Climate change “skeptic” Anthony Watts tried to use YouTube’s copyright rules to suppress this video by Peter Sinclair.
Good luck with that.
UPDATE at 8/1/09 1:51:36 pm:
Anthony Watts replies.
1 |
Athens Runaway Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:30:56pm |
DeSmogBlog looks totally unbiased and agenda-free to me.
| 3 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:31:24pm |
Climate Change may well exist, but we need a better way to deal with it than cap-and-tax.
| 4 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:33:30pm |
re: #3 Dark_Falcon
Climate Change may well exist, but we need a better way to deal with it than cap-and-tax.
The best way to deal with it is get out the bathing suits. If it's mostly natural variation and not man-made, there's not much we can do anyway.
| 5 |
psyop Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:35:22pm |
Perhaps good to see the other side...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/on-climate-comedy-copyrights-and-cinematography/
| 6 |
Rich H Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:36:12pm |
Charles,
Did you at least visit Anthony's web site before posting this?
| 7 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:36:46pm |
re: #4 Unakite
The best way to deal with it is get out the bathing suits. If it's mostly natural variation and not man-made, there's not much we can do anyway.
The problem is that some of it looks to be man-made. Given that fact, the questions become: "How much is man-made?" and :What can be done about while not cutting off economic growth badly?:
| 8 |
Cato the Elder Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:37:03pm |
Global warming may well be real, and even anthropogenic. But what to do about it?
See my plan here.
| 10 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:37:39pm |
re: #6 Rich H
Charles,
Did you at least visit Anthony's web site before posting this?
I'm sure he did. Charles always does his research, unlike Dan Rather.
| 11 |
Ringo the Gringo Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:39:02pm |
Climate change “skeptic” Anthony Watts...
I never heard of Anthony Watts.
...thankfully.
| 13 |
Van Helsing Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:40:44pm |
So what is the ideal temperature for the earth?
| 14 |
Semper Gumbi Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:41:00pm |
And here is Mr. Watts response. In fact, he has already posted the alternate view of this video on his web site, long before Charles.Wattsupwiththat
I really think we should wait until Mr. Watts publishes his paper before trying to discredit his research.
| 15 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:42:10pm |
I believe Mr. Sinclair does his cause a bit of a disservice by throwing in that piece of WMD snark near the end.
I'm sure the Kurdish people wouldn't find it at all relevant to the topic of climate change.
| 16 |
Bloodnok Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:42:46pm |
Wow. I hadn't seen a comprehensive debunking of the "faulty weather station data" theory put quite so well before (with the science to back it up thanks to NOAA).
| 17 |
sngnsgt Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:45:08pm |
I'm a skeptic of all of the "global warming" hysteria.
I'm even more skeptical if it does in fact exist, anthing man does is going to do anything about it.
| 18 |
Racer X Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:45:34pm |
I getting so much confused.
Is AGW realz?
Is that really BAD?
What can we do about it?
Will that really work?
What about China, India, and other developing countries?
| 19 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:45:36pm |
re: #7 Dark_Falcon
The problem is that some of it looks to be man-made. Given that fact, the questions become: "How much is man-made?" and :What can be done about while not cutting off economic growth badly?:
You're right. The problem is, they're trying to push the solution (cap-and-tax) without defining or understanding the problem (as you said, how much is man-made).
| 21 |
Van Helsing Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:45:45pm |
Those would be the same climate change models that can't predict current conditions based on historical input?
| 22 |
Cato the Elder Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:46:01pm |
Certainly Watts & Co. have their political agenda.
The problem is that the climate-change alarmists have their own political agendas too, ones that often have more to do with shutting down the modern world out of visceral antipathy for it than with "saving the planet", which I personally doubt we can do without eco-fascism and mass death. Hence my satire on the previous thread (linked above).
| 23 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:46:14pm |
re: #15 Slumbering Behemoth
I believe Mr. Sinclair does his cause a bit of a disservice by throwing in that piece of WMD snark near the end.
I'm sure the Kurdish people wouldn't find it at all relevant to the topic of climate change.
Yeah- could have done without that ending. Otherwise, a good smackdown.
Good to see you, too {Sleepy B}
| 24 |
red collar Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:46:24pm |
I just logged on to Youtube. 5 stars, favorited.
The truth will set us free, right?
| 26 |
Van Helsing Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:47:19pm |
I like that bit about deniers and their wealthy sponsors...
Like Al Gore has no fiscal interest in promoting AGW.
| 27 |
avanti Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:47:38pm |
re: #13 Van Helsing
So what is the ideal temperature for the earth?
For humans, it depends on where you are. Some areas may benefit with longer growing season in Canada for example, while some current farms will fail. Some areas will get more needed rain, others will suffer drought.
Some coastal areas will flood, others will be less effected. Some humans can adapt and move, others may not be able to.
| 28 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:48:06pm |
| 29 |
Shug Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:48:57pm |
My local weatherman calls for a 90% chance of rain while it's raining.
| 30 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:49:07pm |
re: #13 Van Helsing
So what is the ideal temperature for the earth?
Heh, I'm not sure the earth cares.
| 31 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:49:40pm |
re: #15 Slumbering Behemoth
I believe Mr. Sinclair does his cause a bit of a disservice by throwing in that piece of WMD snark near the end.
I'm sure the Kurdish people wouldn't find it at all relevant to the topic of climate change.
More specifically, a jab of that nature, completely unrelated to the information he is presenting, makes that much more difficult for Mr. Sinclair to deny being motivated by a political agenda.
| 32 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:49:47pm |
Wow, Climate change skeptics are quick on the draw tonight. They seem to have anticipated this thread.
| 33 |
Van Helsing Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:50:17pm |
Would it not be best to ensure that we can adapt to the changes using technology we have now (nuclear energy comes to mind - no carbon) rather than take the chance of seriously damaging the only economies that MAY be able to something (at some point) to affect the climate in a way what the AGW crowd would see as positive?
| 34 |
red collar Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:50:55pm |
re: #18 Racer X
What about China, India, and other developing countries?
What about Africa? Isn't the Kyoto accord racist, in a sense? It's preventing the whole continent of Africa from reaching the Industrial Age.
I'm against this Climate Change fad. I don't agree with how recycling is being handled. Creating jobs is NOT a good reason to recycle.
| 35 |
Van Helsing Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:51:27pm |
re: #32 Killgore Trout
Wow, Climate change skeptics are quick on the draw tonight. They seem to have anticipated this thread.
I'm not at all skeptical of climate change. I'm skeptical of the people trying to profit hugely off its 'cure'.
| 36 |
BlueCanuck Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:51:54pm |
My problem with all this climate change hoopla is the fear factors being thrown around by politicians, half baked theories and the MFM. I still can't forget the coming ice age that was predicted in the late 70's and the cold winters. What happens if things don't warm up. And what's wrong with a warmer world anyway? I would like that if it happened.
| 37 |
psyop Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:52:34pm |
re: #32 Killgore Trout
Wow, Climate change skeptics are quick on the draw tonight. They seem to have anticipated this thread.
As a trained counter-propagandist, I am skeptical of everything.
| 38 |
dentate Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:52:37pm |
Please look at this paper of, with maps of the Southeast Asian coast included:
[Link: www.fieldmuseum.org...]
Will the "Normal" coastline please stand up??
The key word in this debate is "anthropogenic," and the biggest problem is that there is no "normal" temperature or sea level. These things have varied enormously over just the past few thousand years. North America is nothing like it was when the paleo Indians arrived 20,000 years ago, and that has NOTHING to do with CO2 emissions. The idea that we should preserve a "natural" state, defined as what the world was like prior to European colonization or industrialization, flies in the face of documented reality. It cannot be done.
OF COURSE CLIMATE IS CHANGING! It always has and always will. Maybe man is contributing now, but SO WHAT? It is going to change with or without human contribution.
How about spending all that money figuring out how to RESPOND to the inevitable? There are a few hundred million people in areas which may be underwater in coming centuries. There are deserts which will be fertile as the result of changed rain patterns. This will all happen even if every car and factory shuts down today.
| 39 |
avanti Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:52:38pm |
re: #33 Van Helsing
Would it not be best to ensure that we can adapt to the changes using technology we have now (nuclear energy comes to mind - no carbon) rather than take the chance of seriously damaging the only economies that MAY be able to something (at some point) to affect the climate in a way what the AGW crowd would see as positive?
I agree, and am pro nuke.
| 41 |
jaunte Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:53:13pm |
Climate Change blog makes an interesting point about the China/US balance of power here. the subject is North Korea, but the same balance applies to other issues.
In 2008, all but $29.2 billion of China's overall trade surplus of $295.5 billion related to sales to the United States. In 2007, all but $5.9 billion of the overall surplus of $262.2 billion was attributable to sales to America. The United States relies on Beijing to buy American debt, but the Chinese export machine cannot function if China does not buy our obligations. If Beijing does not do so, it will further constrain the American economy. If Beijing further constrains the American economy, Americans will be able to buy even fewer Chinese goods than they are at the moment. If Americans buy fewer Chinese goods, the Chinese economy will fall even faster than it is doing so now. And if the Chinese economy declines any faster, the country's political system will face increased tensions and difficulties.
So the White House has leverage, especially because the balance of power in Asia has shifted decisively toward the United States.[Link: climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com...]
| 42 |
Shug Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:53:20pm |
I became a skeptic of climate change when they stopped calling it Global Warming
| 43 |
Van Helsing Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:54:10pm |
re: #38 dentate
I regret that I have but one upding to give.
| 44 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:54:22pm |
re: #36 BlueCanuck
And what's wrong with a warmer world anyway?
It hasn't dropped below 103 in my area for 10-15 days, and it even got up to 112 on one day. I don't want it any warmer here. Wanna trade places?
| 45 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:54:39pm |
Lots of activity from the referrers page. Almost as good as mentioning Ron Paul.
| 46 |
VioletTiger Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:55:53pm |
re: #21 Van Helsing
Those would be the same climate change models that can't predict current conditions based on historical input?
They also don't predict known historical events/changes.
The debate should continue. I object to any suppression of ideas or data from both sides.
| 47 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:56:16pm |
re: #22 Cato the Elder
Certainly Watts & Co. have their political agenda.
The problem is that the climate-change alarmists have their own political agendas too, ones that often have more to do with shutting down the modern world out of visceral antipathy for it than with "saving the planet", which I personally doubt we can do without eco-fascism and mass death. Hence my satire on the previous thread (linked above).
Just so, Cato. Upding. What is needed is sanity and compromise, but that we will not get. The extreme Left's fanaticism has provoked a 'not researched here' reaction on the Right which cause many on the right to reject the idea of man-made global warming entirely.
Stated Simply: Global Warming is now (and has long been) an issue in the Culture War, which makes most forms of compromise impossible. There is no immediate solution to this political problem, as the mistrust feeding said war runs very deep.
| 48 |
red collar Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:56:48pm |
re: #35 Van Helsing
I'm not at all skeptical of climate change. I'm skeptical of the people trying to profit hugely off its 'cure'.
Exactly. Dr. Timothy Ball knows more than I do on climate change and he agees that we are in a temperature hike.
HOWEVER, creating jobs and feeling good about recycling is NOT a reason to jump on the Climate Change bandwagon.
Why are plastic bags and paper bags charged 5 cents at the grocery store in Quebec, Canada? Why are they charged 25 cents in California?
To SAVE THE PLANET?! Of course not.
I reject Al Gore and David Suzuki for pushing us all towards Carbon Taxes which would put Billions of Dollars in their pockets while ignoring the very planet they're hoping to save.
You can't save this planet with taxes. It's fraudulent.
| 49 |
jaunte Fri, Jul 31, 2009 8:59:35pm |
"Much of what the unconstrained vision sees as morally imperative to do, the constrained vision sees man as incapable of doing."
-- Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions, pg. 220.
| 50 |
Idle Drifter Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:00:22pm |
I've got the perfect solution to the weather conundrum that is climate change. Have all the Global Warming Deniers and Eco-Fascists with camp followers square off on an open field and then go Brave Heart on each other until there is a clear winner. Snipers and artillery then take out all survivors from both camps sending a clear message not to mix science with politics and religion. The rest of the world continues to advance technology adapting to the various changes of climate and weather systems until we learn to create self-sustainable, artificial environments in space. Thus opening a new chapter in human history and exploration.
| 51 |
Racer X Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:00:34pm |
5 years. Thats all we got before the entire North polar ice cap melts.
I'm going to invest in swimsuit companies.
| 52 |
Van Helsing Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:00:40pm |
re: #49 jaunte
"Much of what the unconstrained vision sees as morally imperative to do, the constrained vision sees man as incapable of doing."
-- Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions, pg. 220.
Thomas Sowell is a brilliant man.
| 53 |
avanti Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:00:52pm |
re: #42 Shug
I became a skeptic of climate change when they stopped calling it Global Warming
That was a decision made because climate change is more accurate. Warming effects the climate in more complex ways that just a temperature increase globally.
It can even cause some areas to cool by effecting ocean currents for example.
| 54 |
Van Helsing Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:01:36pm |
re: #50 Idle Drifter
I like it! Can I bring my own hardware?
| 55 |
jaunte Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:01:41pm |
re: #51 Racer X
Does that mean I won't have to pay off my (50 feet above sea level) mortgage?
| 56 |
Rich H Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:01:58pm |
re: #42 Shug
I became a skeptic of climate change when they stopped calling it Global Warming
That should raise a red flag with anyone familiar with the evolution/creationism debate.
Climate change, like creationism, is non-falsifiable.
| 57 |
solomonpanting Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:02:36pm |
re: #3 Dark_Falcon
Climate Change may well exist, but we need a better way to deal with it than cap-and-tax.
Cap-and-tax is a cereal killer of the economy.
Cap-and-crunch.
| 58 |
Racer X Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:02:55pm |
Mother nature will fuck you up. Every time man has gone up against her, man has lost.
| 59 |
Shug Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:03:53pm |
re: #53 avanti
That was a decision made because climate change is more accurate. Warming effects the climate in more complex ways that just a temperature increase globally.
It can even cause some areas to cool by effecting ocean currents for example.
bullshit.
their mantra was that we were going to all boil in ___ years. I
when that didn't happen, they switched their slogan to keep raking in the Green .
| 60 |
red collar Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:04:01pm |
re: #56 Rich H
That should raise a red flag with anyone familiar with the evolution/creationism debate.
Climate change, like creationism, is non-falsifiable.
Climate Change sounds like the lowest common denominator. Where can they go from there?
Renaming things doesn't improve the product. Where did the Acid Rain go?
| 62 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:04:23pm |
One of the things that really altered my thinking on this issue as of late was reading The Link.
One of the aspects they discuss at length was the climate of the earth back in Ida's day. Quite a radical departure from today. And yes, the earth was warmer, but they were for matura reasons. India hadn't created the Himalayas yet. Now the earth is warming again for other reasons, and we play a factor in that.
I think the reason folks want to deny AGW is because we want to reject the solutions being offered. That's not logical, however. The science is there- if we support science we support the science. This doesn't mean we have to accept their solution, but we do need to accept the trust and propose our own.
Good news department is my friend has made a successful deal for green energy that will benefit his community. I support this 100% as the land owners and region will all benefit. We can be green and conservative.
| 63 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:05:07pm |
Hey Night Lizards! It was another pleasant July day in Near Iowa tonite. After tonite, I won't be able to say that anymore.
Alien or Aardvark? teehee
How are you-all and what are we talking about?
| 65 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:05:15pm |
re: #57 solomonpanting
Cap-and-tax is a cereal killer of the economy.
Cap-and-crunch.
They're trying to get us with their Trix.
| 67 |
avanti Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:06:01pm |
re: #59 Shug
bullshit.
their mantra was that we were going to all boil in ___ years. Iwhen that didn't happen, they switched their slogan to keep raking in the Green .
I don't recall hearing we'd boil, just that global temps would continue to rise with CO2 levels.
| 68 |
Van Helsing Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:06:51pm |
re: #62 Sharmuta
No problem with being green. I have a HUGE problem with the proposed cap and trade scams.
It will raise everyone's cost of energy and provide a benefit only to the government and those private entities involve in the exchange of - what, exactly?
Zero benefit to the climate.
| 69 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:07:34pm |
re: #65 Unakite
They're trying to get us with their Trix.
They're trying, but they're still just coo-coo for Coco-Puffs.
| 70 |
Van Helsing Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:08:10pm |
re: #69 Dark_Falcon
They're trying, but they're still just coo-coo for Coco-Puffs.
Well, cheerio. Off to bed.
| 71 |
BlueCanuck Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:08:19pm |
re: #44 Slumbering Behemoth
It hasn't dropped below 103 in my area for 10-15 days, and it even got up to 112 on one day. I don't want it any warmer here. Wanna trade places?
Sure, we have been cooler then normal this summer. Has only been above normal (27°C) three or four times total all summer. Most of the time it's been two or more degrees below that. Here's the records.
| 72 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:08:25pm |
re: #68 Van Helsing
I just said I understood we want to reject their solutions. I think we need to propose our own ideas, but we can't do that if we're denying the science.
| 73 |
jaunte Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:11:03pm |
re: #72 Sharmuta
There is definitely data to support the temperature trend, but is there evidence that we could change the trend in any significant way?
| 74 |
solomonpanting Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:11:28pm |
"Everyone talks about the weather but no one does anything about it."
We finally have folks who want to do something and what do we get?
A bunch of pissin' and moanin'...
...
...
Ok ok ok ok ok...
| 75 |
Van Helsing Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:11:41pm |
re: #72 Sharmuta
I still have not seen a compelling argument for the anthropogenic side of climate change.
I haven't seen the medieval warm period or the little ice age explained. Those were huge changes compared to what the AGW crowd are in an uproar about.
What caused those interesting blips?
| 76 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:12:02pm |
I still don't understand why "climate change" isn't a good thing. I think it would be very, very bad if the climate didn't change.
The sun heats the earth, clouds move, the earth rotates, earth cools a bit - . . .isn't all that suppossed to create climate change?
| 77 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:13:20pm |
Also: Nice use of Glenn Beck in the video. If you want to paint someone as crazy or something as stupid all you have to do is find a Glenn Beck clip. Conservatives and Republicans need to stop thinking of Obama and the left as the enemy. Fox News has done far more to damage conservatism in the past six months than Obama will do in 8 years. Seriously.
P.S. There's absolutely no reason that global warming skepticism needs to be a conservative value. Same with creationism. They have absolutely nothing to do with conservatism as a philosophy.
| 78 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:13:27pm |
I give, what does "AGW" mean?
| 79 |
Racer X Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:14:28pm |
| 80 |
Bloodnok Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:14:40pm |
I think the video scores a direct hit. It's not going to end the debate (and I don't think it claims to) but it takes a major weapon out of the anti-AGW arsenal; that of the weather station data being compromised by bad placement of sensors.
While the narration may be partisan and while we all may have opinions about current measures being suggested and in some cases foisted upon us, the chart at 5:16 has no agenda behind it. It is straight science. That is what I am taking away from this video.
| 81 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:14:40pm |
re: #77 Killgore Trout
. Fox News has done far more to damage conservatism in the past six months than Obama will do in 8 years. Seriously.
On that point I agree. The other night (maybe last night) there was some 'ghost hunter' segment on Hannity. WTF?
| 82 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:15:07pm |
From the referrers list: Latest Fringe Conservative Theory on Obama: He's the Antichrist. No, Really
They link to a video at the bottom. I only made it half way through...
| 83 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:15:56pm |
re: #73 jaunte
There is definitely data to support the temperature trend, but is there evidence that we could change the trend in any significant way?
It's an evolutionary pressure. We're going to have to adapt. We are evolved to be the most intelligent life on this planet, and we're good problem solvers. I trust we'll figure something out. I'd just like to see it done in such a way as to not be unfair or punitive to our society.
| 84 |
Noam Sayin' Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:16:15pm |
re: #72 Sharmuta
Personally, I think the science is too fucked up politically to maintain my trust. The scientists need to go to the woodshed, and not come out until they have a real f*cking answer. Nobody talks much about the Medieval Warm Period, or how its causes either closely approximate or closely contrast current trends. We have too much CO2 in the atmosphere? I admit it sounds troubling, but why haven't they researched why flora have or haven't taken advantage of this situation? Seems to me I remember a push to plant trees in your yard to help draw CO2 out of the air.
Now I gotta go dig up all my old links on AGW. Thanks for the new ones, folks.
| 85 |
freetoken Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:16:24pm |
Good luck with that.
Much can be said with few words.
| 86 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:16:39pm |
re: #77 Killgore Trout
Also: Nice use of Glenn Beck in the video. If you want to paint someone as crazy or something as stupid all you have to do is find a Glenn Beck clip. Conservatives and Republicans need to stop thinking of Obama and the left as the enemy. Fox News has done far more to damage conservatism in the past six months than Obama will do in 8 years. Seriously.
P.S. There's absolutely no reason that global warming skepticism needs to be a conservative value. Same with creationism. They have absolutely nothing to do with conservatism as a philosophy.
One million up dings.
| 87 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:17:01pm |
re: #84 Noam Sayin'
Personally, I think the science is too fucked up politically to maintain my trust. The scientists need to go to the woodshed, and not come out until they have a real f*cking answer. Nobody talks much about the Medieval Warm Period, or how its causes either closely approximate or closely contrast current trends. We have too much CO2 in the atmosphere? I admit it sounds troubling, but why haven't they researched why flora have or haven't taken advantage of this situation? Seems to me I remember a push to plant trees in your yard to help draw CO2 out of the air.
Now I gotta go dig up all my old links on AGW. Thanks for the new ones, folks.
I agree with you. If we could get the politics out of this, and reduce it to hard science, that would be a major step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, I can't see that happening.
| 88 |
Desert Dog Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:17:38pm |
"...climate skeptics and their wealthy financiers..." Evil Tabacco companies!
I guess NOAA and the IPCC have no political agenda? They are pure as the driven snow and only interested the truth? My problem with the New Coming Ice Age aka Global Warming aka Climate Change crowd is the almost universal knee-jerk reaction to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Western Countries, especially the USA. And, the best sure way to "solve it" is to tax the living crap out of the USA so they will stop spewing forth all of that nastiness.
Does the climate change? Of course it does. It gets hotter and it gets cooler. Does man have a part in it? I would say yes to that as well.
The question is what do you we about it. Based on the Holy Scriptures of the "Climate Changers", if humans would just stop with all the CO2 and carbon emissions, the world would quickly return to it's natural state. And the BEST way to do that is with a gigantic negative reinforcement campaign that taxes the richer countries, lets' the developing (and worse) polluters like India and China off the hook, and tells the people living in mud huts that they do not need all that nasty electricity and power 'cause it's bad for Mother Earth, don't ya know?
The big fireball in the sky has more control over the climate of the earth than man does. The Oceans have more effect on the planet than man does. Should we tax the sun? Tax the ocean?
Let's get ALL POLITICS out of this and learn from it. One side thinks is not true, the other side exaggerates the shit out of it so they can institute controls over the people. Both are fucked up. Let's make new technologies that are cleaner, let's use our knowledge to improve the world.
| 89 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:17:39pm |
No comment on the baby aardvark?
I thought it was cute. (in an alien sort of way)
| 90 |
avanti Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:17:43pm |
re: #75 Van Helsing
I still have not seen a compelling argument for the anthropogenic side of climate change.
I haven't seen the medieval warm period or the little ice age explained. Those were huge changes compared to what the AGW crowd are in an uproar about.
What caused those interesting blips?
Do a goggle search on both and you'll find both the medieval warm period and little ice age were local weather events and did not even show up very much on the global temps, i.e. global temps during the mini ice age was actually a bit higher.
| 91 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:18:01pm |
re: #77 Killgore Trout
Also: Nice use of Glenn Beck in the video. If you want to paint someone as crazy or something as stupid all you have to do is find a Glenn Beck clip. Conservatives and Republicans need to stop thinking of Obama and the left as the enemy. Fox News has done far more to damage conservatism in the past six months than Obama will do in 8 years. Seriously.
P.S. There's absolutely no reason that global warming skepticism needs to be a conservative value. Same with creationism. They have absolutely nothing to do with conservatism as a philosophy.
Some agreement with you Killgore, but fighting the Global Warming Alarmists requires our own science and theory people. As those are mostly of the GW Skeptic orientation, that is the position the GOP will gravitate to. Also, given the Culture War nature of the issue, we need to take a hard line. The left will not compromise and we do so at our peril.
| 92 |
Van Helsing Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:19:27pm |
re: #90 avanti
Do a goggle search on both and you'll find both the medieval warm period and little ice age were local weather events and did not even show up very much on the global temps, i.e. global temps during the mini ice age was actually a bit higher.
Fine. What caused them?
| 93 |
Racer X Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:19:39pm |
Its not about weather, or temperature. Its about power and control.
Follow the money.
| 94 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:19:55pm |
re: #90 avanti
Do a goggle search on both and you'll find both the medieval warm period and little ice age were local weather events and did not even show up very much on the global temps, i.e. global temps during the mini ice age was actually a bit higher.
...and use beer goggles! :)
| 95 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:20:28pm |
re: #81 ggt
On that point I agree. The other night (maybe last night) there was some 'ghost hunter' segment on Hannity. WTF?
Heh. I tried to watch tv again tonight with no luck. I scrolled through about 5-6 versions of CSI, 2 ghost/paranormal shows, The Food Network (aka the Cake Chanel) was showing mass produced sweets on a fucking assembly line, a 2-3 really bad movies from the early 90's. They aren't even trying to show entertaining shit. Not even attempting. I think I'm going to cancel my cable next month. It's fucking unwatchable. I spend more time watching shows online for free with minimal commercials anyways.
| 96 |
Desert Dog Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:20:46pm |
re: #93 Racer X
Its not about weather, or temperature. Its about power and control.
Follow the money.
That's the real debate...MONEY
| 97 |
freetoken Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:21:00pm |
re: #86 Sharmuta
One million up dings.
Agree... it is an artificial dichotomy to say that skepticism is "conservative" and belief is "liberal".
| 98 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:21:09pm |
all I know is what I've experienced.
In 1970 I was in 1st grade and we had the first Earth Day. We were told an ice age was coming and to stop using aerosol cans. To recycle, reuse and re-gift. Anything plastic was bad and everyone should have a compost pile.
Now-a mere 38 years later, the Earth is getting too hot and all kinds of species are dying and we are still being encouraged to recycle, reuse and re-gift.
I think an industry has been built up around the 'save the planet' meme and there is too much money at stake for sanity to abound. I have a hard time taking it seriously and I refuse to feel guilty for being human.
| 100 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:21:55pm |
re: #91 Dark_Falcon
Some agreement with you Killgore, but fighting the Global Warming Alarmists requires our own science and theory people. As those are mostly of the GW Skeptic orientation, that is the position the GOP will gravitate to. Also, given the Culture War nature of the issue, we need to take a hard line. The left will not compromise and we do so at our peril.
We don't need a climate change version of the discovery institute. (BTW the disco dewds are totally on board with denying AGW).
What we need is some proposals of our own. The science is science. Follow the scientific method, and refute it or support it, but don't deny it.
| 101 |
pat Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:22:12pm |
Watched the video this morning. It is sophomoric, wrong, and full of lies. An embarrassment.
| 102 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:22:21pm |
re: #93 Racer X
Its not about weather, or temperature. Its about power and control.
Follow the money.
Agreed.
| 103 |
Van Helsing Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:22:45pm |
re: #88 Desert Dog
There's politics AND money involved on both sides of the issue which makes it all the more subject to bullshit.
And just because 'scientists say' doesn't mean that much to me.
Scientists said there couldn't possibly be any kind of life in the ocean depths because of pressure, temperature, no oxygen, no nutrients, no - hey! Who's the sumbitch dropped that thermal vent out there! What a surprise...
| 104 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:23:07pm |
re: #97 freetoken
Agree... it is an artificial dichotomy to say that skepticism is "conservative" and belief is "liberal".
Just like with evolution. Darwinist are liberals! Nonsense.
| 105 |
wiffersnapper Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:23:32pm |
Global warming exists because the earth is doing it. It's not my fault.
| 107 |
Simple Voice Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:23:39pm |
I do not doubt the climate is changing.
The climate has always changed and it always will.
I have serious doubts about anthropogenic climate change.
I find it interesting that the moment earth stopped complying with global warming, the new moniker became climate change.
I guess I'm a traitor, eh'?
| 108 |
Racer X Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:23:43pm |
I love conserving things - energy, resources, whatever. I am not a wasteful person. I love the fact that the AGW craze will reduce our dependance on foreign oil (that is IF we ever grow some stones and drill here). AGW is also producing some really cool new products and technology. Love it.
But do not tell me I'm killing polar bears, or that AGW caused hurricane Katrina. I hate that.
| 109 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:23:51pm |
re: #91 Dark_Falcon
I'm a global warming skeptic too. I guess I forgot to mention that. My position is more from ignorance and indifference. I haven't bothered to sort out the issue because it's complicated and my carbon footprint couldn't possibly get any lower without moving into a cave and eating only raw food that I find on the side of the highway. Environmentally I'm more concerned with pesticides, carcinogens, etc in the food and water supply.
| 111 |
Noam Sayin' Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:24:07pm |
re: #95 Killgore Trout
History Channel tried to pass off an "authentic" investigation of flying humanoids the other night.
Next up, "Pawn Stars."
Wish I were kidding, but it's actually an interesting show. Plus, they start off on the dysfunction of the family, so there's no surprises.
| 112 |
VioletTiger Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:24:35pm |
I think this is a very rational essay by a AGW skeptic.
From the article:
After ignoring the past, some analysts then use computer projections to predict temperatures for the next 100 years or more. It is astounding to see people put so much faith in these man-made computer models, yet ignore the actual facts of the past. As someone who has made a living at pointing out the folly of worshipping the false idol of atmospheric models, I find these projections to be a classic case of being blinded by the lure of the latest technological fad. Perhaps this is the most telling difference between those who are accepting of the "global warming hypothesis" and those of us who are skeptical. The former tend to base their conclusions on the guesses of computer models. We skeptics focus on actual climate history and conclude that nothing out of the ordinary is occurring
| 113 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:24:43pm |
re: #100 Sharmuta
We don't need a climate change version of the discovery institute. (BTW the disco dewds are totally on board with denying AGW).
