Mini Ice Age animals know first

[coffee]

LOL, Should anyone disagree then they are a fool.

Drink the Kool Aid................................

 

[Dave1320]

Yes, and when you do.. where does it lead?

- The attempt of a Carbon Tax
- Solyndra Scandal

Simple as usual. Easy ones to understand and lookup. BTW, I'm 100% against environmental polution. I like clean air and water.

 

[JustInspired]

HOW MANY climate change threads are on Technibble now?

 

[phaZed]

- The attempt of a Carbon Tax
- Solyndra Scandal

Again, no linked evidence to support your theory, just an assertion without merit.

OK, I looked it up. So where is the money in those? Solyndra is bankrupt and a Carbon Tax didn't happen for all intents and purposes here in the US. So, when you follow the money you find a bankrupt entity ($0) and an idea for a law that didn't occur($0)? That's not where the money is. I'm happy to entertain your views, but you had better do some of your own research before claiming truth.

Solyndra received a $536 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee before it went bankrupt. I agree that Solyndra was a politcal mess, largely created by political posturing and ideology - but ultimately Solyndra went out of business because the polysilicon PV industry was dropping it's prices and China was taking over as the main manufacturer (You can't compete with slave wages without proper tariffs which the Republicans in the Senate wouldn't grant).

So your sour about a $536 million loan to a start-up company (Which infers it may fail!) that could have put the US on the PV map, but you are not worried about $18.5 Billion in subsidies (That is government funding to these companies) to the oil, gas, and coal industry? LINK
The worldwide oil/gas/coal industry amounts to about $5 Trillion dollars (Bloomberg) - and is listed as 1 of the top 3 asset classes, but that's not where the money is? Huh?

Where's the money that is causing all of these scientists around the world to adhere to the grand conspiracy? It just isn't there. Also, company scandals and political snafus have nothing to do with scientific findings or the negation of that science.

So, on one hand we have a bankrupt company and a law that never went into effect vs. a $5 Trillion dollar industry that gets $18.5 Billion in subsidies.. and you conclude... the bankrupt company is causing global warming or the illusion of such? O.K., well, have at it haus.

You say "follow the money", but then don't follow the money...

Also, the Carbon Tax idea was levied by the G20, OECD and WTO.. not the US.
Guess who has Carbon Taxes already (Starting in the 1990's)?
South Africa
China
India
Japan
South Korea
Taiwan
Australia
New Zealand
European Union
Denmark
Finland
France
Ireland
Netherlands
Sweden
United Kingdom
Norway
Switzerland
Costa Rica
Canada

But hey, there is no nationwide carbon tax levied in the United States - So how can you use that as a argument/excuse?

You're welcome to look at the details of Carbon Taxes on Wikipedia and see that the taxes largely benefit the local governments and the people living under those governments, which largely detracts from your theory. Also, these taxes in Colorado, California and Maryland were voted on by the people.. they were not enacted blindly and without public support in a dark, cloudy, smoke-filled room.

 

[phaZed]

LOL, Should anyone disagree then they are a fool.

Drink the Kool Aid................................

Not at all, you are welcome to disagree.. but your argument has to be better than "Drink the Kool Aid". The definition of fool is a person who acts unwisely or imprudently. Seeing as you have yet to make an argument for your case.. what does that make you?

 

[Dave1320]

Why waste time with evidence? Your mind has already been made up. I've spent years studying everything under the sun.

What it comes down to is simple. We do our own research and come to our conclusions. Our views are going to be different. Some are capable of thinking for themselves and others not.

I've given you three different pieces of criteria. Three of which you dismissed because they don't support your views.

It's impossible to calculate how human are affecting climate change. Please don't prove this to me, because you cant. What I do know is I emit Co2 and plants take that and create oxygen.

I've said your scientific data has been proven to be a fraud and given you two examples of money. Those aren't all and I won't divulge more. That's up to you and again your mind has been made up.

I don't need any man to think like me. I just want him to think.

I'll leave you with this. Your electric car still needs to get its energy from somewhere.

Have a good day sir.

Not at all, you are welcome to disagree.. but your argument has to be better than "Drink the Kool Aid". The definition of fool is a person who acts unwisely or imprudently. Seeing as you have yet to make an argument for your case.. what does that make you?

 

[phaZed]

Why waste time with evidence? Your mind has already been made up. I've spent years studying everything under the sun.

Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. With all due respect, how dare you sir. You assume that my mind is made up, it is not. I'm still waiting for your compelling evidence that fortifies your point of view, without it, can we all assume you don't have any? For someone that has "spent years studying everything under the sun", one would think that to produce a link or substantial argument, with their substantial studies, would be trivial. I have presented a logical counter-argument with outside sources, yet, you have not... and have stated that you will not. Why is that? If this is all a big scam, a thinking man would want his peers to join him in the fight against this oppression as to further greater understanding and put this injustice down for good! No? Hmm.

What it comes down to is simple. We do our own research and come to our conclusions. Our views are going to be different. Some are capable of thinking for themselves and others not.

I've given you three different pieces of criteria. Three of which you dismissed because they don't support your views.

You are incorrect sir. I did not dismiss your "pieces of criteria", I responded to them with a logical argument. You sir, have dismissed my arguments without providing any logical reason to do so, whatsoever. Indeed, some are capable of thinking for themselves and others not. Which category do you fit?

It's impossible to calculate how human are affecting climate change. Please don't prove this to me, because you cant. What I do know is I emit Co2 and plants take that and create oxygen.

I had no intentions of proving an unprovable thing, nor would I be the one qualified to do so. Do you think electricity works, or gravity? Is the Earth really round, or is it flat? These things are not proven either. Does that mean they're wrong? That's essentially what your saying, not proven = wrong. It doesn't take much brain power to understand how an ecosystem works. There is something called the Carbon Cycle in which the CO2 from naturally occurring sources is absorbed and converted over and over. We are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. Fossil fuels, however, were not in the atmosphere before we started burning them. Since 1751 approximately 337 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released into the atmosphere. DATA, STUDY, REPORT, GRAPH
We have an all-time high of atmospheric carbon content not seen for the last 800,000 years, which took little more than 100 years to make. That doesn't strike you as alarming, even if you don't know the effects? But we do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, proven.. no really, like it has been proven repeatedly in the lab and observed in the atmosphere. Mythbusters? If you really wanted to prove this, you can do it in your home in an hour. Everytime. The. Same. Outcome. But your a thinking man, and when all of that extra CO2 is in Earth's atmosphere, instead of a lab, it does nothing, to anything! Righty-O.

I've said your scientific data has been proven to be a fraud and given you two examples of money. Those aren't all and I won't divulge more. That's up to you and again your mind has been made up.

I don't need any man to think like me. I just want him to think.

