to tell your kids?

But they can stop and legislation from passing the Senate and will. The whole point is that global warming is not important to the majority of Americans. Or will you do a Mann and just exclude data that does not meet your preconditioned views.

What will I tell my children? To adapt to whatever life throws up. It really is the only way. The world owes you nothing, something you have not learnt. The world warms, the world cools who cares, you just get on with life and make the most of it.

I am not going to agree to fund you and your cronies view of the world and the majority are now in my camp as evidenced by various polls. Did you notice Rudd did not even mention global warming in his Australia day address. Politicians the world over are looking for the escape hatch.

It is over you just refuse to see it.

 

[morgoth]

You. Do. Not. Know. What. You. Are. Talking. About.

OK, point by point (and I wish too christ you'd learn how to use the quote function):

1. It wasn't Jones, it was Trenberth, and, again, you don't have the first ****ing clue what he was referring to, which was the lack of understanding where the excess heat is actually going (ie. ino the ocean), and I quote:

Understanding Trenberths Travesty



2. Canada Free Press? That would be like me quoting Green Left, you wouldn't acept it and neither will I.

Fact of the matter is that, while polar numbers recovered after a ban on hunting, only a handful of populations are doing well. And they rely on sea ice for their survival, if you think they will survive once the ecosystm is gone then, quite frankly, you're an idiot.

2. People live in Greenland today genius, and yes, it was warm during the WMP, but not warmer than today, th difference is that before the Vikings got there there had already been 800 or so years of warming, it takes time for the environment to react. Glaciers don't just come and go at a whim, something needs to cause that to happen, ie. a sudden jump or drop in global temperatures.

3. Can't open the link because my bandwidth has been shape, but I can tell without looking at it they were talking about Ian Allison, widely misquoted by The Oz - if you knew anything about the Antarctic (see Real Climate's article - Antarctica is cold. Yeah, we knew that) you'd know that climate models actually predict that Antarctica will gain ice because of increased precipitation, the fact that satellite data (new data, released since Allison was being falsely trumpeted in the Murdoch press) is suggesting an ice mass loss is a real worry.

Here is what Allison was getting at when The Oz took his quotes out of context

http://bravenewclimate.com/page/5/?blogsub=confirming



You've been had again. This is what happens when you rely on Murdoch rags to get your science news, you end up a very confused person who thinks the worlds scientists are engaged in a conspiracy against the public.

You should be asking yourself how it fels to be conned, because you've been had good and proper.

I said look at the links! You don't get it you read the opinion pieces at 'real climate' and take it as gospel. I read the anti AGW sites like Climate Depot and actually read the source article and ignore the opinion as they clearly have an agenda. The polar bear comments were from the US wildlife service and various scientists. But of course, they don't matter.

Remember Einstein, I am not trying to change the world, you are, you can't afford any lies or mistakes. Yet the IPCC is riddled with them and Jones, Mann and co have been caught cooking the books. Jail beckons for your heroes.

 

[bit_pattern]

LOL, Climate Depot - that's Marc Morano's site, Repuplican strategist responsible for the notorious 'swift boat' attacks on John Kerry. You're an absolute numpty if you think that RC (it is written BY scientists) doen't reference PRIMARY source documents. I source institutes like NOAA, NSIDC, NASA - but they're all corrupt, youi have the word of a Republican strategist and that's gospel truth. Whatever dude. You don't have a clue what your talking about, which is why your only comeback is about polar bears

 

[medusala]

dude. You don't have a clue what your talking about, which is why your only comeback is about polar bears

Polar bears, food production, amazon, himalayas, HS, Urals, MWP, anything Gore says etc etc

It is a damn long list.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece

The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser. Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming.

 

[bit_pattern]

Polar bears, food production, amazon, himalayas, HS, Urals, MWP, anything Gore says etc etc

Uh, BS, on nearly everyone of those - polar bears is about the only thing you have going there, the rest you have been definitively shown to be sorely mistaken, the victim of PR and spin.

(Maybe the Urals because quite frankly I have nfi what you are talking about there! )

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece

The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser. Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming.

Is this the same Times that flat out lied about the Himalayan glacier the other day in an attempt to slander Dr. Pachauri? The Murdoch press has really gone into overdrive of late with its misinformation campaign.

 

[medusala]

Uh, BS, on nearly everyone of those - polar bears is about the only thing you have going there, the rest you have been definitively shown to be sorely mistaken, the victim of PR and spin.

Nonsense and you know it. HS shown to be wrong, food production likely to increase, mortality talk blatanly wrong, Himalayas admitted to be wrong, use of tree proxies admitted to have major issues etc etc.

Is this the same Times that flat out lied about the Himalayan glacier the other day in an attempt to slander Dr. Pachauri? The Murdoch press has really gone into overdrive of late with its misinformation campaign.

Flat out lied? I think not.

 

[bit_pattern]

Oh ffs.

HS - You've been proved wrong on this over a hundred times

Mortality - You only evidence - ever - was a single study regarding northern Europe that suggested that more people in northern Europe die from cold than heat, zomg, no ****ing s**t sherlock!

