Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[birdog1960]

 

Is the greenhouse effect of CO2 linear or logarithmic?

here's the thing: there's some pretty smart people on both sides of the debate. most understand basic chemistry and physics. the vast majority with widely accepted scientific credentials agree that there is man made climate change.

[DC Tom]

here's the thing: there's some pretty smart people on both sides of the debate. most understand basic chemistry and physics. the vast majority with widely accepted scientific credentials agree that there is man made climate change.

In other words, you're too lazy to be informed, so you'll rely on the opinions of reporters.

[Azalin]

here's the thing: there's some pretty smart people on both sides of the debate. most understand basic chemistry and physics. the vast majority with widely accepted scientific credentials agree that there is man made climate change.

As far as science goes, climatology is still very much in its infancy. Scientific fact is based in empirical evidence, not hypothesis. In general, the Earth has been experiencing a warming trend since the end of the last ice age, yet humanity only began to industrialize about 100 years ago. To say with any certainty that humanity is or isn't responsible for climate change is simply premature, and if the science wasn't so politicized, we might actually learn the truth of it at some point.

[Gary M]

here's the thing: there's some pretty smart people on both sides of the debate. most understand basic chemistry and physics. the vast majority with widely accepted scientific credentials agree that there is man made climate change.

 

Not really.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

[DC Tom]

 

Not really.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

Plus, the sampling is biased by the relative difficulty of getting a paper published that presents evidence against AGW.

 

Plus...it doesn't matter. Consensus is irrelevant. All the consensus in the world won't stand against one solid, provable fact.

[birdog1960]

 

Not really.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

yes, really. i said the vast majority and i stand by it. i didn't say 97% although i don't doubt that's far from the truth. the definition of what is agreed upon by the vast majority given by the article matches mine pretty well, i think. so can we agree that the vast majority of scientist involved in the study of this phenomenon agree that climate change is predominantly man made. if we can agree to that then we can discuss the validity of this premise.

 

if not, perhaps we should investigate the question of how many of the 3,5,or even 10% of scientists that are public deniers have a financial dog in the hunt.

Plus, the sampling is biased by the relative difficulty of getting a paper published that presents evidence against AGW.

 

Plus...it doesn't matter. Consensus is irrelevant. All the consensus in the world won't stand against one solid, provable fact.

therefore i assume that you believe that difficulty is based on bias and not lousy science…(although i'm sure in a few cases an editorial board looked at a paper and said "not this moron again. let's read it for laughs…"

Edited January 15, 2015 by birdog1960

[Gary M]

so can we agree that the vast majority of scientist involved in the study of this phenomenon agree that climate change is predominantly man made.

 

 

No, because that is not true.

 

Climate change is and always has been happening.

 

We are not causing it, and as the Forbes article points out the change has only been .8 degrees over the past 150 years, even if we were causing that(which we are not) that is nothing to be alarmed about.

[birdog1960]

 

 

No, because that is not true.

 

Climate change is and always has been happening.

 

We are not causing it, and as the Forbes article points out the change has only been .8 degrees over the past 150 years, even if we were causing that(which we are not) that is nothing to be alarmed about.

do you have a reference that says it's untrue. cuz the one you linked doesn't say that.

[Gary M]

do you have a reference that says it's untrue. cuz the one you linked doesn't say that.

 

Yes it does.

 

"Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming."

 

snip

 

"This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

 

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” "

[DC Tom]

 

Yes it does.

 

"Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming."

 

snip

 

"This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

 

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” "

 

 

But "97%" is settled science, so skepticism isn't allowed.

 

The above is why I'm such a pedantic supercilious anal orifice about precision in the discussion. "97% of scientists" actually turns out to be "97% of research papers, surveyed by one guy, according to his own definition of 'endorse'?" Don't know if it's true or not, as I haven't read Cooks' paper...but it's the lousy sort of approximation that the public portrayal of the science is rife with.

 

Another example: "Carbon dioxide causes global warming." Well, yeah...sort of. In truth the magnitude of the warming it causes directly is relatively moderate; water vapor's a more significant greenhouse gas. But the warming cause by CO2 can potentially increase the water vapor in the atmosphere, creating a positive feedback loop that warms the planet well beyond what CO2 would do alone. On the other hand, more water vapor means more clouds, means more reflection of radiation, means the cooling effect of a negative feedback loop. So there's a massive secondary effect of CO2 on the atmosphere...but no one can agree on the direction or magnitude of that effect, as it's so complex.

 

Good thing we don't need to research it, since there's a "consensus" and "the science is settled."

[Tiberius]

 

 

But "97%" is settled science, so skepticism isn't allowed.