Great! It's a fraud! Let's hear the proof! I'm waiting! The rest of the World is waiting! I would like nothing more than Climate Change to be a big hoax and are ready to accept that based on SOME evidence. Since it's been proven you can simply reply with just a link to that proof. Because it's been proven, this should be an EASY task for a smart person such as yourself. A simple Google search should do, right? It's been proven.
How do you propose that two examples of money negate the Science supporting the theory Climate Change? I fail to see how your examples further your argument, as I already responded to in the previous posts. You are welcome to point out where I am wrong and I will openly correct myself.
You don't know me, yet you have the audacity to claim MY mind is made up. From your postings I find it quite clear, if fact, that it is you that have made up YOUR mind. Post up some proof/arguments or at the very least try and rebut my arguments. Can you do that or not? I want YOU to think.

I'll leave you with this. Your electric car still needs to get its energy from somewhere.

And, what's your point? An interesting statement that doesn't pertain to the conversation? Does that help prove or disprove the theory of Climate Change? Oh, I get it.. you still need a car to drive around and fossil fuels are "it" - so you conveniently deny climate change to continue to charge or fill your car? Yep, that does it. Debate over.

Of course, if you were THINKING (Which you claim others do not)... you would have done a quick Google search and found out for yourself what can be done. Gasp! OMG, look at France! 78.1% Nuclear power, 11.1% Hydroelectric and 1.3% Wind turbine and other non polluting methods.. OK, let us think together.. that's 90.5% of ALL of France's power that comes from something OTHER than burning fossil fuels. HERE'S THE LINK. Do you THINK they might be able to charge a car with that? In contrast, the US uses 79.4% Gas, Coal and burnable renewables. Wikipedia

Don't like nuclear? Me neither. So how about a Thorium Reactor? All of the benefits of Nuclear power without much of the worry. Abundant cheap fuel and less expensive reactors. Inherently safe, no pressure build up and produces a byproduct that can be dealt with. We've had this technology since the 60's yet it has been suppressed by the established energy interests. But your a thinker, and these things just won't work - so it's business as usual.

 

[phaZed]

Here we go, point by point:

http://sputniknews.com/world/20140919/193093969.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...turn-of-mini-ice-age/articleshow/45959671.cms
http://germanherald.com/news/Germany_in_Focus/2013-03-31/2331/Prof_Warns_Mini_Ice_Age_has_Started

All articles dealing with Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov - Paper originally published in 2009 and regurgitated every couple of years. Peer reviews of Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov have been dismal. Predictions by Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov have already come to pass and Abdussamatov's theory is already departing from his predictions yet again. He has changed his predictions 3 times since he published in 2009. Each time, bumping up the time from 5 years to 10-15 years and now 40-50 years. He is not a leading solar physicist as declared by the very institution in which he claims he is! LOL!

This wasn’t accurate either. Principia Scientific International has already issued a correction saying that in fact “Dr Abdussamatov is actually head of space research of the Sun Sector at the Polkovo Observatory and head of the Selenometria project on the Russian segment of the International Space Station.”
Not quite so impressive as being the head of space research or the head of the Russian bit of the International Space Station.

Also, Frank Hill was quoted in Lloyds article, but this should come as some interest:

Lloyd quotes Frank Hill, a scientist at the US National Solar Observatory in Arizona. Lloyd writes that the quotes from Hill are from “last June”. This is also wrong. The quotes Hill gave were from June 2011 (here they are). Irrespective of this, Lloyd quotes Hill like this...
....Lloyd left out the beginning of Hill’s original quote, perhaps because it was so unequivocal. “We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age,” Hill pointed out, just in case anyone was wondering.

So you see, the article and theory you have presented are based on work in which even the authors of those works either disagree totally OR were taken out of context or plainly made up. For this and other glaring issues, I am not able to accept this as truth at the moment.
http://www.readfearn.com/2013/05/th...mate-science-denial-news-from-five-years-ago/
https://watchingthedeniers.wordpres...ralian-and-the-repackaging-of-fringe-science/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/entries/6d50a6bd-779a-32d6-bfca-06e4484d6835

You may wish to read about who the scientists are, and their positions before using them. Your article quotes Professor Lockwood who says and maintains:

Lockwood 2007 told the New Scientist that he [6] seriously doubted that solar influences were a big factor compared to anthropogenic influences [Man made Global Warming]: to explain the lack of global cooling since 1987 would require a very long response time constant to any solar forcing which is not found in detected responses to volcanic forcing.[6][8]

Lockwood's published report, that is also quoted in the article, also states that Solar variations may be responsible for UP TO a 0.3 degree variation, not the much larger variations we are seeing. Solar Activity has been observed by satellites for 30 years and these measurements have been included in the Climate Change Reports. They have not been dismissed, quite to the contrary, they have been included and adjusted as such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent climate change.[106] Models are unable to reproduce the rapid warming observed in recent decades when they only take into account variations in solar output and volcanic activity. Models are, however, able to simulate the observed 20th century changes in temperature when they include all of the most important external forcings, including human influences and natural forcings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lockwood_(physicist)

However, Lockwood stresses the distinction between global climate change and regional-and-seasonal climate changes and is of the opinion that solar modulation of the winter, northern hemisphere jet stream might well result in Europe experiencing a higher fraction of cold winters.[9][10] From past variations of the Sun deduced from cosmogenic isotopes he concludes that a slide into a new Maunder minimum is possible over the next 50–100 years.[9][10] The biggest impact of such a decline in solar activity would be a higher occurrence frequency of relatively cold winters in the UK and across Europe, each of which would be accompanied by a relatively warm one elsewhere (for example in Greenland).[9][10] Thus, Lockwood sees no evidence at all of another (global) ice age coming, but thinks more regionally diverse effects of low solar activity are possible. [9][10]

Lockwood is explaining in his published paper that severe weather may be caused in certain regions, explaining how weather and climate are not the same... so thank you for strengthening my position and weakening yours. If fact Paul Hudson's article goes on to say:

It is worth stressing that most scientists believe long term global warming hasn’t gone away. Any global cooling caused by this natural phenomenon would ultimately be temporary, and if projections are correct, the long term warming caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would eventually swamp this solar-driven cooling.

Which implies that if the Maunder solar minimum is occurring that is is somewhat offsetting the effects of Climate Change for the better... but still not enough to cancel the effects of GW/CC.

http://www.vocativ.com/world/russia/heating-electricity-20-siberia/

How about that for sensationalist on your part!? Do you know what your arguing here? A couple of points... First, the article isn't making an extraordinary claim about the weather. The article is about not having power and being told not to tell anyone about not having power. The article IS NOT about the -40 degree C temperature. Here, you can even Google Translate the original article and plainly see it's not about the temperature.
Second, and this is important... Dudinka, Russia is IN THE ARCTIC CIRCLE! Here's the Climate of the Arctic:

Average January temperatures range from about −40 to 0 °C (−40 to +32 °F), and winter temperatures can drop below −50 °C (−58 °F) over large parts of the Arctic. Average July temperatures range from about −10 to +10 °C (14 to 50 °F), with some land areas occasionally exceeding 30 °C (86 °F) in summer.

Gee wiz! -40 degrees is the AVERAGE winter temperature there! Don't believe it? Here's where you can find Dudinka, Russia's Climate History (1961-1990) and look for yourself.