What we need is some proposals of our own. The science is science. Follow the scientific method, and refute it or support it, but don't deny it.
I'm fine with proposals, i just want to make sure we reject the alarmists and their command-and-control scheme. Its OK to be skeptical, but you are that the skepticism neeeds to conform its self to the science.
| 114 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:25:16pm |
re: #111 Noam Sayin'
I'm about to go Elvis on my TV.
| 115 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:25:35pm |
re: #113 Dark_Falcon
I'm fine with proposals, i just want to make sure we reject the alarmists and their command-and-control scheme. Its OK to be skeptical, but you are that the skepticism neeeds to conform its self to the science.
No- the skepticism is misplaced. It's not the science, it's the solutions to which we should be skeptical.
| 116 |
freetoken Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:25:53pm |
BTW, a great deal of what goes by the name of "skepticism" wrt AGW is really cynicism:
cyn⋅i⋅cal [sin-i-kuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. like or characteristic of a cynic; distrusting or disparaging the motives of others.
2. showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one's actions, esp. by actions that exploit the scruples of others.
3. bitterly or sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous, or pessimistic.
| 117 |
dentate Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:26:04pm |
Let us suppose that anthropogenic global warming is documented, real, and proven.
Why is it "bad?" Bad is a moral judgment. Why pass a moral judgment on a climate fluctuation. No one can deny the enormous changes that have occurred in Earth's climate through its history. There were rapid climate changes between the glacial and interglacial periods of the Pleistocene. Was the melting of continental glaciers "bad?" Was it due to human CO2 emissions?
Should we ban all future volcanic eruptions and sunspot cycles?
Or should we figure out how to use the open NorthWest Passage, and areas where agriculture will now be more productive?
I am not saying that we need to engage in free-for-all pollution of the environment with reckless abandon; I am suggesting that the decision that the earth, a few degrees warmer than it is today, is "bad" because it is different from the earth in the year 1800, is nonsensical.
| 118 |
Sommerfeld Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:26:09pm |
re: #78 ggt
I give, what does "AGW" mean?
Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming.
BTW, among the anti-alarmists, McIntyre (of climateaudit.org) appears to be doing actual science -- in particular, he's trying to replicate the statistical models to see how much of the model output is a result of actual signal in the data and how much is due to data-mining and statistical artifacts. Many climate researchers have responded to his efforts by refusing to share their code and data.
| 119 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:26:13pm |
re: #35 Van Helsing
I'm not at all skeptical of climate change. I'm skeptical of the people trying to profit hugely off its 'cure'.
Indeed. Global climate does change, we have the evidence of a waxing and waning Ice Age to prove that.
The extent that human industry affects climate change as some have asserted, and the solutions currently proposed, does deserve some honest skepticism IMO.
| 120 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:26:34pm |
re: #101 pat
Watched the video this morning. It is sophomoric, wrong, and full of lies.
Which lies in particular?
| 121 |
Noam Sayin' Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:26:55pm |
| 122 |
BlueCanuck Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:27:43pm |
re: #109 Killgore Trout
Bingo, I don't drive a car. I walk as much as I can. I did one of those carbon footprint surveys and I still ended up with a high one. Just by existing and using what was around me. It also sucks because I need heat in the winter. Wouldn't survive without it. It seems the people touting and screaming about AGW want to restrict my life style even further. Fat chance of that happening.
| 123 |
jaunte Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:27:49pm |
re: #121 Noam Sayin'
Now if you said 'modified', that would be more constrained.
| 124 |
laZardo Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:28:28pm |
My solution in the fight against climate change:
Buy up close-to-coastal properties, use potential flooding maps to determine which areas are least likely to end up flooded, say, by 2050. When the shit hits the windmill, I'll own a shitload of prime coastal realty!
I'LL BE RICH!
/ q;
| 125 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:29:44pm |
PS- I've been a skeptic until this video. While recent reading has been causing me to re-evaluate my position, this seals the deal. I'm convinced after this the deniers are every bit as much of liars for their cause as creationists are in lying for Jesus.
| 126 |
jaunte Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:29:51pm |
re: #124 laZardo
Mind the bulge:
Rather than spreading out evenly across all the oceans, water from melted Antarctic ice sheets will gather around North America and the Indian Ocean. That's bad news for the US East Coast, which could bear the brunt of one of these oceanic bulges.[Link: www.newscientist.com...]
| 127 |
Noam Sayin' Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:30:35pm |
re: #123 jaunte
Now if you said 'modified', that would be more constrained.
But, "leaping to a modified" is a nonsensical sentence structure.
Que?
| 128 |
dapperdave Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:30:44pm |
I'm still laughing over that "Satan is Barak 'O' Bamaw thread.
I can't believe how desperate some people are.
| 129 |
pat Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:30:50pm |
re: #117 dentate
Only a fool would argue against the expansion of the temperate zone. Warming is good, cold kills. Biomass in the temperate zone increased 25% during the global temp build up between 1979 and 1998. And the tropics has a similar run up according to a recent German study. Hmmm.
| 130 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:30:51pm |
re: #113 Dark_Falcon
I'm fine with proposals, I just want to make sure we reject the alarmists and their command-and-control scheme. Its OK to be skeptical, but you are correct that the skepticism needs to conform its self to the science.
PIMF
| 131 |
laZardo Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:30:58pm |
re: #126 jaunte
So the flooding of major Eastern Seaboard cities wasn't just a movie coincidence!?
/ D8
// q:
| 132 |
Noam Sayin' Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:31:13pm |
re: #127 Noam Sayin'
But, "leaping to a modified" is a nonsensical sentence structure.
Que?
Oh. Get it, now.
I/O 'fixed'
| 133 |
jaunte Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:32:08pm |
re: #127 Noam Sayin'
'Modified' vs. 'fixed', is an example of constrained vs. unconstrained.
| 134 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:32:11pm |
re: #128 dapperdave
I'm still laughing over that "Satan is Barak 'O' Bamaw thread.
I can't believe how desperate some people are.
They've let their fear of Obama and his policies overwhelm their good sense, by doing so have embraced Bad Craziness.
| 136 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:33:04pm |
re: #95 Killgore Trout
Heh. I tried to watch tv again tonight with no luck. I scrolled through about 5-6 versions of CSI, 2 ghost/paranormal shows, The Food Network (aka the Cake Chanel) was showing mass produced sweets on a fucking assembly line, a 2-3 really bad movies from the early 90's. They aren't even trying to show entertaining shit. Not even attempting. I think I'm going to cancel my cable next month. It's fucking unwatchable. I spend more time watching shows online for free with minimal commercials anyways.
If you cancel cable you won't have C-SPAN (although you can get it online). Most of what I watch is the 3 C-SPAN channels I get. Amazing stuff there.
| 137 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:33:08pm |
re: #133 jaunte
We need a better trade off, not a solution.
| 138 |
jaunte Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:33:43pm |
re: #131 laZardo
There are quite a few mights, coulds, and might nots in that article.
| 139 |
BlueCanuck Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:33:56pm |
Well, I am off to bed. See you lizards in the am or pm. Whenever everyone wakes up. Stay scaly all.
| 141 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:34:38pm |
re: #137 Sharmuta
We need a better trade off, not a solution.
Jaunte- we're going about it the wrong way in denial. We need to accept the science before we can figure out a trade-off to counter-balance the solution.
| 142 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:35:19pm |
re: #104 Sharmuta
Just like with evolution. Darwinist are liberals! Nonsense.
We need to throw all the labels out the window because they don't mean anything anymore. They are thrown around like spaghetti --to see what will stick to the wall in any given discourse.
I like a couple tho --whackos vs. non-whackos and Lizards vs. non-Lizards.
| 143 |
Racer X Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:35:19pm |
re: #125 Sharmuta
PS- I've been a skeptic until this video. While recent reading has been causing me to re-evaluate my position, this seals the deal. I'm convinced after this the deniers are every bit as much of liars for their cause as creationists are in lying for Jesus.
Really? This video sealed the deal? I was not impressed. The producer of this video has just as much of an agenda as everyone else swimming in the pool.
I'm still on the fence.
| 144 |
Erik The Red Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:35:28pm |
re: #139 BlueCanuck
Well, I am off to bed. See you lizards in the am or pm. Whenever everyone wakes up. Stay scaly all.
Good Night Blue. I just got back from bowling(if you can call it that, after what I did tonight). I am also out.
Later
| 145 |
laZardo Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:35:58pm |
re: #138 jaunte
Good thing I haven't laid out plans for investing in boat building companies. Someone's gonna have to hold guided boat tours of DC.
/ mmm, enterpreneurism...
| 146 |
Noam Sayin' Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:36:10pm |
re: #126 jaunte
Won't a liquid seek equilibrium in the vessel in which it's contained, though?
Always has before.
| 147 |
jaunte Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:37:26pm |
re: #141 Sharmuta
Jaunte- we're going about it the wrong way in denial. We need to accept the science before we can figure out a trade-off to counter-balance the solution.
I accept the data that is being presented, but I think we can adapt to changing conditions, and also that we don't have the ability to reverse the change at this point.
| 148 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:37:52pm |
re: #71 BlueCanuck
It's settled then, we're trading places.*
I can handle cold weather without a problem, but I become a great big baby in the hot weather. I don't know how our soldiers can handle that middle eastern heat while carrying all that gear. Made of sterner stuff than I, for sure.
*Sooo... who do you want to be? Louis Winthorpe III, or Billy Ray Valentine?
| 149 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:38:04pm |
re: #143 Racer X
I don't appreciate being lied to. I've read enough and seen enough now to be convinced the denier ring leaders are charlatans.
| 150 |
swamprat Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:38:33pm |
We knowe that some woulde DENY the truth of Global Warming while they yet seek to appear as Normal Fellowes. These ye may ascertain by performing the test as is written;
We do knowe that duckes do fly to the south in the winter, and by converse, north in the summer, because they hath the common knowledge of all creatures.
Therefore;
A duck is obtained and released, and his direction noted.
The person in question, being blindfolded, is spun about till he hath no bearing, and then is to walk. No man is to tell or influence his walking and the direction of his walking shall be seen by all.
Should he walk in the same direction as the goose (whether the fowle walked, or did fly, or swam), then he shall certainly be ajudged as SENSIBLE and WORTHY. Should his walking not follow in the general direction of the testing fowle he shall have no stature in any and all matters, as he is a DENIER and UNWORTHY to be acceptable in the brotherhood of the TRUE WARMIST community, His Cans Will Not Be Acceptable and His Glass Left By his Driveway, And The Plastics Recycler Shall Not Know Him!
So do we all decree!
| 151 |
Idle Drifter Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:38:36pm |
re: #145 laZardo
Good thing I haven't laid out plans for investing in boat building companies. Someone's gonna have to hold guided boat tours of DC.
/ mmm, enterpreneurism...
Then I undercut you with submarine tours with scuba adventures of the Capital Building. CAPITALISM!
| 152 |
VioletTiger Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:38:53pm |
re: #143 Racer X
Really? This video sealed the deal? I was not impressed. The producer of this video has just as much of an agenda as everyone else swimming in the pool.
I'm still on the fence.
I agree.
I am still a skeptic because both sides have chinks in their aromor and go out of their way to twist facts. There are too many agendas and not enough focus on facts.
BTW, what happened to that report that was suppressed? The news came out around the saem time as the cap and trade debate. I had it bookmarked but can't find it now.
| 153 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:39:03pm |
re: #141 Sharmuta
Jaunte- we're going about it the wrong way in denial. We need to accept the science before we can figure out a trade-off to counter-balance the solution.
Trade offs won't work right now. Before we can seriously head down that road, we need to discredit and marginalize the Alarmists. They have to be hammered or they'll keep coming back trying to turn any comprise into their forced "solution". Even more important than the science on this issue is the politics.
| 154 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:39:04pm |
re: #147 jaunte
I accept the data that is being presented, but I think we can adapt to changing conditions, and also that we don't have the ability to reverse the change at this point.
Could be. I can't disagree.
| 155 |
freetoken Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:40:31pm |
re: #122 BlueCanuck
It seems the people touting and screaming about AGW want to restrict my life style even further. Fat chance of that happening.
That statement is likely true for nearly all people.
Ergo, trying to significantly limit CO2 production (as well as changing land use) voluntarily has little chance of success.
/queue the doomer pr0n...
| 156 |
pat Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:40:45pm |
re: #120 Charles
Oops, Absent. Let us start with the most obvious. Nothing this fellow says implicates anthropogenic global warming. And that is his premise.
| 158 |
swamprat Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:42:24pm |
Denier!
Warmist!
Do these guys have any hymns?
| 159 |
jaunte Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:43:11pm |
re: #146 Noam Sayin'
I think that the various gravitational forces working on the water around the globe are different enough that the level can vary quite a bit, but I don't know what the variance is (beyond high and low tide). That link earlier mentioned the gravitational attraction of the Antarctic ice sheets and the water, which would pile up more water near the ice sheets; when the ice sheets melted, the grav attraction would be gone, so the level at the poles would fall more than other places, which would rise further.
[Link: www.newscientist.com...]
| 160 |
Racer X Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:43:11pm |
re: #149 Sharmuta
I don't appreciate being lied to. I've read enough and seen enough now to be convinced the denier ring leaders are charlatans.
Both sides have an agenda. Both sides lie.
Actually there are more than two sides. I see those who are rabidly promoting AGW and demanding the rest of us change our ways while they jet around the world telling us peons what NOT to do, while at the same time making money off the scare.
Then there are others pointing out this hypocrisy; and others who are just plain making shit up.
I trust no one.
| 161 |
avanti Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:43:14pm |
re: #107 Simple Voice
I do not doubt the climate is changing.
The climate has always changed and it always will.
I have serious doubts about anthropogenic climate change.I find it interesting that the moment earth stopped complying with global warming, the new moniker became climate change.
I guess I'm a traitor, eh'?
When exactly did the earth stop complying ?
| 162 |
laZardo Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:43:15pm |
re: #151 Idle Drifter
Then I undercut you with submarine tours with scuba adventures of the Capital Building. CAPITALISM!
Elitist. q; But if you want to head that way, I'll convert the Smithsonian Air and Space museum into a heliport (or gliderport?).
| 163 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:44:19pm |
It seems to me that the "experts" are extrapolating their data on too little knowledge. They have maybe 100 years of (questionally) accurate data on the climate. Then tree ring studies.
How can they project on that little amount of data what the climate of planet that is millions (or billions, I can't remember) will do?
There are too many unknown factors, IMHO.
On a lighter note, the Cat Overlord just discovered a moth that stole into the house. He is leaping around the furniture.
teehee
| 164 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:44:48pm |
re: #160 Racer X
Both sides have an agenda. Both sides lie.
Actually there are more than two sides. I see those who are rabidly promoting AGW and demanding the rest of us change our ways while they jet around the world telling us peons what NOT to do, while at the same time making money off the scare.
Then there are others pointing out this hypocrisy; and others who are just plain making shit up.
I trust no one.
Agent Mulder, is that you?
//
| 167 |
laZardo Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:46:02pm |
OT
Corazon Aquino, the housewife whose pro-democracy husband's assassination triggered a series of events that made her Asia's first female president, died at 3:18 AM Manila time.
| 168 |
kynna Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:46:07pm |
Between the two anti-science blocs: AGW/CC hysterics and AGW/CC skeptics, I think we're more in danger from the former than we are from the latter. The former wants us all to DO SOMETHING even if they don't know if it's the right thing or if it will help -- but it's always expensive. The latter want us to do nothing, particularly at the state level. I go with the latter unless the state is interested in investing in nuclear power. Otherwise, let the market fix it. It actually will, even in a case like this.
| 169 |
Wendya Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:46:58pm |
When I see the words "climate denier" and "scientific consensus" regarding AGW, I can't help it... I just tune the shriekers out.
Does anyone else here remember back in 2006 when NASA predicted Solar Cycle 24 would peak in 2010 with "one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago"? Well, in May they changed their tune and declared, "Solar Cycle 24 will peak, they say, in May 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots."
These people are not infallible. The win/loss column for their predictions over the last decade is spectacularly dismal, yet they never admit they just don't know.
| 170 |
Racer X Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:47:05pm |
OK.
All of a sudden you have omnipotent powers. You can only use your powers once. You decide that AGW needs attention. No limits on what you can do.
What action do you take, and why?
Think about repercussions down the road.
| 171 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:47:59pm |
re: #153 Dark_Falcon
I'm not sure you fully understand the terminology behind the two visions I meant in that comment, though I know Jaunte has read A Conflict of Visions.
If conservatives want to make sure we're good stewards and still conservatives, we need to accept science as science, like we would for biology, etc. Take my friend, for example. Green energy deal like a capitalist.
But we can't start thinking that way until we accept the science. Wanna stop their agenda? Then we come up with our ideas and propose them, because this issue isn't going to go away.
| 173 |
Bloodnok Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:48:11pm |
re: #156 pat
Oops, Absent. Let us start with the most obvious. Nothing this fellow says implicates anthropogenic global warming. And that is his premise.
I believe the premise is "Anthony Watts is presenting dishonest information and here's NOAA data that proves it". Prove NOAA's data is wrong and you have a case.
There are partisan shots in there which may or may not be called for, but the video intends to discredit Watts and does so successfully.
| 175 |
Idle Drifter Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:49:55pm |
re: #162 laZardo
Elitist. q; But if you want to head that way, I'll convert the Smithsonian Air and Space museum into a heliport (or gliderport?).
So what do you want to do when the Three Gorge Dam fails due to erosion from the heavy pollution of Chinese industry and takes out Wuhan, Nanjing and Shanghai?
| 176 |
austin_blue Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:50:32pm |
re: #129 pat
Only a fool would argue against the expansion of the temperate zone. Warming is good, cold kills. Biomass in the temperate zone increased 25% during the global temp build up between 1979 and 1998. And the tropics has a similar run up according to a recent German study. Hmmm.
Well, here's the problem. The temperate zones are expanding, but at a slower pace than the northern hemisphere's arctic zone. Now, you might think that's not a problem, but what the upper 20 degrees of the northern hemisphere contains is a lot of permafrost. And in that permafrost is a shitpot of frozen biomass that has been there since several previous ice ages, locked up. It's mostly peat and similarly pre-coal organics. The important thing is that in the previous inter-glacial cycles, it has never really melted. This go around, with the truly abnormal heating of the northern arctic, there is every indication that it will get below freezing and start to rot. The amount of latent O=C=O in that permafrost is massive. If it gets released, all bets are off.
| 177 |
Racer X Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:50:36pm |
re: #174 Sharmuta
The shrining glaciers are lying?
Glaciers may indeed be shrinking. The question I am dying to know is why? And then, can we really do something about it? And what if we screw something else up?
| 178 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:50:37pm |
re: #171 Sharmuta
I'm not sure you fully understand the terminology behind the two visions I meant in that comment, though I know Jaunte has read A Conflict of Visions.
If conservatives want to make sure we're good stewards and still conservatives, we need to accept science as science, like we would for biology, etc. Take my friend, for example. Green energy deal like a capitalist.
But we can't start thinking that way until we accept the science. Wanna stop their agenda? Then we come up with our ideas and propose them, because this issue isn't going to go away.
That, I agree with. Upding.
| 179 |
Wendya Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:50:45pm |
re: #125 Sharmuta
PS- I've been a skeptic until this video. While recent reading has been causing me to re-evaluate my position, this seals the deal. I'm convinced after this the deniers are every bit as much of liars for their cause as creationists are in lying for Jesus.
So, I'm a liar because I refuse to worship at the altar of a cause that has a political agenda?
| 180 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:50:56pm |
Shrinking- pimf. I need to go to bed, but this conversation is fun.
| 181 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:51:48pm |
re: #170 Racer X
All of a sudden you have omnipotent powers. You can only use your powers once.
Sort of like a one-shot "wish"? Forget global warming, I'm using my wish to do two chicks at the same time, man!
//
| 182 |
Sommerfeld Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:52:06pm |
re: #141 Sharmuta
Jaunte- we're going about it the wrong way in denial. We need to accept the science before we can figure out a trade-off to counter-balance the solution.
The alarmists tend to keep their data and models secret and only publishing their results. Some prominent anti-alarmists (McIntyre) are publishing code that anyone can run and finding boneheaded errors in the model inputs.
| 184 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:52:50pm |
re: #179 Wendya
You're looking to be personally offended when I called you personally no such thing. Deny whatever you want to lady, but you're following charlatans.
| 185 |
The Shadow Do Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:53:34pm |
I am not particularly skeptical of rising global temperatures. In fact it seems to be pretty much fact and it by all accounts human activity has something to do with that.
So be it. Good, bad, indifferent? Depends on your politics.
Can you change it? Heck no. To think otherwise is either fantasy or politics (probably both).
Adapt or not, that is the bottom line - America can flush itself down a nice green toilet and it will not matter one little bit to this planet - though it may make her adversaries a little bit giddy.
This is commonly referred to as sad but true. Roll with it. Find a way to make some money at it. Al Gore leads the way...
| 186 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:53:53pm |
re: #182 Sommerfeld
The alarmists tend to keep their data and models secret and only publishing their results. Some prominent anti-alarmists (McIntyre) are publishing code that anyone can run and finding boneheaded errors in the model inputs.
I fully support the science- that includes peer review.
| 187 |
austin_blue Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:53:56pm |
re: #179 Wendya
So, I'm a liar because I refuse to worship at the altar of a cause that has a political agenda?
No, you are misguided because you won't believe the science. We need to take the temperature down on the discussion and talk about it reasonably. This is not a zero sum game. It is, however, deadly serious.
| 189 |
coquimbojoe Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:54:10pm |
I didn't see anything there that backed up the idea that man is responsible for climate change. Watts does some pretty good stuff over all. I felt like Sinclair set up some straw man type arguments also. Overall, i thought it was a pretty crappy video. The WMD argument at the and was weak not only for the childish snark, but he ignores that fact that every nation in the region, our European allies and the UN said that Iraq had WMDs. Bush didn't lie, he was just saying what everyone was telling him (and Gore, and Clinton 1 and 2 said, and Kerry, ad naseum).
I personally believe in climate change, but I am skeptical that man really has anything to do with it.
| 190 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:54:18pm |
re: #159 jaunte
I think that the various gravitational forces working on the water around the globe are different enough that the level can vary quite a bit, but I don't know what the variance is (beyond high and low tide). That link earlier mentioned the gravitational attraction of the Antarctic ice sheets and the water, which would pile up more water near the ice sheets; when the ice sheets melted, the grav attraction would be gone, so the level at the poles would fall more than other places, which would rise further.
[Link: www.newscientist.com...]
I didn't read the article, but my first response is the water and the ice sheets would have similar densities, and I would think the volume (and therefore the mass) of the ocean is much larger than the ice sheets, so why would there be any (at least significant) gravitational attraction between the water and the ice sheets? Maybe I need to read the article.
| 191 |
Dancing along the light of day Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:54:42pm |
re: #174 Sharmuta
Glaciers on trikes & wearing funny hats?
LOL!
| 193 |
Wendya Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:54:48pm |
re: #184 Sharmuta
You're looking to be personally offended when I called you personally no such thing. Deny whatever you want to lady, but you're following charlatans.
re: #187 austin_blue
No, you are misguided because you won't believe the science. We need to take the temperature down on the discussion and talk about it reasonably. This is not a zero sum game. It is, however, deadly serious.
Address my post # 169 regarding the "science" and the every changing goal line.
| 194 |
laZardo Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:55:30pm |
re: #175 Idle Drifter
So what do you want to do when the Three Gorge Dam fails due to erosion from the heavy pollution of Chinese industry and takes out Wuhan, Nanjing and Shanghai?
Post-apocalyptic movie bonanza!
They'll be preserving major American cities, clipping away plant growth and reinforcing foundations, etc. for "historical purposes." Over there though, they'll just flee.
| 195 |
Noam Sayin' Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:55:36pm |
re: #159 jaunte
Gravitational forces from what?
The moon and the sun, most likely. I wasn't aware that ice sheets had gravitational force, but it seems if they are melting, they would lose some of that force. There was no mention in the article of accounting for that.
Nice 'drag-n-drop' feature, Charles. Didn't know we could do that.
| 196 |
jaunte Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:55:36pm |
re: #190 Unakite
They didn't quantify the attraction; it doesn't seem like it would have much of an effect on the water level.
| 197 |
Racer X Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:56:12pm |
I'm still think about my new found omnipotent powers. Forget climate change - I'm gonna ...
| 198 |
danrudy Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:56:23pm |
Ladies and Gentleman,
Grab a telescope and observe Mars. Compare it to pictures from a short time ago. YOu will observe that the polar ice caps have gotten smaller. SMALLER! There is global warming on MARS. It must be man er martian made!
Oh wait...there are no martians or technology to explain this. Perhaps it is part of a normal cyclic variation. Hmmm...I wonder if that can happen here as well.
| 199 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:56:24pm |
re: #170 Racer X
OK.
All of a sudden you have omnipotent powers. You can only use your powers once. You decide that AGW needs attention. No limits on what you can do.
What action do you take, and why?
Think about repercussions down the road.
Boobies?? :)
| 200 |
jaunte Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:57:16pm |
re: #170 Racer X
OK.
All of a sudden you have omnipotent powers. You can only use your powers once. You decide that AGW needs attention. No limits on what you can do.
What action do you take, and why?
Think about repercussions down the road.
Omnipotence is more that we can deal with. I'd just like to find my car keys.
| 201 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:57:40pm |
re: #175 Idle Drifter
So what do you want to do when the Three Gorge Dam fails due to erosion from the heavy pollution of Chinese industry and takes out Wuhan, Nanjing and Shanghai?
Make sure I'm not there.
| 202 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:58:04pm |
re: #185 The Shadow Do
Can you change it? Heck no.
Well, we could go with the nuclear option, rather than burning fossil fuels for electricity. That's one way to make some kind of change.
Good luck getting that to happen. I think a lot of people would rather choke on smog everyday than accept nuclear energy as a clean, safe alternative.
| 203 |
Noam Sayin' Fri, Jul 31, 2009 9:58:31pm |
re: #188 Racer X
I believe Al Gore to be a charlatan.
If that's one of them fancy words for "media whore," then I agree with you.
| 204 |
swamprat Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:00:28pm |
re: #179 Wendya
So, I'm a liar because I refuse to worship at the altar of a cause that has a political agenda?
No, No!
I'm sure you have other reasons!
/ Can't we all just get along?
| 205 |
Idle Drifter Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:00:29pm |
re: #194 laZardo
Post-apocalyptic movie bonanza!
They'll be preserving major American cities, clipping away plant growth and reinforcing foundations, etc. for "historical purposes." Over there though, they'll just flee.
Cool! All the while dodging income fire from Remnant PLA units during filming for added realism.
| 206 |
jaunte Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:01:15pm |
re: #195 Noam Sayin'
I think what he's saying is that the mass of the Antarctic ice sheets exerts a gravitational pull on the seawater surrounding, so that it is pulled 'up' by a certain amount (not defined in the article). When the ice melts, less mass= less gravitational attraction, resulting in lower local sea-levels, but the water then goes elsewhere around the globe, raising the level.
| 209 |
Noam Sayin' Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:02:10pm |
re: #206 jaunte
Yes. It seeks equilibrium - like it has every time a liquid has been poured into a vessel.
| 210 |
KingKenrod Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:02:11pm |
re: #168 kynna
Between the two anti-science blocs: AGW/CC hysterics and AGW/CC skeptics, I think we're more in danger from the former than we are from the latter. The former wants us all to DO SOMETHING even if they don't know if it's the right thing or if it will help -- but it's always expensive. The latter want us to do nothing, particularly at the state level. I go with the latter unless the state is interested in investing in nuclear power. Otherwise, let the market fix it. It actually will, even in a case like this.
The AGW/CC are more dangerous because they have all the political power right now.
The issue with nuclear power is the interesting one. It's the obvious solution to AGW. An aggressive global program to convert the planet from coal and oil power to nuclear power would cure the AGW problem within a few decades. But the greens and the left continue to ignore the nuclear option. It's about control, not fixing a serious problem.
| 213 |
Racer X Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:02:26pm |
re: #197 Racer X
I'm still think about my new found omnipotent powers. Forget climate change - I'm gonna ...
OK.
I've thought about it.
I'm gonna make everyone on earth the same color. And no hair.
| 214 |
avanti Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:02:28pm |
re: #198 danrudy
Ladies and Gentleman,
Grab a telescope and observe Mars. Compare it to pictures from a short time ago. YOu will observe that the polar ice caps have gotten smaller. SMALLER! There is global warming on MARS. It must be
maner martian made!
Oh wait...there are no martians or technology to explain this. Perhaps it is part of a normal cyclic variation. Hmmm...I wonder if that can happen here as well.
What do the dust storms on Mars have to do with AGW on earth ?
| 215 |
austin_blue Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:02:31pm |
re: #189 coquimbojoe
I didn't see anything there that backed up the idea that man is responsible for climate change. Watts does some pretty good stuff over all. I felt like Sinclair set up some straw man type arguments also. Overall, i thought it was a pretty crappy video. The WMD argument at the and was weak not only for the childish snark, but he ignores that fact that every nation in the region, our European allies and the UN said that Iraq had WMDs. Bush didn't lie, he was just saying what everyone was telling him (and Gore, and Clinton 1 and 2 said, and Kerry, ad naseum).
I personally believe in climate change, but I am skeptical that man really has anything to do with it.
Okay, then look at this easy to read chart!
Image: File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
This is really basic climate science. In the past four hundred thousand years, through four interglacial cycles, the level of O=C=O has risen to around 300 parts per billion (PPB). At that point a new glaciation cycle began. (This is why back in the 70's many people were predicting a new ice age. Based on carbon levels, it was past time.) Now we have rocketed past 300PPB and are fast approaching 400 PPB.
What has changed since the last interglacial period? Just us.
| 216 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:03:36pm |
re: #197 Racer X
I'm still think about my new found omnipotent powers. Forget climate change - I'm gonna ...
