PDA

View Full Version : Media Go Into Panic On How To Spin Record Cold



genglandoh
02-24-2015, 12:05 PM
It is just amazing.

Media Go Into Panic On How To Spin Record Cold
So the United Nations IPCC, global warming activists like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., alarmist meteorologists like Jerry Meehl, and the media ventriloquist dummies for these alarmists, have a long and indisputable record of claiming global warming will cause warmer winters and less snowfall. When the real-world climate, however, falsifies these predictions, Connor Sheets and other “reporters” claim the settled science of global warming always predicted colder and snowier winters. “Why Is It So Cold and Snowy In November? Blame Global Warming,” Sheets writes in the headline of his story.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/12/03/media-go-into-panic-how-to-spin-record-cold/2/

IPCC 2001 report
Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/569.htm

Los Angeles Times September 24, 2008 article from Robert F. Kennedy
http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/articles/2008_sep_Los_angeles_times.html

Keith Wilson
02-24-2015, 12:07 PM
http://ssdd.samsbiz.com/store/image/niuw/Grateful_Dead_Goodies_Grateful_Dead_-_Ice_Cream_Kid_Mousepad.jpg

Gerarddm
02-24-2015, 12:08 PM
Blah blah blah. Still the glaciers recede.

RodB
02-24-2015, 12:12 PM
Another hit for the Global Warming alarmists...

R



Left Panics Over Peer-Reviewed Climate Paper’s Threat To Global Warming Alarmism
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/left-panics-over-peer-reviewed-climate-paper-s-threat-to-global-warming-alarmism.html

John of Phoenix
02-24-2015, 12:13 PM
Deniers will deny climate change even as they go down for the third time (and take the rest of the world with them).

Norman Bernstein
02-24-2015, 12:16 PM
. and the media ventriloquist dummies for these alarmists.....

Yes, I can tell by the precise scientific language of this article, that this will be carefully reasoned, scientifically valid, and fully objective analysis!

:):):)

I wish some people would get the message: science isn't politics... and politics isn't science. Get over it already!

The Bigfella
02-24-2015, 12:21 PM
Meanwhile... the head of the IPCC has resigned.

I believe it has more to do with organic growth in his trousers than anything to do with climate

Todd D
02-24-2015, 12:29 PM
Believe it or not, the eastern US is not the whole world. For example, the pacific northwest is having a record WARM winter. That of course is weather NOT climate.

Flying Orca
02-24-2015, 12:29 PM
It is just amazing.

What's amazing about non-scientists' all-too-common inability to understand or communicate scientific findings?

RodB
02-24-2015, 12:29 PM
Very interesting movement... "The Cold Truth Initiative"....

R



http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/Global-Warming-climate-change/2014/11/17/id/607827/

slug
02-24-2015, 12:31 PM
Cold snap ? I musta missed it.

somekinda polar vortex ?

The Bigfella
02-24-2015, 12:34 PM
Cold snap ? I musta missed it.

somekinda polar vortex ?

Yeah, cold snap in the Arabian area too... even the damn pool was cold this arvo.

Phillip Allen
02-24-2015, 12:37 PM
I heard about a bunch of protesters who demand a static climate... any change is the fault of that 'other' party

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 12:38 PM
Geng I'd post a graph of average temps from 1901-2000, but it ain't worth it. You wouldn't look at it, muchless understand it!2000

slug
02-24-2015, 12:39 PM
Oh....

Was bit nippy here. Im still wearing shorts. Went into town to get a few estimates on a pair of trousers didnt like the prices...gouging...decided to tough it out and wrap old newspapers around my legs till the cold snap ceased.

Good thing...saved a wedge and the cold snap is history .

ljb5
02-24-2015, 12:39 PM
Good lord! Newsmax Finanace? What will these people think of next?

So John Case says we're going to have record cold for 30 years.

Someone bookmark this page for 2045 and we'll know who was right.

But, of course, he's not interested in being right 30 years from now. He's only interested in obstructing the discussion for 30 years.

genglandoh
02-24-2015, 12:44 PM
Blah blah blah. Still the glaciers recede.

You are correct the Glaciers have been receding since the last ice age.

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 12:46 PM
At what rate Geng?

Keith Wilson
02-24-2015, 12:47 PM
Sure. And they're now receding faster. You really think somebody hasn't thought of that?

Captain Intrepid
02-24-2015, 12:59 PM
What record cold? It's been an exceedingly warm winter here.

BETTY-B
02-24-2015, 01:03 PM
It's been t-shirt and shorts weather here in Seattle for a month. Haven't even bothered to light a fire in over that. The top of the MG has been off for two weeks even. Gee, only four months ahead of schedule. The mountains look so beautiful with well under 25% of the needed snowpack for summer water as well. Everything is great.

ljb5
02-24-2015, 01:07 PM
It is just amazing.

Media Go Into Panic On How To Spin Record Cold
So the United Nations IPCC, global warming activists like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., alarmist meteorologists like Jerry Meehl, and the media ventriloquist dummies for these alarmists, have a long and indisputable record of claiming global warming will cause warmer winters and less snowfall.