And this really sums up the problem with your post. You didn't think anyone was going to go looking at what you posted and do any morsel of research. So you fluff up your references with the first thing you find on Google and scream, "See, looksy here.. and looksy there... you guys are stoopid." and don't even look at what it is your posting or if it is credible (logically credible, that is).

http://iceagenow.info/2015/01/record-snowfall-western-norway-2-3-meters-6-10-feet/
if you think 6-10 feet of snow is normal better check your facts

You check YOUR facts. Norway isn't in Texas, you know? Here we go... Norway gets large amounts of snow as it is, all the time.. it's Norway! It's mostly Tundra and reaches as far north as the farthest reaches of Canada! Again.. the article is misleading. It plainly states that "Snow plow driver Magnar" says he "believes" it is a record. That doesn't make it a record because a random snow plow driver says it is! It plainly states that he says it was 2.45 meters in your article. Yet, in the original Google Translated article from Norway it has a picture that says Vossestrand got 1.6 meters. These amounts may be more than average but are certainly within the purview of Norwegian weather. There doesn't seem to be any official readings and there is no record that I can find of this being a "record". Voss, Norway is a high altitude, mountainous area known for its ski resorts! Voss high in the mountains is currently sitting at 76.8 inches (or 1.95 meters) but at the bottom of the mountain it is 43.3 inches (1 meter) - so much for 2-3 meters. You can look it up here, current values only. Calling for heavy rain!
If we're getting so much snow why are the French Alps barren of it during snow season?
Families heading to Alps for Christmas getaway face miserable time as hundreds of slopes suffer with lack of snow

http://tuoitrenews.vn/society/25313/tropical-snowfall-causes-congestion-in-sa-pa-photos

It snows there at the end of almost every Dec and January. Especially in the mountain passes. And guess where your article says it snowed?Sigh. Sapa, which is bordered by the Himilayas.
TripAdvisor (Heresay from assumed local, response to question)
Youtube video of snow on Dec 15th, 2013 - In the mountains, for reference.
http://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/vi...nowfall-damages-farms--attracts-tourists.html

This type of weather, while not unheard-of, occasionally occurs in the highest northern mountains during winter.
The snowfall attracted tourists to Sa Pa, causing congestion from the provincial capital of Lao Cai to the resort town.

Weather Overview for Sapa

Sa Pa (Chinese Xa-Pa) is a highland town in the northern Vietnamese frontier province of Lao Cai. Lying in the Hoang Lien Son mountain range, in the eastern extremities of the Himalayas, Sapa enjoys pleasant weather common to all of Vietnam....
...Winter in the highland town of Sa Pa is from mid-November to late February. The coldest of these months are from December to February when snow falls for one to three days at the Fan Si Pan’s ridges....
....Temperature can go as low as 1°C (34°F) during the night time and at times can plummet to sub-zerotemperatures (C) condensing frost along the way.
....Precipitation during winter is at its highest during the month of January when there is 140mm (5.5in) precipitation that can be attributed to the drizzle, mist, frost and even snow.

Ho what snow in a tropical country no has to be global warming

You fail at geography.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/287573441.html

This is really getting old. Your just picking Google searches without discrimination. Hawaii reached a record low of 54 degrees (breaking a 55 degree record in 1979). There's your record. The alarmist picture you see on the front page is from the top of Mauna Kea, one of the largest mountains in the world and it HAS A SKI RESORT!

and finally the one article that was quoted that 2014 was warmest hahahaha
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3PDyxXqU8

The Daily Mail is a tabloid paper. Every other article I see is a repeat/rehash of The Daily Mail. Meanwhile, NASA didn't suddenly admit that there is a margin for error, it's in the damned report. These idiots at The Daily Mail are squabbling about whether or not 2014 was the hottest year but neglect to mention they are comparing the top hottest years, 2014, 2010, 2005, 2013, and 1998 - In that order for hottest to coolest. It still doesn't change the trend as seen in the NASA report, it confirms the problem. Also, NASA is not the only agency to record this, it was worldwide from many organizations. I see the NOAA reports are a bit higher at 48%. Of course, if you read the report you would know that it doesn't mesh with the narrative at The Daily Mail. Geez.

Mini ice ages have been happening throughout history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Yeah, you really should read that page. It pretty much flies in the face of everything else you have posted above. The Reconstructed Temperature graph, CO2 mixing ratios, 400 years of sunspot observations, solar activity events... the whole thing flies in the face of what you have posted above. So make up your mind. You don't get to pick both and have them both be true. Good job.

Oh, and If you don't think the sun has anything to do with climate change think again i can list 20 top scientists
that show the sun on a minimum at the moment every time this has happened in past a mini ige age started.

I didn't say nor imply that, you did. What you fail to realize is that Solar Activity IS IN THE CLIMATE REPORTS! IT IS ACCOUNTED FOR. IT HAS NOT BEEN OMITTED! IT IS FACTORED IN! READ THE GOSH-DARNED REPORT!
You do know that the "Little Ice Age" is a misnomer, right? They don't literally mean it was an ICE AGE, LOL!

From Wikipedia - Your dear Maunder Minimum that you quote so much.

Note that the term "Little Ice Age" applied to the Maunder minimum is something of a misnomer as it implies a period of unremitting cold (and on a global scale), which is not the case. For example, the coldest winter in the Central England Temperature record is 1683-4, but the winter just 2 years later (both in the middle of the Maunder minimum) was the fifth warmest in the whole 350-year CET record. Furthermore, summers during the Maunder minimum were not significantly different to those seen in subsequent years. The drop in global average temperatures in paleoclimate reconstructions at the start of the Little Ice Age was between about 1560 and 1600, whereas the Maunder minimum began almost 50 years later.

I can show over 600 examples of record cold and snowfall around the world snowfalls of 6-10ft and temps -20 to -30 lower than normal.

You've done a bang up job so far, why stop.

 

[Dave1320]

Phazed, I just truthfully don't have the energy or time to do all this right now. However, I will commend you on your willingness to openly speak about the topic and provide your side of the argument. I really appreciate it. Over the years I used to spend hours trying to wake people up. I guess I stereotyped you. My apologies. Maybe sometime in the near future we could have a private chat and discuss all this. It would be worthwhile. You're very passionate. I used to be as well. Kind of got sick of things going through one ear to another.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

Man has become full of arrogance to think he has the answers to what makes the climate tick. I do not doubt that the CO2 we put into the atmosphere has some effects. Of course there is SOME effect. But nobody has a clue to whether or not the effects will be catastrophic. Observations are showing the effects are NOT significant. There is a very senior level climate scientist and lead IPCC author with specialties is climate sensitivity that says:


"I believe the whole climate consensus debate is silly. There is not a single well educated scientist that question that greenhouse gases do affect climate. However, this is not the issue but rather how much and how fast. Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three! Based on observational data climate sensitivity is clearly rather small and much smaller that the majority of models. Here I intend to stick to Karl Popper in highlighting the need for proper validation. - Dr. Lennart Bengtsson"

And I am siding with probably the smartest living man on the planet, Dr. Freeman Dyson. No he is not the vacuum cleaner guy. If our country would have followed Dyson when he was in his prime, we would not even be stuck on this planet anymore. We would be traveling the Solar System with ease right now. When Einstein died there was an opening at Princeton University for the smartest physicist in the world. Dyson filled the position nicely. Some try to discredit his opinion by saying he is not a climate scientist, but that is not entirely true. He was very much involved with climate science in it's early stages but dropped out after becoming disgusted with the politics involved and the goofy model based pseudoscience. Here he is calling on more to become climate heretics like he is:

And two recent peer reviewed papers, one is from an international group of scientists from Finland, France, Switzerland and Russia validating the findings from scientists in China showing the sun has distinct modes of operation and that the solar grand maxima from 1950-2009 was a unique event in the past 3,000 years.

