Setting up the Global Warming lies to come

[DC Tom]

The forthcoming report apparently admits that climate change has extinguished no species so far and expresses “very little confidence” that it will do so.

 

That's a bull **** statement. Given the number of species we don't know about, and the extinctions that doubtlessly take place every day, it's a certainty that a half-degree of warming has changed some ecological niche somewhere that killed off a species of something.

 

Admittedly, that species of pygmy leaf-cutter ant that existed only on one tree on the fringes of the Amazon rain forest, and is unimportant in the grand scheme of things. But it's still a bull **** statement.

 

There is new emphasis that climate change is not the only environmental problem that matters and on adapting to it rather than preventing it. . .

 

Which many of us have been saying for more than a decade...

 

And if renewable energy had proved by now to be cheap, clean and thrifty in its use of land, then we would be right to address that small risk of a large catastrophe by rushing to replace fossil fuels with first-generation wind, solar and bioenergy. But since these forms of energy have proved expensive, environmentally damaging and land-hungry, it appears that in our efforts to combat warming we may have been taking the economic equivalent of chemotherapy for a cold.

 

Which many of us have been saying for more than a decade.

 

And not just the economic equivalent. The environmental equivalent as well. See "There is new emphasis that climate change is not the only environmental problem that matters and on adapting to it rather than preventing it. . ."

[3rdnlng]

Missing from the linked article is how the White house is going to reduce cow flatulence. Pass a law or by Presidential decree?

 

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/28/white-house-looks-to-regulate-cow-flatulence-as-part-of-climate-agenda/#ixzz2xHqYITaT

As part of its plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration is targeting the dairy industry to reduce methane emissions in their operations.

This comes despite falling methane emission levels across the economy since 1990.

The White House has proposed cutting methane emissions from the dairy industry by 25 percent by 2020. Although U.S. agriculture only accounts for about 9 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, it makes up a sizeable portion of methane emissions — which is a very potent greenhouse gas.

Some of these methane emissions come from cow flatulence, exhaling and belching — other livestock animals release methane as well.

“Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence,” according to How Stuff Works. “Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day… while others say it’s up to 500 liters… a day. In any case, that’s a lot of methane, an amount comparable to the pollution produced by a car in a day.”

 

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/28/white-house-looks-to-regulate-cow-flatulence-as-part-of-climate-agenda/#ixzz2xNdevFd8

[TH3]

 

 

Ordinarily I ignore childish responses such as these,

 

but if you want any respect around here you realy, really should think (and check) before you respond.

 

I post opinion pieces from respected authors and sites.

 

 

If you cannot handle that, then its just too bad for you

 

here is the author of my last post.

 

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere.

 

 

I think I will read and defer to his opinions rather than yours

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

Yes good ole Siefried Sawyer....also on the right side of so many things....like UV does not call skin cancer, CFC does not cause ozone depletion, and second hand smoke is inconsequential (probably forgot to ask flight attendants).

 

Might want to try to hitch your wagon up to someone with a better batting average....

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/S._Fred_Singer

 

Edited March 30, 2014 by baskin

[TH3]

Here is a great article

 

http://www.wired.com/2014/03/clean-coal/

 

[OCinBuffalo]

Ask yourselves: Do you really think a major tipping point in Global Warming...discourse...hasn't already occurred/isn't occurring right now?

And then ask: Does it really matter who says it, when, if we are honest with ourselves, we all know it?

 

Check this thread: I said the tipping point was coming a long time ago. The whole point of the OP was: setting up the lies to come, sure, but why?

 

Why did they need the lies?

 

They needed the fear, and they needed the 2 "speculations"(the again, STILL indefensible, "bottom of the ocean" and "pollution both cause and cure of Global Warming ") because they could feel the tipping point coming...same as everyone else here.

 

Ever since the East Anglia breach, those of above-average intelligence could see what was happening. The clowns on the right focused on the word "trick" in one of the emails, without understanding of the larger meaning of the word, and what it specifically means in term of any data/analytics activity. The Sean Hannity idiots didn't see the big picture.