That's the danger of over simplifying your argument.

While it is true that the 2001 IPCC report predicted generally warmer climate (which has turned out to be true), it also mentioned increased variability and specifically mentioned the risk of snow and ice storms in the North East.

No one ever promised you that this would all be easy, simple and linear. The real world is full of complexity and nuance and surprising outcomes.

Sorry you have so much trouble accepting that fact.

Canoeyawl
02-24-2015, 01:08 PM
70 degree weather here almost every day since Christmas.

Again, Ohio is not the planet.

genglandoh
02-24-2015, 01:18 PM
Sure. And they're now receding faster. You really think somebody hasn't thought of that?

Lets see.
The last ICE Age had Glaciers 3.5 to 4 KM thick.
When these Glaciers melted it caused massive floods.

No the Glaciers are not receding faster then in the past.

ljb5
02-24-2015, 01:19 PM
Incidentally, TIME magazine published a rebuttal to geng's argument a year ago: http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/


Unsurprisingly, the extreme cold has brought out the climate change skeptics, who point to the freeze and the recent snowstorms and say, essentially, “nyah-nyah.” Now this is where I would usually point to the fact that the occasional cold snap—even one as extreme as much of the U.S. is experiencing now—doesn’t change the overall trajectory of a warming planet. Weather is what happens in the atmosphere day to day; climate is how the atmosphere behaves over long periods of time. Winters in the U.S. have been warming steadily over the past century, and even faster in recent decades, so it would take more than a few sub-zero days to cancel that out.

But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely.

You could probably find the same complaints, and same explanations every (North American) winter going back ten years. And geng is probably already working on his complaint for next winter... he just has to wait until the right time to post it.

Never mind that Denver hit 74 degrees in January this year.

genglandoh
02-24-2015, 01:21 PM
70 degree weather here almost every day since Christmas.

Again, Ohio is not the planet.

Is this normal, below normal or above normal?

ljb5
02-24-2015, 01:23 PM
Another source that addressed this issue last year:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100283130/both-extreme-hot-and-extreme-cold-weather-is-likely-to-be-caused-by-global-warming-say-scientists/


Stand by for derision from global warming sceptics....

It warns us... but if only it could tell us how to shut them off.

I mean, we've covered this issue already, year, after year.... and every year they come back and say, "Hey, I didn't know global climate change could do this!"

Every year.

Norman Bernstein
02-24-2015, 01:27 PM
No the Glaciers are not receding faster then in the past.

And you know this how?

You have advanced degrees in climatology and environmental science?

You have published peer-reviewed studies in major environmental journals?

you've conducted independent research on the subject?

....or are you simply picking the story you like, from the tiny minority of scientists whose opinions are contrary to the consensus opinion of the vast majority of people who are actually qualified to make these judgments?

RonW
02-24-2015, 01:28 PM
Uhh does this mean that this carbon tax deal is just a big fat scam ? well golly gee who would have thunk such a thing....

Peerie Maa
02-24-2015, 01:28 PM
^they should read it

The paper – by researchers from Germany's blue-chip Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and New Mexico's Santa Fe Institute – says that extreme weather events, which also include floods and droughts, have almost doubled over the last two decades. Many of these, it adds, are associated with big, largely stationary weather systems, which simultaneously pull warm air from the tropics over temperate regions and push down cold air from the poles: depending on which part of the system affects it, an area is turned unusually hot or cold for several weeks at a time until the system passes on.
The systems, adds the paper, just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, are linked with “anomalous circulation patterns” in the jet stream, the high altitude river of air that does much to determine the weather. And these, in turn, it argues , have been brought about by “recent rapid warming in the Arctic”.



Nice simple language, "anomalous" is the hardest word there. :D

ljb5
02-24-2015, 01:40 PM
Nice simple language, "anomalous" is the hardest word there. :D

The one thing that really becomes clear in all these debates is how hard the right is willing to work to avoid seeing, acknowledging or accepting basic information.

We've been over this many, many, many times already... and they act like refusing to see the explanation is the same thing as refuting it.

Or, occasionally, they'll admit today that they've seen it, but in two weeks, or two months, they'll pick right up where they left off.

That's not honest debate.

Flying Orca
02-24-2015, 01:59 PM
No the Glaciers are not receding faster then in the past.

The glaciers that survived the end of the last ice age are certainly receding much faster than they did in the meantime. You're bloviating about stuff you don't understand.