"Research shows that the current warming does not exceed the natural fluctuations of climate. The climate models of IPCC seem to underestimate the impact of natural factors on the climate change, while overstate that of human activities. Solar activity is an important ingredient of natural driving forces of climate. Therefore, it is valuable to investigate the influence of solar variability on the Earth's climate change on long time scales."

"This study also implies that the "modern maximum" of solar activity agrees well with the recent global warming of the Earth. A significant correlation between them can be found"

says one peer reviewer:

"this work provides a possible explanation for the global warming"

HOW DARE THAT CHINESE REVIEWER SAY SUCH A THING! This must be stopped now! He must be an old, white, racist, republican. He must be ignorant of our politics. That just makes him
an...
an...
an...
independent, objective and unbiased observer. We can't have this in science!

http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2014/02/aa23391-14/aa23391-14.html

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-06/scp-hsa060414.php

No, climate science does not measure up to scrutiny:

Differences and chance cause variation. The real world varies unpredictably. Science is mostly about discovering what causes the patterns we see. Why is it hotter this decade than last? There are many explanations for such trends, so the main challenge of research is teasing apart the importance of the process of interest from the innumerable other sources of variation.

Bias is rife. Experimental design or measuring devices may produce atypical results in a given direction. Confirmation bias arises when scientists find evidence for a favoured theory and then become insufficiently critical of their own results, or cease searching for contrary evidence.

Bigger is usually better for sample size. The average taken from a large number of observations will usually be more informative than the average taken from a smaller number of observations. That is, as we accumulate evidence, our knowledge improves. This is especially important when studies are clouded by substantial amounts of natural variation and measurement error.

Correlation does not imply causation. It is tempting to assume that one pattern causes another. However, the correlation might be coincidental, or it might be a result of both patterns being caused by a third factor — a ‘confounding’ or ‘lurking’ variable.

Scientists are human. Scientists have a vested interest in promoting their work, often for status and further research funding, although sometimes for direct financial gain. This can lead to selective reporting of results and occasionally, exaggeration. Peer review is not infallible: journal editors might favour positive findings and newsworthiness. Multiple, independent sources of evidence and replication are much more convincing.

Feelings influence risk perception. Broadly, risk can be thought of as the likelihood of an event occurring in some time frame, multiplied by the consequences should the event occur. People’s risk perception is influenced disproportionately by many things, including the rarity of the event, how much control they believe they have, the adverseness of the outcomes, and whether the risk is voluntarily or not.

Data can be dredged or cherry picked. Evidence can be arranged to support one point of view. The question to ask is: ‘What am I not being told?’

http://www.nature.com/news/policy-twenty-tips-for-interpreting-scientific-claims-1.14183

And it is not the oil companies that are keeping Safe nuclear technologies and abundant energy from us:

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

 

[phaZed]

Thank you Dave,
I'm not asking for much, a one-line post with a link to the proof, proving the science is wrong as you claim, will be sufficient.

Of course there is SOME effect. But nobody has a clue to whether or not the effects will be catastrophic. Observations are showing the effects are NOT significant.

And that's where your wrong. We do have a clue, we have lots of them. Whether or not you choose to believe it doesn't change the scientific data. If observations are not showing significant effects then why don't you link us to a peer-reviewed scientific publication of that. Thanks. I'll be waiting for your reputable link. It's your claim, so you get to back it up.

There is a very senior level climate scientist and lead IPCC author with specialties is climate sensitivity that says:
"I believe the whole climate consensus debate is silly. There is not a single well educated scientist that question that greenhouse gases do affect climate. However, this is not the issue but rather how much and how fast. Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three! Based on observational data climate sensitivity is clearly rather small and much smaller that the majority of models. Here I intend to stick to Karl Popper in highlighting the need for proper validation. - Dr. Lennart Bengtsson"

Are you sure you're ready to dance? You had better do your research before I do.
Lead IPCC author? Really!? Here's Bengtsson's career on Wikipedia in which it says he was an OPPONENT of the IPCC! Never was he on the IPCC panel nor an author of an IPCC report. In fact, the two papers he submitted for review were denied because of factual errors with the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto . LINK In other words, FUDGED DATA. He couldn't even quote the real numbers. The paper was never resubmitted nor publicly released. Why is that?

Lennart Bengtsson's big thing is he always talks about is not politicizing science and that science needs to be more skeptical... but then he joins a political think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, that was responsible for the "email" scandal that was proven not to be a scandal, but was purposely taken out of context.. you can prove this by reading the emails for yourself. On 30 April 2014, Bengtsson joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate change skeptics organization. On 14 May Bengtsson reversed this decision. Interesting.

The GWPF's first act was to call for a high-level, independent inquiry into the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.[9][10] A spokesman for the Met Office, a government agency which works with the Climate Research Unit in providing global temperature information, dismissed this call. "If you look at the emails, there isn't any evidence that the data was falsified and there's no evidence that climate change is a hoax. It's a shame that some of the sceptics have had to take this rather shallow attempt to discredit robust science undertaken by some of the world's most respected scientists...
....Lawson suggested that the e-mails from the University of East Anglia "called into question" the integrity of the scientific evidence.[12]Subsequent investigations did not support this view. GWPF Director Benny Peiser said that the organisation did not doubt the science and wasn’t going to discuss it, but want an open, frank debate about what policies should be adopted.[12]

The GWPF, pretty sleezy:

When the GWPF's website was launched in November 2009, a graph used in the logo graphic on each page of the website of '21st Century global mean temperatures' showed a slow decline over the selected period from 2001–2008. Hannah Devlin of The Timesfound an error for 2003 and noted that if the period from 2000–2009 had been chosen, then a rise in temperature would have been shown rather than a fall.[23]Bob Ward said that the graph was contrary to the true measurements, and that by leaving out the temperature trend during the 20th century, the graph obscured the fact that 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred this century. The GWPF blamed a "small error by our graphic designer" for the mistake which would now be changed, but said that starting the graph earlier would be equally arbitrary.

And they still haven't changed the misleading graphic as you can see on their website. Why is that?

OK, you want to quote Lennart Bengtsson? Here's his latest stance on Global Climate Change (May 16th, 2014), directly after he quits the political think tank on May 14th:

Bengtsson issued a statement that "I do not believe there is any systematic 'cover-up' of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics' work is being 'deliberately suppressed', as the Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is gradually being influenced by political views".