Himalaya's - One sentence was wrong, everything else in the IPCC report was right, the glaciers continue to melt

Tree proxies - Yes, there is debate, but they are also backed up by at least a dozen other proxy indicators, remove tree ring proxies and the HS trend doesn't change one iota.

FINALLY - Agriculture - You numpty, your whole argument was based on a single sentence in the IPCC report, and one which you ignored everything else preceding and following that single sentence, typical of the way you approach science in general. But her is what the peer reviewed literature has to say regarding agriculture (by no menas a exhausive list on the negative side), both positives and negatives are listed!

Agriculture

Positives

• Improved agriculture in some high latitude regions (Mendelsohn 2006)
• Increased growing season in Greenland (Nyegaard 2007)

Negatives

• Decelerating tropical forest growth (Feeley 2007)
• Increase of wildfire activity (Westerling 2006)
• Increased range and severity of crop disease (Evans 2008)
• Encroachment of shrubs into grasslands, rendering rangeland unsuitable for domestic livestock grazing (Morgan 2007)
• Decreased water supply in the Colorado River Basin (McCabe 2007)
• Decreasing water supply to the Murray-Darling Basin (Cai 2008)
• Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts (Solomon 2009)
• Decline in rice yields due to warmer nighttime minimum temperatures (Peng 2004, Tao 2008)

 

[bit_pattern]

And flat out lied, yes, they premised their article on the claim that melting Himalayan glaciers was "bogus", this is a lie. They premised the argument on the fact that he could influence policy makers, the mistaken 2035 claim NEVER made it into the Summary for Policymakers. The whole thing was a ****ing hack piece of the highest order and if I was Dr. Pachauri I'd be talking to my lawyers about Briish defamation and libel laws.

 

[morgoth]

LOL, Climate Depot - that's Marc Morano's site, Repuplican strategist responsible for the notorious 'swift boat' attacks on John Kerry. You're an absolute numpty if you think that RC (it is written BY scientists) doen't reference PRIMARY source documents. I source institutes like NOAA, NSIDC, NASA - but they're all corrupt, youi have the word of a Republican strategist and that's gospel truth. Whatever dude. You don't have a clue what your talking about, which is why your only comeback is about polar bears

Can you read? I clearly said i do not read his opinions I read the articles referenced as I know he has an agenda. So your point is what, that I read supporting scientific papers he references? Is he any worse than 'real climate'? After all he is not trying to tax the world.

All of the organisation you quote are now under review for mis-reporting and that is there own doing. Just think if they have not manipulated data, not rigged peer review and denied disenting scientists a right to reply none of this would be happening. If the science was so good, why do it?

Because the science has been blurred by the politicians like Gore for their own agenda's. Where is Al, he has been very quiet? Where is Phil?

Oh yeah some more good news, as the IPCC has not used approved peer reviewed studies in areas where it said it did it is now doubtful that the EPA can use it (as it planned) to regulate CO2. The UN is the most useless organisation on earth.

 

[bit_pattern]

All of the organisation you quote are now under review for mis-reporting and that is there own doing.

LMAO!

No. No they're not. Do you even no what NOAA or NSIDC actually are? Once again your ignorance belies you Morgy. Keep railing against s**t you don't understand!

You are rapidly becoming the most FAIL "sceptic" on BF

 

[medusala]

Oh ffs.

HS - You've been proved wrong on this over a hundred times

Bollocks. Shown time and time and time again you and your alarmist buddies were wrong on these things.

You even try to defend Al Gore.

That is the depths you stoop to in your religious fervour.

No wonder this guy had to speak out against the dishonesty displayed by your religious cohorts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...-change-sceptics-should-not-be-dismissed.html

In an interview, Prof Beddington, called for a new era of honesty and responsibility from the environmental community and said scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming.

Prof John Beddington admitted the impact of global warming had been exaggerated by some scientists and condemned climate researchers who refused to publish data which formed the basis of their reports into global warming.

 

[bit_pattern]

Bollocks. Shown time and time and time again you and your alarmist buddies were wrong on these things.

No, Meds, as much as you like to recraft reality in your head even you know that is a load of total baloney

Prof John Beddington admitted the impact of global warming had been exaggerated by some scientists and condemned climate researchers who refused to publish data which formed the basis of their reports into global warming.

Yeah, like this guy!

 

[bit_pattern]

Gee, I wonder if the Torygraph or The Times have exaggerated things themselves by taking Prof. Beddington out of context? Only time will tell, watch this space, in the meantime here are a few other choice quotes from the good Professor:

"It's unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere."

"Some people ask why we should act when scientists say they are only 90 per cent certain about the problem. But would you get on a plane that had a 10 per cent chance of crashing?"

"Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate. We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There's definitely an issue there. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be the level of scepticism. All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, `There's a level of uncertainty about that'."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...climate-sceptics/story-e6frg6xf-1225823874671

What do you know, he's talking about a communication problem! I don't think ANY scientist would disagree with his measure words, not when they are viewed in their proper context and not being cherry picked by you and the cronies at The Torygraph.