BrianY
02-24-2015, 02:00 PM
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/04/global-temperature-report-january-2015-not-much-change-from-december/


January temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.35 C (about 0.63 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.55 C (about 0.99 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.15 C (about 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.
Tropics: +0.13 C (about 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.
December temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.32 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.47 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.18 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.30 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.) https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/tlt_update_bar_012015.png?w=1050&h=386 (https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/tlt_update_bar_012015.png)
Notes on data released Feb. 3, 2015:

The northern portion of the globe saw its warmest January in the 36-year satellite record last month, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. “A large band of warmer than normal air stretched from China, and across the northern Pacific into western Canada and the western third of the U.S., which brought warm temperatures to the western U.S. and dry air to California. This was somewhat offset by the large area of much cooler than normal air that stretched from the eastern U.S. through Hudson Bay into the Arctic.”
Northern Extratropics
Top 5 Warmest Januaries
(20° to 85° N. Latitude)
2015 + 0.80 C
2010 + 0.70 C
2007 + 0.67 C
2014 + 0.62 C
2009 + 0.58 C
Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth was off the west coast of the U.S. near Eugene, Oregon. The January temperature there was 4.03 C (about 7.25 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms.
The northern extratropics (the non-tropical northern region) extends from 20 degrees to 85 degrees north latitude, or from about the latitude of Mexico City and the island of Hawai’i to a latitude a couple of degrees north of an island off the northern tip of Greenland — the northernmost tip of land on Earth.
At the same time, the anticipated El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event seems to be beginning to fizzle, with the warm temperature anomaly in the tropics falling 0.17 C — from +0.30 C in December to +0.13 C in January.
Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in January was over southern Baffin Island, by Canada’s Auyuittuq National Park. The average January 2015 temperature there was +3.59 C (about 6.46 degrees F) cooler than normal.
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
Anyone accessing the satellite temperature anomaly dataset through the website should be aware that a problem in the code creating the USA49 column of numbers has been identified and corrected, changing the values reported for that column alone.
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.

Flying Orca
02-24-2015, 02:00 PM
well golly gee who would have thunk such a thing....

The usual - scammers, shills, dupes, and trolls.

Tom Montgomery
02-24-2015, 02:12 PM
https://kinialohaguy.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/banghead.gif


And genglandoh, RonW and RodB continue to confuse weather and climate. It’s gotta be a case of determined ignorance because the information is out there:


By Alexa Lewis, AccuWeather.com Staff Writer
January 18, 2015


Both NASA and NOAA reported that 2014 was the warmest year since global temperatures were first recorded in 1880. This year was also the 38th consecutive year that global temperatures were above average.

Greenhouse gas trends are responsible for a majority of the trends that we are seeing, said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Temperatures are 0.9 C above pre-industrial temperature averages.

"Trends in greenhouse gases are continuing, so we may anticipate further record highs in the years to come," Schmidt said.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/2014-hottest-year-on-record-global-noaa/40714685

BrianY
02-24-2015, 02:13 PM
This might help some people here understand how climate warming can lead to increased snowfall:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/10/what-the-massive-snowfall-in-boston-tells-us-about-global-warming/



Consider, for instance, that sea surface temperatures off the coast of New England are flashing red (http://pamola.um.maine.edu/DailySummary/frames/GFS-025deg/DailySummary/GFS-025deg_WORLD-CED_SST_anom.png), showing an extreme warm anomaly. That’s highly relevant — because warmer oceans have atmospheric consequences.

“Sea surface temperatures off the coast of New England right now are at record levels, 11.5C (21F) warmer than normal in some locations,” says Penn State climate researcher Michael Mann. “There is [a] direct relationship between the surface warmth of the ocean and the amount of moisture in the air. What that means is that this storm will be feeding off these very warm seas, producing very large amounts of snow as spiraling winds of the storm squeeze that moisture out of the air, cool, it, and deposit it as snow inland.”

Warmer oceans also increase the temperature contrasts that winter storms encounter when they hit the East Coast, notes Mann — and this ups their strength.
“Heavy snows mean the temperature is just below freezing, any cooler and the amount would be a lot less,” adds Kevin Trenberth, a climate expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “Warmer waters off the coast help elevate winter temperatures and contribute to the greater snow amounts. This is how global warming plays a role.”

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 02:28 PM
Ron,Rob etc. Are confused by the color coded bar graph. It doesn't refer to Reps and democrats. Blue indicated COOLER, Red refers to warmer temps.

Keith Wilson
02-24-2015, 02:32 PM
And genglandoh, RonW and RodB continue to confuse weather and climate. It’s gotta be a case of determined ignorance . . . Not quite. When someplace is cold, they say "Look, it's cold!! So much for global warming!" But when someplace is hot, they say, "Weather is not climate." This is not ignorance, It's lying - or at best writing propaganda.

Norman Bernstein
02-24-2015, 02:37 PM
The most frightening thing about all of this? People like RonW, RodB, and Genglandoh really don't actually know WHY they're opposing laws to limit climate change. They're unaware, or perhaps unconscious, abut Big Oil and other polluting industries opposing laws regarding global warming for purely economic self-interest. To them, it's simply something the Liberals/progressives promote, so it needs to be fought with every possible weapon. That's why they are anxious to believe some tiny minority of scientists (some with blatant conflicts of interest).