So, he's on our side, not yours. Thanks for the extra cannon-fodder.

And I am siding with probably the smartest living man on the planet, Dr. Freeman Dyson. No he is not the vacuum cleaner guy. If our country would have followed Dyson when he was in his prime, we would not even be stuck on this planet anymore. We would be traveling the Solar System with ease right now.

I am very familiar with Dyson and have researched many past space projects including Project Orion. You do know what Project Orion is, don't you? So you think that exploding 2000 nuclear bombs in the atmosphere, to get out of the atmosphere each time... is a good idea? He certainly proved a concept and was an out of the box thinker, but even he admits that the Orion Project was doomed for failure due to the amount of nuclear material needed and the negative environmental effects of nuclear radiation.
Gee, I wonder why the country decided not to turn the world into Chernobyl? As for traveling the Solar System with ease, how many Nuclear bombs is that going to take? Changing direction in space? Just use a nuclear bomb! You can't stop at the International Space Nuclear bomb refilling station. The size of a craft needed to house simply the bombs alone would be unfeasible, then you have to house everything else. Your notion is preposterous.

When Einstein died there was an opening at Princeton University for the smartest physicist in the world. Dyson filled the position nicely. Some try to discredit his opinion by saying he is not a climate scientist, but that is not entirely true. He was very much involved with climate science in it's early stages but dropped out after becoming disgusted with the politics involved and the goofy model based pseudoscience. Here he is calling on more to become climate heretics like he is:

Research. It is essential. Try it.
The video you link was from 2006. We have accumulated much more data since then, and arguably some of the most important data including actual observations. It is unfair to frame Dyson from an older speech when that data was unavailable.
Also, instead of that "conveniently cut" 15-minute video made by Youtuber "1000frolly", how about you try the actual lecture that is an hour long from Boston Universtiy? Oh my, look at that, when you watch the actual presentation it paints a different story. Dyson isn't denying Climate Change, he is listing many different problems he feels are more prevalent and require more immediate attention.

Further, if you want to quote Dyson as a Climate expert, why does he say this (Wikipedia):

In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."

See, proof you have framed Dyson incorrectly to presumably further your argument. If Dyson is a top leading Climate Scientist, why does he "not know much" about climate facts?

More recently Dyson has changed his views BECAUSE OF THE DATA! Like a true scientist!

More recently, he has endorsed the now common usage of "global warming" as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change, referring to "measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science.

Again, thank you for the additional cannon-fodder. Your arguing for the wrong side of your argument, LOL!

And two recent peer reviewed papers, one is from an international group of scientists from Finland, France, Switzerland and Russia validating the findings from scientists in China showing the sun has distinct modes of operation and that the solar grand maxima from 1950-2009 was a unique event in the past 3,000 years.
"Research shows that the current warming does not exceed the natural fluctuations of climate. The climate models of IPCC seem to underestimate the impact of natural factors on the climate change, while overstate that of human activities. Solar activity is an important ingredient of natural driving forces of climate. Therefore, it is valuable to investigate the influence of solar variability on the Earth's climate change on long time scales."

Again, your misrepresenting the actual paper as compared to your quote. YOUR QUOTE ISN'T FROM THE STUDY, it's from a news release. If you actually READ the study it simply states that the sun and it's solar output may have more bearing on Earth's climate than previously thought. It does not postulate that amount. So does the sun cause 1% more warming, 5%, 25%, 80% - they make no claims as such. Also the paper plainly states that this is looking in the context of centuries, not simply recent time. Considering the CO2 problem is roughly a century since the start of large use of fossil fuels it would make perfect since to see the suns past centuries solar output coincide with the Climate. In contrast, if Global Warming is occurring, we should see a departure of the Climate from the solar output, correct?
Well, Looky here! From the journal you quoted... a large departure since the late 60's to today. How do you explain that?

"This study also implies that the "modern maximum" of solar activity agrees well with the recent global warming of the Earth. A significant correlation between them can be found"

Yes, the study proves my point. Not yours. Look at the darned report. The report is saying that HISTORICALLY the modern maximum agrees with some recent readings in the past 100 years, as to be expected. So you want to take a position that the Modern Maximum is here and causing climate change? Then why is solar output down? In the very report you mention, here's the graph of solar output for the past 100 years.. the right hand side of the graph is present time:

And here is solar output vs. Temperature:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

HOW DARE THAT CHINESE REVIEWER SAY SUCH A THING!

This must be stopped now! He must be an old, white, racist, republican. He must be ignorant of our politics. That just makes him
an...
an...
an...
independent, objective and unbiased observer. We can't have this in science!

Look how silly you sound. You misread and misrepresent the actual facts and data in the reports and then have the gall to say this. Also, on a second point.. we don't take reviews from "reviewers" as facts and science, we look at the data from the science to infer or uncover facts.

No, climate science does not measure up to scrutiny:
Differences and chance cause variation....
Bias is rife....
Bigger is usually better for sample size....
Correlation does not imply causation....
Scientists are human....
Feelings influence risk perception....
Data can be dredged or cherry picked....
http://www.nature.com/news/policy-twenty-tips-for-interpreting-scientific-claims-1.14183

Apply it to yourself, it is evident that you have not as seen by the postings above. How does this site further your argument? It says nothing about Climate Change, rather, it is explaining how policy and politicians DO NOT FOLLOW SCIENCE AND HOW THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE!
Again, thanks for providing the extra cannon-fodder.

And it is not the oil companies that are keeping Safe nuclear technologies and abundant energy from us:

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

And how exactly do those quotes prove or strengthen your position? You can look each one up and the context they were originally used and plainly see they do not relate to your argument.

Want to have another go at it?

 

[seedubya]

Nurse, get Mr. AllUserIDsRejected to the burns unit stat!

As for Dave1320 - if you have proof of something post it - otherwise drop the pretence that you know some big secret.

 

[Krynn72]

Man, TN does a good job staying away from politics, but Climate Change and Guns always seem to rile everyone here up.

Personally, I think climate change is caused by not having enough guns. If we had more guns, climate would be deterred from changing and we could defend ourselves from it if it does.

 

[coffee]

Not at all, you are welcome to disagree.. but your argument has to be better than "Drink the Kool Aid". The definition of fool is a person who acts unwisely or imprudently. Seeing as you have yet to make an argument for your case.. what does that make you?

The definition of fool is a person who acts unwisely or imprudently.

Lets upgrade this definition a bit. I say upgrade it because I do not think its an accurate definition. Lets take an example here. Lets say I go out to service a server and I have had a terrible day. Perhaps I had bad family news? Whatever. Well, It effects my judgement for that day. I make a mistake on the server that takes the company down for a few minutes. Therefore, From you definition, I am a fool.

A fool is one that performs in a way that produces the same outcome but still repeats his actions.

I think the above fits better.