Go ahead, you can steal my idea. Just don't steal my two chicks.
/
| 217 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:03:45pm |
re: #206 jaunte
I think what he's saying is that the mass of the Antarctic ice sheets exerts a gravitational pull on the seawater surrounding, so that it is pulled 'up' by a certain amount (not defined in the article). When the ice melts, less mass= less gravitational attraction, resulting in lower local sea-levels, but the water then goes elsewhere around the globe, raising the level.
Ice is less dense than water.
| 218 |
Racer X Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:04:00pm |
| 219 |
realwest Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:04:09pm |
Hey y'all - it's been a while since I've been up to posting and I've missed all of you a lot.
Thanks to those of you who e-mailed me with good wishes or prayers. I'm just really fatigued and needed this past week to try to recharge my batteries some. I do hope to be on this weekend, at least on the DT's.
But I just needed to go OT a sec here and mention that I put in the spin off links that the last house committee requisite to pass Obama's Health care has done so. One of the swaps that was made was apparently keep the 12 year exclusive time period for makers of cancer and other life threatening drugs.
But to get back on topic just for a moment (cause my butt's dragging and I need my sleep) whatever happened to those over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries who voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.?
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
I realize of course that that was in late 2007, but don't remember what happened to them (did they "see the light") or were they all frauds or were they just "discounted" somehow?
| 220 |
Dancing along the light of day Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:04:17pm |
re: #213 Racer X
I demand to have hair!
At least a couple of them!
///
| 221 |
Racer X Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:04:19pm |
re: #216 Slumbering Behemoth
Go ahead, you can steal my idea. Just don't steal my two chicks.
/
Bogart.
| 222 |
danrudy Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:05:01pm |
re: #214 avanti
How about solar...(also from National Geographic)
[Link: news.nationalgeographic.com...]
| 223 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:05:34pm |
re: #219 realwest
Glad to see you're alright. Take care of yourself.
| 224 |
austin_blue Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:05:41pm |
Wendya
Address my post # 169 regarding the "science" and the every changing goal line.
That is one one specific prediction by one specific organization on one specific topic. You must look at the body of the peer reviewed work on climate science.
| 225 |
jaunte Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:05:50pm |
re: #217 Unakite
I haven't seen any of his calculations, but the sealevel rise in inches or fractions of an inch he may be talking about doesn't seem like the right area for concern.
| 227 |
Dancing along the light of day Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:06:04pm |
| 228 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:06:18pm |
re: #213 Racer X
OK.
I've thought about it.
I'm gonna make everyone on earth the same color. And no hair.
Make 'em all dark blue, and you've got my vote. A bright red would be pretty cool, too.
/Forget the 'no hair' part, that would put way too many industries out of business.
| 229 |
garycooper Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:06:26pm |
As someone who has been studying this subject intensely for about five years, beginning as a total believer in AGW, and going over to the Dark Side about a year into my studies, I am not impressed in the least with Sinclair's video. The truth is, NOAA does NOT make the proper adjustments for badly-sited temperature-sensors, but that's not even a major factor for AGW-skeptics. There are so many other, far more damning sources of info on this myth!
Hint: Stop reading the Soros-funded RealClimate.org, and its offshoots, and start reading the sites that at least attempt to be non-partisan.
[Link: anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com...]
| 230 |
VioletTiger Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:06:28pm |
re: #213 Racer X
OK.
I've thought about it.
I'm gonna make everyone on earth the same color. And no hair.
We'll save on shampoo.
| 231 |
VioletTiger Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:07:25pm |
re: #219 realwest
Glad to see you here, real. You were missed.
| 233 |
jamihabs Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:08:17pm |
I missed the part where he tied human emissions of CO2 to global warming. But, I did catch the part where he ridiculed one side for having a political motive and then quickly revealed his own political leanings.
| 235 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:08:46pm |
re: #225 jaunte
I haven't seen any of his calculations, but the sealevel rise in inches or fractions of an inch he may be talking about doesn't seem like the right area for concern.
That makes more sense. Like I said, I didn't read the article but the point I was trying to make was that it would seem that there would be minimal effect from gravitational forces.
| 236 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:08:46pm |
re: #219 realwest
Get some rest, RW. Glad to see you're doing well. Or at least well enough.
Any day above ground, eh?
| 237 |
avanti Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:09:03pm |
re: #222 danrudy
How about solar...(also from National Geographic)
[Link: news.nationalgeographic.com...]
Did you read page two on your link:
"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.
"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
Planets' Wobbles
The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.
"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)
| 238 |
freetoken Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:09:31pm |
re: #219 realwest
Welcome back RW, we were wondering what happened to you.
As for the "400 scientists", it sounds like you are referring to one of Marc Morano's lists he put together for Sen. Inohofe. That list went through a couple of additions over the years. That list is also rather notorious, sort of like the current list of "54" APS members who got a communique published in Nature. There are quite a number of comments on Morano's lists on the web, if you search.
| 240 |
coquimbojoe Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:10:31pm |
re: #215 austin_blue
Is that the best that you have? Wikipedia? Really? Your just trying to get my goat, right?
Yes, most of the temp rise happened before the advent of tons of cars and the spread of industrialization. And what about the time before the 400k years? could it have been hotter? Hot enough to support say, giant lizards?
Come on do better than that. Hey, while you are at it check out this. And google sunspots vs climate temps or some such. Then go to Wikipedia to get the explanation as to why temperatures on Mars and Pluto and more are mimicking ours.
Wikipedia. Feh.
| 241 |
danrudy Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:10:52pm |
re: #214 avanti
and btw, if you read the link about dust clouds, it is still a natural phenomenom.
Also, it is interesting that while scientists like to explain the great ice age on earth as being precipitated by a giant meteor sending debris into the atmosphere to block out sun rays as the likely reason. We now have a theory that dust in the atmosphere is causing global warming on mars . Bullshit!. THis is an attempt to explain away the inconvenient fact that it is more then likley that the same explanantion of warming on one planet occurs onthe other. Gee, where does all that heat come from? The sun! It is way more likely that the simultaneous warming that occurs on mars and earth is being casued by a similar cause. solar flares? maybe.
But the dust storm explanantion seem complete BS to me.
| 243 |
Bloodnok Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:11:07pm |
re: #229 garycooper
As someone who has been studying this subject intensely for about five years, beginning as a total believer in AGW, and going over to the Dark Side about a year into my studies, I am not impressed in the least with Sinclair's video. The truth is, NOAA does NOT make the proper adjustments for badly-sited temperature-sensors, but that's not even a major factor for AGW-skeptics. There are so many other, far more damning sources of info on this myth!
Hint: Stop reading the Soros-funded RealClimate.org, and its offshoots, and start reading the sites that at least attempt to be non-partisan.
[Link: anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com...]
Yes it does. NOAA compares data collected at "approved" sites far off in the wilderness and specifically designed to avoid any of the listed "contaminants" of the data to the data collected at the sites mentioned in Watts claims. The data was identical.
| 244 |
Desert Dog Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:11:31pm |
re: #237 avanti
Did you read page two on your link:
"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.
"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
Planets' Wobbles
The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun."Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)
So, that big fireball in sky doesn't do much for the climate here on Earth? It's just us Americans, driving our big gas guzzlers causing it then?
| 245 |
jaunte Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:12:05pm |
re: #235 Unakite
I agree; I don't know why the ice sheet would necessarily have more influence with gravitational attraction to the water than the denser underlying rock.
| 246 |
Sommerfeld Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:12:12pm |
re: #170 Racer X
All of a sudden you have omnipotent powers. You can only use your powers once. You decide that AGW needs attention. No limits on what you can do.
What action do you take, and why?
Improve the confidence level of the available data. Increase the number of climate measurement sites by a factor of 100 to 1000, ensure they're all sited properly (e.g., away from artificial heat sources), and make their historic and real-time data freely available to all. And make all climate modelling code open-source.
| 247 |
Racer X Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:12:28pm |
Well, I would love to stay and get smarter from all you nice folks, but my big head is full enough for now.
| 248 |
realwest Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:12:51pm |
re: #210 KingKenrod
You know, I have to agree with you on that. I completely reject the notion that the USA can't compete with France!
I mean, France gets something like, iirc, 75% of their NATIONAL electrical energy needs from...nuclear power plants. FRANCE! And I'll bet they have most of the electric cars and trains and what not on the planet!
I'd think the Greenies would postively salivate at saving Mother Earth from those noxious (but as yet so far necessary - food and medicine ain't going from the heartland to the supermarkets and hospitals/doctors in New York City without the continued use of fossil fuels) UNLESS we develop steady, safe and reliable sources of Electrical energy alternatives to fossil fuels.
| 249 |
Salamantis Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:13:42pm |
I caught an interesting dataset fudge factor in the video, and possibly in the underlying NOAA research. At the 5:23 point, we see that the temp lines do indeed map onto each other, but the data has only been mapped onto it since 1950 forward. The '20's and '30's were just about as warm as it is these days (several of the warmest years of the 20th century occurred then), but they conveniently weren't included.
I consider the data to be valid, as far as it goes, but it doesn't gp very far. I have no doubt that the earth has been getting warmer lately, and it is reasonable to conclude that human activity may contribute to some degree. But what no science has yet established is to what degee the current warming is due to solar cycles, and whether or not the human contribution is at all significant in comparison. By precipitously acting in a vast and massive fashion without making such empirical determinations, we are placing the cart light years aherad of the horse.
This being the case, we could be regally royally autosexing our economy and personal freedoms without accruing significant benefit in exchange for the sacrifices. The various reasons for the recent uptrend in temperatures need to be clearly defined, and separated into things we can do something about (human activity byproducts) and things we can't do anything about (natural solar cycles), the amount each contribute to the trend needs to be ascertained, and then we can decide whether there IS anything we can do that matters one way or the other, and whether ANYTHING we do or do not do will make an anorexic rat's gluteus of difference.
| 250 |
coquimbojoe Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:13:52pm |
re: #240 coquimbojoe
Is that the best that you have? Wikipedia? Really? Your just trying to get my goat, right?
Yes, most of the temp rise happened before the advent of tons of cars and the spread of industrialization. And what about the time before the 400k years? could it have been hotter? Hot enough to support say, giant lizards?
Come on do better than that. Hey, while you are at it check out this. And google sunspots vs climate temps or some such. Then go to Wikipedia to get the explanation as to why temperatures on Mars and Pluto and more are mimicking ours.
Wikipedia. Feh.
Sorry, check out this. And this. And this (from Wikipedia too!!!)
| 252 |
The Shadow Do Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:14:37pm |
re: #202 Slumbering Behemoth
Well, we could go with the nuclear option, rather than burning fossil fuels for electricity. That's one way to make some kind of change.
Good luck getting that to happen. I think a lot of people would rather choke on smog everyday than accept nuclear energy as a clean, safe alternative.
Nukes male a whole lot of sense, economically as well as environmentally. And guess what, so does coal. We have an enormous supply and the technology is there to use it cleanly just as is nuclear. But neither will happen, Nukes and Three Mile Island are as embedded as the concept that coal is bad, bad, bad - it's black!
This thinking will lead to a sort of energy bankruptcy in the States. Goofy to my way of thinking. I'll likely be dead when it hits the fan, and it will when the lights don't come on and your freezer involuntarily defrosts. You know, when we become just another poor nation as envisaged by the left.
| 253 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:14:37pm |
| 254 |
NY Nana Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:14:58pm |
G'nite, Lizards. Sweet dreams.
I am off to sleep. Still feel like s*it, and now have a fever to boot.
Se ya later today, Lizards, for an update of the Perils of NY Nana. ;)
| 258 |
Desert Dog Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:15:25pm |
Well, since we are not going to do as some wish...let's just embrace the coming heatwaves!
| 259 |
laZardo Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:16:10pm |
re: #252 The Shadow Do
Nukes male a whole lot of sense, economically as well as environmentally. And guess what, so does coal. We have an enormous supply and the technology is there to use it cleanly just as is nuclear. But neither will happen, Nukes and Three Mile Island are as embedded as the concept that coal is bad, bad, bad - it's black!
This thinking will lead to a sort of energy bankruptcy in the States. Goofy to my way of thinking. I'll likely be dead when it hits the fan, and it will when the lights don't come on and your freezer involuntarily defrosts. You know, when we become just another poor nation as envisaged by the left.
RACSIT!!!
/there is the issue of nuclear waste recycled into weapons-grade plutonium though.
| 260 |
avanti Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:16:21pm |
re: #238 freetoken
Welcome back RW, we were wondering what happened to you.
As for the "400 scientists", it sounds like you are referring to one of Marc Morano's lists he put together for Sen. Inohofe. That list went through a couple of additions over the years. That list is also rather notorious, sort of like the current list of "54" APS members who got a communique published in Nature. There are quite a number of comments on Morano's lists on the web, if you search.
More on the 400 scientists:
Here's a quick breakdown of Johnson's findings:
Inhofe's list includes 413 people. (Score one Inhofe; the math holds up.)
*
84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.
*
49 are retired
*
44 are television weathermen
*
20 are economists
*
70 have no apparent expertise in climate science
*
Several supposed skeptics have publicly stated that they are very concerned about global warming, and support efforts to address it. One claims he was duped into signing the list and regrets it.
Read more: [Link: www.thedailygreen.com...]
| 261 |
danrudy Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:16:32pm |
re: #237 avanti
You need to think independently. You have two planets that are in the same solar system both with ice caps.
The ONLY major source of heat for both is the sun.
You think that Mars recently starting wobbling so its ice caps started melting while earth has no wobble and its ice caps melting are becasue of Co2 emmisions?
It is far more likely that the similar events occuring on the two planets which are temporally related are occuring because of a mutual event. not two independent events.
I dont knon and never thought until now to see if there have been observations made on other planets. I gues without easily observable ice caps like on mars itwould be hard to guess temperature changes on venus, saturn etc.
| 262 |
sngnsgt Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:17:09pm |
re: #213 Racer X
OK.
I've thought about it.
I'm gonna make everyone on earth the same color. And no hair.
Okay, you can knock it off with the hair thing. I must be a victim of scalp warming.
| 263 |
swamprat Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:18:50pm |
re: #214 avanti
What do the dust storms on Mars have to do with AGW on earth ?
Ok, that was too fun. Almost completely carbon dioxide, so it should be warm, n'est pas? But it is very thin so how can it have much wind?
Of course, there is no chance that the winds are caused by the extra heat from the sun, or that extra carbon dioxide on the earth would cause plants to multiply and increase the oxygen so the temperature would cycle as a natural part of the ecology. Nope, these martian winds just decided to quit layin around mars and started jumpin' all over the place, stirrin' up dust that was never stirred before and makin' a general nuisance of themselves.
It could happen.
| 264 |
VioletTiger Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:18:50pm |
Past my bedtime, too.
Thanks for the company.
| 265 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:19:22pm |
re: #249 Salamantis
I caught an interesting dataset fudge factor in the video, and possibly in the underlying NOAA research. At the 5:23 point, we see that the temp lines do indeed map onto each other, but the data has only been mapped onto it since 1950 forward. The '20's and '30's were just about as warm as it is these days (several of the warmest years of the 20th century occurred then), but they conveniently weren't included.
I consider the data to be valid, as far as it goes, but it doesn't gp very far. I have no doubt that the earth has been getting warmer lately, and it is reasonable to conclude that human activity may contribute to some degree. But what no science has yet established is to what degee the current warming is due to solar cycles, and whether or not the human contribution is at all significant in comparison. By precipitously acting in a vast and massive fashion without making such empirical determinations, we are placing the cart light years aherad of the horse.
This being the case, we could be regally royally autosexing our economy and personal freedoms without accruing significant benefit in exchange for the sacrifices. The various reasons for the recent uptrend in temperatures need to be clearly defined, and separated into things we can do something about (human activity byproducts) and things we can't do anything about (natural solar cycles), the amount each contribute to the trend needs to be ascertained, and then we can decide whether there IS anything we can do that matters one way or the other, and whether ANYTHING we do or do not do will make an anorexic rat's gluteus of difference.
That's a pretty damn good summary of the discussion so far. :)
| 266 |
Desert Dog Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:20:04pm |
More tunes to melt with as we drift into unbearable heat...
| 267 |
laZardo Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:20:08pm |
re: #213 Racer X
OK.
I've thought about it.
I'm gonna make everyone on earth the same color. And no hair.
| 268 |
avanti Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:20:14pm |
re: #244 Desert Dog
So, that big fireball in sky doesn't do much for the climate here on Earth? It's just us Americans, driving our big gas guzzlers causing it then?
Of course the sun is a factor, but unless you can show a change in output, or sun spots, it's not a factor in climate change, and no such correlation has been shown, but increased Co2 levels track just fine.
| 269 |
realwest Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:21:03pm |
re: #223 Sharmuta
re: #226 Racer X
re: #227 Floral Giraffe
re: #231 VioletTiger
re: #232 jaunte
re: #234 Dark_Falcon
re: #236 Slumbering Behemoth
re: #238 freetoken
and
re: #242 coquimbojoe
Thank you all very much; as I said, I've missed y'all a LOT.
Oh and #238 freetoken I was only asking cause Charles had that thread on it and I wondered if anything ever became of those over 400 scientists that basically say Global Warming or Climate Change is bullshit - don't know the answer to that question.
| 270 |
Dancing along the light of day Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:21:07pm |
re: #240 coquimbojoe
I have NOT been a Wikipedia fan. And then I learned that my 11 year old niece was editing Wiki entries. She's 11, and NOT a rocket scientist, even for an 11 year old. Wikipedia is fiction, IMHO.
| 271 |
avanti Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:22:49pm |
re: #263 swamprat
Ok, that was too fun. Almost completely carbon dioxide, so it should be warm, n'est pas? But it is very thin so how can it have much wind?
Of course, there is no chance that the winds are caused by the extra heat from the sun, or that extra carbon dioxide on the earth would cause plants to multiply and increase the oxygen so the temperature would cycle as a natural part of the ecology. Nope, these martian winds just decided to quit layin around mars and started jumpin' all over the place, stirrin' up dust that was never stirred before and makin' a general nuisance of themselves.
It could happen.
Show me any link that documents a increase in solar output that could be causing warming. Do you think science is so stupid they would not look at solar output ?
| 272 |
realwest Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:23:53pm |
re: #255 Noam Sayin'
And hey there Noam! Good to see you too!
But alas I'm really tired still - hope you all have a GREAT EVENING/EARLY MORNING and that I get the chance to see you all down the road!
Good night, all.
| 273 |
Alberta Oil Peon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:24:05pm |
re: #43 Van Helsing
I regret that I have but one upding to give.
I will second that!
Sinclair is not any kind of scientist, just another useful idiot. The moment you hear the use of the emotionally-charged term "climate-change deniers", you know you are dealing with a "true believer."
| 274 |
laZardo Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:24:52pm |
Brb, gonna waste Earth's precious water supply for personal hygiene.
| 275 |
danrudy Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:24:55pm |
re: #268 avanti
Actually, co2 levels have been tracked to sun activity and are a lagging indicator. In other words, first there is a period of increased sun activity and then there is an increase in co2. In other words, the rise in Co2 is an effect of elevating temperatures NOT the cause of it.
| 276 |
austin_blue Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:25:31pm |
re: #240 coquimbojoe
Is that the best that you have? Wikipedia? Really? Your just trying to get my goat, right?
Yes, most of the temp rise happened before the advent of tons of cars and the spread of industrialization. And what about the time before the 400k years? could it have been hotter? Hot enough to support say, giant lizards?
Come on do better than that. Hey, while you are at it check out this. And google sunspots vs climate temps or some such. Then go to Wikipedia to get the explanation as to why temperatures on Mars and Pluto and more are mimicking ours.
Wikipedia. Feh.
Where do I begin? Really, the facts are the facts. CO2 increases in the atmosphere in excess of 300 pp(million) (my mistake-it's not billion) in the last 150 years are solely because of human activity. There is no other explanation. Have there been previous times when the Earth was hotter than it is now? Yes. Absolutely. But the last several million years has seen a steady state of glaciation/inter-glaciation cycles where both general temperature swings and CO2 cycles have been reasonably stable. Sunspot cycles are short wave, and we are in a low state at the moment (perhaps responsible for the slowing of warming in the northern hemisphere that we have seen for the last six years). But that cycle is about to swing back.
Question: If the global temperatures increase by 2 degrees during the next sunspot cycle, will you be convinced?
| 277 |
Former Belgian Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:25:35pm |
OK folks, my 2 cents:
Talking to a number of the academic research scientists I get to meet as part of my day job (and I can talk shop with them, as I got my Ph.D. and the equivalent of another writing computer models), I can tell you the following:
(a) A surprising number of people working in climate, and in related areas (like atmospheric chemistry) will parrot the AGW propaganda in public but admit to significant doubts about AGW in private. This includes people who are out-and-out liberals politically.
(b) Others use the "pious fraud" argument: they saw they don't really believe AGW but think Al Gore-type hysteria serves the higher goal of mankind weaning itself off fossil fuels (a finite resource, whichever way you turn it).
(c) People who do numerical modeling in other areas for a living --- and know (including 1st-hand, in my case) how bl**dy hard it can be to get things right in much simpler systems --- sometimes have language for climate alarmists that makes Watts sound like a moderate.
(d) And finally, funding for climate research is a meal ticket for many of them, especially in an age where research funding for any subject not heavily mediatized is becoming increasingly hard to come by. "He whose bread you eat, is he whose word you speak" (Dutch proverb)
My own educated guess is that AGW may have some effect, but that it's a minor perturbation compared to natural phenomena, and that global climate in general is a complex system par excellence. The intellectual arrogance of those telling us to basically turn our whole economy upside down based on half-baked models is absolutely staggering, and a textbook example of both Sowell's "Vision of the Anointed" and New Class "rent-seeking".
| 278 |
avanti Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:26:47pm |
re: #269 realwest
re: #226 Racer X
re: #227 Floral Giraffe
re: #231 VioletTiger
re: #232 jaunte
re: #234 Dark_Falcon
re: #236 Slumbering Behemoth
re: #238 freetoken
and
re: #242 coquimbojoe
Thank you all very much; as I said, I've missed y'all a LOT.
Oh and #238 freetoken I was only asking cause Charles had that thread on it and I wondered if anything ever became of those over 400 scientists that basically say Global Warming or Climate Change is bullshit - don't know the answer to that question.
Simple, they are not scientists in the field. A podiatrist might have a opinion on the causes of Alzheimers, that is wrong too.
| 279 |
freetoken Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:28:02pm |
I've provided the following link several times, as it is still the best (I've found so far) to explain (in reasonable detail yet without over encumbering the reader) the development of key ideas in climatology and global warming:
The Discovery of Global Warming
You can buy the paper version if you want, but the html version is no cost to you.
Many of the "issues" raised above are touched upon in that web-booklet.
| 280 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:28:22pm |
I think we need to put the em fa sis on the right sy la bull.
Don't deny the science when it's the solutions that need re-thinking.
| 281 |
Noam Sayin' Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:28:53pm |
re: #271 avanti
Show me any link that documents a increase in solar output that could be causing warming. Do you think science is so stupid they would not look at solar output ?
Did they?
Show us a link; any link.
| 282 |
swamprat Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:29:15pm |
If people actually knew what the fuck was happening about this topic, it would read a lot less like a religious argument.
| 283 |
Salamantis Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:29:22pm |
re: #261 danrudy
You need to think independently. You have two planets that are in the same solar system both with ice caps.
The ONLY major source of heat for both is the sun.
You think that Mars recently starting wobbling so its ice caps started melting while earth has no wobble and its ice caps melting are becasue of Co2 emmisions?
It is far more likely that the similar events occuring on the two planets which are temporally related are occuring because of a mutual event. not two independent events.
I dont knon and never thought until now to see if there have been observations made on other planets. I gues without easily observable ice caps like on mars itwould be hard to guess temperature changes on venus, saturn etc.
If planetary wobbles could cause global warming on Mars, why couldn't they also cause it on the Earth? Just check that out in addition to solar cycles. And not just yes or no, but a percentage.
However, solar cycles would seem to pass the Occam's razor test better to me, in the absence of a causal explanation of just how it could be that BOTH Mars and the Earth could be simultaneously experiencing similarly globally warming orbit wobbles. It seems waaay to far fetched for simple coincidence.
| 284 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:29:37pm |
re: #276 austin_blue
Where do I begin? Really, the facts are the facts. CO2 increases in the atmosphere in excess of 300 pp(million) (my mistake-it's not billion) in the last 150 years are solely because of human activity. There is no other explanation. Have there been previous times when the Earth was hotter than it is now? Yes. Absolutely. But the last several million years has seen a steady state of glaciation/inter-glaciation cycles where both general temperature swings and CO2 cycles have been reasonably stable. Sunspot cycles are short wave, and we are in a low state at the moment (perhaps responsible for the slowing of warming in the northern hemisphere that we have seen for the last six years). But that cycle is about to swing back.
Question: If the global temperatures increase by 2 degrees during the next sunspot cycle, will you be convinced?
Just for the record, by definition "variations" between glaciation and inter-glaciation cycles and general temperature swings are not steady state conditions.
| 285 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:30:11pm |
re: #249 Salamantis
I caught an interesting dataset fudge factor in the video, and possibly in the underlying NOAA research. At the 5:23 point, we see that the temp lines do indeed map onto each other, but the data has only been mapped onto it since 1950 forward. The '20's and '30's were just about as warm as it is these days (several of the warmest years of the 20th century occurred then), but they conveniently weren't included.
I consider the data to be valid, as far as it goes, but it doesn't gp very far. I have no doubt that the earth has been getting warmer lately, and it is reasonable to conclude that human activity may contribute to some degree. But what no science has yet established is to what degee the current warming is due to solar cycles, and whether or not the human contribution is at all significant in comparison. By precipitously acting in a vast and massive fashion without making such empirical determinations, we are placing the cart light years aherad of the horse.
This being the case, we could be regally royally autosexing our economy and personal freedoms without accruing significant benefit in exchange for the sacrifices. The various reasons for the recent uptrend in temperatures need to be clearly defined, and separated into things we can do something about (human activity byproducts) and things we can't do anything about (natural solar cycles), the amount each contribute to the trend needs to be ascertained, and then we can decide whether there IS anything we can do that matters one way or the other, and whether ANYTHING we do or do not do will make an anorexic rat's gluteus of difference.
As ever, Sal, your post shows real thought and careful understanding of the facts. At some point, we have to run you for office. Salamantis of the Lizard Party, with the lounge lizard as the mascot.
| 286 |
Alberta Oil Peon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:30:11pm |
re: #72 Sharmuta
I just said I understood we want to reject their solutions. I think we need to propose our own ideas, but we can't do that if we're denying the science.
We aren't denying the science. We skeptics are questioning it. If we are about to embark on a vast and costly program to mitigate a problem, we had damn well better be certain there is a problem, first.
| 287 |
Desert Dog Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:30:38pm |
re: #268 avanti
Of course the sun is a factor, but unless you can show a change in output, or sun spots, it's not a factor in climate change, and no such correlation has been shown, but increased Co2 levels track just fine.
And, it's not causing Mars to get hotter too? Just so I am clear.
What caused the temps. to change in the past then? The last ice age for instance?
| 288 |
austin_blue Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:31:46pm |
re: #270 Floral Giraffe
I have NOT been a Wikipedia fan. And then I learned that my 11 year old niece was editing Wiki entries. She's 11, and NOT a rocket scientist, even for an 11 year old. Wikipedia is fiction, IMHO.
FG. Okay then. Try this, which is the source material for the graph. Really. This is pretty moderated, factually:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
| 290 |
swamprat Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:31:59pm |
The great global warming skeptic, swamprat, has yet to unload the seven used water heaters from the swampmobile for his solar water heater.
| 291 |
danrudy Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:33:04pm |
re: #275 danrudy
Actually, co2 levels have been tracked to sun activity and are a lagging indicator. In other words, first there is a period of increased sun activity and then there is an increase in co2. In other words, the rise in Co2 is an effect of elevating temperatures NOT the cause of it.
Oopss, I think I screwed that up. I meant to say that temperatures lag solar activity by about 10 years, thu when there is a period of activity of solar activity there is a 10 year lag in temperatures. it tracks much better to solar activity . the co2 levels lag even further behind. This is thought to occur because as tempertures become warmer and plant life flourishes co2 goes up. In periods of decrease solar activity followed by decreasing tempertures and decreasing plant life co2 levels decrease.
Co2 is a laggin indicator. SOlar activity is the lead indicator.
I urge you to watch the documentary from te BBC
THe great global warming swindle by david durkin. makse mince meat of al gores documentary
| 292 |
Noam Sayin' Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:33:43pm |
I imagine we need to start looking into The Heartland Institute. Just see it coming...
| 293 |
Alberta Oil Peon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:34:12pm |
re: #80 Bloodnok
I think the video scores a direct hit. It's not going to end the debate (and I don't think it claims to) but it takes a major weapon out of the anti-AGW arsenal; that of the weather station data being compromised by bad placement of sensors.
While the narration may be partisan and while we all may have opinions about current measures being suggested and in some cases foisted upon us, the chart at 5:16 has no agenda behind it. It is straight science. That is what I am taking away from this video.
Bloodnok, you should go to psyop's link in comment #5, and read Anthony Watts' rebuttal to that "science." You might be interested to know that the author of that memo is anonymous. Verrry interesting.
| 294 |
Desert Dog Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:34:34pm |
We are all screwed, so let's rock out!
| 295 |
Salamantis Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:35:09pm |
re: #280 Sharmuta
I think we need to put the em fa sis on the right sy la bull.
Don't deny the science when it's the solutions that need re-thinking.
We also need to be clear on what the science does and does not tell us so far, and then do more science that will tell us the things we do not yet know, but need to know, before we act.
There is much more science to be done to ascertain the causes of global warming, and whether or not it is mainly due to us. We all know what assuming that it IS mainly due to us without conclusive empirical verification makes of u and me.
| 296 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:35:13pm |
re: #286 Alberta Oil Peon
I'm pretty sure we can all agree we'd like to be good stewards, yes? The problem is we don't like the draconian solutions? What are some capitalist and green ways we can deal with energy needs and by-products that will make the most number of people happy while not disrupting our society?
| 297 |
Optimizer Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:35:21pm |
re: #62 Sharmuta
...