Peerie Maa
02-24-2015, 03:23 PM
https://kinialohaguy.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/banghead.gif


And genglandoh, RonW and RodB continue to confuse weather and climate. It’s gotta be a case of determined ignorance because the information is out there:




Ron,Rob etc. Are confused by the color coded bar graph. It doesn't refer to Reps and democrats. Blue indicated COOLER, Red refers to warmer temps.


The most frightening thing about all of this? People like RonW, RodB, and Genglandoh really don't actually know WHY they're opposing laws to limit climate change. They're unaware, or perhaps unconscious, abut Big Oil and other polluting industries opposing laws regarding global warming for purely economic self-interest. To them, it's simply something the Liberals/progressives promote, so it needs to be fought with every possible weapon. That's why they are anxious to believe some tiny minority of scientists (some with blatant conflicts of interest).

Hey, we have CONSENSUS on Anthropomorphic Intelligence Denial :D

RodB
02-24-2015, 03:26 PM
The most frightening thing about all of this? People like RonW, RodB, and Genglandoh really don't actually know WHY they're opposing laws to limit climate change. They're unaware, or perhaps unconscious, abut Big Oil and other polluting industries opposing laws regarding global warming for purely economic self-interest. To them, it's simply something the Liberals/progressives promote, so it needs to be fought with every possible weapon. That's why they are anxious to believe some tiny minority of scientists (some with blatant conflicts of interest)..

What about the billions taken from the taxpayers for an arbitrary pie in the sky climate change initiative to give the government more power.

Get real... you massive government worshipper.

RodB

Norman Bernstein
02-24-2015, 03:28 PM
.

What about the billions taken from the taxpayers for an arbitrary pie in the sky climate change initiative to give the government more power.

Get real... you massive government worshipper.

RodB

You're raving and ranting now... best to get back on the meds.

WX
02-24-2015, 03:45 PM
.

What about the billions taken from the taxpayers for an arbitrary pie in the sky climate change initiative to give the government more power.

Get real... you massive government worshipper.

RodB

Just curious, power to do what exactly?

RodB
02-24-2015, 03:47 PM
Just curious, power to do what exactly?

To take more money from Americans and to control more and more of american's lives.

R

Norman Bernstein
02-24-2015, 03:48 PM
To take more money from Americans and to control more and more of american's lives.


Something the Republicans would never do, like tell people who they can or can't marry, what the cannot do with their own bodies, etc.

Freakin' hypocrites.

WX
02-24-2015, 03:56 PM
To take more money from Americans and to control more and more of american's lives.

R

How exactly?

Tom Montgomery
02-24-2015, 04:00 PM
What about the billions taken from the taxpayers for an arbitrary pie in the sky climate change initiative to give the government more power.

Get real... you massive government worshipper.
FINALLY you admit that your climate change denial is about politics and not science.

Peerie Maa
02-24-2015, 04:02 PM
FINALLY you admit that your climate change denial is about politics and not science.

And you are surprised at this. After all his grasp of the science is past zero and going rapidly negative.

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 04:04 PM
Rob should really get out of the sauna!

Three Cedars
02-24-2015, 04:05 PM
Something the Republicans would never do, like tell people who they can or can't marry, what the cannot do with their own bodies, etc.

Freakin' hypocrites.


yeah it's been a record warm month here and all winter for that matter , especially the night time temperatures . The local ski hill was partially open for only a month and shut down now .

The tulips are blooming and crocuses as well .

RodB
02-24-2015, 04:08 PM
FINALLY you admit that your climate change denial is about politics and not science.

The point is your side of this issue is completely political and has become almost religous in their fervor... with no logic involved.

That kind of extremism sends red flags up all over.

RodB

Glen Longino
02-24-2015, 04:13 PM
The point is your side of this issue is completely political and has become almost religous in their fervor... with no logic involved.

That kind of extremism sends red flags up all over.

RodB

Unadulterated Projection!:D
Look at yourself, Rod!:D

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 04:14 PM
That would be a frightening experience Glen!:)

RodB
02-24-2015, 04:16 PM
Unadulterated Projection!:D
Look at yourself, Rod!:D

Who is this? Is this "RED FLAG GLEN"....?

RodB

Tom Montgomery
02-24-2015, 04:16 PM
The point is your side of this issue is completely political and has become almost religous in their fervor... with no logic involved.

That kind of extremism sends red flags up all over.
Evidently I hit a nerve.

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 04:18 PM
Coming from the one who was most recently banned! Right ROB?

Phillip Allen
02-24-2015, 04:21 PM
The point is your side of this issue is completely political and has become almost religous in their fervor... with no logic involved.

That kind of extremism sends red flags up all over.

RodB

NAILED IT! And the problem remains that they will never be fixed because, like religious fundamentalists, every argument against their religion is predicted by their own religious fundamentalism... it kain't be fixed!

Tom Montgomery
02-24-2015, 04:24 PM
^ Another anti-science denialist lamely attempting to justify his determined ignorance.

Phillip Allen, RodB, RonW, and genglandoh should form a club... the He-Man Science Hater Club.