And then there's this, regarding your continued false assertion re: the Himalayan glaciers

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LA28Df01.htmlIndian glaciologist fires back at skeptics
By Keya Acharya

BANGALORE - "It is a fact that global warming is happening. If the Arctic Sea ice is melting, how can the Himalayan glaciers not be melting?" glaciologist Syed Iqbal Hasnain asked indignantly.

 

[bit_pattern]

Nature had some interesting things to say on the very topic of uncertainty just this week, I'm sure Prof Beddington would wholeheartedly agree:

Climate of suspicion

Top of page

Abstract

With climate-change sceptics waiting to pounce on any scientific uncertainties, researchers need a sophisticated strategy for communication.

Climate science, like any active field of research, has some major gaps in understanding (see page 284). Yet the political stakes have grown so high in this field, and the public discourse has become so heated, that climate researchers find it hard to talk openly about those gaps. The small coterie of individuals who deny humanity's influence on climate will try to use any perceived flaw in the evidence to discredit the entire picture. So how can researchers honestly describe the uncertainty in their work without it being misconstrued?

 

[lions_den]

[YOUTUBE]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/idYdVQ6nwfA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/idYdVQ6nwfA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

 

[medusala]

Nature had some interesting things to say on the very topic of uncertainty just this week, I'm sure Prof Beddington would wholeheartedly agree:

Is the same Nature that embarrassed themselves so badly in a previous editorial?

It would appear so

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

 

[bit_pattern]

No, that was a perfectly reasonable summary of the non0sccandal that was "climategate", the only reason you think it was embarassing for them is because it contradicts your own mistaken assumptions. Things must be foggy today up there on Planet Meds.

 

[John]

[youtube]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/idYdVQ6nwfA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/idYdVQ6nwfA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Is that supposed to refute man made GW? It is a polemic against dogma and that is fine by me. Lets hope that those that have unquestionable faith in their religious beliefs see the error of their ways after watching this.

I would add that I caught Ian Plimer at the, IIRC, Sydney Institute and he ended his speech with a sad "in these hard times". Yeah Ian. Life's bloody tough mate.

I have no idea of the truth lions_den but will say that for all bp's bluster in this debate he has at least attempted to put up against the sceptics with an attempt at some data. How about not letting the team down and you doing the same.

 

[medusala]

No, that was a perfectly reasonable summary of the non0sccandal that was "climategate", the only reason you think it was embarassing for them is because it contradicts your own mistaken assumptions. Things must be foggy today up there on Planet Meds.

It was pathetic, lower than tabloid standard. Anything approaching a respectable journal would not use language like that nor cheerlead in such a political manner.

No surprise that you defend the indefensible. They certainly do

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

To these denialists, the scientists' scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial 'smoking gun': proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill.
..

After all, the pressures the UEA e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge as the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists use every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and science.

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ It's only pathetic in your fevered mind because you are the sort of peopl they are talking about, that's a well written and bang on the money account of this non-scandal

 

[meltiger]

Not making comment here on the merits of either sides claims but LOL @ BP ... Is it possible for you to debate a topic, which you so clearly believe in without abusing whover you are responding to?


Virtually every post...

 

[bit_pattern]

You try arguing with six or seven people at the same time, across half dozen posts which are basically about the same thing, all while keeping your cool with people who simply kep repeating the same mistruths over and over again. Yeah, my patience wear thin, but I'm dealing with people who are seemingly impervious to logic or reason and who would have us undo 400 years of Enlightenment thinking if they had their way, they deserve to mocked and ridiculed.

 

[meltiger]

^ Yet that last statement is exactly part of the reason why you are struggling to get some people on board.


Simply because someone is saying something different to the sources you believe are credible, doesn't mean that those who find other sources credible need to be "mocked & ridiculed"

 

[lions_den]

I have no idea of the truth lions_den but will say that for all bp's bluster in this debate he has at least attempted to put up against the sceptics with an attempt at some data. How about not letting the team down and you doing the same.

Nah, it doesn't bother me what people believe. If someone wants to be scared of the boogie man then so be it. I just like stirring up environmentalists.

 

[bit_pattern]

^ Yet that last statement is exactly part of the reason why you are struggling to get some people on board.


Simply because someone is saying something different to the sources you believe are credible, doesn't mean that those who find other sources credible need to be "mocked & ridiculed"

What people? I've seen more than a couple of people who could have been swayed by the onslaught of the denier attacks on his forum mention that they are impressed by the strengths of the arguments put forward by the sites I link to. Seems to me the people who "aren't on board" tend to be ideologues who don't trust anything leftist/enviro/green/nazi/fascists ever have to say anyway so my breath would be wasted trying to convince them of anything. Anyone who actually gets the difference between PR and science, and who don't instictively think that there is some grnd conspiracy involvin the vast majority of the worlds scientists to bring in a great, big ne tax, tend to be receptive to strong arguments, regardles of my demeanour. And if you are a fence sitter, and think that my tone has any bearing on the strength of what I say, well, then you probably weren't going to listen to me in the first place. So, care factor = 0