Now, As per evidence for my argument. I posted that with the video in an earlier post. I realize that its very hard if not impossible to change peoples minds. I do not subscribe to that though. If I have a certain belief and I see evidence to the contrary I will then put my belief to the test. However, Global warming/Climate change/ Global cooling I find very little evidence that its cause is man made.

Through out the eons the climate has never been stable. There is not one real period in the times of the earth’s existence that climate has not changed. Of course that is hard to see as our lifespan as a human is only about 100 years on average. When you look at the climate statistics from actual data you will see a graph like this below:

Now, Someone experiencing some short term climate changes that lives only on average of 100 years will think something is going on. However, If you were to expand areas of this graph to a 100 year period you will see that these short term changes in climate do not add up over the long term situation. In fact, By studying this graph a bit you can see that we are actually in the most stable period of earth's existence.

So, Lets look at it this way then, Where does this graph come from and is it accurate? The graph comes from NOAA. I consider their work accurate. However, Should we see other graphs showing different statistics then you have to look at factors like the time frame involved in the graph and from what work was the graph produced among other things.

Another question comes to mind that was mentioned in this thread. The idea that Lord Monckton is a fool. Well, Looking over his achievements he certainly does not fit the definition of a fool as stated earlier in this post. What I think is really in play here is that people when faced with contrary evidence to their opinion on something will resort to personal attacks.

Getting back on subject, Lets take a look at a shorter time period than the graph shows. Lets take the First half of the last century. This would be the period from about 1900 to 1950. During this time more damage was caused to the environment then any other time in history. Why do I say that? Because the industrial movement was in full swing. We had cars with their exhaust, Very large industries and we went thru 2 world wars. Where was all this waste produced from them going? Well, It was just dumped into our rivers and oceans or just buried. Incredibly if young people looked back at that time they would be horrified - As they should be. Today we are still suffering from the effects of this damage. However, During the early 70's there was a big movement to stop this and clean it up. Today our environment is much cleaner (including the air) of that previous period.

Now, Lets look at it from others view point. What if climate change caused by man is real? What are we doing about it? Well the governments are taxing the people and collecting money with the idea that they will use this money in some way to solve the problem either by penalizing those that pollute more or by investing the money in ways to combat this problem. This approach simply does not work. All you are left with is people that are over taxed and robbed of their money and industries that are attacked for providing the necessities of life as we know it today. In actuality, The movement starting in the early 1970's did more for the cleaning up and reshaping how we dispose of waste than any climate change tax will ever do. The problem here is that governments are very poor at solving problems like this. The most influential power that has done more in this regard is actually the consumer. The bottom line here is that consumers that get upset over such things as car exhaust will buy cleaner running cars. This influences the companies that build these cars to shift production to meet consumer needs. A tax does not do this. The cost of the tax on an industry is pushed on to the consumer and the company feels no ill effects from it unless it forces them out of business because the price of their product is too high.

If anything, Doing what we have been doing since the early 70's and seeing the outcome only enforces the idea that we are actually on the right road to a clean environment. Ultimately consumer habits shape our environment. If you think man made climate change is happening then target those industries that are causing it and quit using their services. This forces how a entity changes how they do things - Not a tax on companies or individuals.

I can not subscribe to the idea that climate change is man made. It just doesnt add up to me. What I do see is politicians getting rich off the idea and being voted into power because of climate change and then pushing some other agenda that ultimately is bad for a country. After all, If you really do believe that the government will provide for your welfare then as Henry Ford said "Just take a look at the American Indian".

coffee

 

[alluseridsrejected]

And that's where your wrong. We do have a clue, we have lots of them. Whether or not you choose to believe it doesn't change the scientific data. If observations are not showing significant effects then why don't you link us to a peer-reviewed scientific publication of that. Thanks. I'll be waiting for your reputable link. It's your claim, so you get to back it up.

Only one? There are at least a dozen recent or fairly recent peer reviewed papers showing sensitivity is much less than the best estimate of 3.0 Degrees Celcius that was given by the IPCC in AR4. But would it change your mind if I provide links to all of them? I seriously doubt it. Here is one of the more recent ones with a best estimate of 1.64 degrees. Far below the highly alarmist IPCC best estimate:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=SUrA9FRPUc2zMeLX5Or-eg&bvm=bv.84607526,d.ZWU

And look these up for yourself. They ALL are below the IPCC best estimates (when they gave one, they don't anymore. Why is that?). Most are below 2.0C and are based on actual observations and not bogus models like the IPCC uses:

Aldrin, M., et al., 2012.
Annan, J.D., and J.C Hargreaves, 2011.
Hargreaves, J.C., et al., 2012.
Lewis, N. 2013.
Lindzen, R.S., and Y-S. Choi, 2011.
Loehle, C., 2014.
Masters, T., 2013.
McKitrick, R., 2014.
Michaels. P.J. et al., 2002.
Otto, A., F. E. L. Otto, O. Boucher, J. Church, G. Hegerl, P. M. Forster, N. P. Gillett, J. Gregory, G. C. Johnson, R. Knutti, N. Lewis, U. Lohmann, J. Marotzke, G. Myhre, D. Shindell, B. Stevens, and M. R. Allen, 2013.
Ring, M.J., et al., 2012.
Schmittner, A., et al. 2011.
Skeie, R. B., T. Berntsen, M. Aldrin, M. Holden, and G. Myhre, 2014.
Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell, 2013.
van Hateren, J.H., 2012.

Are you sure you're ready to dance? You had better do your research before I do.
Lead IPCC author? Really!? Here's Bengtsson's career on Wikipedia in which it says he was an OPPONENT of the IPCC! Never was he on the IPCC panel nor an author of an IPCC report. In fact, the two papers he submitted for review were denied because of factual errors with the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto . LINK In other words, FUDGED DATA. He couldn't even quote the real numbers. The paper was never resubmitted nor publicly released. Why is that?

Dance? You seem to be doing plenty of that since you present no facts. You criticize me for giving a link to an actual peer reviewed science paper news release and then quote wiki as your source that is to be accepted as fact? Worse than that you quote skepticalscience.com among other questionable sources. The site run by the failed cartoonist John Cook where every post is a carefully constructed strawman? You compeletly loose all credibility when you do that. You must be kidding me!

OK, you want to quote Lennart Bengtsson? Here's his latest stance on Global Climate Change (May 16th, 2014), directly after he quits the political think tank on May 14th:

You fogot to include the part of why he dropped out of the GWPF where he stated he feared for his safety:

"I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety"

This is truly the science that can not handle any dissension!

Well, Looky here! From the journal you quoted... a large departure since the late 60's to today. How do you explain that?

You need to go back and study the chart some more. TSI went up and so did the temperature. That's called correlation. A divergence is would be if TSI went down while temps went up. You know, like in the hokeystick chart and Mr. Mann's hide the decline. For me I will go with these scientists and what they say about their paper over your unqualified opinion.

Now I am sure you won't let this be the last word, but I have far to many computers to work on to be giving line by line replies. So have a good day.