I think the reason folks want to deny AGW is because we want to reject the solutions being offered. That's not logical, however. The science is there- if we support science we support the science. This doesn't mean we have to accept their solution, but we do need to accept the trust and propose our own.
Good news department is my friend has made a successful deal for green energy that will benefit his community. I support this 100% as the land owners and region will all benefit. We can be green and conservative.
Well, that may be why some people reject the AGW, but that's not a good one. There are other, better, reasons that you have apparently completely missed, and so I am afraid you are inadvertantly guily of throwing out a strawman here.
The science is not "there", to put it simply, and this happened to come up with in a discussion with my brother today. Even if you read what alarmists say - if you read it critically - what you will see is that the whole AGW hypothesis is based on climate models. That may sound fine to you, but the problem is that the output of these climate models do not constitute "facts" or "scientific evidence" - just somebody's theory. These climate models have NOT been validated, which means they have not seen any kind of rigorous comparison of their results to the real world over a meaningful period of time.
You know, if a scientist runs a computer program to tell you where a space probe is going to end up 20 years from now, there's a pretty good chance that they'll be right on the money. But anybody who claims climate science is "settled" is basically claiming that you could do the same thing with climate models, and it just obvious fantasy to pretend that they're anywhere close to that at this point. With all the significant random factors, it may never be possible. People associate the one kind of scientist with the other, and assume that whatever comes out of the computer is "scientific fact", but that's just not true.
Ironically, the graphs shown in this very film show that the models are very much suspect. While all the models show significant increases of temperatures with time (and you'd be kidding yourself if you think any models that didn't would see much funding) the last ten years in even THIS GUY's short film show that there hasn't been any global warming in almost 10 years. The inputs (the CO2 levels) to the models have lived up to expectations, but the outputs don't match the reality. It's right in front of your nose, but you probably refuse to see it.
The burden of proof is on the proponent of extraordinary claims, and AGW is certainly in that category. So it doesn't even make sense to talk about "denying AGW" - only to talk about trying to prove AGW.
Proving AGW has had two major problems in recent years. First, the trademark signature for greenhouse warming, which requires elevated temperatures at a certain altitude and latitude, has not materialized. Second, the crucial component of those models, which assumes a multiplier effect via water vapor, is being investigated, with the result that the Earth's atmosphere does not appear to work that way. Apparently something more complex is going on.
I'm all for "green energy" - if it makes sense economically. The problem is that I don't think that any "green energy" sources have proven to be economical, at least on a large scale. Any analysis that might say that it is usually figuring in heavy government subsidies (which no self-professed conservative should condone, and which means it really ISN'T economical, after all). I hope it isn't the case, but chances are that your friend is simply helping his community waste a lot of government money so that they can feel good about trying to solve a problem that doesn't even really exist.
| 298 |
avanti Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:36:04pm |
| 299 |
danrudy Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:36:27pm |
re: #283 Salamantis
exactly...folks are searching for so many reasons other then the sun to explain global warming on these several planets when there is the ultimate heat generator staring at us every morning. And we already know it has variable output. It''s not like god/creator/nature just set the solar thermostat on 75 degrees and left the solar system
| 300 |
freetoken Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:36:46pm |
re: #282 swamprat
If people actually knew what the fuck was happening about this topic, it would read a lot less like a religious argument.
Which is why I linked to the AIP site on GW... Short of a textbook it's the best I've found to educate the individual. The problem with textbooks is that they presume prerequisites in physics that most lay readers do not have.
| 301 |
Former Belgian Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:37:18pm |
re: #273 Alberta Oil Peon
I will second that!
Sinclair is not any kind of scientist, just another useful idiot. The moment you hear the use of the emotionally-charged term "climate-change deniers", you know you are dealing with a "true believer."
The day Jim Hansen and others started referring to those of us who don't buy the "strong AGW" theory (and implying a moral equivalence with Shoah denial) I lost whatever respect I still had left for the AGW camp.
| 302 |
avanti Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:38:12pm |
It's been fun, but too many skeptics to fight with this late. I'm sure we'll revisit the subject again. Nite all.
| 303 |
Noam Sayin' Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:38:53pm |
| 304 |
Randall Gross Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:40:32pm |
I was wondering why that video had dissappeared, now I know. People who can't take debate usually are not honest.
| 305 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:41:13pm |
re: #295 Salamantis
I support following the scientific method, Sal. But what we do know, we can start to apply now. Like nuclear energy, and wind and solar to supplement. We should be researching and finding better ways to deal with this- without the draconian measures and hysteria. Let's try to keep our heads, follow the science and apply the knowledge when and where we can. This reeks of DI, Sal. DI...
| 306 |
danrudy Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:41:19pm |
re: #302 avanti
IN the religion that I believe is global warming skeptics are really heretics.
I guess am a heretic.
Have a good night.
| 307 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:41:42pm |
re: #304 Thanos
I was wondering why that video had dissappeared, now I know. People who can't take debate usually are not honest.
Quite Concur. I'm also going to check out for the night. I don't know enough about this issue to continue t the level this discussion has reached.
| 308 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:42:44pm |
re: #268 avanti
Of course the sun is a factor, but unless you can show a change in output, or sun spots, it's not a factor in climate change, and no such correlation has been shown, but increased Co2 levels track just fine.
I'm not a chemist, but CO2 solubility in water actually decreases with increasing temperature CO2 Solubility. Since the oceans are a large CO2 sink, they would tend to release CO2 as they warmed. This could suggest that the cause of rising CO2 concentrations is due to warming, rather than the cause of warming is due to rising CO2 concentrations (increasing CO2 lags behind increasing temperature). Just a thought...
| 309 |
freetoken Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:43:02pm |
re: #303 Noam Sayin'
It's a handy link... too bad few will actually read it and absorb it.
| 310 |
Simple Voice Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:43:03pm |
re: #161 avanti
According to this report,
January 2008 capped a 12 month period of global temperature drops on all of the major well respected indicators.
.
I am not saying the earth does not get colder or warmer. Of course it does.
It just seemed when the data suggested the earth might be cooling, the phrase "global warming' was out and the phrase "climate change" was in.
| 311 |
Dancing along the light of day Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:43:33pm |
re: #282 swamprat
Charles Kruthammer made the comment on Hugh Hewitt's show today, that Global Warming is a religion, not a science, as it is currently being presented. I have to agree, it's being presented as a matter of faith.
| 312 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:44:07pm |
re: #296 Sharmuta
I'm pretty sure we can all agree we'd like to be good stewards, yes? The problem is we don't like the draconian solutions? What are some capitalist and green ways we can deal with energy needs and by-products that will make the most number of people happy while not disrupting our society?
Nukes.
| 313 |
avanti Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:44:40pm |
| 314 |
Noam Sayin' Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:44:43pm |
re: #309 freetoken
It's a handy link... too bad few will actually read it and absorb it.
That's why we're here.
| 315 |
Dancing along the light of day Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:45:26pm |
re: #288 austin_blue
Thanks for trying. It's still Wikipedia.
"Your mileage may vary".
| 316 |
Desert Dog Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:45:33pm |
re: #308 Unakite
I'm not a chemist, but CO2 solubility in water actually decreases with increasing temperature CO2 Solubility. Since the oceans are a large CO2 sink, they would tend to release CO2 as they warmed. This could suggest that the cause of rising CO2 concentrations is due to warming, rather than the cause of warming is due to rising CO2 concentrations (increasing CO2 lags behind increasing temperature). Just a thought...
Nope, sorry...only your 1973 Ford LTD can cause Global Warming, er, I mean, Climate Change. Pay no attention to that fireball in the sky or that wet stuff that covers most of the planet...they have very little to do with the temps going up or down. Only evil deniers are to blame!
/
| 317 |
avanti Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:46:08pm |
re: #310 Simple Voice
According to this report,
.
I am not saying the earth does not get colder or warmer. Of course it does.
It just seemed when the data suggested the earth might be cooling, the phrase "global warming' was out and the phrase "climate change" was in.
And 2008 was still one of the top 10 warmest years in the last 100. Must go to bed.
| 318 |
zombie Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:46:15pm |
Watched the video. Hmmm...
Haven't read the link yet. But, based on the video:
It does seem to use multiple movie/TV show/commercial/copyrighted clips almost certainly without permission. The argument that "Fair Use" applies in this situation probably doesn't apply because the video-maker isn't citing the clips in order to comment on them or review them or analyze them, but simply to just use them for their entertainment value to draw in viewers. Which, actually, does count as copyright violation. Just in the first minute, there is a Steve Carell stand-up comedy routine, a scene from Buckaroo Banzai, and an Apple Computer commercial. Did he get permission from all those copyright holders before using them? Almost certainly not.
Next problem i see is that, the video seems to be based on the "straw man" fallacy -- i.e. pick out the weakest representative of the opposing side, and then attack him -- ignoring all the stronger arguments.
So far, what I have seen is weak!
| 319 |
austin_blue Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:47:44pm |
re: #291 danrudy
Oopss, I think I screwed that up. I meant to say that temperatures lag solar activity by about 10 years, thu when there is a period of activity of solar activity there is a 10 year lag in temperatures. it tracks much better to solar activity . the co2 levels lag even further behind. This is thought to occur because as tempertures become warmer and plant life flourishes co2 goes up. In periods of decrease solar activity followed by decreasing tempertures and decreasing plant life co2 levels decrease.
Co2 is a laggin indicator. SOlar activity is the lead indicator.
I urge you to watch the documentary from te BBC
THe great global warming swindle by david durkin. makse mince meat of al gores documentary
Gah! In past glacial cycles, ice sheets covered much of the continents. Plant life significantly decreased. Buried biomass couldn't rot. Thus, atmospheric CO2 decreased. When the cycle reversed, heat increased first, leading to the melting of the ice sheets, which exposed the buried biomass, which rotted and then CO2 levels increased. So in past cycles, temperature rises preceded CO2 rises.
*Of course* it did. Perfectly logical.
What was the driver of the cycle? Perhaps the theory of Milankovitch cycles, which show a widening of the distance from the earth to the sun on a long wave explain it. Seems logical.
But the point is that human activity has thrown a monkey wrench into what was basically a stable system for several million years. And all of the funding thrown to folks to rebut that simple fact cannot change the reality that things have gone wonky.
| 320 |
Simple Voice Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:48:01pm |
I am all for a clean environment.
I am all for clean water and clean air.
I am all for reducing pollution.
But, please, do not try to scare me with hyperbole and lies to force me to institute good policy when it comes to our environment.
| 321 |
Optimizer Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:48:05pm |
re: #277 Former Belgian
That was excellent. Another excuse I heard (from my brother-in-law, a govt solar scientist w/ a PhD) for going along with what they percieve their crowd believes was that "the high level of CO2 is unnatural, so it can't be good." The obvious counter-argument is that as plant food, there's no reason to believe CO2 is otherwise harmful, so why would you impair the global economy (advancing socialism in the process) over it? Maybe they need to make up their own individual excuses - no matter how lame - so that they can feel like they're really thinking for themselves, and somehow special.
| 322 |
The Shadow Do Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:48:36pm |
Wind projects are like a marooned sailor. It is not so simple as standing up a bunch of wind generators. There they are but so what. You have to be able to tie them into the grid. Can you say transmission?
Big bucks, ain't happenin'
But loons will coninue to beat that drum.
| 323 |
Salamantis Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:48:54pm |
re: #305 Sharmuta
I support following the scientific method, Sal. But what we do know, we can start to apply now. Like nuclear energy, and wind and solar to supplement. We should be researching and finding better ways to deal with this- without the draconian measures and hysteria. Let's try to keep our heads, follow the science and apply the knowledge when and where we can. This reeks of DI, Sal. DI...
We can only follow the science as far as it leads us, Sharm, and it hasn't yet led us to any determination whatsoever as of yet as to what percentage of the current uptemp trend is due to human causes and what percentage is due to natural factors.
If we want to follow it any farther, we need to do more science.
Sure, we should go nuclear, and also tap other nonpolluting sources of energy. The pollution caused by fossil fuels is unhealthy, whether or not global warming is caused by it. I'm just not willing to rush headlong into hamstring the economy of the greatest nation on earth because I have a reeking feeling.
| 324 |
austin_blue Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:49:08pm |
re: #296 Sharmuta
I'm pretty sure we can all agree we'd like to be good stewards, yes? The problem is we don't like the draconian solutions? What are some capitalist and green ways we can deal with energy needs and by-products that will make the most number of people happy while not disrupting our society?
Finally. An excellent question.
| 325 |
danrudy Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:49:10pm |
re: #308 Unakite
A very good thought!
In fact, it is one of the leading theories explaning the lag of co2 levels with regard to solar activity.
Sun gets active send more radiation our way and heats up earth. Beacuse it takes many years to actually heat up oceans due to their size it takes say 10 years to start increasing temps. As temps increase conditions are ore favorabel for plant life and fauna and increase co2 productino happens. I believe they also said that more trapped c02 in oceans is released.
When solar activity decreaes all happens inreverse with less plant life becasue of less favorable conditions etc.
Again, I urge all to watch the BBC documentary The grear Global Warming Swindle by Durkin. It really takes all the wind out of the Gore documentary
| 326 |
Throbert McGee Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:49:26pm |
re: #15 Slumbering Behemoth
I believe Mr. Sinclair does his cause a bit of a disservice by throwing in that piece of WMD snark near the end.
Also did his cause a disservice by tacking on "we humans are definitely the cause of global warming" and "the consequences will be dire."
Whatever one thinks about the reality of "anthropogenic" global warming, one can't make a case for it simply by pointing out that a skeptic of AGW like Watts was mistaken in thinking that the ground temperature readings were inaccurate. (Though, admittedly, Watts is a lame loozer for having brought up the point of weather-station accuracy in the first place, since any attempt to deny that there is an observable and ongoing trend towards warmer global temperatures is at this point a YEC sort of exercise.)
In addition to making a plug for the truth of AGW that wasn't at all justified by the preceding content, Sinclair compounded his error with the gloom-and-doom forecast that the consequences of global warming (whatever its causes) must be "dire." In reality, the long-term effects of global warming are likely to be just awful for some regions of the planet, and totally SEX-sational for other regions. And good or bad, these effects will unfold over a generational timespan, and not within a few days, as Hollywood would have it.
Of course, the cherry on top of Sinclair's Crazy Kake of Dubious Logic was the jab at Fox News and the WMD reference -- both examples of the ad hominem fallacy.
| 327 |
Alberta Oil Peon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:50:08pm |
re: #184 Sharmuta
You're looking to be personally offended when I called you personally no such thing. Deny whatever you want to lady, but you're following charlatans.
Pot, meet kettle.
| 328 |
Noam Sayin' Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:50:50pm |
re: #318 zombie
Not that I disagree with you, but what's with the big setup on copyright infringement?
Unless I'm missing something. It's nearly 1:00 am here, and I've had a couple glasses of wine.
| 329 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:51:08pm |
re: #316 Desert Dog
Nope, sorry...only your 1973 Ford LTD can cause Global Warming, er, I mean, Climate Change. Pay no attention to that fireball in the sky or that wet stuff that covers most of the planet...they have very little to do with the temps going up or down. Only evil deniers are to blame!
/
Sorry, I bow my head in shame. I'm one of the evil deniers and it's my fault. Silly, random thought; how much CO2 is released by breweries?? Do I have to stop drinking?? :(
| 330 |
Simple Voice Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:51:26pm |
re: #317 avanti
Show me where 2008 falls on the chart of the warmest years in the last 4.5 billion.
| 331 |
swamprat Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:52:13pm |
re: #271 avanti
Show me any link that documents a increase in solar output that could be causing warming. Do you think science is so stupid they would not look at solar output ?
What is "yes",Alex?
Now, I just showed you one. The link that clearly shows the content and "thickness" of Mars' atmosphere, and your link showed Martian winds as the cause and not the result of solar activity. The omission of any cause of these winds should be a red flag. There is your link. Mars is getting hotter. Because of winds that did not blow before. Why are they blowing? Maybe they started blowing because it got colder, or a comet hit, or Mars started to spin faster...but I believe; The sun got hotter, the wind blew and the dust started flying. But strangely, no reason is given for these winds; they just set themselves in motion...or... the cause is politically incorrect. An inconvenient truth, if you will.
Note I said believe. For this is less about what we know, but more about which "side" we choose. Because now the friggin weather is less about facts, and more about how we feel. And we are stupid enough to argue about how we feel about the weather.
George Orwell, Ayn Rand and Ogden Nash could not have written anything as chilling, and at the same time, hilarious as what we find ourselves sucked into.
| 332 |
Desert Dog Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:52:53pm |
re: #326 Throbert McGee
Also did his cause a disservice by tacking on "we humans are definitely the cause of global warming" and "the consequences will be dire."
Whatever one thinks about the reality of "anthropogenic" global warming, one can't make a case for it simply by pointing out that a skeptic of AGW like Watts was mistaken in thinking that the ground temperature readings were inaccurate. (Though, admittedly, Watts is a lame loozer for having brought up the point of weather-station accuracy in the first place, since any attempt to deny that there is an observable and ongoing trend towards warmer global temperatures is at this point a YEC sort of exercise.)
In addition to making a plug for the truth of AGW that wasn't at all justified by the preceding content, Sinclair compounded his error with the gloom-and-doom forecast that the consequences of global warming (whatever its causes) must be "dire." In reality, the long-term effects of global warming are likely to be just awful for some regions of the planet, and totally SEX-sational for other regions. And good or bad, these effects will unfold over a generational timespan, and not within a few days, as Hollywood would have it.
Of course, the cherry on top of Sinclair's Crazy Kake of Dubious Logic was the jab at Fox News and the WMD reference -- both examples of the ad hominem fallacy.
The tracheostomy smoking dude was a nice touch as well.
| 333 |
danrudy Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:53:18pm |
re: #319 austin_blue
IF you consider how much co2 and heat is thrown in to the atmosphere in only one volcano eruption or from naturally occuring forrest fires from lighting strikes the amount of production by man is peobably miniscule.
I think we give ourselves much to much credit for our ability to change levels. Nature can do it much faster and efficiently.
| 334 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:53:33pm |
re: #317 avanti
And 2008 was still one of the top 10 warmest years in the last 100. Must go to bed.
I think they revised 2008, but it's late and I'm not going to try to verify that right now (hey, just like the believers)!!
| 335 |
boxman Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:53:34pm |
I'm about halfway through Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth and I heartily recommend it to you all.
| 336 |
Desert Dog Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:53:45pm |
re: #329 Unakite
Sorry, I bow my head in shame. I'm one of the evil deniers and it's my fault. Silly, random thought; how much CO2 is released by breweries?? Do I have to stop drinking?? :(
Well, it's you and me and farting cows...but not the sun!
| 337 |
Syrah Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:53:56pm |
re: #322 The Shadow Do
Wind projects are like a marooned sailor. It is not so simple as standing up a bunch of wind generators. There they are but so what. You have to be able to tie them into the grid. Can you say transmission?
Big bucks, ain't happenin'
But loons will coninue to beat that drum.
Another problem with wind power is the variations. A power grids needs steady/predictable. Wind is neither steady nor predictable.
There is also the problem of birds. They have a very choppy relationship with fast moving blades.
| 339 |
zombie Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:56:09pm |
re: #310 Simple Voice
According to this report,
.
I am not saying the earth does not get colder or warmer. Of course it does.
It just seemed when the data suggested the earth might be cooling, the phrase "global warming' was out and the phrase "climate change" was in.
I've just spent two weeks reading everything that our Science Czar John Holdren has ever written. He too has almost comically "gone with the flow" when it comes to "climate change."
First, he predicted that the climate wouldn't get hotter or colder, merely that the weather patterns around the globe would shift -- to everyone's detriment, naturally.
Then he speculated that all the pollutants in the upper atmosphere may cause so much cooling that they would cause a "modern Ice Age."
Now he says that global warming is so insanely itnense and critical that within a matter of decades we are all DOOMED unless we "de-develop" western civilization and go back to a more primitive lifestyle.
Given his astronomically incorrect guarantees about the population explosion, and his earlier sure-as-shooting guarantees about various other kinds of climate changes, I have utterly no faith in any pronouncement he makes now.
Whatever latest doom-and-gloom science fad is hip at the moment, he jumps in with both feet. When it is later proved to be an embarrassment, he simply moves on to the next one, and never backtracks or apologizes.
And when you consider that this guy is the one who made the charts for "An Inconvenience Truth" -- i.e. he's the one who supplied all the original stats upon which the current hysteria is based -- well, excuse me if my skepticism meter goes haywire.
| 340 |
Bloodnok Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:56:14pm |
re: #318 zombie
Of course they attack a weak argument. The point of the video is to show that an accepted claim is, itself weak -and (I believe) they do.
Even if the other arguments hold up, if I lie to you once and then tell you 10 truths, I would expect to be called out on my one lie. And I would not be surprised if my overall body of work could reasonably be called into question for that lie.
| 341 |
zombie Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:56:37pm |
re: #320 Simple Voice
I am all for a clean environment.
I am all for clean water and clean air.
I am all for reducing pollution.
But, please, do not try to scare me with hyperbole and lies to force me to institute good policy when it comes to our environment.
Agreed!
| 342 |
Simple Voice Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:56:38pm |
re: #338 Noam Sayin'
And the oceans are the biggest producer of CO2.
Cap and Trade the Pacific!
| 343 |
freetoken Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:56:56pm |
re: #326 Throbert McGee
... and totally SEX-sational for other regions.
Hey... we can always count on Throbert to warm up the temps at LGF!
| 344 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:57:07pm |
re: #319 austin_blue
Gah! In past glacial cycles, ice sheets covered much of the continents. Plant life significantly decreased. Buried biomass couldn't rot. Thus, atmospheric CO2 decreased. When the cycle reversed, heat increased first, leading to the melting of the ice sheets, which exposed the buried biomass, which rotted and then CO2 levels increased. So in past cycles, temperature rises preceded CO2 rises.
*Of course* it did. Perfectly logical.
What was the driver of the cycle? Perhaps the theory of Milankovitch cycles, which show a widening of the distance from the earth to the sun on a long wave explain it. Seems logical.
But the point is that human activity has thrown a monkey wrench into what was basically a stable system for several million years. And all of the funding thrown to folks to rebut that simple fact cannot change the reality that things have gone wonky.
Gah! If you have glacial cycles (alternating cold and warm periods), the system isn't stable.
| 345 |
danrudy Fri, Jul 31, 2009 10:58:12pm |
re: #338 Noam Sayin'
yes co2 released from ocean and their is icreased plant life as everything thaws out
| 347 |
danrudy Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:00:23pm |
night as well, havent been thinking clearly for last hour
| 348 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:00:35pm |
re: #339 zombie
So you're dismissing the data because of one person's interpretations.
Would you do that with biology?
| 349 |
Syrah Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:01:06pm |
In approximately 4 billion years, give or take a billion, the sun will go supernova and ten we will all really be screwed.
| 350 |
austin_blue Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:02:04pm |
re: #284 Unakite
Just for the record, by definition "variations" between glaciation and inter-glaciation cycles and general temperature swings are not steady state conditions.
No, but the general steady-state system is. But you knew that when you made your quibble.
;-)
| 351 |
The Shadow Do Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:02:07pm |
re: #337 Syrah
There is also the problem of birds. They have a very choppy relationship with fast moving blades.
Yes they do. I am familiar with a project that is limited to about 9 months a year. The other three or so months are down time due to possible bird migration.
"Green power" ain't all its cracked up to be. Could be some issues when your lights go out.
| 352 |
dalejrfanfreak Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:02:33pm |
Mr. Watts is a good guy, and is partially responsible for finding out that NASA's U.S. temperatures were wrong, which is why 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record. At the end of the day, the Earth is not getting warmer (roughly 3,000 record low temperatures were set in July) and the climate will change over time regardless of what we do. Besides, what do all of these alarmists expect us to do? Drive electric cars that we will have to plug in and therefore require even more energy to carry out our lives? Alarmists want us to go back to the cave man days and at the same time pay for it.
Oh, lastly, how come Charles didn't mention that Al Gore's hometown of Nashville broke a record for low temperatures in late July? I thought the Earth was supposed to be getting warmer and warmer?
| 353 |
Throbert McGee Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:02:39pm |
re: #319 austin_blue
But the point is that human activity has thrown a monkey wrench into what was basically a stable system for several million years.
So what?
I mean, it's not like this is the worst such monkey-wrench that Earth's biosphere has managed to bounce back from. (The all-time champeens of destroying fragile ecosystems and causing mass extinctions of other species by being TOO DAMN SUCCESSFUL would undoubtedly be the primitive photosynthetic bacteria whose profligate oxygen-farting transformed the atmosphere of early Earth, wiped out innumerable species of oxygen-intolerant germies, and made possible the evolution of multicellular lifeforms such as ourselves.)
| 354 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:04:44pm |
re: #336 Desert Dog
Well, it's you and me and farting cows...but not the sun!
Heh, I guess it's kind of like the elephant in the room that no one pays attention to. Only, the sun is so bright that it hurts their eyes, so they turn away and can't see it.
| 355 |
shortshrift Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:05:38pm |
re: #75 Van Helsing
re: #90 avanti
I recommend the following web site. It has a very good list of climate organizations and sites, listing skeptics and others separately. A few minutes browsing on the skeptic list will take you to a site that disproves the idea that the medieval warm period was local (northern hemisphere). I would give an exact link, but I am lazy and I think the linked site will be useful generally - assuming you haven't already seen it.
| 356 |
zombie Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:05:39pm |
re: #326 Throbert McGee
In reality, the long-term effects of global warming are likely to be just awful for some regions of the planet, and totally SEX-sational for other regions. And good or bad, these effects will unfold over a generational timespan, and not within a few days, as Hollywood would have it.
And that, my friend, has been my main argument since the beginning!
Whatever causes global warming, and whether the warming is in any way extreme or unusual is irrelevant -- because there is no evidence that a warmer globe will in fact be overall detrimental. The weather in most human-inhabited zones may very likely IMPROVE due to the slight global warming we are seeing.
Coastline encroachment due to sea level rises will be in fact quite minor and will take centuries -- not minutes or hours like in the fast-motion fantasies of An Inconvenient Truth. People in coastal areas will likely not even notice any change during the span of any one single lifetime.
Tradeoff: Fewer polar bears and lost of a few yards of some coastlines vs. luxuriant semi-tropical balmy weather in most of the northern hemisphere. What's to say that the second option is inherently worse?
| 357 |
austin_blue Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:05:48pm |
re: #333 danrudy
IF you consider how much co2 and heat is thrown in to the atmosphere in only one volcano eruption or from naturally occuring forrest fires from lighting strikes the amount of production by man is peobably miniscule.
I think we give ourselves much to much credit for our ability to change levels. Nature can do it much faster and efficiently.
Sorry, my man, we have increased CO2 levels by 33% over anything we have been able to record over the last 400,000 years when lightning, forest fires, and volcanoes were constantly doing their thing. This one is on us.
| 358 |
Dancing along the light of day Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:07:58pm |
re: #357 austin_blue
So, what would your strategy be, to fix this problem?
| 359 |
Noam Sayin' Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:08:20pm |
Way OT, but I just heard on the online MPLs scanner about two guys fighting on 35W at 35th street. I thank the lizards who turned me onto that item. But then I call up the online traffic cams and get to watch the fight.
Seems to be a bit of an accident.
Gawd, I love the innernets.
| 360 |
Salamantis Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:08:44pm |
re: #357 austin_blue
Sorry, my man, we have increased CO2 levels by 33% over anything we have been able to record over the last 400,000 years when lightning, forest fires, and volcanoes were constantly doing their thing. This one is on us.
Global CO2 levels now stand at 387 parts per MILLION. It is amazing to me that plant life is so efficient that it does not suffocate for lack of it.
| 361 |
Silvergirl Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:10:59pm |
On clean green simple living, Ed Begley, Jr is the man for living what he believes. A big fat do as I say and not as I do guy is Al Gore.
I would guess most of us here respect the earth and wouldn't might doing a little more to show gratitude for living on our piece of planet, whether we believe our lives have a big impact on the environment or not. What we don't want is Al Gore and his ilk doing their pompous ass show for money and glory.
| 363 |
Throbert McGee Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:11:55pm |
re: #349 Syrah
In approximately 4 billion years, give or take a billion, the sun will go supernova and ten we will all really be screwed.
OH MY GOD WE'RE GOING TO DIE! I'M TOO YOUNG! I'M NOT READY! SNATCH ME UP TO THY BOSOM, JESUS!
...oh, wait -- did you say "4 billion years"? I thought you said "4 million." My bad.
(YouTube link is for hilarious "Disaster Porn!" remix of the 2012 trailer -- a must-watch!)
| 364 |
californiabrowser Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:12:58pm |
The significance of Watt's work is that after spending billions of dollars and two decades there was still no systemic evaluation of the detailed state of each weather station. This is poor science and it calls into question the reliability of the climate data. In contrast to the huge sums spent by the US, Watts works with some volunteers and produces what is clearly an important and necessary contribution to the climate data. The talking points in no way take away from Watts' work---nor does there one graph actually prove anything one way or the other. If indeed they are correct and all the micro-siting issues cancel out it will be just pure luck, not brains. It is sad state of affairs here in the US--who knows what it is like in the rest of the world (especially outside of Europe and Japan).
So what if Watts was insulted by the video and wanted it removed. This doesn't make the video any more or less correct, or Watts' work any less important. There is no way to 'debunk' of the important contribution Watts and helpers made in data collection, and the scientists who did not manage to do this earlier should be appreciative, gracious, and acknowledge Watts' contributions to climate science. Watts' questioning of the reliability of the record is fully justified by the poor station locations and maintenance. The curve in the NOAA talking point memo (which motivated the video referred to in this thread) is not compelling without knowing exactly how it was calculated and analyzing other measures of reliability. As is, it is no more than a graphical sound bite.