Paul Pless
02-24-2015, 04:26 PM
Even if you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, how can things like conservation of scarce resources, energy security, and clean water and air be bad for America and the world? Why are conservatives so against conservation and investment in the future?

Tom Montgomery
02-24-2015, 04:28 PM
Even if you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, how can things like conservation of scarce resources, energy security, and clean water and air be bad for America and the world? Why are conservatives so against conservation and investment in the future?
Because they know that would require money and government action.

They DESPISE paying taxes and they DESPISE government for collecting taxes.

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 04:29 PM
To take more money from Americans and to control more and more of american's lives.

RDon't worry! In time this planet won't have any homo sapiens.

Paul Pless
02-24-2015, 04:31 PM
Because they know that would require money and government action.

They DESPISE paying taxes and they DESPISE government for collecting taxes.
No its not that I think, they've been co-opted by big oil and coal, they don't even know it. Celebration of stupid. . .

Norman Bernstein
02-24-2015, 04:31 PM
The point is your side of this issue is completely political and has become almost religous in their fervor... with no logic involved.
.

Are you actually trying to argue that YOUR side is the one that represents science, and the global warming believers are NOT basing their arguments on science? :)

Flying Orca
02-24-2015, 04:32 PM
your side of this issue is completely political

Oh, that's frappin' PRICELESS! There's a ratio of something like 3000:1 of papers that support the scientific consensus on climate change compared to those that don't, it's well documented that opposition to the actual science of climate change comes down to huge spending by vested interests such as petroleum and oil companies, and you're calling the side backed by actual science "political"?!

I sometimes wonder whether you're having us on. It seems unlikely that someone could really be as comically ignorant, as ungrounded in anything remotely resembling the real world of facts and rationality, as you make yourself out to be.

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 04:35 PM
F.Orka.
I don't think so although, I wish he was but, he's too consistent!

Peerie Maa
02-24-2015, 04:35 PM
^ Another anti-science denialist lamely attempting to justify his determined ignorance.

Phillip Allen, RodB, RonW, and genglandoh should form a club... the He-Man Science Hater Club.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3163/1605/1600/stupidity.jpg I think I can make another three now we have this one for a pattern.

ljb5
02-24-2015, 04:36 PM
The point is your side of this issue is completely political...

Two researchers in Antarctica acting "completely political."

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/46887000/jpg/_46887428_e215323-climate_change_research-spl.jpg

A "completely political" weather balloon gathers votes and political data from the upper atmosphere:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/46887000/jpg/_46887493_balloon.jpg

WX
02-24-2015, 04:43 PM
The point is your side of this issue is completely political and has become almost religous in their fervor... with no logic involved.

That kind of extremism sends red flags up all over.

RodB

That has got to be the most brainless statement I have read on this forum for sometime. You actually believe that do you?

Tom Montgomery
02-24-2015, 04:56 PM
That has got to be the most brainless statement I have read on this forum for sometime. You actually believe that do you?
If you are trying to shame RodB give it up. He has none.

Paul Pless
02-24-2015, 05:00 PM
That has got to be the most brainless statement I have read on this forum for sometime. You actually believe that do you?Clearly, its Rod emulating his most vociferous heroes on right wing radio and TV. The applause lines he gets from the likes of Phillip and Ron are similar in emulation to 'dittoheads' in their unthinking. . .

Glen Longino
02-24-2015, 05:02 PM
NAILED IT! And the problem remains that they will never be fixed because, like religious fundamentalists, every argument against their religion is predicted by their own religious fundamentalism... it kain't be fixed!

:DPriceless!:D:D

RodB
02-24-2015, 05:03 PM
Even if you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, how can things like conservation of scarce resources, energy security, and clean water and air be bad for America and the world? Why are conservatives so against conservation and investment in the future?

Stop with the misdirection. You know what you stated is not true... just because you continue to repeat lies does not make it true. Now the fact that you believe we are going to have catastrophic global warming in the near future...now that I don't believe.


The truth is that the single most damaging element of the climate change extremist's propaganda is the exaggeration and dishonesty that have surfaced in the past... like "email gate". When you are pushing a climate change initiative (which I doubt you know much about) that will penalize americans billions of dollars... you better be sure... and that seems to not be the case for now.

RodB

Keith Wilson
02-24-2015, 05:04 PM
So tens of thousands of scientists all around the world pretty much all agree, because they are engaged in a conspiracy "for an arbitrary pie in the sky climate change initiative to give the government more power. " Yeah, right.

Flying Orca
02-24-2015, 05:13 PM
exaggeration and dishonesty that have surfaced in the past... like "email gate"

After several independent inquiries, the worst criticisms leveled at the subjects of the supposed controversy around leaked e-mails was, wait for it:

...they could have communicated better with the public, and (not being statisticians) they didn't use the most sophisticated statistical techniques available. The horror, the horror!