 

The above is why I'm such a pedantic supercilious anal orifice about precision in the discussion. "97% of scientists" actually turns out to be "97% of research papers, surveyed by one guy, according to his own definition of 'endorse'?" Don't know if it's true or not, as I haven't read Cooks' paper...but it's the lousy sort of approximation that the public portrayal of the science is rife with.

 

Another example: "Carbon dioxide causes global warming." Well, yeah...sort of. In truth the magnitude of the warming it causes directly is relatively moderate; water vapor's a more significant greenhouse gas. But the warming cause by CO2 can potentially increase the water vapor in the atmosphere, creating a positive feedback loop that warms the planet well beyond what CO2 would do alone. On the other hand, more water vapor means more clouds, means more reflection of radiation, means the cooling effect of a negative feedback loop. So there's a massive secondary effect of CO2 on the atmosphere...but no one can agree on the direction or magnitude of that effect, as it's so complex.

 

Good thing we don't need to research it, since there's a "consensus" and "the science is settled."

No, you are being an anal orifice. I'm pretty sure you didn't apply this much scrutiny to the Saddam had WMD

[DC Tom]

No, you are being an anal orifice. I'm pretty sure you didn't apply this much scrutiny to the Saddam had WMD

 

Yeah, actually I did, you idiot. And if you'll recall, I was against invading Iraq.

[Deranged Rhino]

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VLmuDy6PP8h

[meazza]

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VLmuDy6PP8h

 

Could've fooled me.

[DC Tom]

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VLmuDy6PP8h

 

They're measuring a delta of hundredths of a degree Centigrade against an estimated average two orders of magnitude less precise.

 

I called "bull ****" on that sort of nonsense when it was my own research.

[birdog1960]

 

They're measuring a delta of hundredths of a degree Centigrade against an estimated average two orders of magnitude less precise.

 

I called "bull ****" on that sort of nonsense when it was my own research.

oops, there it is…sour grapes. not in with the cool kids, huh tom?

[DC Tom]

oops, there it is…sour grapes. not in with the cool kids, huh tom?

 

Your signature is extremely ironic.

[Tiberius]

Plus, the sampling is biased by the relative difficulty of getting a paper published that presents evidence against AGW.

 

Plus...it doesn't matter. Consensus is irrelevant. All the consensus in the world won't stand against one solid, provable fact.

Plus, any idiot can yammering on about what isn't so, but when the guys that do science mostly agree most reasonable people are going to listen. Of course 100% of institutions won't agree, the oil companies will buy up a few scientists like the tobacco companies did. Heck, I proved that one of the scientists B-Man was linking to had in fact been a smoking-cancer denier.

 

Fact is, most of those denying climate change are doing it for political/lobbying/industry interest reasons and the conspiracy charges against the scientists that believe is stupid.

[Azalin]

 

They're measuring a delta of hundredths of a degree Centigrade against an estimated average two orders of magnitude less precise.

 

I called "bull ****" on that sort of nonsense when it was my own research.

What I'd like to know is how NASA and NOAA, founded in 1958 and 1970 respectively, can cite with any accuracy the specific global climate conditions as far back as 1880, as referenced in Greg's linked article. That's one of the main reasons for skepticism on my part - hypothetical points of reference for their measurements. Another is, as I have already alluded to, the fact that Earth has experienced a number of ice ages, each with a significant warming period between them, and it all happened without humanity dumping carbon dioxide into the air. How do we know that the cycle of ice ages has stopped? It's only been somewhere between 11 & 12 thousand years since the last one, and they are estimated to have begun as long as 2 1/2 million years ago. Why do people automatically assume that another one isn't coming in the future - that any warming trend occurring now isn't just another in a series of climatic cycles?

[Gary M]

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VLmuDy6PP8h

 

This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet

 

No ****, since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago.

 

Still no proof it's man made or that carbon credits will do anything more than pay Al Gores outrageous electric bills.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888

[Wacka]

Plus, any idiot can yammering on about what isn't so, but when the guys that do science mostly agree most reasonable people are going to listen. Of course 100% of institutions won't agree, the oil companies will buy up a few scientists like the tobacco companies did. Heck, I proved that one of the scientists B-Man was linking to had in fact been a smoking-cancer denier.

 

Fact is, most of those denying climate change are doing it for political/lobbying/industry interest reasons and the conspiracy charges against the scientists that believe is stupid.

Gatorman, putting bottle rockets up the butts of frogs is not science.

[Greg F]

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VLmuDy6PP8h

 

I have a hard time accepting the continuous data massaging to cool the historical past.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/policy-based-evidence-tampering-at-nasa/

 

[Tiberius]

This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet

 

No ****, since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago.

 

Still no proof it's man made or that carbon credits will do anything more than pay Al Gores outrageous electric bills.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888

Glad you brought that up. I'm a long term outside observer to this debate but never contributed much, but arguments like this against doing something are the weakest and most obviosly partisan. Is Al Gore a hypocrite? Sure. Does that undermine the science in any way? No, not at all. You don't like Al Gore, winner of the 2000 popular vote for president, so let's burn up the Planet.