See more at
[Link: www.climateaudit.org...]
| 365 |
Alberta Oil Peon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:14:16pm |
re: #296 Sharmuta
I'm pretty sure we can all agree we'd like to be good stewards, yes? The problem is we don't like the draconian solutions? What are some capitalist and green ways we can deal with energy needs and by-products that will make the most number of people happy while not disrupting our society?
Well, I'm a wellsite geologist in the drilling industry. Most of my work has been on wells targeted for natural gas, and that proportion is likely to increase, as this area has much more gas than conventional oil. And, of the fossil fuels, natural gas has by far the smallest "carbon footprint."
So, if there is a problem, I'm actually part of the solution, and so are the "evil oil companies" that use my services.
Here's a hint for you. Read up on this character. He's the one pulling Al Gore's puppet strings.
| 366 |
zombie Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:14:32pm |
re: #348 Sharmuta
So you're dismissing the data because of one person's interpretations.
Would you do that with biology?
I'm not dismissing the data. I'm dismissing the hysteria.
The hysteria derives not from the data, but from unfounded and unproven PROJECTIONS from the data which are are extremely dubious.
Right now, as we speak, are we living on an infernally hot planet? No.
Right now, as we speak, have the sea levels risen to any noticeable degree? No.
The "crisis" is entirely based on drawing the projection lines out into the future for hundreds of years. And yet there is very little rationale for those projections -- other than scientific faddism.
The "data" I'm assessing is this: that John Holdren and the other original global warming projectionists once made very similar projections of population trends and/or the effects of population trends, and they all proved to be wrong. I didn't doubt the population stats they had in the '60s and '70s, and I don't doubt the temperature stats we have now. What I doubt is the reliability of the projections based on those stats, considering that the people doing the projection have been so consistently wrong in the past.
| 367 |
austin_blue Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:15:50pm |
re: #344 Unakite
Gah! If you have glacial cycles (alternating cold and warm periods), the system isn't stable.
Oh, for goodness sakes. If they are *consistent* then of course they are stable. Are the seasons stable over time? Warm in the summer, cooler in the winter?
That's the whole argument of climate change. Has the injection of an additional 100 parts per million of CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels fundamentally changed the dynamics of the Earth's climate? 413 say NO! Several tens of thousands say YES.
What is the risk to us all if we believe the 413? What is the benefit to us all if we act on the recommendations of the thousands?
| 368 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:17:01pm |
re: #350 austin_blue
No, but the general steady-state system is. But you knew that when you made your quibble.
;-)
Yes, but I made the quibble because they demonstrate that the earth can and does go through large climatic fluctuations over time. Given that, I don't see how a small change recorded over a few decades to a century is being elevated to the level of an existential crisis.
| 369 |
Alberta Oil Peon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:18:09pm |
re: #304 Thanos
I was wondering why that video had dissappeared, now I know. People who can't take debate usually are not honest.
Heh! Go to Anthony Watts' site. He links to that very video on his own site. So I guess, then, he must be honest.
Thing about copyright, if you don't defend it, you lose it.
| 370 |
Sharmuta Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:18:15pm |
re: #366 zombie
The Discovery Institute agrees with you.
| 371 |
Throbert McGee Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:18:21pm |
re: #352 dalejrfanfreak
Oh, lastly, how come Charles didn't mention that Al Gore's hometown of Nashville broke a record for low temperatures in late July? I thought the Earth was supposed to be getting warmer and warmer?
Localized fluctuations like that are, in fact, pretty meaningless, and don't prove anything one way or another about whether the average global temperature is rising. That's why Charles didn't mention it. You oughta make like Dale Jr. and attempt to keep up.
Sheesh.
| 372 |
Dancing along the light of day Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:18:45pm |
Do look over there
--->
A shiny new thread!
See ya!
| 373 |
zombie Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:20:23pm |
re: #370 Sharmuta
The Discovery Institute agrees with you.
I hear they also like chocolate ice cream over at the Discovery Institute. Better cross that one off my list.
| 374 |
freetoken Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:21:31pm |
re: #360 Salamantis
Global CO2 levels now stand at 387 parts per MILLION.
Sal, draw yourself (in your mind) a 1" cube in front of you. How many "parts" of atmospheric gases do you think are in that 1" cube?
| 375 |
Throbert McGee Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:21:55pm |
re: #370 Sharmuta
The Discovery Institute agrees with you.
Tsk, Sharmuta. I love you, but that there's an "ad hominem."
Every argument must stand or fall on its own merits. The personal characters of the people supporting or attacking an argument are irrelevant.
| 376 |
Salamantis Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:24:41pm |
re: #366 zombie
I'm not dismissing the data. I'm dismissing the hysteria.
The hysteria derives not from the data, but from unfounded and unproven PROJECTIONS from the data which are are extremely dubious.
Right now, as we speak, are we living on an infernally hot planet? No.
Right now, as we speak, have the sea levels risen to any noticeable degree? No.The "crisis" is entirely based on drawing the projection lines out into the future for hundreds of years. And yet there is very little rationale for those projections -- other than scientific faddism.
The "data" I'm assessing is this: that John Holdren and the other original global warming projectionists once made very similar projections of population trends and/or the effects of population trends, and they all proved to be wrong. I didn't doubt the population stats they had in the '60s and '70s, and I don't doubt the temperature stats we have now. What I doubt is the reliability of the projections based on those stats, considering that the people doing the projection have been so consistently wrong in the past.
But there HAS to be a problem to solve! Many green industries depend upon there being one so they can make money designing, manufacturing and marketing technological solutions, and climate scientists in the private sector depend upon such corporations for employment, as well as upon government grants to come up with such solutions, for both private sector scientists and public sector academics.
What would happen to all of this commerce and industry if it were empirically verified that the lions' share of global warming was caused by natural phenomena such as solar cycles or earth orbit wobbles, over which we can exert little or no influence?
There are powerful and widely distributed vested interests at work here. Which is why it will prove extremely problematic to keep self-interested researchers honest.
| 377 |
Salamantis Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:27:02pm |
re: #370 Sharmuta
The Discovery Institute agrees with you.
2 + 2 + 4 even if Hitler agrees that it does, and 2 + 2 doesn't = 5 even if Gandhi maintains otherwise.
Sometimes people can be on the right side of an issue for all the wrong reasons. Ad Hominem is a 2500 year old Greek logical fallacy.
| 378 |
clgood Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:28:13pm |
Sinclair does a simply awful job making his case here. The only time he actually goes to the data, with the NOAA temperature curve, all he shows is that the sensor data are probably good. The first half of this is meaningless snark, all of the references to the Heartland Institute are pointless ad hominem and prove absolutely nothing, and then he finishes up with a complete straw man.
Reasonable skeptics don't deny the data. There has been some warming. And cooling. One thing we know about the climate is that it always changes. What this video avoids mentioning other than in blind assertion at the end is the idea of anthropogenic warming. That case has not been conclusively made by a long shot.
The extrapolation to "dire consequences" is even more bizarre, and clearly political. Historically periods of warming (and it has been much, much warmer in the past) are associated with good things like long growing seasons. So even if we are warming the planet, the next thing you have to convince me of is that this is a bad thing.
I've lived through too many chicken little scares (global cooling, DDT killing birds, hole in the ozone, overpopulation, etc.) which all turned out to be exactly wrong for me not to be skeptical of yet another crisis whose solution just happens to be dismantling free markets and increasing state control over everybody.
As for Watts, I have no dog in that hunt. This isn't about any one person, which is another weakness in this video. He's dumb to try to get it taken down because it really fails to land any serious blows anyway.
And the use of the term "deniers" is deliberately offensive. It's a political term, and has no place in a scientific discussion.
| 379 |
Optimizer Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:28:42pm |
re: #80 Bloodnok
I think the video scores a direct hit. It's not going to end the debate (and I don't think it claims to) but it takes a major weapon out of the anti-AGW arsenal; that of the weather station data being compromised by bad placement of sensors.
While the narration may be partisan and while we all may have opinions about current measures being suggested and in some cases foisted upon us, the chart at 5:16 has no agenda behind it. It is straight science. That is what I am taking away from this video.
I would take away that the graph at 5:16 bears some investigation (those scientists at NOAA that made it are pretty notorious for shenanigans), but the arguments given about the weather station accuracy was laughably lame. If you simply look at the report in the picture, NOAA plainly admits that the station siting is bad, and they don't deny how widespred the problem is. Then they do what's called a "hand-waving exercise". This is where the savy reader should be hearing "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
It's just the absolute levels that are off, only the trend is important? You bought that? As they allude to in the film itself, one problem is the encroachment of urban areas around these sites - so it's NOT just a constant bias that we're talking about. The error would obviously vary with time. The rest of that argument didn't hold water, either. Watts was clearly right about the poor quality of the data, and the film desperately tries to make it sound like he was not, anyway.
What the film fails to mention is that while the US is "only 2%" of the area, it actually has the best, most closely spaced, network with the longest history - other countries are even worse in terms of what's available.
What it also fails to mention is that all those mysterious adjustments Hansen and his gang apply to the US data make the trend it shows inconsistent with the two global satellite data sets that are apparently beyond his reach. Yeah, I wouldn't necessarily take numbers from that crowd at face value. The chart at 5:16 might well have their magical "adjustments", and is not necessarily "straight science".
But what's ironic is that they try at length to unsuccessfully discredit Watts' report, while at the same time declaring that it's irrelevant anyway.
In reality, it really NOT important to the debate (you know, the one that doesn't exist). One should only go by the satellite data. Heck - the surface station data even has the inherent flaw that land only covers about 30% of the Earth, and they don't have thermometers out in the ocean!
The film in general is pretty bad. It starts off with that melodramatic "conspiracy theory" strawman, which is the usual ad hominem crap, has those flawed arguments about weather data in the middle, and some vague references to obscure cherry-picked scientific studies (that can never be wrong, of course), and even has some bizarre digression into something about tobacco. It's hillarious when these guys try to conjure up their own conspiratorial sentiment, while accusing the other guy of the same, and when they point to "large" funding sources for their opponents in a damning way when their own funding is orders of magnitude higher.
| 380 |
austin_blue Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:28:55pm |
re: #353 Throbert McGee
So what?
I mean, it's not like this is the worst such monkey-wrench that Earth's biosphere has managed to bounce back from. (The all-time champeens of destroying fragile ecosystems and causing mass extinctions of other species by being TOO DAMN SUCCESSFUL would undoubtedly be the primitive photosynthetic bacteria whose profligate oxygen-farting transformed the atmosphere of early Earth, wiped out innumerable species of oxygen-intolerant germies, and made possible the evolution of multicellular lifeforms such as ourselves.)
OK! It's equivalent! Mindless microbes evolving the planet to allow an oxygen atmosphere, allowing the evolution of our simplest forms of our concestors, which led, eventually, to us, is the same as us, supposedly thinking beings, trashing our atmosphere. Got it.
| 381 |
Salamantis Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:29:51pm |
re: #374 freetoken
Sal, draw yourself (in your mind) a 1" cube in front of you. How many "parts" of atmospheric gases do you think are in that 1" cube?
For every part that is CO2, there are 2584 parts that are other things.
| 382 |
mrkwong Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:30:45pm |
re: #366 zombie
I'm not dismissing the data. I'm dismissing the hysteria.
The hysteria derives not from the data, but from unfounded and unproven PROJECTIONS from the data which are are extremely dubious.
And what about that data? If one cherry-picks starting years one can find a little bit of warming or a little bit of cooling but the overall trend is...flat.
Sea levels have fallen around all those Pacific islands that were looking for UN global-warming bailouts. The Antarctic is not warming, and for all the hand-wringing over the Arctic there's plenty of historical record of open water in the polar region intermittently for as long as man's been going there.
And there's no empirical, real-world observable anything that corroborates the results of GIStemp or the Hadley model or any of the other warming-alarmist toys.
| 383 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:31:46pm |
re: #365 Alberta Oil Peon
Well, I'm a wellsite geologist in the drilling industry. Most of my work has been on wells targeted for natural gas, and that proportion is likely to increase, as this area has much more gas than conventional oil. And, of the fossil fuels, natural gas has by far the smallest "carbon footprint."
So, if there is a problem, I'm actually part of the solution, and so are the "evil oil companies" that use my services.
Here's a hint for you. Read up on this character. He's the one pulling Al Gore's puppet strings.
Geologist upding (just for the h*ll of it).
| 384 |
meatsss Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:31:51pm |
Well the teaser about trying to take down the video due to copyright is a bit disengenous. From Watt's post about Sinclair's unlicensed use of material from Watt's published and copyrighted book.
"But, in the video Mr. Sinclair produced and posted on YouTube, I noticed that he did in fact use photographs and graphics from my published book “Is The U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?”. I hold the copyright on this book. The notice for copyright is in the inside front cover. © 2009 Surfacestations.org All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this report or portions thereof in any form. ISBN 13: 978-1-934791-29-5 and ISBN 10: 1-934791-26-6."
Watt's solution?
"But my copyright had been ignored, with evidence that Mr. Sinclair as a publisher himself using the © symbol understands copyrights, and WB’s copyright also looked like it also had been ignored. And well, lets face it, he got the facts wrong about the project and never contacted or interviewed me to get any facts from my side (more on that later). So it could hardly be defined as “journalism” and the protections that such enterprise affords for “fair use”. So I filled out the form for copyright issues on YouTube, and pressed enter.
What I expected to happen is that I’d get an angry email or blog comment from the guy, I’d suggest to him (privately) to make a couple of modifications, grant him a copyright for the factual graphics from the surfacestations project, and tell him to put his video back up on the web. End of story, lesson learned."
But no. In fact a string of profane comments by alarmists are left at Watt's site, and the video was reposted by a Huff and Puff poster.
Mr. Watts let it go and described where to go see it and what was strong with it.
"But being that guardian of smoggy freedom, Mr. Grandia took it a step further, and, in a rather ironic follow-up to his seizing of the mantle of all that conforms to the laws, somehow located the original YouTube video and reposted it to YouTube under the “DeSmog Blog” label:
You can watch it here:
So much for my “censorship”, feel free to view it. You see, I’ve had lots of angry criticism in the last two years, this is nothing new, so I’m not really concerned about the criticisms.
When viewing, note the graph from NCDC in the video which “proves” my surfacestations project is (choose your own derogatory word). More on that momentarily...
...I still haven’t heard from Mr. Sinclair so I could tell him about what I’d like changed.
OK. But if Mr. Sinclair had contacted me (like a journalist would) before he made his video, instead of simply reading the NCDC Talking points memo (revised version seen here, PDF) he could have found out a few things, such as:
* NCDC used an old outdated version of my data set (April 2008) they found on my website and assumed it was “current”. Big mistake on their part. Big admission of not overly concerning himself with first-hand knowledge, or even substance, on his part.
* NCDC did not contact me about use of the data. The data, BTW is not yet public domain, though I plan to make it so after I’ve published my paper. So like Mr. Sinclair, technically they are also in violation of copyright. Surfacestations is a private project, I emphasize, what with the public-private concept being one of the major precipitors of the alarmosphere’s angst.
*That data NCDC found had not been quality controlled, many of the ratings changed after quality control was applied, thus changing the outcome.
* When notified of this, they did nothing to deal with the issue, such as notifying readers.
* NCDC published no methodology, data or formula used, or show work of any kind that would normally be required in a scientific paper.
* The author is missing from the document thus it was published anonymously. Apparently nobody at NCDC would put his or her name on it..."
| 385 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:34:08pm |
re: #371 Throbert McGee
Localized fluctuations like that are, in fact, pretty meaningless, and don't prove anything one way or another about whether the average global temperature is rising. That's why Charles didn't mention it. You oughta make like Dale Jr. and attempt to keep up.
Sheesh.
Upding for the Dale Jr. comment. :)
| 386 |
mrkwong Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:35:18pm |
re: #370 Sharmuta
The Discovery Institute agrees with you.
Is that remark somehow supposed to be relevant to anything?
| 387 |
freetoken Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:37:30pm |
re: #375 Throbert McGee
Tsk, Sharmuta. I love you, but that there's an "ad hominem."
Every argument must stand or fall on its own merits. The personal characters of the people supporting or attacking an argument are irrelevant.
Well yes, Throbert. However, given that one of the issues up for discussion is the dubious nature of various characters involved, it is not irrelevant to discuss the ways and means various individuals, in this case Anthony Watts, approach their cause.
| 388 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:37:36pm |
re: #367 austin_blue
Oh, for goodness sakes. If they are *consistent* then of course they are stable. Are the seasons stable over time? Warm in the summer, cooler in the winter?
That's the whole argument of climate change. Has the injection of an additional 100 parts per million of CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels fundamentally changed the dynamics of the Earth's climate? 413 say NO! Several tens of thousands say YES.
What is the risk to us all if we believe the 413? What is the benefit to us all if we act on the recommendations of the thousands?
What is the risk to us if we act on the recommendations of the thousands and they are wrong (as they were 20 years ago)? And by the way there are thousands, NOT 413, who say NO, and some of them are the supervisors of the some of the ones who say YES.
| 389 |
swamprat Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:41:15pm |
re: #367 austin_blue
You realize that bio-diversity increases in warmer climes?
Warmth means less fuel consumed. And claiming carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas is absurd; It is measured in parts per million and it hasn't warmed mars much. We have to call call carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas because there is no other way to use this current fad to gain power. We are too good at reducing real pollutants, so the global bogeyman became carbon dioxide. You know, the stuff that we exhale. The stuff plants need to live. The stuff that is a very tiny fraction of the atmosphere. The stuff that other countries will not be required to use to hobble their industry.
If we buy into global warming, the way the dogma is written now, our industry moves further overseas and we are unemployed. Capishe?
| 390 |
Alberta Oil Peon Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:42:55pm |
re: #387 freetoken
Well yes, Throbert. However, given that one of the issues up for discussion is the dubious nature of various characters involved, it is not irrelevant to discuss the ways and means various individuals, in this case Anthony Watts, approach their cause.
Anthony Watts appears to be a very straight-arrow kind of guy, and his blog is a very civil place, indeed.
But I wouldn't trust that Peter Sinclair with a bushel of burned-out brain cells.
| 391 |
Optimizer Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:51:39pm |
re: #326 Throbert McGee
... (Though, admittedly, Watts is a lame loozer for having brought up the point of weather-station accuracy in the first place, since any attempt to deny that there is an observable and ongoing trend towards warmer global temperatures is at this point a YEC sort of exercise.)
...
First of all, as a meteorologist, I could see why the really horrible state of the weather stations "in this day and age" would be an ongoing pet peeve, AGW crap or no.
Secondly, he's not trying to deny the warming trend that occurred from the late 70s up through about 2000. He doesn't claim that it's all due to the "heat island" effect, although (and this IS a shocker!) you wouldn't know it from this film. It's obviously not exactly an objective documentary.
Third, I think a more objective assessment of US weather would show that the late thirties was as warm as today, if not a bit warmer. Ever hear of the "Dust Bowl"? Notice how they chop off the data BEFORE 1950? The idea that US is experiencing an unprecedented level of warmth (or at least one outside the possibility of natural variation) is bogus, and I think Watts is trying to show that.
Fourth, the chart itself shows a cessation of the global warming trend during this decade. So even somebody who buys it shouldn't be talking about warming as an "ongoing trend". If anything, the most recent data (not completely shown) is hinting at the start of a cooling trend. Wouldn't THAT be "inconvenient"?
| 392 |
zombie Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:55:39pm |
re: #391 Optimizer
Fourth, the chart itself shows a cessation of the global warming trend during this decade. So even somebody who buys it shouldn't be talking about warming as an "ongoing trend". If anything, the most recent data (not completely shown) is hinting at the start of a cooling trend. Wouldn't THAT be "inconvenient"?
The tomato plants growing in my garden tell me that this has been a colder-than-normal summer. The tomatoes are late, small, and unripe. They keep waiting desperately for some sun and warmth so they can reach maturity, but it never comes.
Trust the tomatoes. The tomatoes don't lie.
| 393 |
Throbert McGee Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:59:15pm |
re: #269 realwest
Thank you all very much; as I said, I've missed y'all a LOT.
Oh and #238 freetoken I was only asking cause Charles had that thread on it and I wondered if anything ever became of those over 400 scientists that basically say Global Warming or Climate Change is bullshit - don't know the answer to that question.
RealWest! Where in Sam Hill have you been? We were getting worried...
| 395 |
Unakite Fri, Jul 31, 2009 11:59:58pm |
re: #392 zombie
The tomato plants growing in my garden tell me that this has been a colder-than-normal summer. The tomatoes are late, small, and unripe. They keep waiting desperately for some sun and warmth so they can reach maturity, but it never comes.
Trust the tomatoes. The tomatoes don't lie.
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!!
| 396 |
Silvergirl Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:02:08am |
re: #392 zombie
The tomato plants growing in my garden tell me that this has been a colder-than-normal summer. The tomatoes are late, small, and unripe. They keep waiting desperately for some sun and warmth so they can reach maturity, but it never comes.
Trust the tomatoes. The tomatoes don't lie.
Fry the tomatoes. Fried Green Tomatoes.
| 397 |
shortshrift Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:03:32am |
re: #77 Killgore Trout
Also: Nice use of Glenn Beck in the video. If you want to paint someone as crazy or something as stupid all you have to do is find a Glenn Beck clip. Conservatives and Republicans need to stop thinking of Obama and the left as the enemy. Fox News has done far more to damage conservatism in the past six months than Obama will do in 8 years. Seriously.
P.S. There's absolutely no reason that global warming skepticism needs to be a conservative value. Same with creationism. They have absolutely nothing to do with conservatism as a philosophy.
I do not know about conservatism as a philosophy post Adam Smith, but conservatism as a temperament would be pro-alarmist. The luddites, the landed gentry, husbandmen, noble sportsmen and their gamekeepers, all disliked industrial progress - the Dark Satanic Mills - and wanted to conserve their relationship with the land. These natural conservatives would agree with the alarmists that we should revert to a simpler lifestyle, that mankind has gone Too Far.
But conservatism has come to stand for, among other things, skepticism towards government . As AGW politics demands enormously intrusive and coercive government, I should hope that conservatives would at least raise an eyebrow at it.
| 399 |
austin_blue Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:04:57am |
re: #388 Unakite
What is the risk to us if we act on the recommendations of the thousands and they are wrong (as they were 20 years ago)? And by the way there are thousands, NOT 413, who say NO, and some of them are the supervisors of the some of the ones who say YES.
What is the risk if we don't act?
| 400 |
Optimizer Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:06:16am |
re: #367 austin_blue
What is the risk to us all if we believe the 413? What is the benefit to us all if we act on the recommendations of the thousands?
If we believe "the 413" (who really number in the tens of thousands) the risk is negligible. By their own estimates, if we spend crippling amounts on the recommendations of the alleged multitudes it won't make much difference anyway, and we would be better off spending the money on trying to deal with the alleged problem than we would be by trying to fix it. It's pretty cheap to move third world people to higher ground. The ocean's only supposedly moving a few feet anyway, if you're paying attention. The scare stories of widespread crop failures represents even more speculative fantasy stories than AGW itself. It was warmer 1000 years ago, and humankind thrived. They used to farm in Greenland, for crying out loud!
Ironically, no matter which side you pick in the AGW debate, the answer as to what to do comes out the same. As a bonus, we skip a nasty little trip into World Socialism at the same time.
| 401 |
Throbert McGee Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:10:19am |
re: #391 Optimizer
Fourth, the chart itself shows a cessation of the global warming trend during this decade. So even somebody who buys it shouldn't be talking about warming as an "ongoing trend". If anything, the most recent data (not completely shown) is hinting at the start of a cooling trend. Wouldn't THAT be "inconvenient"?
Hmmm. I stand corrected. Russian grammar, cooking-from-scratch recipes, corndog polishing, martial arts sparring techniques, and the care and upbringing of adorable rodents are all areas in which I would claim to have some degree of hard-acquired expertise. But meteorology is one area where I'm forced to wing it.
| 402 |
Optimizer Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:17:29am |
re: #392 zombie
The tomato plants growing in my garden tell me that this has been a colder-than-normal summer. The tomatoes are late, small, and unripe. They keep waiting desperately for some sun and warmth so they can reach maturity, but it never comes.
Trust the tomatoes. The tomatoes don't lie.
Yeah, there's talk in some circles of how part of the country (or is it the World?) are looking at "the year without a summer". It's certainly happening here in Western NY. People complain, but personally I like it better when it doesn't get in the 90s (oe even the 80s).
But we must bow our heads, gentile folk, and profess our unshakable belief that widespread local cooling is also part of global warming (unless it gets hotter!) Never mind the record snowstorms in South America, or the first snow in Iraq in 100 years.
You know, nobody's been able to explain why, but climate HAS tracked with solar activity pretty well for centuries, and the Sun is in a kind of quiet phase right now that hasn't been seen in at least 100 years. So this could get REAL interesting in the coming few years. Maybe.
| 403 |
Optimizer Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:20:31am |
re: #401 Throbert McGee
I, for one, readily forgive you. You're a better man than, well, the President, I guess! (Gates dig, heh)
And on that note I must turn in for the night!
| 404 |
Throbert McGee Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:24:54am |
re: #380 austin_blue
OK! It's equivalent! Mindless microbes evolving the planet to allow an oxygen atmosphere, allowing the evolution of our simplest forms of our concestors, which led, eventually, to us, is the same as us, supposedly thinking beings, trashing our atmosphere. Got it.
Not "trashing" it -- just warming it up a bit to facilitate the eventual appearance via natural selection of, I dunno, penguins the size of tugboats, or hamsters with hentai-demon tentacles. Interesting developments in evolution are simply not going to happen if we CODDLE the lesser species all the time. Of course, we might lose polar bears along the way, but such is the price of progress. (Or the polar bears might just shed their heavy fur coats and become the ursine equivalent of naked mole rats -- which would look pretty gnarly, but nonetheless there'd still be biodiversity.)
| 405 |
austin_blue Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:28:29am |
re: #389 swamprat
You realize that bio-diversity increases in warmer climes?
Warmth means less fuel consumed. And claiming carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas is absurd; It is measured in parts per million and it hasn't warmed mars much. We have to call call carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas because there is no other way to use this current fad to gain power. We are too good at reducing real pollutants, so the global bogeyman became carbon dioxide. You know, the stuff that we exhale. The stuff plants need to live. The stuff that is a very tiny fraction of the atmosphere. The stuff that other countries will not be required to use to hobble their industry.If we buy into global warming, the way the dogma is written now, our industry moves further overseas and we are unemployed. Capishe?
I will completely disagree. If our energy generation moves to nuclear instead of coal as our baseline production, then wind and solar can make up the difference when it is needed (when the sun is shining and when the wind is blowing- i.e. when it is hot). Will this take an investment of beaucoup bucks in transmission systems? You bet!
But here is a basic fact:
Coal and oil are extractive tech. We have 200 years of coal available. Then what? We have maybe 300 years of oil available, and given that some of our most productive fields have production crashing (see Mexico) then what? These are finite resources and have uses well beyond electrical generation, as in fertilizers and plastics. These energy sources will become more and more expensive in the future. Why not make the shift now and retain these resources for future use? Isn't that a win/win?
| 406 |
swamprat Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:42:05am |
re: #405 austin_blue
These energy sources will become more and more expensive in the future. Why not make the shift now and retain these resources for future use? Isn't that a win/win?
I agree with what you posted. We need to produce energy. Conserving our resources is sound practice. I object to shooting ourselves in the foot over hysteria, but putting ourselves back in the energy business would seem to run counter to what most people associate with the current global warming platform. Doing so is definitely win/win.
| 408 |
FQ Kafir Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:57:38am |
Dear Lizard King,
Please research this very important question in a credulous manner.
There is a plethora of scientists who reject the "consensus" of Global Warming.
Science is not about consensus.
It is about verifiable, reproducible results.
Our climate works on a chaotic system, it does not easily lend itself to models which don't take into account the biggest variable of them all... the Sun.
| 409 |
infidel4ever Sat, Aug 1, 2009 2:15:18am |
re: #405 austin_blue
Coal and oil are extractive tech. We have 200 years of coal available. Then what? We have maybe 300 years of oil available, and given that some of our most productive fields have production crashing (see Mexico) then what? These are finite resources and have uses well beyond electrical generation, as in fertilizers and plastics. These energy sources will become more and more expensive in the future. Why not make the shift now and retain these resources for future use? Isn't that a win/win?
Look at the way technology has progressed in leaps and bounds over say the past one hundred years. It sounds like a very sensible idea to preserve our resources for the future, but who says we will still be wanting/needing them? I am sure there are loads of peat still available on earth. I would say any large scale need for that resource in the future is fairly doubtful. With the cap-and-trade the US may be damaging her economy for absolutely nothing (besides spreading the wealth).
| 410 |
Darth Vader Gargoyle Sat, Aug 1, 2009 3:33:52am |
I think the potential benefits of climate change could be significant. More farming in northern latitudes. Why someday they might end up renaming Greenland...wait.
| 411 |
Darth Vader Gargoyle Sat, Aug 1, 2009 3:35:03am |
If you consider how far we have come technologically in the last 100 years, the fact that we "only" have 200 years or so of coal left is really laughable.
| 413 |
walksatnight Sat, Aug 1, 2009 5:21:01am |
What a pompous wind bag. "What *real* scientists are telling us..."
In other words, if they do not agree with me then they are not *real*.
Sorry buddy, but you are not *real*.
He makes a reasonable argument and the explodes it all with snideness. Typical.
| 414 |
figgles Sat, Aug 1, 2009 5:21:02am |
Why not try to debunk the process rather than rely on guilt by association. We get a little of it but not a satisfactory amount. Since I don't see Hannity/Limbaugh et al as pure evil, showing them repeatedly is more of a joke than an argument.
| 417 |
AtadOFF Sat, Aug 1, 2009 5:40:42am |
A perfunctory dismissal of Watts? I expected more from you Charles.
| 418 |
Sharmuta Sat, Aug 1, 2009 5:41:54am |
In short there is a lot of evidence supporting the theory that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing the planet to warm, including fundamental physics.