(For the record, though, they were NOT found to have exaggerated or been dishonest. Only the RWW descriptions of the supposed controversy did that. Rod's continued claim to the contrary is a lie.)

Paul Pless
02-24-2015, 05:13 PM
Stop with the misdirection. You know what you stated is not true... just because you continue to repeat lies does not make it true. Now the fact that you believe we are going to have catastrophic global warming in the near future...now that I don't believe.


The truth is that the single most damaging element of the climate change extremist's propaganda is the exaggeration and dishonesty that have surfaced in the past... like "email gate". When you are pushing a climate change initiative (which I doubt you know much about) that will penalize americans billions of dollars... you better be sure... and that seems to not be the case for now.

RodB

What untruth have I stated Rod? I'm actually not a big supporter of AGW theories as much as I am one of conservation and clean air and water in general. Also, as a bit of an advocate for liberal political economics I think that investments in alternative energies as well as infrastructure can pay for itself, much like our biggest government sponsored public works projects of the thirties, forties, fifties, and sixties did and continue to do. Green energy = green jobs = a growing economy.

ljb5
02-24-2015, 05:13 PM
The truth is that the single most damaging element of the climate change extremist's propaganda is the exaggeration and dishonesty that have surfaced in the past... like "email gate".

Are the deniers not damaged by revelations of their corruption and dishonesty?

'Cause we've got a lengthy list of those....

But I suppose you don't think that counts?

Tom Montgomery
02-24-2015, 05:13 PM
When you are pushing a climate change initiative (which I doubt you know much about) that will penalize americans billions of dollars... you better be sure... and that seems to not be the case for now.
Politics again.

The science MUST BE DENIED!

LeeG
02-24-2015, 05:15 PM
You are correct the Glaciers have been receding since the last ice age.

Is anything in your opening post in your own words besides "it is just amazing"

LeeG
02-24-2015, 05:17 PM
Believe it or not, the eastern US is not the whole world. For example, the pacific northwest is having a record WARM winter. That of course is weather NOT climate.

Well I am on the east coast and I am the center of my world AND it is very cold today! So, AGW is a hoax.

RodB
02-24-2015, 05:22 PM
So tens of thousands of scientists all around the world pretty much all agree, because they are engaged in a conspiracy "for an arbitrary pie in the sky climate change initiative to give the government more power. " Yeah, right.

You have no idea what the real numbers are and Professor Lindzen said clearly he knows many scientists who did not agree with the so called consensus.


This is a group of scientists who do not agree (signed by 31,000 scientists with over 9,000 of whom had Phds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E


RodB

Peerie Maa
02-24-2015, 05:24 PM
Stop with the misdirection. You know what you stated is not true... just because you continue to repeat lies does not make it true. Now the fact that you believe we are going to have catastrophic global warming in the near future...now that I don't believe.


The truth is that the single most damaging element of the climate change extremist's propaganda is the exaggeration and dishonesty that have surfaced in the past... like "email gate". When you are pushing a climate change initiative (which I doubt you know much about) that will penalize americans billions of dollars... you better be sure... and that seems to not be the case for now.

RodB

Debunked months and months ago

Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.
From the second Google hit: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm

Rod, there is evidence piling up now that it is happening, not might happen, but is happening. See http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?188699-High-and-wet-US-sea-levels-show-big-rise
and http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?188652-U-S-Oysters-Scallops-are-being-destroyed-by-Acidic-Seas

So although we don't yet know how bad it will get how quickly sections of the US economy are suffering now.

LeeG
02-24-2015, 05:24 PM
To take more money from Americans and to control more and more of american's lives.

R

They'll start with your carbon and then your guns are next!

Tom Montgomery
02-24-2015, 05:25 PM
Yeah. Reminds me of all the scientists who agreed cigarettes did not cause cancer. There were a lot of them... but still a decided minority.

Glen Longino
02-24-2015, 05:29 PM
Thread Title should be "Gengster and RobB Go Into Panic"!:D

PeterSibley
02-24-2015, 05:29 PM
Strange how you only have one scientist to quote out of the thousands in the field isn't it Rob ?

"Look , my boy's the only one marching in time".

LeeG
02-24-2015, 05:30 PM
Even if you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, how can things like conservation of scarce resources, energy security, and clean water and air be bad for America and the world? Why are conservatives so against conservation and investment in the future?

Cuz we weren't worried about carbon emissions before. Wasn't it enough you socialists took our tetraethyl lead, two stroke motorcycles and loaded up American cars with pollution controls?!
To reduce carbon emissions means reducing nearly everything that got us to where we are today!

johnw
02-24-2015, 05:32 PM
I'm lovely warm, and so is most of the usually cold part of Europe. In fact, most of the world is warmer than usual. Pretty much the same pattern as last year.