Gatorman, putting bottle rockets up the butts of frogs is not science.

How about these guys? Are they relying on science or do you see something else at work?

 

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.pdf

[B-Man]

Ooops. NASA now “38% sure” 2014 was warmest year on record

 

The folks at NASA who declared the doomsday scenario have rather sheepishly admitted that under further scrutiny, they’re at least 38% sure it might have been true.

 

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted

they were only 38 per cent sure this was true…

 

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

 

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

 

Fake but sort of accurate except for the math part................even the (exact) choice of 38% is funny

 

 

.

Edited January 18, 2015 by B-Man

[Greg F]

How about these guys? Are they relying on science or do you see something else at work?

 

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.pdf

If they were relying on the science they wouldn't ignore the fact the that the climate models are crap.

 

It should also be pointed out that papers like the one you liked to from the AMS are not approved by the 14,000 members. In fact statements released by the AMS represent the views of ruling Console of the AMS as indicated by their bylaws.

http://ametsoc.org/policy/statementpolicy.pdf

 

Funding for climate science is for the most part government money. If there is no crisis the government funding dries up in very short order. People that worship government are completely oblivious to the effects money has on the science.

[Gary M]

Glad you brought that up. I'm a long term outside observer to this debate but never contributed much, but arguments like this against doing something are the weakest and most obviosly partisan. Is Al Gore a hypocrite? Sure. Does that undermine the science in any way? No, not at all. You don't like Al Gore, winner of the 2000 popular vote for president, so let's burn up the Planet.

How about these guys? Are they relying on science or do you see something else at work?

 

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.pdf

 

 

I am not arguing that we do nothing, pollution is bad for people. I recycle to a fault, fix stuff that most people throw out.

 

But I do not want to push civilization back a few centuries because the planet is warming a few hundredths of a degree.

[birdog1960]

 

Your signature is extremely ironic.

actually, it's either ironic or it isn't.

[Wacka]

Gatorman, you have no idea what the scientific method is. A model that does not reflect reflect what is happening is not scientific. Al Gore is a snake oil salesman.

[Gary M]

It's settled science.

 

[Tiberius]

If they were relying on the science they wouldn't ignore the fact the that the climate models are crap. It should also be pointed out that papers like the one you liked to from the AMS are not approved by the 14,000 members. In fact statements released by the AMS represent the views of ruling Console of the AMS as indicated by their bylaws. http://ametsoc.org/policy/statementpolicy.pdf Funding for climate science is for the most part government money. If there is no crisis the government funding dries up in very short order. People that worship government are completely oblivious to the effects money has on the science.

So it's a conspiracy by the board to get money from the government while ignoring the members of the organization? That sounds right out of the John Birch society tin foil hat play book. They worship government so they create a crisis? You sound like a nut bag

Fake but sort of accurate except for the math part................even the (exact) choice of 38% is funny

 

 

.

Oh boy! Love this rabbit hole journey. Go to a web site that links to another that describes what NASA said and it not nearly as bad as the original link states. Ok, 2010, 2005 or 2014 were the warmest, they are pretty sure. Whatever!

[Greg F]

So it's a conspiracy by the board to get money from the government while ignoring the members of the organization?

Gatorman's team blue religion doesn't allow him to see how government money creates perverse incentives while at the same time those same perverse incentives are perfectly clear to him when the money comes from a private company. As I said before, People that worship government are completely oblivious to the effects money has on the science.

 

The fact that the majority of the Council of the AMS are either employed by the government or a university seems to have escaped gatorman's notice. It doesn't appear gatorman noticed that the majority of the Council members rely on taxpayers money for their financial well being. That the members of the Council individually act in their own self interest, and they all share the same self interest (extracting money from the taxpayers), does not constitute a conspiracy.

 

Virtually every large organization is hierarchical and the AMS is no different. In a hierarchy the people at the top hold the power and have no incentive to share that power with the people underneath them. They will be especially reluctant to include those under them if they perceive their self interest would be threatened. At the same time it is not uncommon for the top of a hierarchy to use the people below them to give the appearance of support from a much larger group than actually exists.

 

Gatorman completely misses the point that the AMS document he links to constitutes the views of maybe 30 out of 14,000 members. That the broader membership isn't allowed a say in what is released doesn't appear to bother gatorman as long as the document supports his ignorant world view.

 

Finally. Gatorman is not at all interested in the fact the climate models are crap. He is so intellectually dishonest his response to me completely ignores discrepancy between the models and reality I posted. That reality pretty much destroys the AMS document which gatorman treats as some type of holy scripture.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Greg F

[birdog1960]

Gatorman's team blue religion doesn't allow him to see how government money creates perverse incentives while at the same time those same perverse incentives are perfectly clear to him when the money comes from a private company. As I said before, People that worship government are completely oblivious to the effects money has on the science.