[Link: greenhome.huddler.com...]
| 419 |
bobbuck Sat, Aug 1, 2009 6:31:00am |
The weather stations needed scrutiny. Period. Here are three pictures of my local station (47012). It's between an air conditioned building, another structure (well pump, I think), beside pavement, and shaded. Good grief! If they take out the "bad" sites and the "good" sites still match up, they've got some serious data problems. They might be normalizing to their own errors.
Image: 1.small.jpg
Image: 2.small.jpg
Image: 3.small.jpg
(take out the "small" to see the originals)
If the only thing that comes of the WeatherStations effort is to make the NOAA and related entities open up their research to peer review, it's definitely worth it. We are going to spend trillions of dollars to fight global warming. That money would provide clean water, food and vaccinations for the whole planet. If you ask for that much money you have to have a thick skin and rock solid numbers. They don't,
| 420 |
SGTTED Sat, Aug 1, 2009 6:36:02am |
Just because the alrmists changed the name of their lies and crazy totalitarian solutions from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" doesn't validate any of their lies or their crazy ideas on stopping it.
| 421 |
Sharmuta Sat, Aug 1, 2009 6:37:04am |
re: #375 Throbert McGee
Tsk, Sharmuta. I love you, but that there's an "ad hominem."
Every argument must stand or fall on its own merits. The personal characters of the people supporting or attacking an argument are irrelevant.
I see. Associating denial with the Discovery Institute isn't permitted, but associating acceptance with the recently demonized John Holdren gets updings. Because the fallacy is working both ways here. Perhaps it should be applied equally or not at all.
| 422 |
Sharmuta Sat, Aug 1, 2009 6:43:42am |
re: #419 bobbuck
The weather stations needed scrutiny. Period. Here are three pictures of my local station (47012). It's between an air conditioned building, another structure (well pump, I think), beside pavement, and shaded. Good grief! If they take out the "bad" sites and the "good" sites still match up, they've got some serious data problems. They might be normalizing to their own errors.
My hypothesis on why the data still matched is that urbanization is affecting the data both small and large scale. I don't disagree the varying situations with the stations should be reviewed, and updates/corrections made to stations found wanting. I would suggest stimulus money, but that would likely cause head explosions.
| 423 |
freetoken Sat, Aug 1, 2009 6:57:20am |
re: #421 Sharmuta
A relevant counter example, Sharm.
I've not tried to add much to this thread... I sort of gave up discussing AGW when it became clear that the return on my time was so small. LVQ has been pulling most of the time in the hot seat lately, so to speak, and a couple of other folks too.
Yes, the philosophical and scientific arguments are not won using fallacies. However, what is at work in these discussions usually is not a discussion of the actual science.
What happens is that people get to vent. Against Al Gore, against the government, against "liberals" or "socialists" or the UN or "elitists", ad naseum.
It is very discouraging to see so many people saddled with such fear and anger.
One error that President Obama has made is not gauge accurately the political climate that exists around the topic of AGW.
People are afraid of losing control of their lives, and endeavoring to accomplish strategic objectives in addressing AGW in all likelihood means government intervention in the lives of people, thus feeding the basic human fear of losing control. It's a no-win situation.
In light of this atmosphere, trying to actually help people understand what is meant by "AGW" or "climate change" becomes a non-starter. People just don't want to hear.
This thread is full of accusations of this and that... and again, the sad thing is all of those objections have been answered and discussed (at different levels of detail) all around the web, if only people would spend time looking and reading.
We have more imminent problems in this country than climate change, and I think I'll get back to posting more on oil, economics, and the like. I do think that there is a little value in bringing forward links to AGW related science, or educational sites (like I did above to the AIP site), but just like with the creationism/ID issue, the battle really is about human fear and worldviews.
| 424 |
Sharmuta Sat, Aug 1, 2009 6:59:52am |
Back in March, Charles posted a piece on Freeman Dyson- who is a much more legitimate skeptic than the vast majority of the charlatans recently outed as dishonest frauds. I'll stick with the scientific method and reject the fallacy that to accept the data is to accept the hysteria.
| 425 |
Sharmuta Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:05:55am |
re: #423 freetoken
I can understand your frustration. I'd ask you to keep plugging away because you never know when you will get through to someone. Some of LVQ's recent comments have influenced me, and this video displaying the shameless lying was the proverbial straw. Without previous groundwork being laid, I wouldn't have given my opinion or the situation a second thought. I would like to see some of your more favorite links on AGW. I'm ready to fact check on this issue. :)
| 426 |
coquimbojoe Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:12:18am |
re: #276 austin_blue
Where do I begin? Really, the facts are the facts. CO2 increases in the atmosphere in excess of 300 pp(million) (my mistake-it's not billion) in the last 150 years are solely because of human activity. There is no other explanation. Have there been previous times when the Earth was hotter than it is now? Yes. Absolutely. But the last several million years has seen a steady state of glaciation/inter-glaciation cycles where both general temperature swings and CO2 cycles have been reasonably stable. Sunspot cycles are short wave, and we are in a low state at the moment (perhaps responsible for the slowing of warming in the northern hemisphere that we have seen for the last six years). But that cycle is about to swing back.
Question: If the global temperatures increase by 2 degrees during the next sunspot cycle, will you be convinced?
Yes I will be convinced that the sun and its spots have everything to do with our temperature. CO2 follows the increase in temperature, not precedes it. Volcanoes in one fell swoop put more CO2 in the atmosphere than man ever has. Stop reading Wikipedia as your source.
| 427 |
jvic Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:15:12am |
re: #339 zombie
I've just spent two weeks reading everything that our Science Czar John Holdren has ever written. He too has almost comically "gone with the flow" when it comes to "climate change."
(*snip*)
Well, mainstream science is what establishment scientists think. Given that, it's not surprising that Holdren goes with the flow: he's part of the flow.
Still, you've made me wonder if Holdren formulates conventional wisdom in public-policy science or if he echoes it.
Whatever latest doom-and-gloom science fad is hip at the moment, he jumps in with both feet. When it is later proved to be an embarrassment, he simply moves on to the next one, and never backtracks or apologizes.
A strong statement. Did he never dissent? If he did, were his dissents turn out to be correct or incorrect?
I hope that at some point you post a summary of your Holdren readings (with references) here or at your site. Your post made some sweeping criticisms of Holdren. I'm not defending him or contradicting you: I'm speaking in a spirit of due diligence.
| 428 |
Sharmuta Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:17:36am |
re: #426 coquimbojoe
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI): Also known as total incoming solar radiation (insolation). The amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth can change as solar activity changes. This is a known factor influencing global temperatures and thus climate. Sometimes people will reference sunspots, which correlate fairly well with TSI (more sunspots generally means more incoming solar radiation), but solar irradiance is the specific factor impacting the Earth's climate.
Since 1978 we've had satellites measuring TSI directly, and prior to that scientists use "proxies". A proxy variable is something that is probably not in itself of any great interest, but from which a variable of interest can be obtained. For example, climate scientists use tree rings and ice core layers as proxies to determine past global temperatures. In the case of TSI, one such proxy is beryllium-10 concentrations.
So the question again arises - could changes in TSI be responsible for the recent global warming? Since we've had satellites measuring TSI directly since 1978, and this is the period of the greatest warming in recent history (0.5 degrees Celsius over the past 30 years), all we have to do is look at the satellite data to determine if solar irradiance has similarly increased over that period.
Again, the answer is no. On average, TSI has remained essentially unchanged since 1978. According to the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, it hasn't increased (on average) in about 70 years.
[Link: greenhome.huddler.com...]
| 429 |
JustAHouseWife Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:20:51am |
re: #422 Sharmuta
My hypothesis on why the data still matched is that urbanization is affecting the data both small and large scale. I don't disagree the varying situations with the stations should be reviewed, and updates/corrections made to stations found wanting. I would suggest stimulus money, but that would likely cause head explosions.
Yeah, I've seen reasoning before. In this case "scale" means degrees. So that means the margin for error in the data from all those thermometers is equal to or greater then the scale (degrees) of "warming" they claim is unusual .
IOW they've got "0" evidence of any unusual warming.
| 430 |
Sharmuta Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:24:05am |
re: #429 JustAHouseWife
Did you watch the video? They selected the best data centers and ran a separate graph, and it matched the overall data's line. If the bad data centers were affecting the data, the line wouldn't match- it would show the disparity. It doesn't.
| 431 |
freetoken Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:24:58am |
re: #425 Sharmuta
Oh, I'll plug along.
If you have not done so already, please check out the AIP link (History of Climate Change, by Weart) I put upstream. I have yet to find a better presentation to the layman that has the breadth of that AIP site while not going overboard into too much detail. I believe if you read Weart's online book you will be far along in getting a feel for the scope of the scientific work involved.
Most of the government agencies involved in science or its applications (e.g., weather forecasting) have troves of information. NOAA and NASA in particular. Yet of course being government sites they are tainted in the eyes of many.
Indeed, many websites get that accusation... see above where someone tried to smear desmogblog. That happens to RealClimate also, though the contributors to that site really are pretty sharp cookies. Many of the sites run by scientists unfortunately fail the outsider-friendly test, as they constantly refer to what might be considered insider information (e.g., references to papers by an author's name only.)
The for-profit journal publishing industry (e.g., Nature) has entire publications dedicated to climate (or related fields), but again the problem quickly becomes that the layman, even the well educated and interested person, can quickly get lost in the specialists' jargon.
Both the American Geophysical Society and the European Geophysical Union make videos of key presentations at their annual meetings, which on occasion I've linked here.
Here is where the rubber meets the road - how much time are you (or anyone) willing to spend on this issue? Like all scientific specialties, depth of understanding only comes after long investments of time.
If you have some specific questions, I can give you more specific links.
| 432 |
funky chicken Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:26:25am |
re: #339 zombie
I've just spent two weeks reading everything that our Science Czar John Holdren has ever written. He too has almost comically "gone with the flow" when it comes to "climate change."
First, he predicted that the climate wouldn't get hotter or colder, merely that the weather patterns around the globe would shift -- to everyone's detriment, naturally.
Then he speculated that all the pollutants in the upper atmosphere may cause so much cooling that they would cause a "modern Ice Age."
Now he says that global warming is so insanely itnense and critical that within a matter of decades we are all DOOMED unless we "de-develop" western civilization and go back to a more primitive lifestyle.
Given his astronomically incorrect guarantees about the population explosion, and his earlier sure-as-shooting guarantees about various other kinds of climate changes, I have utterly no faith in any pronouncement he makes now.
Whatever latest doom-and-gloom science fad is hip at the moment, he jumps in with both feet. When it is later proved to be an embarrassment, he simply moves on to the next one, and never backtracks or apologizes.
And when you consider that this guy is the one who made the charts for "An Inconvenience Truth" -- i.e. he's the one who supplied all the original stats upon which the current hysteria is based -- well, excuse me if my skepticism meter goes haywire.
Gosh, you didn't even mention his prediction that we would run out of certain kinds of metals 20 years ago or whatever. You're too kind, zombie. :-)
| 433 |
bobbuck Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:28:49am |
re: #422 Sharmuta
My hypothesis on why the data still matched is that urbanization is affecting the data both small and large scale.
I thought there was a site that showed a correlation between recent development and local temperature increase. I'll have to do some Googling. I think there's also a psychological element to it, also. If you believe that proving AGW will save humanity, you're going to round up instead of down. I love how none of the people projecting imminent doom from global warming are pushing for more science and engineering. They're still pushing liberal arts degrees.
| 434 |
freetoken Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:29:47am |
re: #430 Sharmuta
Did you watch the video? They selected the best data centers and ran a separate graph, and it matched the overall data's line.
The video is restating what this little report (pdf) at the NCDC encompasses:
[Link: www.ncdc.noaa.gov...]
| 435 |
Sharmuta Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:30:45am |
re: #431 freetoken
I like to start with an overview and work my way into details. I don't have much time to study this issue- I'm busy with other research, but I will work in some time for this issue. Thanks for pointing out the link. I will work my way through it.
| 436 |
JustAHouseWife Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:32:30am |
re: #430 Sharmuta
Doesn't matter. The margin for error in just about every discipline; tree rings; thermometers; ice cores-you name it; when looking at the past in "climate science" is still greater then or equal to the degrees of warming they claim as unusual right now. This wouldn't hold up in private practice! You'd be sued or at least not payed if you sold research like that in the private sector to your customer.
| 437 |
funky chicken Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:36:39am |
re: #430 Sharmuta
Both sided cook their data, which is why I don't trust any of them, and I'm certainly unwilling to countenance destroying the American economy, or "de-developing" the West, based on cooked data and wild computer model predictions.
I'm ABD in biochemistry, and I can tell you that the "data" presented by the global warmists just doesn't pass the smell test, and the crazy predictions that Al Gore types make based upon the data (with ZERO refutation by the folks who produced the data) does major damage to their cause.
My husband has a good (liberal) friend with a PhD in meteorology who was dismayed by Gore's pronouncements that "global warming" was causing the uptick in large hurricanes hitting the US South. I guess true global warming would cause fewer and weaker hurricanes.
So Gore cancels out Inhofe, leaving us where? As a scientist, I would prefer more years of study and somebody who would make an honest attempt to develop clean data and a less impassioned case than either side has made up to this point.
| 438 |
freetoken Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:37:22am |
re: #435 Sharmuta
The big challenge for you, as someone wrestling with the big issues of society, is (I think) how you will mesh your philosophical understanding of human nature (e.g., the constrained-unconstrained spectrum) with the contemporary issues of the 21st century.
How scientific knowledge impacts political decisions is certainly a tough place to start, IMO.
| 439 |
jvic Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:50:11am |
re: #436 JustAHouseWife
Doesn't matter. The margin for error in just about every discipline; tree rings; thermometers; ice cores-you name it; when looking at the past in "climate science" is still greater then or equal to the degrees of warming they claim as unusual right now. This wouldn't hold up in private practice! You'd be sued or at least not payed if you sold research like that in the private sector to your customer.
Brava.
Not having seen the error budgets, I don't agree or disagree with your conclusions, but you put your finger squarely on the crucial methodological feature.
Very well said.
| 441 |
ckb Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:55:27am |
I think Mr. Watts explanation of his actions is quite reasonable and Charles should do an update.
What we should be asking ourselves is why is surface temperature data being used at all now that we have satellite data? Surface temperture data is fine for monitoring the weather, bad for monitoring the climate.
If the satellite data was showing temperatures that made AGW theories look good, it's hard to believe it would not have been put front and center already.
| 442 |
frater eosphoros Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:55:34am |
Al Gore triumphant. All bow before the Algorithm, puny mortals.
| 443 |
kansas Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:57:35am |
re: #268 avanti
Of course the sun is a factor, but unless you can show a change in output, or sun spots, it's not a factor in climate change, and no such correlation has been shown, but increased Co2 levels track just fine.
| 444 |
Sharmuta Sat, Aug 1, 2009 7:57:43am |
re: #438 freetoken
The constrained vision supports science. What we don't support is man thinking they can have all the relevant knowledge and deliberately contrive solutions. But the flawed solutions don't alter the science. The constrained vision will want to alter things slowly and cautiously after much inspection- that's not wrong in this case. Radical, imposed restrictions will harm our economy/society. I don't think it means we should deny the data, however. We should apply the scientific method- meaning peer review. Healthy and honest skepticism should be welcome, but results should likewise be expected to have adherence. We accept the science or we don't.
I think the constrained vision would apply capitalism to this issue. There are some people willing to host green energy in their back yards. I don't think we should go overboard with the hysteria on either end, but instead keep following the data/science and apply what knowledge we can to reasonably curb our CO2 output while we research better alternatives for the future. I really don't see what's wrong with an approach like this other than the reluctance of some to reconsider their position.
BTW- more green energy supply is coming. We can either embrace this and impact the "solutions" in a way we can accept, or we can keep our heads in the sand and miss out on opportunity.
| 445 |
Born Again Republican Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:01:41am |
Need to add that you can find the debate in the theater section.
| 446 |
Ian MacGregor Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:02:33am |
Hmmm. Tony Blair believed we would find WMD and also is a strong proponent of AGW. Indeed with the notable exception of Robin Cooke, the foreign secretary, not the author, who resigned from Blair's cabinet over the matter nearly, everybody did.
The video centers more on attacking Mr Watts via association with political commentators then on refuting his arguments which is strange. Why not simply state that the hypothesis that poorly placed weather stations are causing significant problems with climate data are false for the following reasons...
The claim that not absolute temperatures but change at a location is interesting. If the location changed from rural to urban overtime, then there would be an expected rise in temperature at that spot.
The argument that these problematic stations do not significantly affect the data set is harder to refute.
There has been much hyperbole. "The first time we have seen open ocean at the north pole in over 10,000 years", I think one wag said, but some one came up with public relations of submarines surfaced in open water at the pole. The serious depletion of sea ice in the arctic without mentioning the expansion of sea ice in the southern hemisphere. The doom-saying which came about when a data set for the previous normally month was mistakenly released as the data for the next normally colder month. Suggestions that the Bush administration refused to release photographs taken by photographic intelligence satellites because they showed how extensive the loss of ice was in the arctic basin in 2007 when other satellites had already given a good picture of the extent of the sea ice loss. The mantra that any cooling is due to natural climatic variations, but warming is man-made.
The great majority of scientists who are studying the problem favor AGE as real, significant, and in dire need of addressing. Mr. Watts and Dr Dyson hold a minority view. The scientific consensus in support of AGE cannot be denied and is a call for action. Just what needs to be done, and balancing it against other national interests, and whether other countries will take the same steps is political. With the world presently in a cycle of natural variation, i.e., cooling, it is getting harder to generate interest in doing anything at all about the problem, let alone risking a long-term economic downturn
| 447 |
mrkwong Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:05:56am |
So basically re: #435 Sharmuta
I like to start with an overview and work my way into details. I don't have much time to study this issue- I'm busy with other research, but I will work in some time for this issue. Thanks for pointing out the link. I will work my way through it.
So basically Sharmuta's been selling the warmist line all night despite having no real understanding of the issues with the NCDC data (as well as just about everything else that comes out of the US warmist establishment)?
I find it remarkably interesting that folks who are rightfully skeptical of everything that comes out of government on most matters want to roll over and let the Warmist-Regulatory Complex stick it to them on climate change.
| 448 |
Sharmuta Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:13:21am |
re: #447 mrkwong
I've read enough to know that the temperatures are going up, we contribute partially to this, and the deniers like Watts are lying.
No where have I advocated the solutions proposed by the left. I've suggested we accept the data and propose something better. You have erected a strawman.
| 449 |
mrkwong Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:14:22am |
re: #446 Ian MacGregor
The great majority of scientists who are studying the problem favor AGE as real, significant, and in dire need of addressing. Mr. Watts and Dr Dyson hold a minority view. The scientific consensus in support of AGE cannot be denied and is a call for action.
All of which, of course, is absurd. There's a strong consensus among those funded to perform global-warming research that they want to keep their funding.
There's the James Hansens, like Major Nicholson from Bridge on the River Kwai, who've bet their careers on something that's increasingly looking like a house of cards and have ratcheted the shrill-meter up to 11.
There's the head of the IPCC whose qualifications for the position he holds are highly dubious, to say the least.
Consensus is not science. And, noting (for instance) another post on Mr Watts' site where the members of the American Chemical Society are now in revolt against the editor of their house magazine over his strident warmism, the consensus is starting to look a bit shaky, isn't it?
A lot of folks have been keeping their head down, afraid the political hammer might whack it if they spoke up. As the "consensus" develops cracks, more and more are starting to speak up.
| 450 |
mrkwong Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:17:26am |
re: #448 Sharmuta
I've read enough to know that the temperatures are going up, we contribute partially to this, and the deniers like Watts are lying.56837787
.
The three satellite data sets show temperatures are flat for as long as they've been measuring, and down since 1998. The only one that hints at warming is the NASA data AFTER Hansen gets to 'adjust' it.
Where do you get your 'temperatures are going up' claim?
Historical records are VERY clear that CO2 levels have ALWAYS lagged temperature change, NEVER led it.
Where do you get your 'contribute partially to this'?
| 451 |
Bloodnok Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:18:00am |
re: #447 mrkwong
So basically
So basically Sharmuta's been selling the warmist line all night despite having no real understanding of the issues with the NCDC data (as well as just about everything else that comes out of the US warmist establishment)?
I find it remarkably interesting that folks who are rightfully skeptical of everything that comes out of government on most matters want to roll over and let the Warmist-Regulatory Complex stick it to them on climate change.
So blind skepticism of government trumps faith in the scientific method? See? my strawman can beat up your strawman.
| 452 |
walter cronanty Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:27:34am |
What Mr. Watts is being criticized for his checking the method (actually, the sites and instruments being used) to measure surface temperature in the US, which is universally recognized as the "best" in the world. His checking to date indicates that majority of the sites and instruments used do not measure up to recognized standards. As catastrophic AGW is measured in 1 to 3 degrees centigrade per century, or .1 to .3 degrees per decade, it would seem relevant to check on the reliability of the data upon which these predictions are made. Why he would be attacked for voluntarily doing this is beyond me. If you read [Link: wattsupwiththat.com...] you will get the "rest of the story," including critical comments which you won't find on pro-AGW sites. If you are being critical of Mr. Watts, Mr. Johnson, for trying to "ban" the shrill, sophomoric video, you are off-base.
| 453 |
Sharmuta Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:27:37am |
re: #449 mrkwong
The scientific consensus in support of AGE cannot be denied and is a call for action.
The data shouldn't be denied. It should face the level of scrutiny required by the scientific method. But accepting the data is not the equivalent of accepting the solutions proposed. That is a fallacious argument, and that has been my point this thread.
Green energy and capitalism can co-exist. I know this to be a fact. I fully support the willing people ready to embrace it.
| 454 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:32:20am |
re: #408 FQ Kafir
Dear Lizard King,
Please research this very important question in a credulous manner.
Guess what? I have been researching it, and I've learned that the right wing line on climate change is full of distortions and lies. Sorry, I know that's not what you want to hear.
There is a plethora of scientists who reject the "consensus" of Global Warming.
No, there is not. The vast majority of scientists in climate fields accept the mountains of evidence that human beings are causing global warming. That's a fact. You're getting your talking points from ideologues.
| 455 |
Sharmuta Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:33:34am |
Native Americans Seek Wealth From the Wind
We’re broke here. We’re poor. The wind is free. There’s energy here all the time.
- Ken Haukaas of the Rosebud Sioux
These are some of the poorest tribes in the entire country, and now they have an opportunity to raise the standard of living for their people while being green and creating jobs. What's not to support?
| 456 |
mrkwong Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:34:27am |
re: #454 Charles
No, there is not. The vast majority of scientists in climate fields accept the mountains of evidence that human beings are causing global warming. That's a fact. You're getting your talking points from ideologues.
Oh, we're back to "the science is settled."
Nonsense.
| 457 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:36:09am |
re: #456 mrkwong
Oh, we're back to "the science is settled."
Nonsense.
You can say "nonsense" all you like, it doesn't change any facts.
| 458 |
Ian MacGregor Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:41:22am |
If scientists looking at the data reach the same conclusions, that consensus should not be dismissed. It is not the same as people agreeing on what is best movie of all time. Of course green energy and capitalism can exist, the problem is reliably obtaining such energy from green sources at costs which are competitive with fossil fuels.
| 459 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:44:39am |
re: #352 dalejrfanfreak
Oh, lastly, how come Charles didn't mention that Al Gore's hometown of Nashville broke a record for low temperatures in late July? I thought the Earth was supposed to be getting warmer and warmer?
Oh, I don't know ... maybe because that's a completely meaningless, irrelevant point of information?
| 460 |
Walter Cronanty Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:49:06am |
And here are some additional facts: [Link: climatedepot.com...] .
[Link: www.ibdeditorials.com...]
| 461 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:51:35am |
This is an NOAA question/answer piece on Anthony Watts distorted and untrue claims about US weather stations:
Q. How has the poor exposure biased local temperatures trends?
A. At the present time (June 2009), to the best of our knowledge, there has only been one published peer-reviewed study that specifically quantified the potential bias in trends caused by poor station exposure (Peterson, 2006). The analysis examined only a small subset of stations –- all that had their exposure checked at that time -– and found no bias in long-term trends.
Q. Does a station with good exposure read warmer than a station with poor exposure?
A. Not necessarily. Many local factors influence the observed temperature: whether a station is in a valley with cold air drainage, whether the station is a liquid-in-glass thermometer in a standard wooden shelter or an electronic thermometer in the new smaller and more open plastic shelters, whether the station reads and resets its maximum and minimum thermometers in the coolest time of the day in early morning or in the warmest time of the day in the afternoon, etc. But for detecting climate change, the concern is not the absolute temperature -– whether a station is reading warmer or cooler than a nearby station over grass -– but how that temperature changes over time.
Q. Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years?
A. None at all. Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the length and breadth of the United States the impacts of the warming are unmistakable. For example, lake and river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting. Coastal temperatures are rising. And a multitude of species of birds, fish, mammals and plants are extending their ranges northward and, in mountainous areas, upward as well.
| 462 |
JustAHouseWife Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:52:30am |
re: #439 jvic
Yeah margins of error kind of matter when you have to put your official stamp and signature on it. And my livelihood depends on it. My husband is a state certified environmental scientist in the private sector. He cleans up the earth every day while others argue about it. All that matters to him IS the data and how good it is.
"the mountains of evidence" for AGW lack a real good illustration of these error margins for the general public; and the comments here reflect that. Even the National Academy of Science said error margins matter when it was brought up in the Congressional hearing (when they met over these temperature reconstructions a few years ago) Only some people want to pay attention to all that. I find that odd!
My husband says the earth might be warming in some areas but it is clearly not warming everywhere; and it is not doing what the models predicted either. BTW He'll tell you: Models fail all the time in earth science research!
| 463 |
mrkwong Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:53:37am |
re: #457 Charles
You can say "nonsense" all you like, it doesn't change any facts.
There are no facts at work here. We are talking about efforts to prove a theory.
AGW is a theory. An unproven, possibly unprovable, one. One whose most strident backers are largely ignoring scientific method in achieving their conclusion.
How many reviewers were involved in the AGW conclusions of the IPCC report?
| 464 |
mrkwong Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:54:59am |
re: #461 Charles
This is an NOAA question/answer piece on Anthony Watts distorted and untrue claims about US weather stations:
No, that's an internal talking-points document that no one at NOAA was willing to sign. More FUD.
| 465 |
Walter Cronanty Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:56:56am |
Oops, pushed the wrong button - sorry about that. I am a skeptic, obviously. Learned that from all of the "scientific" scares from alar to DDT. What bothers me the most is the "science is settled" argument. When an entire industry, and AGW is a money-making industry, tries to stifle debate by saying the "science is settled," my bs hackles go up. Please note the various statements by alarmists [most notably Al Gore] about CO2 causing bigger and more violent hurricanes, with the chart provided here: [Link: www.coaps.fsu.edu...]
What you will find is a natural cycle, having no known relationship with AGW. Climate changes, always has, always will.
| 466 |
legalpad Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:06:28am |
re: #465 Walter Cronanty
Oops, pushed the wrong button - sorry about that. I am a skeptic, obviously. Learned that from all of the "scientific" scares from alar to DDT. What bothers me the most is the "science is settled" argument. When an entire industry, and AGW is a money-making industry, tries to stifle debate by saying the "science is settled," my bs hackles go up. Please note the various statements by alarmists [most notably Al Gore] about CO2 causing bigger and more violent hurricanes, with the chart provided here: [Link: www.coaps.fsu.edu...]
What you will find is a natural cycle, having no known relationship with AGW. Climate changes, always has, always will.
Exactly. Why is it so hard just to discuss the specific data, and not come off as propaganda trying to cast the opponent as a nefarious conspirator or a crackpot?
| 467 |
viojam Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:06:28am |
As noted in previous comments, a read of Anthony Watts response is informative.
“To my surprise, he turned out to be an “independent film producer” working out of his house in Midland, MI under the name “Greenman Studio”, one Peter Sinclair, a proud graduate of Al Gore’s Climate Camp.”
The graph Sinclair uses is reminiscent of Michael Mann’s debunked “Hockey Stick Graph” promulgated by Al Gore and his “factual” movie, Inconvenient Truth.
“So, essentially, NCDC’s graph is comparing homogenized data to homogenized data, and thus there would not likely be any large difference between “good” and “bad” stations. All the differences have been smoothed out by homogenization pollution from neighboring stations!
The best way to compare the effect of siting between groups of stations is to use the “raw” data, before it has passed through the multitude of adjustments that NCDC does.”
Any person who looks at one sides propaganda without further in-depth review of the science (ie. Sharmuta) is not able to make a bona fide case for their position.
Ps. - Avanti:
"Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high," notes Hathaway. "Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We're just not used to this kind of deep calm."
[Link: science.nasa.gov...]
| 468 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:07:15am |
re: #423 freetoken
In light of this atmosphere, trying to actually help people understand what is meant by "AGW" or "climate change" becomes a non-starter. People just don't want to hear.
Very true. And as I've been researching the issues, it's become clear to me that there are ideologues on both sides -- but the right wing talking points and claims very often cross the line into distortion and/or deliberate deception.