Here's last winter:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/a-cold-u.s.-winter-for-sure-but-8th-warmest-globally-17196
http://ccentralassets.s3.amazonaws.com/images/made/images/remote/http_assets.climatecentral.org/images/uploads/news/3_19_14_Andrea_LandTempAnom2014Winter_500_386_s_c1 _c_c.jpg

And here's the map for Jan. 2015:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/02/19/january-climate-report/23684037/

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/1b563e2fb7bb7c80dd781c221a706754f8fdeaf8/c=155-49-1098-758&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/02/19/USATODAY/USATODAY/635599529925439137-201501-3.png
It's not just a mistake of thinking weather is climate, it's the mistake of thinking the weather in your particular location is climate. Where I live, we had some record high temperatures this winter.

LeeG
02-24-2015, 05:33 PM
That has got to be the most brainless statement I have read on this forum for sometime. You actually believe that do you?

Hey, that other famous Texan, GWBush, was absolutely sincere in his beliefs. Isn't that what matters?

RodB
02-24-2015, 05:34 PM
One simple point without any hyperbole... not believing in catastrophic global warming is not the same thing and not supporting any initiative for clean water and air etc. America has done a lot in this regard as the current cost of gasoline shows.. many many folks driving cars that get over 30 mpg. Look at the paint industry... there are thousands of examples where American has done its part for conservation.

RodB

RodB
02-24-2015, 05:36 PM
Strange how you only have one scientist to quote out of the thousands in the field isn't it Rob ?

"Look , my boy's the only one marching in time".

Heres 31,000 if you take time to listen...

This is a group of scientists who do not agree (signed by 31,000 scientists with over 9,000 of whom had Phds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E






Dr. Roy Spencer kindly explains climate science in a way that six-graders, senators and alarmists can all understand.
Talk was at the The Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, which took place on July 7-9, 2014 in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
The first few minutes of this illustrates Dr Spencer's credentials.

http://youtu.be/9SOjyMir6Z0
What Do We Really Know About Global Warming


RodB

LeeG
02-24-2015, 05:37 PM
I'm lovely warm, and so is most of the usually cold part of Europe. In fact, most of the world is warmer than usual. Pretty much the same pattern as last year.

Here's last winter:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/a-cold-u.s.-winter-for-sure-but-8th-warmest-globally-17196
http://ccentralassets.s3.amazonaws.com/images/made/images/remote/http_assets.climatecentral.org/images/uploads/news/3_19_14_Andrea_LandTempAnom2014Winter_500_386_s_c1 _c_c.jpg

And here's the map for Jan. 2015:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/02/19/january-climate-report/23684037/

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/1b563e2fb7bb7c80dd781c221a706754f8fdeaf8/c=155-49-1098-758&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/02/19/USATODAY/USATODAY/635599529925439137-201501-3.png
It's not just a mistake of thinking weather is climate, it's the mistake of thinking the weather in your particular location is climate. Where I live, we had some record high temperatures this winter.

Well you proved it right there, look how cold the Northeast US is, that pretty much takes out the red in the rest of the world giving a baby blue hue when you squint your eyes. You Warmists can't believe yr own eyes!

Tom Montgomery
02-24-2015, 05:38 PM
Yeah, RodB.

Reminds me of all the scientists who agreed cigarettes did not cause cancer. There were a lot of them... but still a decided minority.

And they were wrong. It turned out the majority consensus science was correct.

Keith Wilson
02-24-2015, 05:47 PM
Rod, there is simply no longer any room for doubt that increased atmospheric CO2 levels from burning large amounts of fossil fuels are causing global warming. Claiming that that it's not happening puts one firmly into the position of denying clear and overwhelming evidence. It's the equivalent of closing your eyes tight, plugging your ears and yelling "Nyaah, nyaah, I can't hear you!!'; you lose all credibility. Now reasonable people may differ about what we ought to do about it. I suggest you think about that.

FWIW, I'm not in favor of 'alarm' either. I support sober, rational consideration of the evidence, and implementing the most effective and least costly changes to mitigate the problem.

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 05:48 PM
Heres 31,000 if you take time to listen...

This is a group of scientists who do not agree (signed by 31,000 scientists with over 9,000 of whom had Phds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E






Dr. Roy Spencer kindly explains climate science in a way that six-graders, senators and alarmists can all understand.
Talk was at the The Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, which took place on July 7-9, 2014 in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
The first few minutes of this illustrates Dr Spencer's credentials.

http://youtu.be/9SOjyMir6Z0
What Do We Really Know About Global Warming


RodBAnd your buddy, Spencer, is on the board of THIS

Not to be confused with the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_European_Center_for_Security_St udies) or The George C. Marshall Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Foundation)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/Marshall_Institute_Logo.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marshall_Institute_Logo.gif)
Logo of the George C. Marshall Institute.