 

The big picture: these EA/IPCC scientists had successfully proved AGW, but, they also proved that it wasn't anywhere big enough(specifically, that the carbon sensitivity that drives the entire environtologist pathology, just isn't that sensitive) to warrant the kind of social/economic changes that the Democrats here, and socialists everywhere, and 3rd world welfare check seekers, had been perscribing/demanding. The EA scientists have done the worst thing: they are dead right. They've proven that not only should we significantly cut funding green-everything, we should cease funding them, because their entire issue is barely relevant.

 

Hence, the new focus on other environmental concerns, since "climate change is not the only environmental problem that matters".

 

So, what are the chances that these guys diversify, and start looking for funding for the other "environmental problems that matter"?

 

 

 

And of course, I STILL haven't seen anyone explain WHY 2 speculations are required to save the ass of a theory that is supposedly "settled".

Edited March 31, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[John Adams]

Yes good ole Siefried Sawyer....also on the right side of so many things....like UV does not call skin cancer, CFC does not cause ozone depletion, and second hand smoke is inconsequential (probably forgot to ask flight attendants).

 

Might want to try to hitch your wagon up to someone with a better batting average....

 

http://rationalwiki..../S._Fred_Singer

 

I've not researched this guy either way but if what you posted is true, that's hilarious. B-parrot is not the most original thinker.

Edited March 31, 2014 by John Adams

[TH3]

Ask yourselves: Do you really think a major tipping point in Global Warming...discourse...hasn't already occurred/isn't occurring right now?

And then ask: Does it really matter who says it, when, if we are honest with ourselves, we all know it?

 

Check this thread: I said the tipping point was coming a long time ago. The whole point of the OP was: setting up the lies to come, sure, but why?

 

Why did they need the lies?

 

They needed the fear, and they needed the 2 "speculations"(the again, STILL indefensible, "bottom of the ocean" and "pollution both cause and cure of Global Warming ") because they could feel the tipping point coming...same as everyone else here.

 

Ever since the East Anglia breach, those of above-average intelligence could see what was happening. The clowns on the right focused on the word "trick" in one of the emails, without understanding of the larger meaning of the word, and what it specifically means in term of any data/analytics activity. The Sean Hannity idiots didn't see the big picture.

 

The big picture: these EA/IPCC scientists had successfully proved AGW, but, they also proved that it wasn't anywhere big enough(specifically, that the carbon sensitivity that drives the entire environtologist pathology, just isn't that sensitive) to warrant the kind of social/economic changes that the Democrats here, and socialists everywhere, and 3rd world welfare check seekers, had been perscribing/demanding. The EA scientists have done the worst thing: they are dead right. They've proven that not only should we significantly cut funding green-everything, we should cease funding them, because their entire issue is barely relevant.

 

Hence, the new focus on other environmental concerns, since "climate change is not the only environmental problem that matters".

 

So, what are the chances that these guys diversify, and start looking for funding for the other "environmental problems that matter"?

 

 

 

And of course, I STILL haven't seen anyone explain WHY 2 speculations are required to save the ass of a theory that is supposedly "settled".

 

Couple things - I have not seen any legislation proposed/talked about etc from the "left" in several years - Yes BO is tightening the restrictions on coal plants - but the forces who do not believe in legislation regarding GW have won the war - there will be no GW legislation in the US.

 

While legislation is dead - the science continues.

 

Second - Whose lies? Are we saying that the thermometers are lying? 2013 was - what - 4th warmest on record? So we have the science community maintaining that this is continued evidence. So the right wing points fingers at the science community and says they are liars and simply want to take over the world....

 

I suggest you read the article from Wired regarding coal plants - it is a very straight forward view on the demand of power to raise hundreds of millions from poverty transfixed with the pollutants and the Chinese government attempts to balance these two.

 

Seems the Chinese don't have an issue with accepting the science of GW - they are just at the point of balancing its use with its detriments.