It's easy to get away with distortions on this subject, because the technical issues are somewhat difficult and most people just don't have time to devote to a thorough study. But the Marc Moranos and James Inhofes on the right wing side are lying about the science, and distorting what they don't lie about.
| 469 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:08:17am |
re: #465 Walter Cronanty
The science is settled in that the Greenhouse effect exists, we contribute to it. That's undeniable. If you want to argue degree, or significance you might have some ground to stand on. Any one saying "AGW doesn't exist" is a luddite denialist. Anyone saying we have to bankrupt the country tomorrow to fix it is an alarmist.
| 470 |
Walter Cronanty Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:11:18am |
And back to the original post. If you note in the anonymous NOAA memo you reference, Charles, NOAA says this: "Surfacestations.org has examined about 70% of the 1221 stations in NOAA’s Historical
Climatology Network (USHCN) (Watts, 2009). According to their web site of early June 2009, they classified 70 USHCN version 2 stations as good or best (class 1 or 2). The criteria used to make that classification is based on NOAA’s Climate Reference Network Site Handbook so the criteria are clear. But, as many different individuals participated in the site evaluations, with varying levels of expertise, the degree of standardization and reproducibility of this process is
unknown. However, at the present time this is the only large scale site evaluation information available so we conducted a preliminary analysis. " Again, Mr. Watts is being criticized for voluntarily doing what no one else has done. He is extremely transparent with methodology. Wish the AGW crowd was the same.
| 471 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:13:12am |
re: #467 viojam
Excuse me, but we don't have good data on total solar irradiation until after the space age began.Anything prior is speculation and model as well. We have records of sunspots but that doesn't give us total solar radiation prior to the sun measuring satellites going up. Ulysses, our best measure, died recently.
| 472 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:14:30am |
re: #470 Walter Cronanty
Yes but he's been shown to be wrong with his hypothesis, did you not pay attention to the graph? On top of that ocean buoys and satellite measurements show him wrong as well.
| 473 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:14:38am |
re: #470 Walter Cronanty
That's absurd. All the issues Watts brings up that can affect temperature measurements from surface stations are well known to the NOAA, and have been for years -- and they've developed methodologies for adjusting and compensating for factors like the Urban Heat Island Effect.
They didn't just wake up and start studying the climate yesterday, you know.
| 474 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:16:27am |
This covers the short period of good measure for solar radiation that we have:
[Link: noblesseoblige.org...]
| 475 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:17:42am |
This is the full reply from the NOAA to Anthony Watts' false claims about the US temperature record (PDF): [Link: www.ncdc.noaa.gov...]
| 476 |
legalpad Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:18:39am |
Climate change is real, we are doing it, - - and we need to stop
Maybe I missed it, but the piece included data on the fact of warming. I didn't catch much data on why. "We are doing it?" Data, please. The issue, the only issue, is how do we know "we are doing it?"
This guy talked like we are 100% of the cause of climate change, not even, "we are contributing." With this sort of approach, it is hard to accept their, "We are being objective" claim. Picking out crackpots to represent your opponents view is easy. Both sides can do that. Pretending that they represent the other side and using it as an excuse to shut down the debate is simply dishonest.
| 477 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:22:26am |
re: #476 legalpad
Maybe I missed it, but the piece included data on the fact of warming. I didn't catch much data on why. "We are doing it?" Data, please. The issue, the only issue, is how do we know "we are doing it?"
I recommend checking out Peter Sinclair's other videos. There's quite a lot of valid information in them.
[Link: www.youtube.com...]
| 478 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:22:54am |
re: #476 legalpad
Green definitely has an agenda too, he tends towards alarm. Note his swipe at Bush / Iraq war with "these are the same people who told you WMD were real". Take both sides with a grain of salt, and expect both to be disingenuous. What disturbs me is that the "conservative" side of the argument tends to outright lie, using Al Gore as the model for all responses from "our" side. That's wrong, and just as Gore is discredited, so it's easy to discredit any voices from the conservative side calling for a measured approach. Those voices get lost in the hysteria from both sides.
| 479 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:24:30am |
re: #477 Charles
I agree, Sinclair references real data, not assertions and speculation. I think he sometimes exaggerates by ignoring countering facts.
| 480 |
legalpad Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:26:09am |
re: #469 Thanos
If you want to argue degree, or significance you might have some ground to stand on.
That would, I think, be the real meat of the topic. And therefore, in what way, and to what degree we need to correct our contribution. The rest of this sounds like straw men arguing with each other. It doesn't matter who set up the straw men. I would just like them to shut up and honest people can discuss the real data, particularly about exactly how and how much we are contributing. Obviously the climate has never been constant, and it always was either warming or cooling. What the silly people say muddies up enjoyable and necessary science.
| 481 |
legalpad Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:27:45am |
re: #477 Charles
I recommend checking out Peter Sinclair's other videos. There's quite a lot of valid information in them.
[Link: www.youtube.com...]
Thanks. I will. Ideally, though, I would like to see it in print. It is so much faster.
| 482 |
legalpad Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:29:29am |
re: #478 Thanos
Green definitely has an agenda too, he tends towards alarm. Note his swipe at Bush / Iraq war with "these are the same people who told you WMD were real". Take both sides with a grain of salt, and expect both to be disingenuous. What disturbs me is that the "conservative" side of the argument tends to outright lie, using Al Gore as the model for all responses from "our" side. That's wrong, and just as Gore is discredited, so it's easy to discredit any voices from the conservative side calling for a measured approach. Those voices get lost in the hysteria from both sides.
This is a good take on it. This whole "conservative-liberal" ideological choose sides mentality is not a good substrate for science.
| 483 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:30:20am |
re: #480 legalpad
I expect the models to be flawed, I expect the owners of the models think they are flawed or they wouldn't be constantly tweaking them or arguing amongst themselves about them. What I don't expect is that the overall trend is not there at all. It should be a discussion of how steep the slope of that trend will be, what the countering factors might be, etc.
Al Gore is responsible for creating this mess by taking the hockey stick and making it the only model. I think we would have been having a somewhat reasonable discussion on this without his original extreme alarmism and political agenda.
| 484 |
arcatan Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:38:36am |
Standard propaganda piece. Early on the bias is revealed by referencing the hated Right-Wing Fox News Channel with a photo including Watts, Limbaugh, and Savage - guilt by association. Later he continues the typical Liberal guilt by association by implying nefarious motives by association with the Heartland Institute (which is evil for pursuing free market solutions).
I can see how this would appeal to Liberal bias, I've yet to find a global warming report that didn't seek to appeal to personal bias and/or engage in extreme fear mongering.
The environmentalists war against capitalism began in earnest in the 70's and was embraced by socialists realizing the power of the message. The UN focused on false speculation and developed new programs to address problems that never existed.
The whole issue is based manipulation and deception - even changing the term "global warming" (which sounds like a good thing to us Northerners) to "climate change" (we all know people don't like change).
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came out with a highly heralded report that declared that human activity contributes to climate change. So what, they lack a model to explain the larger drivers or the consequences, yet they continually take the worse case scenarios to scare people into action. In fact all three major global warming reports I read illustrated some possible horrible consequence without putting it in perspective.
One of the world's most respected scientists, Freeman Dyson' reasonably summarizes the skeptical position:
[Link: www.nytimes.com...]
[Link: e360.yale.edu...]
The global warming scare is fear mongering of the highest order perpetuated by socialists to undermine capitalism. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't investigate ... but that any action we take will likely be grand folly. Remember MTBE? Remember ethanol? These hasty and problematic solutions will be dwarfed by problems created by the current hysteria.
| 485 |
Walter Cronanty Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:41:55am |
re: #473 Charles
Yes, they have been studying the climate for awhile. Questions remain, however, as to the methodology used to measure UHIE, as well as the historical analysis. See, Roger Pielke, Sr.'s review of a relatively new paper concerning NOAA's new version of the historical data set. [Link: climatesci.org...]
Notable is the statement of the authors of the paper being reviewed by Dr. Pielke, Sr.: "“Nevertheless, we have now also added a citation acknowledging the work of Anthony Watts whose web site is mentioned by the reviewer. Note that we have met personally with Mr. Watts to discuss our homogenization approach and his considerable efforts in documenting the siting characteristics of the HCN are to be commended. Moreover, it would seem that the impetus for modernizing the HCN has come largely as a reaction to his work. “
While certainly to the skeptical side, Mr. Watts has always: 1) allowed critical comments; 2) stated that the science should be the science - and wherever it leads, it leads. Why you are critical of this effort is baffling to me.
| 486 |
legalpad Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:53:41am |
re: #477 Charles
OK. Watched the video presented. It had a little on cause. If it were in print I could study it more. The video moves right along to the conclusion it says should be drawn. They may be right. But a 9 minute video is hardly enough consideration for me to reach a conclusion. I did notice his picture of Reagan accompanied by the comment "real men drill for oil". Mockery. Not a good accompaniment to the presentation of science. Most of the time I see or hear of this, and many issues discussed, there is a confrontational element: "What do you believe?" Followed by a dismissal if you don't agree with them yet. The desire to study it for yourself is regarded as dishonesty , cowardice, or both.
What activities of ours contribute exactly what to global warming? What percentage? What effect will result from our curtailing these activities? What are other side-effects of us doing so? What is we pretend China and India do not exist in all our solutions?
But the issue is so muddied up with emotion, agendas, and ideologies, it becomes a royal pain to extract not only real and relevant data, but real solutions.
| 487 |
horse Sat, Aug 1, 2009 10:02:18am |
There was only one part of the video, about a minute, that actually dealt with the claims of the book, and that was the NOAA plotting data for 70 of the surfacestations.org group versus the NOAA average from 1950 forward, and showing a negligible difference. That's it, there is no other refuting of the book's content in the video.
So, let's take a look at that point in NOAA's talking points memo located here. According to NOAA they used USHCN version 2 data for the 70 stations in their comparision. This means this data had already been adjusted using their SHAP algorithms and FILNET software. These are data homogenization processes. Therefore it isn't surprising that by using the adjusted homogenized data you get a match with the overall adjusted homogenized data. Hopefully they do something a little more extensive. Using the raw data from those 70 stations versus their overall USHCN version 2 data could provide a useful comparison. Also, looking at data comparisons from all 1200 stations to ensure adjustments are accurate would be helpful.
So the video doesn't seem to have a direct strong refutation of the book. Whether or not the book's main points are correct is to be determined. I hope it is decisively settled one way or the other so we can move on to viable useful solutions that actually solve problems and aren't just wealth destruction programs in disguise.
| 488 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 10:15:49am |
re: #487 horse
The video did strongly and directly refute the book. Did you miss all of the other facts mentioned? Bird migrations, crop ranges, etc. etc. That's directly observable empirical data. There's also other as measured by man data such as the wordlwide temp readings from weather stations, satellite temperature measures, ocean buoy measures, and you also have the subset of Watt's own hand picked stations matching the graph.
So if Watt's trying to say "things aren't warming" he's wrong, if he's trying to say "things aren't warming as much as NOAA says they are, he's wrong.
| 489 |
VooDoo Sat, Aug 1, 2009 10:21:37am |
Anthony Watts is a first rate individual dedicated to science at its very best. Anthony welcomes civil debate from all sides. Read his site daily and you will be a better informed citizen.
| 490 |
viojam Sat, Aug 1, 2009 10:22:32am |
re: #457 Charles
Damn, Charles. “…doesn't change any facts.” You are using the “vast majority” lame argument? You are losing it. I think it’s time to sign off.
| 491 |
jvic Sat, Aug 1, 2009 10:41:25am |
re: #475 Charles
This is the full reply from the NOAA to Anthony Watts' false claims about the US temperature record (PDF): [Link: www.ncdc.noaa.gov...]
From the document:
Two national time series were made using the same homogeneity adjusted data set and the same gridding and area averaging technique used by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center for its annual climate monitoring. One analysis was for the full USHCN version 2 data set. The other used only USHCN version 2 data from the 70 stations that surfacestations.org classified as good or best. We would expect some differences simply due to the different area covered: the 70 stations only covered 43% of the country with no stations in, for example, New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee or North Carolina. Yet the two time series, shown below as both annual data and smooth data, are remarkably similar. Clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends.
They should plot the good stations and the rest of the stations, not the good stations and all the stations (including the good ones). Naughty, naughty.
IMO they've done exactly that and it made little practical difference. The document says very clearly that the analysis is preliminary. I can imagine it was done under enormous time stress and pressure from higher-ups.
But I hope that future reports will show the superposition of three plots:
1. The 5-10% "best" Watts stations
2. The 5-10% "worst" Watts stations
3. All the rest.
| 492 |
Cato the Elder Sat, Aug 1, 2009 10:43:13am |
re: #408 FQ Kafir
Dear Lizard King,
Please research this very important question in a credulous manner.
Dear Moron,
Please look up the word credulous. It does not mean "credible".
Just because one word sounds sort of like another doesn't mean they express the same idea.
| 493 |
Samurai Sat, Aug 1, 2009 10:55:25am |
I've known Anthony Watts for decades, he was our local weatherman here in northern CA. I trust him and his research VASTLY more than the global warming alarmists.
| 494 |
boogereatinmoron Sat, Aug 1, 2009 10:58:56am |
I am not going to claim enough intelligence and knowledge to support, dispute or understand all of the scientific arguments surrounding this issue but i do know what I know. I live in the southernmost city in Alaska and as I drove to work this past February I listened to a "news" report citing the changing overwinter patterns of robins. The study claimed the the winter range of robins had moved north into Alaska. The temperature at the time was 24 degrees and there was two feet of snow on the ground. Any robins in Alaska would be dead robins. I don't know who sponsored the study or what their methodology was but I do know that it was categorically wrong. If you lived anywhere except southern Alaska you would probably accept the report as factual.
I have also worked in the salmon industry for over 30 years and the run timings have not changed despite whatever people may say.
I am not a denier but I am most certainly a skeptic.
In the weather is not climate department I am glad to report that following the worst winter in my 45 year memory we are enjoying the best summer since 1977.
| 495 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 11:35:36am |
Now we have testimonials about Watts character in a scientific debate... It really doesn't matter if he's the most trustworthy individual in the world, he could still be wrong, just as a single scientist could be wrong, or a single data point could be wrong. Character doesn't matter in science, he could shoot three puppies before breakfast every day and still be right too.
The facts however deny that he is.
| 496 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 11:50:26am |
re: #494 boogereatinmoron
If you are trying to say the run timings never vary, Alaska Outdoor Journal, my personal experience, and my friends tell me you are wrong. The peaks of runs do vary, that's why on their charts AOJ carries a five year average as well as the current year. You will note the King run in several spots was off from the five year average in '09.
| 497 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Aug 1, 2009 11:54:56am |
Apart from the bigger issue of climate change, by the way, I posted this because I don't agree at all with Anthony Watts' tactics -- to try to shut down the criticism with an empty copyright claim, by taking advantage of YouTube's automatic blocking system. He's a big boy. He should be able to deal with critics without trying to muzzle them. He certainly dishes enough of it out.
| 498 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 11:58:07am |
Oops, Here's the link to the charts
[Link: alaskaoutdoorjournal.com...]
| 499 |
horse Sat, Aug 1, 2009 11:59:42am |
re: #488 Thanos
The video did strongly and directly refute the book. Did you miss all of the other facts mentioned? Bird migrations, crop ranges, etc. etc. That's directly observable empirical data. There's also other as measured by man data such as the wordlwide temp readings from weather stations, satellite temperature measures, ocean buoy measures, and you also have the subset of Watt's own hand picked stations matching the graph.
So if Watt's trying to say "things aren't warming" he's wrong, if he's trying to say "things aren't warming as much as NOAA says they are, he's wrong.
The book is addressing the issues with the accuracy of the data stations. It does not discuss bird migrations, crop ranges, etc. etc. To sum it up, the book is claiming they found 89 percent of the stations fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements. Therefore, he claims the U.S. temperature record is unreliable, and it is supposedly the best data in the world. The only part of the video addressing this is around NOAA's plotting of those 70 stations, and I addressed why that was not a meaningful exercise. You can see the difference between the raw measured data and NOAA's normalization adjustments to the ground data over time here.
Regarding your point about other points of measurement, such as satellite measurements, what you find is the satellite data shows much cooler temperatures. The data divergence between satellite and ground stations started in the late 70's and has been increasing up to the present where the satellite data is averaging 0.5C data is averaging 0.5C cooler than NOAA's adjusted ground data. Rather than question the accuracy of the ground data, the NCDC adjusts and normalizes the satellite data upward to match the ground readings. So, we have two sources of raw data, ground and satellite, that get adjusted upward by NOAA by approximately 0.5C. What do you think that means?
| 500 |
walter cronanty Sat, Aug 1, 2009 11:59:44am |
re: #495 Thanos
Well, not all of the "facts" deny that he is right [I have no opinion as to whether he shoots 3 puppies before breakfast] - [Link: motls.blogspot.com...]
"We are among more than 50 current and former members of the American Physical Society (APS) who have signed an open letter to the APS Council this month, calling for a reconsideration of its November 2007 policy statement on climate change (see open letter at [Link: tinyurl.com...] APS statement at [Link: tinyurl.com...] The letter proposes an alternative statement, which the signatories believe to be a more accurate representation of the current scientific evidence. It requests that an objective scientific process be established, devoid of political or financial agendas, to help prevent subversion of the scientific process and the intolerance towards scientific disagreement that pervades the climate issue."
On 1 May 2009, the APS Council decided to review its current statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. We applaud this decision. It is the first such reappraisal by a major scientific professional society that we are aware of, and we hope it will lead to meaningful change that reflects a more balanced view of climate-change issues."
Note also my earlier post re: [Link: climatedepot.com...]
"An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor-in-chief -- with some demanding he be removed -- after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”
The editorial claimed the "consensus" view was growing "increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is "startled" by the negative reaction from the group's scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the "world's largest scientific society."
| 501 |
horse Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:02:15pm |
re: #497 Charles
I agree with you, using copyright on youtube is ducking the issue. He/they have already addressed this in print and could have just as easily provided a civil response to the video. By using copyright to bring it down he only made himself appear like he had something to hide. A very bad move.
| 502 |
walter cronanty Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:12:16pm |
re: #497 Charles
Charles, if you read the current blog on this topic at Mr. Watts' site, you'll see that he has posted the video at his site. Hardly consistent with someone who is trying to "muzzle" his critics.
| 503 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:15:30pm |
I am by no means an expert on global warming, but from what I have read the following is pretty sure:
1. Global warming exists.
2. Man is having at least some impact on global warming.
From what I have read, here are some of the things we don't know about global warming:
1. Just how much of an effect man is having and how much is part of a natural cycle.
2. Whether the "cures" are worse than the "disease"
I just read an article about how we NOW have the technology to reverse global warming by releasing reflective material into the atmosphere and how it could be easily and cheaply done, but that the long range consequences are unknown. I also recently decided to read Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" after rewatching the series. He points to the dangers of runaway global warming (circa 1980) through study of the planet Venus and the dangers of planetary cooling (as exemplified by the planet Mars).
I have, as yet, come to no conclusion about what is to be done about global warming, how much of it is man-made. What I have concluded from what I have read is that it is real and poses a great potential for danger to the planet as a whole. But are carbon taxes the answer? Is artificially cooling the Earth the answer?
| 504 |
hellosnackbar Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:16:06pm |
Re#249 Salamantis and others,
I aquired a passing interest in AGW about ten years ago and listened to the arguements thereto but found a paucity of solid science to substantiate the "religious fervour" supporting it.(far too simplistic).
But everyone gets caught up in the possibility of a forthcoming doomsday
applying the Pascal's wager principle.
However one month ago I received a reccomendation from Melanie Philips
to read a book called"Heaven and Earth"by Prof Ian Plimer(Australia's foremost geologist)on the subject.
This lad is a real scientist and gives the history of the earths weather
over the last few billion years.
His approach is polymathematical and the bibliography is immense.
Without rancor he brings the reader up to date with earth's climatic history such that sometimes one has to pause for breath at the quantity of information contained therein.
The result is a debunking of AGW fanatics with massive evidence.
It would be interesting for science interested Lizards to read and publish
their opinions here;since for me it is in the absense of new discovery
the last word.
Not wishing to infringe the rules of the site I think it is permissable to mention that this book is available from a very well known internet book purveyor.
I would be particularly interested in your view Salamantis since I have found all your science writings to be most illuminating.
I think thatyou too Charles would enjoy the book.
| 505 |
Baelzar Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:16:38pm |
Until Nuclear power is on the table, I'm not ever going to support anti-AGW measures.
If they're truly interested in eliminating the problem, then they'd better get serious about the solution. Unicorn Power ain't gonna cut it.
| 506 |
Sharmuta Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:17:32pm |
re: #504 hellosnackbar
Melanie Phillips is not a credible authority on science considering she promotes intelligent design.
| 507 |
garycooper Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:18:56pm |
I'm seeing the same thing in this thread, that I see in nearly every online discussion of this topic: Lots of heat, and precious little light. I'm beginning to think it's a subject people shouldn't discuss in polite company, like religion and politics. ;)
I say, do your own research, and come to your own conclusions. This means you should have full access to the pertinent data, which has not always been the case.
For instance, did you know the ocean is not warming up at all? The Argo system of 3000 floating sensors shows no warming since 2003, when the sensors were deployed. Seems like kind of an important indicator, to me. The ocean has far more influence on global temps, than any other factor.
I'm a lawyer, not a scientist, but I do know how to conduct research, and I do understand the scientific method. I also understand the use of propaganda, which is a major impediment to self-education on this and other politicized topics.
| 508 |
garycooper Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:23:37pm |
re: #503 Enkidu90046
I am by no means an expert on global warming, but from what I have read the following is pretty sure:
1. Global warming exists.
2. Man is having at least some impact on global warming.?
Stop right there! You've just made two statements that are far from "settled." In fact, both are articles of faith, rather than scientific facts.
Okay, carry on.
| 509 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:24:47pm |
re: #502 walter cronanty
Charles, if you read the current blog on this topic at Mr. Watts' site, you'll see that he has posted the video at his site. Hardly consistent with someone who is trying to "muzzle" his critics.
Really? You mean he didn't file a copyright complaint with YouTube?
| 510 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:26:39pm |
re: #499 horse
This is looking to be just like the George Will smackdown, here's a better source than cherry picked charts at Icecap, also aligned with Heartland. Complete data sets at multiple levels are available there, read 'em and weep.
[Link: science.nasa.gov...]
| 511 |
walter cronanty Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:27:26pm |
re: #505 Baelzar
Don't hold your breath. President Obama, during the campaign, stated that he would support nuclear power when the problem of disposal of spent uranium is solved. One of his first executive orders was to halt the Yucca mountain project. No solution, no support. Also note that the DOE recently decided to not guarantee the loans of the new uranium enrichment plant in Ohio. [Link: blogs.knoxnews.com...]
I know of no one within the current administration who could be remotely considered "pro-nuclear."
| 512 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:28:16pm |
re: #499 horse
You fail to mention that whether accurate or inaccurate it doesn't matter when measuring a trend. Unless there is variability in the inaccuracy, your argument is moot as a foil against global warming.
| 513 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:30:30pm |
re: #508 garycooper
In the post you made following mine, and before responding to my post, you suggested that people do their own research and come to their own conclusions. While, I cannot say I have definitively concluded anything, I certainly have done my own research and found that the weight of evidence out there supports both that global warming is real and that man is having at least some impact on it. My research into the subject matter is continuing and I pride myself on having an open mind and being more than willing to read and consider data that contradict my views and change my views accordingly, if warranted. So, if you have information in the form of websites, books, articles, scientific studies, or other information that support the idea that global warming and man's impact on it are articles of faith and not fact, I would gladly read and consider them.
| 514 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:35:52pm |
re: #500 walter cronanty
APS is calling out the alarmism, they aren't saying the trend is not there. That's at the root of what Watt's trying to do and his hypothesis.
| 515 |
walter cronanty Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:38:27pm |
re: #509 Charles
I didn't say he didn't file a copyright complaint. As I stated, his current posting on this matter includes a link to the video. From his explanation, I don't believe that he expected to be accused of censorship, and his main concern was that both NOAA and the video used out-dated material from his site. He also stated that he would grant permission to use his material.
In fact he states: " Normally when somebody wants to publish something in another media type (that is not a blog or webpage) from the surfacestations project or my blog, they contact me and ask permission to use the items. The word normal, however, upon scrutiny really doesn’t apply here.
I’ve gotten dozens of such requests from magazines, newsletters, book publishers, and TV stations. So far, I’ve never said no to any request for such materials or copyright waivers. I’ve filled out lots of forms granting my copyright waiver for the legally skittish that need more than an email or “sure, go ahead” over the phone."
I have no reason to doubt Mr. Watts' word.
| 516 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:39:37pm |
Stewart Brand and Patrick Moore, godfather of the environmental movement and founder of Greenpeace, (respectively) have both flipped on the issue of Nuclear Energy. They are both pro nuclear now, but I don't expect Obama to make strides to usher it in. There are a lot of anti-science denialists on the left as well, and that's where Heartland and the reactionaries focus should be. But it ain't, because their sponsor is oil.
You know who sponsors a lot of the anti-nuclear groups?
Oil.
| 517 |
Dominic Yeso Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:41:21pm |
I gave up when I heard about the claim that Watt's group had "connections" to the "free market groups" and .. wait for it ... the "tobacco industry". Geeze.
| 518 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:42:36pm |
Al Gore's group "We" is loaded up with long time anti-nuke activists. Can you point me to any pro nuclear energy articles from Heartland out of curiosity, since you seem to have a regular tickler file of their links?
| 519 |
boogereatinmoron Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:48:13pm |
re: #496 Thanos
Thanos,
Of course run timings vary from year to year and from system to system. The point that I apparently made badly is that there is no indication that run timings are trending across the board in correlation to warming temperatures. In fact there is very little evidence that temperature plays much of a role at all in determining when a salmon returns to spawn. In southern southeast pink salmon returns have trended late in even numbered years due to a low water event in 2004 which prohibited the early portion of the run from spawning thereby removing the early spawners from the genetic pool. My real problem with the video is that it strongly implies that salmon run timing somehow supports global warming theory and it does not.
I looked at your link and I must say that I fail to see your point. I will summarize the charts from systems with enough historical data to be significant.
Kenai early King peaked in 2009 on 6/11.
Kenai early King historical peak - 6/12.
Kenai Sockeye peak #1 for 2009 - 7/16.
Kenai Sockeye historical peak #1 - 7/17.
Kenai Sockeye peak #2 for 2009 - 7/28.
Kenai Sockeye historical peak #2 - 7/25.
Kenai King late run peak for 2009 - 7/14.
Kenai King late run historical peak - 7/17.
Kasiloff Sockeye peak for 2009 - 7/15.
Kasiloff Sockeye historical peak - 7/15.
It just so happens that 2009 is an extraordinarily average year for salmon run timing and I stick by my claim that there has not been a discernible shift in salmon run timing in recent years. Furthermore, if there had been a shift in run timing it would then be a huge leap to attribute that shift to global warming.
| 520 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:49:56pm |
re: #518 Thanos
Al Gore's group "We" is loaded up with long time anti-nuke activists. Can you point me to any pro nuclear energy articles from Heartland out of curiosity, since you seem to have a regular tickler file of their links?
Nevermind last request, digging myself and finding that they are supportive of Nuclear energy
| 521 |
horse Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:53:24pm |
re: #512 Thanos
You fail to mention that whether accurate or inaccurate it doesn't matter when measuring a trend. Unless there is variability in the inaccuracy, your argument is moot as a foil against global warming.
The trend has been for NOAA to increase it's adjustments to the raw data over time since the 70's, and there is trend variability in the readings of stations near each other but positioned near and far from other sources of heat. Thus making your point moot.
We started this back at my point the video only had one item that addressed the book's claim regarding the accuracy of the weather stations, and it was a weak claim due to using normalized data from those stations for the comparison. I continue to stand by that point. Any other red herrings? Disappearing islands? Stranded polar bears?
| 522 |
walter cronanty Sat, Aug 1, 2009 12:58:48pm |
re: #514 Thanos
I absolutely agree re: APS. I'm not at all sure about your statement concerning Mr. Watts. As I have read Mr. Watts, he has not definitively stated: "There is no trend." In fact, he has posted articles wherein the author states that he believes that man-made CO2 has an effect on climate.
Mr. Watts, as I understand him, has stated his doubts concerning the reliability/accuracy of current sites. And, if you review some of his work, I think you will agree that doubts are in order. As some have posted above, man-made CO2 may indeed have an effect on global climate. The relatively small amount [ppm] of CO2 in the atmosphere, together with the the fact that man-made CO2 is a fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere, together with the relatively small movement in temperature, makes me very curious concerning the reliability/accuracy of the data we are using to go down the path of Cap-and-Trade, massive government controls over virtually all aspects of our lives, UN controls, etc. When one throws China's and India's reluctance to go along with the program into the mix, the "solution" to a problem which we simply do not know enough about makes me very, very leery. Add on top of that, that many calling for solutions such as Cap-and-Trade have positioned themselves to make money off of it [and, yes, you can say the same re: financial interests about some of those who oppose AGW], I get extremely leery.
| 523 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 1:01:42pm |
re: #519 boogereatinmoron
So the runs vary, that's what I said.
| 524 |
garycooper Sat, Aug 1, 2009 1:03:13pm |
re: #513 Enkidu90046
In the post you made following mine, and before responding to my post, you suggested that people do their own research and come to their own conclusions. While, I cannot say I have definitively concluded anything, I certainly have done my own research and found that the weight of evidence out there supports both that global warming is real and that man is having at least some impact on it. My research into the subject matter is continuing and I pride myself on having an open mind and being more than willing to read and consider data that contradict my views and change my views accordingly, if warranted. So, if you have information in the form of websites, books, articles, scientific studies, or other information that support the idea that global warming and man's impact on it are articles of faith and not fact, I would gladly read and consider them.
Here's the problem with that: No matter what site or scientific facts I present, there will always be someone around to attack their credibility, usually by linking them to some site or organization that has accepted money from an energy company, or the Heartland Institute, or any organization or person that has ever championed free enterprise over environmental issues. Like I said earlier, I've been working hard on this subject for at least five years. I've been down the angry, flame-y road of debate many, many times.
My career experience has taught me to "follow the money," when other avenues of investigation fail to bear fruit. The AGW-movement is awash in taxpayer-dollars, in the form of research grants and other forms of remuneration. Trillions.