 

[SilverLeaf]

Although I firmly believe that human activity is largely responsible for climate change, that's not important. What is important is the fact that it is indeed changing. Combine this with deforestation, particulate and chemical pollution, modern agricultural processes (chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc.), over-fishing and polluting of the oceans,......is it any wonder that we are in the middle of the 6th Great Extinction? Throw in the potential effects of global warming (disruptions to the thermohaline circulation. changing weather patterns over farmlands, etc) and it just gets worse. Think this won't catastrophically impact human existence? Future generations (should there be any), will wonder how we could have been so blind and why we waited so long to act.

 

[lcoughey]

The good news is that our ancestors will evolve to survive in whatever environment we leave them with. Even if the entire planet blows up, a new one will come into being and they will continue to evolve from where we are now.

 

[phaZed]

The definition of fool is a person who acts unwisely or imprudently.
Lets upgrade this definition a bit. I say upgrade it because I do not think its an accurate definition. Lets take an example here. Lets say I go out to service a server and I have had a terrible day. Perhaps I had bad family news? Whatever. Well, It effects my judgement for that day. I make a mistake on the server that takes the company down for a few minutes. Therefore, From you definition, I am a fool.

LOL! Are we really going to redefine the English language to fit your views? No, I don't believe we will. It's not my definition... it is THE definition.
Marriam Webster's Definition:
Fool - noun : a person who lacks good sense or judgment : a stupid or silly person
Being a fool is usually a temporary thing, you can be very reasonable and have moments of foolishness which makes you a fool at that moment. It's not an incurable disease!

A fool is one that performs in a way that produces the same outcome but still repeats his actions.
I think the above fits better.

Wouldn't that definition fit better in the cliche quote put forward by Albert Einstein? "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Like I said, you are welcome to think what you want but redefining common words wasn't included in the offer. To do so is FOOLISH.

Now, As per evidence for my argument. I posted that with the video in an earlier post. I realize that its very hard if not impossible to change peoples minds. I do not subscribe to that though. If I have a certain belief and I see evidence to the contrary I will then put my belief to the test. However, Global warming/Climate change/ Global cooling I find very little evidence that its cause is man made.

And I already rebutted your Lord Monckton video, twice. You have yet to respond to the rebuttal either in THIS thread or the other time you mentioned Monckton in this other thread. 1st page, post 15 is yours, post 18 is my rebuttal that has yet to be responded to by you.
Here it is again, for the third time:
http://static.stthomas.edu/jpabraha...dium=Vanity&utm_campaign=Abraham Presentation
Monckton, based on science? Then why do the very scientists he quotes not agree with him? Why does Monckton's data not reflect the very reports he quotes? You are welcome to respond to that at anytime.

Through out the eons the climate has never been stable. There is not one real period in the times of the earth’s existence that climate has not changed. Of course that is hard to see as our lifespan as a human is only about 100 years on average. When you look at the climate statistics from actual data you will see a graph like this below:

I already responded to this as well at the old GW OP - of which you still have not responded as well. If you don't mind, I will just re-post the same argument that you have failed to respond to:

The chart you have posted is a macro overview of Earth's Climate for the past 500+ million years - so your resolution for the past few thousand years on that graph are not very useful... but you can still see it in your graph.. see that last bit for the past 2000-10,000 years? That's fairly stable there. The problem is that we are in a Solar cycle which promotes global cooling and we were and still are on a cooling cycle up until the industrial revolution.. the thing that is alarming and unusual is that the recent warming trend is happening regardless of the cyclical cycles and is occurring more rapidly than anytime before (Decades instead of multiple Centuries).

Here's your answer, the last 2000 years of Climate:

You are welcome to disprove Berkley:
Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years
Or Arizona University's international study:
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/846/arctic-warming-overtakes-2000-years-natural-cooling

... both of which explain why this is not normal or expected.

Now, Someone experiencing some short term climate changes that lives only on average of 100 years will think something is going on. However, If you were to expand areas of this graph to a 100 year period you will see that these short term changes in climate do not add up over the long term situation. In fact, By studying this graph a bit you can see that we are actually in the most stable period of earth's existence.

According to my posted graph (Which is IN YOUR GRAPH too), you could be a 2000 year old person and see that there has been an abrupt approximate 1.5 degree C increase in the past 100 years. It is also the highest temperature in the last 150,000 years since the Pleistocene era when woolly mammoths were going extinct. It's in your graph.

So, Lets look at it this way then, Where does this graph come from and is it accurate? The graph comes from NOAA. I consider their work accurate. However, Should we see other graphs showing different statistics then you have to look at factors like the time frame involved in the graph and from what work was the graph produced among other things.

Great! You agree with NOAA's graphs and climate data, but then.. what? You disagree with the findings of NOAA about Climate. OK, have it your way. Should we see some other graphs we will look at them.. but until they materialize there is no need to postulate about them. Agreed? This really is Orwellian double-think at its best.

Another question comes to mind that was mentioned in this thread. The idea that Lord Monckton is a fool. Well, Looking over his achievements he certainly does not fit the definition of a fool as stated earlier in this post. What I think is really in play here is that people when faced with contrary evidence to their opinion on something will resort to personal attacks.

And you still haven't rebutted by argument. A person's achievements do not equal scientific data. Why don't you just look at what Monckton has said, research the sources and see they are not represented correctly according to the scientists and published papers that Monckton quotes?
Your thoughts on social dogmas are of little use here.

Getting back on subject, Lets take a look at a shorter time period than the graph shows. Lets take the First half of the last century. This would be the period from about 1900 to 1950. During this time more damage was caused to the environment then any other time in history. Why do I say that? Because the industrial movement was in full swing. We had cars with their exhaust, Very large industries and we went thru 2 world wars. Where was all this waste produced from them going? Well, It was just dumped into our rivers and oceans or just buried. Incredibly if young people looked back at that time they would be horrified - As they should be. Today we are still suffering from the effects of this damage. However, During the early 70's there was a big movement to stop this and clean it up. Today our environment is much cleaner (including the air) of that previous period.

Your conflating industrial chemicals, leaded gasoline and what amounts to buried trash with Greenhouse gas release. Not all pollutants are Greenhouse gasses. Yes, let's get back on subject, as you say.

Now, Lets look at it from others view point. What if climate change caused by man is real? What are we doing about it? Well the governments are taxing the people and collecting money with the idea that they will use this money in some way to solve the problem either by penalizing those that pollute more or by investing the money in ways to combat this problem. This approach simply does not work. All you are left with is people that are over taxed and robbed of their money and industries that are attacked for providing the necessities of life as we know it today. In actuality, The movement starting in the early 1970's did more for the cleaning up and reshaping how we dispose of waste than any climate change tax will ever do. The problem here is that governments are very poor at solving problems like this. The most influential power that has done more in this regard is actually the consumer. The bottom line here is that consumers that get upset over such things as car exhaust will buy cleaner running cars. This influences the companies that build these cars to shift production to meet consumer needs. A tax does not do this. The cost of the tax on an industry is pushed on to the consumer and the company feels no ill effects from it unless it forces them out of business because the price of their product is too high.