 

The fact that the majority of the Council of the AMS are either employed by the government or a university seems to have escaped gatorman's notice. It doesn't appear gatorman noticed that the majority of the Council members rely on taxpayers money for their financial well being. That the members of the Council individually act in their own self interest, and they all share the same self interest (extracting money from the taxpayers), does not constitute a conspiracy.

 

Virtually every large organization is hierarchical and the AMS is no different. In a hierarchy the people at the top hold the power and have no incentive to share that power with the people underneath them. They will be especially reluctant to include those under them if they perceive their self interest would be threatened. At the same time it is not uncommon for the top of a hierarchy to use the people below them to give the appearance of support from a much larger group than actually exists.

 

Gatorman completely misses the point that the AMS document he links to constitutes the views of maybe 30 out of 14,000 members. That the broader membership isn't allowed a say in what is released doesn't appear to bother gatorman as long as the document supports his ignorant world view.

 

Finally. Gatorman is not at all interested in the fact the climate models are crap. He is so intellectually dishonest his response to me completely ignores discrepancy between the models and reality I posted. That reality pretty much destroys the AMS document which gatorman treats as some type of holy scripture.

or perhaps the majority of organizational members are convinced of the high likelihood of future calamity and are trying their best to change its course.

 

your argument discounts the time, effort and innate intelligence required to obtain and maintain a doctoral position at a highly regarded institution like NASA. these individuals had years to decide if what they were studying was legitimate. most all of them have the skills and drive necessary to change career path then or even now. why would they choose to make their life's work about lies?

 

your argument also discounts the intense competitiveness often found in the sciences. destroying a competitors thesis and elevating your own is a frequent ambition. a weak spot can and will be attacked.

Edited January 20, 2015 by birdog1960

[Azalin]

a weak spot can and will be attacked.

Unless it goes against 'the consensus'.

[DC Tom]

Unless it goes against 'the consensus'.

 

[birdog1960]

Unless it goes against 'the consensus'.

so why don't you attack a werak spot in my argument? the consensus here is defintely one of denial.

[/dev/null]

so why don't you attack a werak spot in my argument? the consensus here is defintely one of denial.

 

[Azalin]

so why don't you attack a werak spot in my argument? the consensus here is defintely one of denial.

 

I did.

 

And I would add that the consensus here is not one of denial, but one of skepticism.

 

If I was a NASA scientist assigned to work on a project attempting to prove that GW was a direct result of human activity, I would be inclined to dismiss contrary data since I might wind up putting myself out of a job. GW deniers may well have similar biases. And as I've already mentioned, climate science in still pretty much in its infancy, and uses hard data gathered now and compares it against a questionable baseline of presumed data from many years ago.

[Tiberius]

or perhaps the majority of organizational members are convinced of the high likelihood of future calamity and are trying their best to change its course.

 

your argument discounts the time, effort and innate intelligence required to obtain and maintain a doctoral position at a highly regarded institution like NASA. these individuals had years to decide if what they were studying was legitimate. most all of them have the skills and drive necessary to change career path then or even now. why would they choose to make their life's work about lies?

 

your argument also discounts the intense competitiveness often found in the sciences. destroying a competitors thesis and elevating your own is a frequent ambition. a weak spot can and will be attacked.

Ya but...they worship government

[birdog1960]

 

I did.

 

And I would add that the consensus here is not one of denial, but one of skepticism.

 

If I was a NASA scientist assigned to work on a project attempting to prove that GW was a direct result of human activity, I would be inclined to dismiss contrary data since I might wind up putting myself out of a job. GW deniers may well have similar biases. And as I've already mentioned, climate science in still pretty much in its infancy, and uses hard data gathered now and compares it against a questionable baseline of presumed data from many years ago.

so your argument against the fact that many very talented people either have not realized that they have devoted their working life to a lie, have realized it and decided to continue the lie or just don't care is that they are invariably pummeled into submission by the consensus. and their disincentive to bring down a faulty thesis and replace it with a better one of their own is that they feel threatened by the consensus or loss of employment.

 

try again. many of the people you are dismissing are rare intellects that have plenty of alternative opportunities.

Edited January 20, 2015 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

so your argument against the fact that many very talented people either have not realized that they have devoted their working life to a lie, have realized it and decided to continue the lie or just don't care is that they are invariably pummeled into submission by the consensus. and their disincentive to bring down a faulty thesis and replace it with a better one of their own is that they feel threatened by the consensus or loss of employment.

 

try again. many of the people you are dismissing are rare intellects that have plenty of alternative opportunities.

 

The supreme irony of the bolded being that that is PRECISELY what global warming activists do.