The movement is still growing, even though the infamous computer models still haven't predicted a single, solitary thing. The momentum of this thing is too great, for it to be halted by a few disreputable cranks, like myself. It will take years for it to die down, maybe a couple of decades, and then we'll be on to a completely different hysteria. I am 100% convinced of this, but I am just as convinced that only time will convince True Believers that AGW is a scam. I know I won't convince anyone -- I could barely convince myself! ;)
| 525 |
boogereatinmoron Sat, Aug 1, 2009 1:04:32pm |
Since I am on an Alaskan global warming theme today I want to make a preemptive strike in the propaganda war. I am certain that someone will soon cite the Waterfowl season in Alaska as evidence of global warming let me set the record straight.
This year the season will open September 15th rather than September 1st and close December 31st rather than December 15th. This is evidence of bureaucratic incontinence, not global warming. Duck hunters in Southern Alaska have argued for decades that the season needed to shift and it has finally happened. September 1st was always too early.
| 526 |
jvic Sat, Aug 1, 2009 1:04:49pm |
re: #517 Dominic Yeso
I gave up when I heard about the claim that Watt's group had "connections" to the "free market groups" and .. wait for it ... the "tobacco industry". Geeze.
And now, reports the film, Heartland is working for another "death-dealing" (sic, iirc) industry (oil? coal? energy?). Geeze indeed.
Having said that, I acknowledge that later in the film there was content that should be taken seriously. But iirc that content was also in the govt talking points document to which Charles and freetoken linked. (Iirc--but I'm not going to watch the clip a third time to refresh my memory.)
| 527 |
walter cronanty Sat, Aug 1, 2009 1:05:38pm |
I'm off to swim - one of the few days this summer [I know, weather is not climate, but that doesn't mean I can't complain about the weather!]. Thanks for a civil, sane discussion.
| 528 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 1:08:28pm |
re: #521 horse
The trend has been for NOAA to increase it's adjustments to the raw data over time since the 70's, and there is trend variability in the readings of stations near each other but positioned near and far from other sources of heat. Thus making your point moot.
We started this back at my point the video only had one item that addressed the book's claim regarding the accuracy of the weather stations, and it was a weak claim due to using normalized data from those stations for the comparison. I continue to stand by that point. Any other red herrings? Disappearing islands? Stranded polar bears?
Got a link to that from a government source? I want to look at whole data, and the reasoning, not heartland's quotemining or cherry picking.
| 529 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 1:11:47pm |
re: #526 jvic
And now, reports the film, Heartland is working for another "death-dealing" (sic, iirc) industry (oil? coal? energy?). Geeze indeed.
Having said that, I acknowledge that later in the film there was content that should be taken seriously. But iirc that content was also in the govt talking points document to which Charles and freetoken linked. (Iirc--but I'm not going to watch the clip a third time to refresh my memory.)
It's a true statement - e.g. just from coal mining there's an average of 30-50k deaths worldwide annually. (this number trended down in the 90's and now has swung back up since a coal boom is on.)
| 530 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 1:14:27pm |
re: #522 walter cronanty
Watt's not anti-global warming the same way Discovery Institute is not anti science. He just doubts you see...
Bottom line nobody's shown me anything that convinces me that Watts is right here. I can be convinced if you show me real data that demonstrates this over time.
| 531 |
jvic Sat, Aug 1, 2009 1:18:55pm |
re: #507 garycooper
I'm a lawyer, not a scientist, but I do know how to conduct research, and I do understand the scientific method. I also understand the use of propaganda, which is a major impediment to self-education on this and other politicized topics.
I won't comment directly, but IMO the bolded sentence should not go unnoted.
Steve Hsu's Information Processing is one of my favorite blogs. Here is his resume.
| 532 |
FQ Kafir Sat, Aug 1, 2009 1:36:19pm |
re: #492 Cato the Elder
Cato,
Yes, I used the wrong word. Mea culpa. The insulting denigration was uncalled for.
| 533 |
hellosnackbar Sat, Aug 1, 2009 1:36:59pm |
re#506Sharmuta;
I know that Sharmuta and I have castigated her for that!
She merely reccomended the book ;she didn't write it.
And although with the fairies on ID she's not all stupid.
| 534 |
horse Sat, Aug 1, 2009 1:54:50pm |
re: #528 Thanos
I provided you with a government site link above. Here is another from DOE. It's the source for the chart.
| 535 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Aug 1, 2009 2:12:04pm |
re: #13 Van Helsing
So what is the ideal temperature for the earth?
Well, the ideal temperature for anywhere I'm living is 65-68 degrees, rising to 71 for a few lovely summer afternoons.
I'm not sure that works for, say, wheat growers, though.
| 536 |
garycooper Sat, Aug 1, 2009 2:30:27pm |
re: #531 jvic
I won't comment directly, but IMO the bolded sentence should not go unnoted.
Steve Hsu's Information Processing is one of my favorite blogs. Here is his resume.
Your point? Hsu's resume is impressive? I totally agree.
Looks like a very interesting site, too. Thanks for the tip.
| 537 |
CyanSnowHawk Sat, Aug 1, 2009 2:30:53pm |
Wow. Looks like I missed a good one. Oh well, at least I finished reading Ender's Game while this was going on. Neat twist at the end, but I don't see what all the fanboy fuss is over that book, aside from an eerily accurate prediction about the blogosphere that Orson Scott Card made when he wrote it in the mid-70s.
| 538 |
shortshrift Sat, Aug 1, 2009 2:50:27pm |
re: #423 freetoken
You say:
"In light of this atmosphere, trying to actually help people understand what is meant by "AGW" or "climate change" becomes a non-starter. People just don't want to hear. "
There is the same unwillingness by "people" to understand the hypotheses which counter AGW theories i.e. which attempt to provide the "other" explanations for the recent warming (now stopped) which AGW proponents insist do not exist. The AGW theories depend on there being "no other explanation" for increased temperatures except man-made CO2 emissions.
You say:
"This thread is full of accusations of this and that... and again, the sad thing is all of those objections have been answered and discussed (at different levels of detail) all around the web, if only people would spend time looking and reading."
True, accusations of this and that go both ways. So do objections and their answers and discussions. I have spent a very great deal of time following the scientific debate and for every point at issue I attempt to follow the entire course of the debate not just the statement, but the riposte, but the counter-riposte etc. Most rational people are able to recognize a valid challenge and a valid riposte. What is not valid is arguing for or against an issue of science with propaganda, in which category I include all statements of a "majority" (whether 'vast', or 'overwhelming') of scientists. This merely leads to the absurd vetting of which scientists are proper scientists or properly engaged in climate science and therefore qualify for recruitment into the Alarmist or Denier army. The logical extension of this is that only scientists publishing on your side of the debate are qualified scientists. Scientists themselves who engage in technical analysis accessible on the web often themselves fall into this fallacy.
I have spent much time looking and reading, and I am certain that every word of any statement that has been made on behalf of AGW has been challenged scientifically - not just politically. The sort of statement that a "majority" could sign on to is so broad that it is scientifically trivial: "Carbon dioxide absorbs infra-red radiation." But causative theory that relies on selection and interpretation of empirical data has been legitimately challenged - and challenged even on the selection, reliability and accuracy of the data.
I understand that the AGW proponents have built up a big picture circumstantial case against the defendant, CO2 (mankind's assassin). The deniers - or skeptics, a less loaded term - must cast reasonable doubt on each item of evidence in defending it. The big picture of a planet going to hell (supplied by images of local bad weather) seems to be so strongly present in so many people's minds, that the painstaking point-by-point challenge is dismissed as "obviously" wrong when placed against that big picture. But this is a mental reflex, a preference for narratives, for stories. When the climate and its changes are eventually explained, it will not be in terms of mankind versus nature, but in terms of the mathematics of a vast system of which the marginal increment of CO2 in the atmosphere due to man, the oceanic oscillations, the orbit tilts of the earth, the vast cycles of planetary and gallactic motions, the physics of cloud formation, are but a few factors among many others, some not yet thought of, and not yet accounted for in even the most sophisticated model.
| 539 |
Randall Gross Sat, Aug 1, 2009 3:01:45pm |
re: #521 horse
The trend has been for NOAA to increase it's adjustments to the raw data over time since the 70's, and there is trend variability in the readings of stations near each other but positioned near and far from other sources of heat. Thus making your point moot.
We started this back at my point the video only had one item that addressed the book's claim regarding the accuracy of the weather stations, and it was a weak claim due to using normalized data from those stations for the comparison. I continue to stand by that point. Any other red herrings? Disappearing islands? Stranded polar bears?
The USHCN data base contains urban heat-adjusted (hereafter referred to as "urban") monthly maximum (Tmax), minimum (Tmin), and mean temperature (Tmean) data (degrees fahrenheit). There is also an urban mean data set that is the mean monthly temperature calculated from the urban Tmax and Tmin data. Along with monthly values, these files contain seasonal (winter = December, January, and February; spring = March, April, and May; etc.) mean urban-adjusted temperatures and annual means (January - December). There are no data flags in these files.
So essentially they've been adjusting for urban heat island effects, which sort of bowls the legs right out from under Watt's argument. Thanks for proving the point.
| 540 |
Seax Sat, Aug 1, 2009 3:10:11pm |
I always thought that the whole global warming thing
was about the destruction of the United States of America as a world power.Destruction of the country by higher taxes,reduced
transportation, higher costs of primary produce ,reduced standards
of living leading into a depression and then the power shifts to Europe.
But what the heck do I know?All they told me was to change my woollen
hat from the coming ice age to a tin foil hat for the coming climate change.
Tin foil hats for everyone!
| 541 |
themaninthestripedsuit Sat, Aug 1, 2009 3:11:27pm |
I have contributed some of the surveys to surfacestations.org and have been following the AGW controversy. If you spend the time to review the work Watts has done and followed Steve McIntyre's work the only real conclusion is that most what has come out of the UN and Al Gore is crap. You have to make up your own mind.
| 542 |
garycooper Sat, Aug 1, 2009 3:15:19pm |
re: #538 shortshrift
Well said.
It takes a lot of time and careful research to separate the wheat from the chaff in this argument, but it can be done. Even by laymen, who aren't working directly in the field of climatology.
Well, with that I'm off to the movies with my wife, to see "500 Days Of Summer." Hope it's not about AGW --that might be too scary.
| 543 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Sat, Aug 1, 2009 3:32:02pm |
Climate change “skeptic” Anthony Watts tried to use YouTube’s copyright rules to suppress this video by Peter Sinclair.Good luck with that.
Another 'climate sceptic' talking point bites the dust - amid the usual chorus of denial, of course.
| 544 |
mrkwong Sat, Aug 1, 2009 4:17:56pm |
re: #539 Thanos
So essentially they've been adjusting for urban heat island effects, which sort of bowls the legs right out from under Watt's argument. Thanks for proving the point.
Yes, and the method of adjustment has been discussed - they use other stations as much as a thousand miles away.
A lot of the stations are airports, where the AWOSes and ASOSes are not intended for such purposes and have their own siting problems (often located on pavement, for one thing.)
The warming trends the models pull from surface data are so small that they're easily overwhelmed by the siting and maintenance problems. We are talking about data never intended for the sort of fine-grained use to which it's being put.
And the 'adjustments' do nothing to fix that.
| 545 |
mrkwong Sat, Aug 1, 2009 4:23:00pm |
re: #543 Jimmah
Another 'climate sceptic' talking point bites the dust - amid the usual chorus of denial, of course.
And based on what, beyond that ridiculous video that regurgitates a whole lot of stuff that Watts et al have already heavily discredited, do you base that sweeping bit of...nah, I won't say it.
| 546 |
Elle Plater Sat, Aug 1, 2009 4:32:46pm |
re: #457 Charles
You can say "nonsense" all you like, it doesn't change any facts.
I think those words will come back to bite you but let's wait and see. It seems to me that the science is becoming more unsettled by the day. As more is understood about climate - and it is a very young science - it seems that the CO2 component is starting to have less relevance. Recently I have noticed more and more peer reviewed research coming out which are at odds with what is generally accepted to be true. I think it is becoming more apparent that climate has never stood still and much is still unknown about what is driving it - but CO2 is not a major factor .
| 547 |
woodentop Sat, Aug 1, 2009 5:24:17pm |
I have a science degree and for my sins am a lawyer. I've been following this subject for a long time and my conclusion is that that global warming (or climate change) is a load of bollocks, spurred on only by the taxes, grants and general groupthink around the subject.
Charles, you surprise me. Don't go the way of the Skeptical Inquirer.
| 548 |
Greengolem64 Sat, Aug 1, 2009 5:36:41pm |
re: #53 avanti
That was a decision made because climate change is more accurate. Warming effects the climate in more complex ways that just a temperature increase globally.
It can even cause some areas to cool by effecting ocean currents for example.
Gotta cover ALL the bases...AGW didn't work so now it is ACL (Athropogenic Climate Change).
Is 'man' part of the global ecosystem? Last time I checked...so does man have an effect on the global climate...most assuredly. BUT the question is how much...and to think we're the major forcing agent has yet to be proven by any scientific means.
I deal with modeling software (for RF Propagation prediction) and the 'joke' is that these various models have any accuracy. They now are saying that the "DATA" needs to be tweaked in order to make the models work. Last I knew, you took KNOWN good data and tried to determine the variables that impacted the data elements in the model.
Anybody can make a model work if you tweak the data to match the models results.
I'm all for being green. And that means keeping GREEN in my pocket...so I have no problems with fuel economy in vehicles (I drive a Civic) and would LOVE to see more Nuke plants put on line in the US. I would even consider other alternate means as long as the operating cost doesn't make the alternative non-cost-effective.
We live in FL, pretty good sun environment (although not as good as the SW US) and we are seriously considering adding some solar to augment things by heating the water and reducing our electric bill. Electric bill averages about $230 a month across the 12 month cycle...with high bills in the summer running close to $400.
I suggest anyone who hasn't...to read Michale Crichtons "State of Fear". Fiction yes, but scarily telling with the direction that governments are trying to take.
GG
| 549 |
Walter Cronanty Sat, Aug 1, 2009 6:19:20pm |
Just one more note as to why I'm skeptical. Mr. Watts was kind enough to point me to a paper which discusses some of the adjustments made to raw temperature data[[Link: cdiac.ornl.gov...] As I'm sure everyone knows by now, I am NOT a scientist - but my curiosity was piqued when people began talking of taking away my liberties - and money - in the name of "settled science."
I then began reading many climate-science blogs, as well as trying to wade through many papers [I try not to move my lips when reading them, but I often fail]. The paper Mr. Watts pointed out to me is one that I believe that I have read before, but of course have forgotten [short-term memory is the first thing to go, no?]. I find one graph to be illustrative of why I question the data - again, a tenth of a degree per decade can make a tremendous difference. It is found under the heading "2. Descriptions and Formats of USHCN Data Files and Supporting Files" [I would post the graph here, but I'm too computer illiterate to do so]. It's written description is as follows: "The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming in the annual time series over a 50-year period from the 1940's until the last decade of the century." That is a tenth of a degree per decade. I'm sorry, but that big of an "adjustment" of raw data makes me extremely skeptical, especially given the cost of solving the theoretical problem.
Thus, the importance of Mr. Watts' efforts to check on the reliability and accuracy of the data upon which these adjustments are made.
| 550 |
garycooper Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:27:17pm |
Kudos to Charles for posting the link to Watts's extensive, amusing rebuttal. That's the spirit of free inquiry! Unlike that shown by the pseudo-scientists who want to shut down discussion, claiming "the science is settled." Science is never settled. There are always new things to learn, in any branch of science.
I mentioned the Soros-funded RealClimate.org earlier, as an example of the kind of politicized info-source that helps drive the AGW-bus. A commenter named "Smokey" (probably a cop, or a bear) had the following facts on hand about this organization, which is often cited in the MSM as if it is a totally trustworthy, unbiased scientific body:
---
Realclimate censors. They use government money and assets to run their site. Deleting skeptics’ comments is therefore government supported censorship.
One of realclimate’s censors is Harald Korneliussen.
Korneliussen explains why RC censors skeptical comments:
“About the banning policy on RealClimate. RealClimate is a science blog, not a political discussion blog, and they are quite clear on that. Unlike many of their opponents, they are not paid to promote a certain agenda, and that limits how much time they can afford to use on answering comments… To evaluate claims, or to distinguish signal from noise, we apply networks of trust to decide who we should use our limited time to listen to. It’s not unlike google’s algorithm, where a link from an important site carries more weight than from an unimportant one. Everyone does it, but in science it’s institutionalized in the peer review process: a respected peer gets to set the agenda more, decide which results are important, which paths should rather be explored.”
Korneliussen is either ignorant or lying when he states that RC is not a political blog. It is heavily political with a Leftist slant, as anyone who regularly visits them understands. Korneliussen is being mendacious when he states that RC is not paid to promote an AGW agenda. In fact, RC is paid to advance the AGW hypothesis by outside interests: realclimate is funded by George Soros – as is James Hansen. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and those with an AGW agenda are calling the realclimate tune.
Korneliussen’s statements are dishonest. I’m not the only one to be censored by RC. Rarely a week goes by that someone doesn’t mention on WUWT that their polite, reasonable – but skeptical – comment was censored by realclimate.
Since the people running realclimate are all on the government payroll, what they are doing is censorship. Private blogs like WUWT, which are run by volunteers, can not be said to censor anything. Censorship is a government activity, and applies to government actions. Realclimate qualifies.
Maybe this will make it clear:
NASA/GISS Director: James Hansen
Hansen’s subordinate: Gavin Schmidt
NASA web site contributors: Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann
GISS Modeler: Gavin Schmidt
RealClimate is run by Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann; contributor: William Connolley
Wikipedia editor: William Connolley
Hansen has pocketed upwards of a million dollars [that we know of] from individuals and organizations with a heavy pro-AGW agenda. By accepting their outside cash, Hansen is deliberately cheating the taxpayers. He should work for one or the other; you cannot serve two masters. And from the crazy statements Hansen makes, it’s clear that he’s not impartially representing taxpayers. Instead, he is representing George Soros and others of that ilk. When you follow the money, you see that James Hansen is corrupt, and realclimate is a Soros-financed propaganda site
| 551 |
Pythagoras Sat, Aug 1, 2009 8:49:33pm |
In comparing the two temperature curves, the video states, "The other used only the 70 stations that Mr. Watts and his volunteers classified as good or best."
If the data was actually "homogeneity adjusted" in the way Watts claims, then this statement is a lie -- the data from the 70 stations was "homogenized" with data from nearby stations which were not "good" or "best."
One of them is lying. Either the second temperature curve is based only on the data from the 70 good/best stations or it isn't. Either Watts is lying or the video is lying.
This is not a minor detail -- this comparison chart is at the heart of whether the whole surface stations project is significant. The one who is telling the truth is the clear winner here.
| 552 |
horse Sat, Aug 1, 2009 9:12:06pm |
re: #539 Thanos
So essentially they've been adjusting for urban heat island effects, which sort of bowls the legs right out from under Watt's argument. Thanks for proving the point.
No, the adjustments they make are a bit more complex. Not to mention, if they were adjusting for heat island effects they would adjust the final data downward, not upward. Did you actually think that through or shoot from the hip?
| 553 |
the_thermonuclear_pickle Sun, Aug 2, 2009 7:22:17am |
If I ever wanted to show an example of how not to argue, I'd point people to the wiki entry for Reductio ad Hitlerum and point them to Peter Sinclair's vieo for an example.
Get this, apparently Watts is wrong (implied in the video) because Heartland is of the same opinion as he. That makes me a Nazi since I plant trees and Hitler planted trees too. My grandmother would be proud that after she survived the Holocaust, her own jewish grandson was a Nazi.
Peter Sinclair has no idea of what science is, he has no idea of what are valid arguments. This is not an ad hominem - this is a simple observation of all his videos. What he does have an idea of is how to make catchy and flowing video presentations. He should stick to that.
In another of his videos he states that the models are tests. In the history of science no predictive line was ever a test. The test is always time in any predictive situation. And the time has proven the models wrong.
| 554 |
the_thermonuclear_pickle Sun, Aug 2, 2009 7:28:37am |
re: #461 Charles
Question for you Charles:
If you hang up a clock that you know is broken but is right twice a day and then you homogenize the data to a working clock to make it appear that the clock is right 42800 times a day and wrong 400 times a day, is the clock right or wrong?
| 555 |
hopperandadropper Sun, Aug 2, 2009 8:38:59am |
re: #550 garycooper
Excellent analysis. By the way, Dr. John Theon, a retired senior atmospheric scientist at NASA and Hansen's former supervisor, has gone on record stating his disagreement with AGW and saying that Hansen has "embarrassed NASA".
| 556 |
StuBlu Sun, Aug 2, 2009 10:49:52am |
re: #b461 Charles
Here's another question on this topic:
There is this Q&A you repeat from NOAA:
Q. Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years?
A. None at all. Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the length and breadth of the United States the impacts of the warming are unmistakable. For example, lake and river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting. Coastal temperatures are rising. And a multitude of species of birds, fish, mammals and plants are extending their ranges northward and, in mountainous areas, upward as well.
Well, is there any dispute that there was a "Global Cooling" scare that was intensifying in the mid-70s? Newsweek even had an article on it in 1974...something about growing scientific consensus and how lay-people weren't paying attention as they should... see here ([Link: www.flickr.com...]
NOAA is even mentioned in the article. It states, "And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972."
So, will the real NOAA please stand up? Did this really happen between 45 and 37 years ago, or not? Was this research accurate?
Surely from the Q&A, there was never any doubt about warming during the "past 50 years", so this study must have been disproved.
I wonder of the researchers mentioned by Newsweek were fired for their research?
Lastly, amazingly enough, we had a very late spring and it was cool. Many flowers didn't bloom until later than usual, and most deciduous trees did not have buds until 3-4 weeks later than last year. So, what does this mean as compared to NOAA's answer? I don't see how you can be so smug against AGW skeptics when evidence that is the same in significance as NOAA's, but in a contrary direction, does not matter to you. E.g., Lake Superior's freezing over twice in a decade ([Link: weather.fox.com...] Early bird migrations south in England in 2009, etc.
Why do you believe the NOAA in the face of such contradictions?
Stu Blu
| 558 |
hopperandadropper Sun, Aug 2, 2009 11:42:47am |
re: #557 swami
I don't think Charles has been kidnapped. He's gone through a period of severe irritation at the irrational aspects of the fundamentalist wing of the Republican Party, exemplified by their creationist/intelligent design tendencies. I'm in complete agreement with him on this point, but I think it has colored his perception of a lot of other topics that aren't directly related to this. I can see why he would lose respect for the judgment of Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, et al., who are tainted by this nonsense but (sadly) these guys are in many cases our only line of defense against the socialist agenda the Pelosibama Dems mean to shove down our throats without debate (or even reading the bills, really). Sopmetimes you just have to use the tools at hand, if the levee's about to break.
| 560 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Aug 2, 2009 11:50:50am |
re: #558 hopperandadropper
I don't think Charles has been kidnapped. He's gone through a period of severe irritation at the irrational aspects of the fundamentalist wing of the Republican Party, exemplified by their creationist/intelligent design tendencies. I'm in complete agreement with him on this point, but I think it has colored his perception of a lot of other topics that aren't directly related to this. I can see why he would lose respect for the judgment of Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, et al., who are tainted by this nonsense but (sadly) these guys are in many cases our only line of defense against the socialist agenda the Pelosibama Dems mean to shove down our throats without debate (or even reading the bills, really). Sopmetimes you just have to use the tools at hand, if the levee's about to break.
No, you are 100% wrong. I'm perfectly capable of making reasoned judgments based on research and facts, and nothing has been "colored" by my irritation at the creationist wing of the GOP.
I've been researching the science of climate change fairly intensively for almost a year, and I simply can't go along with many of the right wing talking points any more. There's an enormous amount of deception and distortion coming from the anti-AGW side, and I'm not onboard with the blatant dishonesty of people like James Inhofe and the like.
| 561 |
hopperandadropper Sun, Aug 2, 2009 11:58:29am |
re: #560 Charles
Fair enough. I call 'em as I see 'em. When it comes to the AGW debate I think there's been blatant dishonesty on both sides at times. My tendency is to mistrust the side of the argument that wants to reach into my pocket.
| 562 |
Alberta Oil Peon Sun, Aug 2, 2009 2:28:54pm |
re: #509 Charles
Really? You mean he didn't file a copyright complaint with YouTube?
He did in fact file a copyright complaint with YouTube. And he also posted a link on his own blog to that same video, hosted elsewhere. You, of all people, should know that if you don't defend your copyright, you can lose it. Watts has stated that he would have been willing to grant Peter Sinclair free use of the material, had Sinclair asked for it, but apparently Sinclair isn't a permission-seeking kind of guy.
| 563 |
themaninthestripedsuit Sun, Aug 2, 2009 3:24:13pm |
re #560 Charles
I've been researching the science of climate change fairly intensively for almost a year, and I simply can't go along with many of the right wing talking points any more. There's an enormous amount of deception and distortion coming from the anti-AGW side, and I'm not onboard with the blatant dishonesty of people like James Inhofe and the like.
Charles the logic of sounds remarkably similar to "I don't like Inhofe, so the U.N. and Al Gore must be right" I really got interested in this when the U.N. tried to tell me that the Little Ice Age didn't happen. Now it is once again pretty clear that the LIA did happen and it was a global event and (pardon the religious talk) thank God (or the sun) that global temperatures are recovering. Compared to the LIA Global Warming is a good thing. For me it is a question of who has the burden of proof. For me the idea that Humans can have a significant effect on the surface temperature of something as massive as the Earth is hubris. I consider that claim to be an extraordinary claim for which I would demand extraordinary proof.
I think you might have a temperament and outlook similar to Warren Meyer at coyoteblog.org and [Link: www.climate-skeptic.com...] If you are truly interested in making up your own mind on this I would suggest that you spend some time over at climate-skeptic. For lighter reading I suggest John Brignell over at [Link: www.numberwatch.co.uk...]
| 564 |
ToastyPuffins Sun, Aug 2, 2009 3:26:05pm |
It sounds like Watts has a rational and valid copyright issue. What's the problem with his request?
| 565 |
the_thermonuclear_pickle Sun, Aug 2, 2009 6:56:34pm |
re: #560 Charles
Charles can I ask you a question - have you been researching the science or what cretins like Inhofe/Jindal say?
The problem, as I find it, is that people who believe in AGW say they believe it because "a consensus" of scientists do or because the anti-AGW side is filled with freakazoids like Inhofe and the like.
I explain to them how invalid that argument is - if its the first form then the "do you believe in fairies" argument comes up - after all if scientists are the opinion authority on what is real or not, would one be reasonable in their belief in the existence of fairies if a consensus of scientists did? The fundamental point is that science is method and testing while consensus is a show of hands. One only needs to look at consensus among scientists (and politicians) with regards to eugenics at the turn of the century, to the hounding of "DNA sceptic" Barbara McClintock by the scientific establishment in consensus - only to be shown to be right. There are plenty of other examples - there was a consensus before the 50s that the atom was the smallest particle - took one man to prove otherwise.
The point of my post is that a scientist who is not sceptical should not be doing science. Scepticism should only disappear when there is a unified theory of climate that can explain almost everything. No such theory exists, yet "scepticism" has been made into a bad trait.
We have our Inhofes on our side but we have Nobel Prize winners, world-renowned geologists, climate researchers, palaeontologists, meteorologists, physicists, chemists, paleoclimatologists and archaeologists. The American Physical Society is reconsidering its statement after 50 of some of its most senior members wrote it a letter - the head of that initiate was a scientists with over 200 peer-reviewed articles. The American Chemical Society has its dam cracking with a lot of its members disagreeing in print on the issue of "science being settled".
None of this is news to any sceptic - the dam cracked back in '03 and in '06 when the National Academy of Sciences director and his employee testified under oath in a senate enquiry that Michael Mann (now a chair in NAS and editor/contributor to RealClimate) hockey stick graph was nothing more than bad science and a leap to congenital conclusions based on inconclusive evidence. That graph is still in the IPCC reports.
The second argument that I encounter - the one about how evil the sceptics are because they have Inhofe with them, is a Reductio ad Hitlerum. By that same argument no-one should believe the AGW side because they have a habitual liar (Al Gore), someone who at one stage put his name to a book promoting virtual infanticide (Ehrlich and Holdren), someone who suggested acid rain via sulphurization of the atmosphere (Tim Flannery). None of these associations make the science valid/invalid. Science is supposed to be apolitical - something that has been completely inverted with the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose oft-quoted Summary for Policymakers is a summary of science written by politicians and bureaucrats - not scientists.
| 566 |
garycooper Sun, Aug 2, 2009 7:13:48pm |
[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk...]
Is my mind going, or did I once see the fraudulent photos of polar bears "drowning" (and starving!) on this site, being thoroughly debunked? The lies about polar bears are just one of the many myths that have sprung up around AGW, which have been enforced strictly by the gatekeepers.
Well, people are certainly entitled to change their minds about any given topic. They are also able to change their minds back, when the evidence sways them. I'm not here to poke fingers in anyone's eyes, or wave said pointing-finger in anyone's face. I'm convinced the case will be made clear in due time, probably in the next decade.
| 567 |
garycooper Sun, Aug 2, 2009 7:46:06pm |
P.S. Either that, or an asteroid-strike or supervolcano-eruption will render the whole subject moot. Or nuclear war...that clock's ticking again. Bleah!
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ...
Cheechako
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... CheechakoJoe Bacon ✅
March FavoritesYou've seen these all already but looking back, just because. These are my favorite shots of this last month. That 1937 Zeiss Sonnar is such a gloriously wonderful bit of glass. Thanks for looking.
William Lewis
Russia’s New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka When we landed on the moon, I thought about how science fiction had become real. Now, the robot wars have begun. It's more poignant somehow on the ground than in the missile wars we have in the air as ...
Rightwingconspirator
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ... CheechakoKGxvi
Abortions Outside Medical System Increased Sharply After Roe Fell, Study Finds The number of women using abortion pills to end their pregnancies on their own without the direct involvement of a U.S.-based medical provider rose sharply in the months after the Supreme Court eliminated a constitutional right to abortion, according ... Cheechako
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ... Cheechako
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