If anything, Doing what we have been doing since the early 70's and seeing the outcome only enforces the idea that we are actually on the right road to a clean environment. Ultimately consumer habits shape our environment. If you think man made climate change is happening then target those industries that are causing it and quit using their services. This forces how a entity changes how they do things - Not a tax on companies or individuals.

I can not subscribe to the idea that climate change is man made. It just doesnt add up to me. What I do see is politicians getting rich off the idea and being voted into power because of climate change and then pushing some other agenda that ultimately is bad for a country. After all, If you really do believe that the government will provide for your welfare then as Henry Ford said "Just take a look at the American Indian".

This is all conjecture. You are welcome to back up your opinions and conclusions at any time. Until then, this doesn't even warrant a response. Also, how does this negate the science of GW and CC? Thanks.

 

[AlexanderCS]

Aaron, I admire your passion and drive for scientific evidence. I think that's commendable.

What I'm uncomfortable with is how your wording seems to kick people while they're down, so to speak. If someone isn't as well read and researched as you, or you can debate circles around them... making statements like "thanks for the cannon fodder" and "want to have another go at it?" just seem belittling and unnecessary.

That's just my opinion of how it comes off, I don't respect you any less as a professional.

 

[phaZed]

Only one? There are at least a dozen recent or fairly recent peer reviewed papers showing sensitivity is much less than the best estimate of 3.0 Degrees Celcius that was given by the IPCC in AR4. But would it change your mind if I provide links to all of them? I seriously doubt it. Here is one of the more recent ones with a best estimate of 1.64 degrees. Far below the highly alarmist IPCC best estimate:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEAQFjAF&url=http://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/lewiscurry_ar5-energy-budget-climate-sensitivity_clim-dyn2014_accepted-reformatted-edited.pdf&ei=rUTKVKbgBcHEPPLqgLAG&usg=AFQjCNHGy6kx30mmtWn-pigqBnJ28EEErQ&sig2=SUrA9FRPUc2zMeLX5Or-eg&bvm=bv.84607526,d.ZWU

I rest my case. Everyone here on the board can go to the report and CTRL+F and search for 1.64 degrees or 3.0 degrees C and see it's not in that report. I believe you are failing to read and comprehend basic sentences. I do not intend to be mean or degrading when I say that. Your just poorly able to understand and logically deduce. The values you quote from the report are not temperatures! LOL!

Rather, the report is about equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) measured as probability ratings in units called (K). K doesn't stand for Kelvin, Celsius, of Farenheit.
It's rather ignorant to claim this paper as proof considering it strengthens the position of Climate Change and is attempting to correct very small variations in Climate Models to further solidify the theory of CC/GW. The whole report is based on environmental "forcing" from external sources such as humans and solar output, AKA - Global Warming.. you should be happy to see revisions to the science based on observed values.

TCR is defined as:

ECS is defined as:

F = is the radiative forcing attributable to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Delta T = change in surface temperature
Delta F = mean changes in total forcing
Delta Q = total heat uptake

Those little triangles are called "Delta" and refer to the change in a value. Glad I could help.

Also, from that report:

As pointed out in AR5 (Bindoff et al., 2014, p.920), the transient climate response (TCR) represents a generic climate system property equalling the product of F2 CO2 and the ratio of the response of global surface temperature to a change in forcing taking place gradually over a ~70 year timescale. If most of the increase in forcing during a longer period occurs approximately linearly over the final ~70 years...
...Both equations (1) and (2) assume constant linear feedbacks, and that T is entirely externally forced . Otto et al. (2013) illustrated that the increase in total forcing over the last 70 years has approximated a linear ramp and constitutes most of the increase during the Instrumental period, implying that it is valid to estimate TCR using (2), provided that the final period is recent and the base period ends no later than about 1950.

In other words, these only apply to recent (1950-Today) times BECAUSE changes in forced CO2 amounts were presumably too small to make any notable difference. This very paper applies to the very thing you argue against. LOL!

And look these up for yourself. They ALL are below the IPCC best estimates (when they gave one, they don't anymore. Why is that?). Most are below 2.0C and are based on actual observations and not bogus models like the IPCC uses:

From "1. Introduction" of your report:

The IPCC Fifth Assessment Working Group I Report (AR5), published in 2014, reduced the „likely‟ lower bound back to 1.5 K, making the range 1.5–4.5 K, reflecting the lower estimates that had been published recently in the literature. Significantly, the IPCC authors decided not to provide a best estimate for climate sensitivity in AR5.
The key issue faced in the AR5 assessment was interpreting the discrepancy between climate sensitivity estimates based on climate models (higher values) versus recent empirically-derived sensitivity analyses (lower values). A footnote to the AR5 Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) states: “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

Stop cherry picking a sentence here and there. Obviously the report you quote is referring to climate sensitivity estimates, not temperature values. Pretty low blow there.

Aldrin, M., et al., 2012.
Annan, J.D., and J.C Hargreaves, 2011.
Hargreaves, J.C., et al., 2012.
Lewis, N. 2013.
Lindzen, R.S., and Y-S. Choi, 2011.
Loehle, C., 2014.
Masters, T., 2013.
McKitrick, R., 2014.
Michaels. P.J. et al., 2002.
Otto, A., F. E. L. Otto, O. Boucher, J. Church, G. Hegerl, P. M. Forster, N. P. Gillett, J. Gregory, G. C. Johnson, R. Knutti, N. Lewis, U. Lohmann, J. Marotzke, G. Myhre, D. Shindell, B. Stevens, and M. R. Allen, 2013.
Ring, M.J., et al., 2012.
Schmittner, A., et al. 2011.
Skeie, R. B., T. Berntsen, M. Aldrin, M. Holden, and G. Myhre, 2014.
Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell, 2013.
van Hateren, J.H., 2012.

And then you simply cop/paste the references used in the report that disagrees with you. Classy. YOU LOOK IT UP.

Dance? You seem to be doing plenty of that since you present no facts. You criticize me for giving a link to an actual peer reviewed science paper news release and then quote wiki as your source that is to be accepted as fact? Worse than that you quote skepticalscience.com among other questionable sources. The site run by the failed cartoonist John Cook where every post is a carefully constructed strawman? You compeletly loose all credibility when you do that. You must be kidding me!

You are resorting to a logical fallacy called Ad Hominem. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).
OK, prove my source is incorrect. Quoted from Wikipedia.

You fogot to include the part of why he dropped out of the GWPF where he stated he feared for his safety:
"I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety"

And you have failed to read the most recent quotes from Lennart Bengtsson that occurred AFTER that.. he's not on your side.

I do not believe there is any systematic 'cover-up' of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics' work is being 'deliberately suppressed

You need to go back and study the chart some more. TSI went up and so did the temperature. That's called correlation. A divergence is would be if TSI went down while temps went up.

My goodness your in denial... Look, I will make this real simple. The black line is TSI, blue is Global temps, Land is Green and Orange is Oceanic. The little black line has gone down while all the other pretty colored lines went up. That is called divergence. You study your graph. It should only take a few seconds.