[3rdnlng]

Yes good ole Siefried Sawyer....also on the right side of so many things....like UV does not call skin cancer, CFC does not cause ozone depletion, and second hand smoke is inconsequential (probably forgot to ask flight attendants).

 

Might want to try to hitch your wagon up to someone with a better batting average....

 

http://rationalwiki..../S._Fred_Singer

 

Really, from some blogger whose name is? He seems more concerned with mentioning the word "denier" than anything else.

 

At least this guy identifies himself:

 

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/14/climate-skeptic-we-are-winning-the-science-battle/

[John Adams]

Couple things - I have not seen any legislation proposed/talked about etc from the "left" in several years - Yes BO is tightening the restrictions on coal plants - but the forces who do not believe in legislation regarding GW have won the war - there will be no GW legislation in the US.

 

While legislation is dead - the science continues.

 

Second - Whose lies? Are we saying that the thermometers are lying? 2013 was - what - 4th warmest on record? So we have the science community maintaining that this is continued evidence. So the right wing points fingers at the science community and says they are liars and simply want to take over the world....

 

I suggest you read the article from Wired regarding coal plants - it is a very straight forward view on the demand of power to raise hundreds of millions from poverty transfixed with the pollutants and the Chinese government attempts to balance these two.

 

Seems the Chinese don't have an issue with accepting the science of GW - they are just at the point of balancing its use with its detriments.

 

One thing I won't do is speak for OC. I'm sure he'll pitch in himself.

 

But my take is not that many contest whether there is warming. But the questions are:

 

(1) Is the human contribution to it that big of an impact?

(2) The warming that we are seeing is not unprecedented. The earth has been around a long time and has gone through a lot of heating and cooling cycles.

(3) What's motivating the proposed laws? Fixing the problem or fear-mongering/power-grabbing/money-grabbing? Thank about it: There is some number being thrown out that developing nations want 100B in compensation per year to deal with global warming.

 

To me, those are all legitimate concerns.

 

Let's say that we are entering a warming trend and it's man-made. Stopping it may be impossible but adapting to it is not.

[Nanker]

Here is a great article

 

http://www.wired.com/2014/03/clean-coal/

Swell. Here's a definite article: the

Here are two more, but they're indefinite: a, an

 

So how do we reverse global climate warming change?

[Gary M]

WOLF!!!!!

 

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-31/climate-report-warns-of-death-flooding-and-economic-loss#r=rss

[B-Man]

The biggest problem with the latest IPCC report are the questions it doesn’t attempt to answer such as:

 

-Why did the Earth stop warming 17 years ago?

 

-The climate models used to predict global warming proved to be wrong, what makes the revised models more reliable?

 

-What makes the IPCC so sure the warming trend of the 1980s through the mid 199os and the warming stoppage ever since, aren’t simply part of the Earth’s natural climate cycles?

[DC Tom]

The biggest problem with the latest IPCC report are the questions it doesn’t attempt to answer such as:

 

-Why did the Earth stop warming 17 years ago?

 

-The climate models used to predict global warming proved to be wrong, what makes the revised models more reliable?

 

-What makes the IPCC so sure the warming trend of the 1980s through the mid 199os and the warming stoppage ever since, aren’t simply part of the Earth’s natural climate cycles?

 

The biggest problem with any IPCC report is that the IPCC isn't a scientific body. It's a political body with the charter of reviewing and assessing " the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters."

 

It's a political organization, not a scientific one.

[Gary M]

The biggest problem with the latest IPCC report are the questions it doesn’t attempt to answer such as:

 

-Why did the Earth stop warming 17 years ago? They don't know

 

-The climate models used to predict global warming proved to be wrong, what makes the revised models more reliable? They aren't

 

-What makes the IPCC so sure the warming trend of the 1980s through the mid 199os and the warming stoppage ever since, aren’t simply part of the Earth’s natural climate cycles? It is

[John Adams]

-Why did the Earth stop warming 17 years ago?

 

17 years...with several of them being the warmest in recorded history? Are you sure that's what you want to use to support your argument?

 

There's so much wrong with using that small of a data set--and a small data set that undermines your premise anyways--it's hard to know where to begin. Please go back to quoting the scientist who denies a link between cancer and smoking: You were on firmer ground then.

Edited March 31, 2014 by John Adams

[DC Tom]

17 years...with several of them being the warmest in recorded history? Are you sure that's what you want to use to support your argument?

 

There's so much wrong with using that small of a data set--and a small data set that undermines your premise anyways--it's hard to know where to begin. Please go back to quoting the scientist who denies a link between cancer and smoking: You were on firmer ground then.

 

How many data sets have we seen defined?

 

The last 17 years.

The last 42 years (ice cap data).

The last 70 years (widespread automotive use).

The last 140 years (since records were kept).

The last 230 years (since the start of the Industrial Revolution).

The last 400 years (end of the Little Ice Age - my personal favorite. "We've entered a period of abnormal cooling, compared to the previous period of abnormal warming.")

The last 3000 years (ice records).

The last 10000 years (since the last Ice Age.)

 

Half of reaching a scientific conclusion is being able to pick and choose your data set.

 

http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700

[John Adams]

How many data sets have we seen defined?

 

The last 17 years.

The last 42 years (ice cap data).

The last 70 years (widespread automotive use).

The last 140 years (since records were kept).

The last 230 years (since the start of the Industrial Revolution).

The last 400 years (end of the Little Ice Age - my personal favorite. "We've entered a period of abnormal cooling, compared to the previous period of abnormal warming.")

The last 3000 years (ice records).

The last 10000 years (since the last Ice Age.)

 

Half of reaching a scientific conclusion is being able to pick and choose your data set.

 

http://www.nature.co...-errors-1.14700

 

Indeed. But 17 years?

 

Might as well look out the window in January and decide that it's cold so global warming can't be true.

 

And those 17 years had some of the warmest years on record (140 years of limited recording--ha)!

 

Gaaaaaaah!

 

It's Fox/MSNBC science. At least let's get to CNN level science.

Edited March 31, 2014 by John Adams

[Gary M]

17 years...with several of them being the warmest in recorded history? Are you sure that's what you want to use to support your argument?

 

There's so much wrong with using that small of a data set--and a small data set that undermines your premise anyways--it's hard to know where to begin. Please go back to quoting the scientist who denies a link between cancer and smoking: You were on firmer ground then.

 

That is all you could find to refute? Pretty week argument

 

The temperature has been flat for 17 years even as CO2 has been increasing, meanwhile Al Gore was claiming the ice caps would be gone by this year.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Gary M

[Gene Frenkle]

 

 

How many data sets have we seen defined?

 

The last 17 years.

The last 42 years (ice cap data).

The last 70 years (widespread automotive use).

The last 140 years (since records were kept).

The last 230 years (since the start of the Industrial Revolution).

The last 400 years (end of the Little Ice Age - my personal favorite. "We've entered a period of abnormal cooling, compared to the previous period of abnormal warming.")

The last 3000 years (ice records).

The last 10000 years (since the last Ice Age.)

 

Half of reaching a scientific conclusion is being able to pick and choose your data set.

 

http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700

The last 800,000 years (ice core records)

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

Edited March 31, 2014 by Gene Frenkle

[3rdnlng]

17 years...with several of them being the warmest in recorded history? Are you sure that's what you want to use to support your argument?

 

There's so much wrong with using that small of a data set--and a small data set that undermines your premise anyways--it's hard to know where to begin. Please go back to quoting the scientist who denies a link between cancer and smoking: You were on firmer ground then.

 

You should go back and read Baskin's link from "rationalwilki" before you get in any deeper. The anonymous author is obviously a global warming enthusiast.

 

The last 800,000 years (ice core records)

 

http://www.scientifi...ata-help-solve/

 

Did they take any on Greenland? Would've found that the vegetation from many thousands of years ago consisted of palm trees and other plants consistent with what might be in Egypt today.