The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute#cite_note-1) think tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank) established in 1984 in Washington, D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.) with a focus on scientific issues and public policy. In the 1980s, the Institute was engaged primarily in lobbying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying) in support of the Strategic Defense Initiative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute#cite_note-Oreskes-2) Since the late 1980s, the Institute has put forward environmental skepticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_skepticism) views, and in particular has disputed mainstream scientific opinion on climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change), although it continues to be active on defense policy. The organization is named after World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) military leader and statesman George C. Marshall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall).
Naomi Oreskes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes) states that the institute has, in order to resist and delay regulation, lobbied politically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying) to create a false public perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-hand_smoke), the carcinogenic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogenic) nature of tobacco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco) smoking, the existence of acid rain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain), and on the evidence between

Tom Montgomery
02-24-2015, 05:54 PM
Rod, there is simply no longer any room for doubt that increased atmospheric CO2 levels from burning large amounts of fossil fuels are causing global warming. Claiming that that it's not happening puts one firmly into the position of denying clear and overwhelming evidence. It's the equivalent of closing your eyes tight, plugging your ears and yelling "Nyaah, nyaah, I can't hear you!!'; you lose all credibility. Now reasonable people may differ about what we ought to do about it. I suggest you think about that.
That is what I like about you, Keith. You are an optimist.

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 05:57 PM
Rod, there is simply no longer any room for doubt that increased atmospheric CO2 levels from burning large amounts of fossil fuels are causing global warming. Claiming that that it's not happening puts one firmly into the position of denying clear and overwhelming evidence. It's the equivalent of closing your eyes tight, plugging your ears and yelling "Nyaah, nyaah, I can't hear you!!'; you lose all credibility. Now reasonable people may differ about what we ought to do about it. I suggest you think about that.

FWIW, I'm not in favor of 'alarm' either. I support sober, rational consideration of the evidence, and implementing the most effective and least costly changes to mitigate the problem.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9ayDNPRo-ic/UDX5oFtC7LI/AAAAAAAAILE/-Us5rhq37Bo/s1600/monkeyseemonkeydo.jpg

Keith Wilson
02-24-2015, 05:59 PM
One can only try.

Tom Montgomery
02-24-2015, 06:00 PM
One need not be an alarmist to accept the science about global warming.

RodB LOVES his straw men.

Peerie Maa
02-24-2015, 06:04 PM
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3163/1605/1600/stupidity.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9ayDNPRo-ic/UDX5oFtC7LI/AAAAAAAAILE/-Us5rhq37Bo/s1600/monkeyseemonkeydo.jpg
And that make 4.

ljb5
02-24-2015, 06:14 PM
Dr. Roy Spencer kindly explains climate science in a way that six-graders, senators and alarmists can all understand.
[COLOR=#333333][FONT=arial]Talk was at the The Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, which took place on July 7-9, 2014 in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.

Just to clarify, that was the Heartland Institute's Ninth International Conference on Climate Change. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#International_Conferences_ on_Climate_Change

An overtly political organization organizing denier conferences? And you think my side over-run with politics?

Holy Cow!

I'm betting you didn't even know that was the Heartland Institute. I suppose you thought it was some reputable scientific organization.

Honestly, any scientist who would attend such a charade should be run out of town on a rail. It doesn't even appear credible.

Peerie Maa
02-24-2015, 06:25 PM
Just to clarify, that was the Heartland Institute's Ninth International Conference on Climate Change. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#International_Conferences_ on_Climate_Change

An overtly political organization organizing denier conferences? And you think my side over-run with politics?

Holy Cow!

I'm betting you didn't even know that was the Heartland Institute. I suppose you thought it was some reputable scientific organization.

Honestly, any scientist who would attend such a charade should be run out of town on a rail. It doesn't even appear credible.

Do you mean this Heartlands Institute? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate


In this instance, however, the Heartland documents are policy statements – not private email correspondence. Desmogblog said they came from an insider at Heartland and were not the result of a hack.
The documents posted on Desmog's website include confidential memos of Heartland's climate science denial strategy, its 2012 budget and fundraising plan, and minutes from a recent board meeting.
The fundraising plan suggests Heartland is hoping for a banner year, projecting it will raise $7.7m in 2012, up 70% from last year.
The papers indicate that discrediting established climate science remains a core mission of the organisation, which has received support from a network of wealthy individuals – including the Koch oil billionaires as well as corporations such as Microsoft and RJR Tobacco.
The documents confirm what environmental groups such as Greenpeace have long suspected: that Heartland itself is a major source of funding to a network of experts and bloggers who have been prominent in the campaign to discredit established science.
Heartland is anxious to retain its hold over mainstream media outlets, fretting in the documents about how Forbes magazine is publishing prominent climate scientists such as Peter Gleick. "This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out," Heartland documents warn.

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 06:28 PM
There's a post you had better ignore Rod!

ljb5
02-24-2015, 06:35 PM
Yup, those are the guys. And let's not even talk about that Oregon Petition. I've done several threads on those nutcases already.

I understand that hard-core right-wingers don't like climate change theory... but no one in their right mind thinks that petitions and fake conferences are a legitimate way to discuss science.

These people aren't just doing bad science --- they're not even attempting to do science. It's just a total fraud.

Michael D. Storey
02-24-2015, 06:36 PM
About warming global/climate/etc:
Not so much snow at very cold temperatures. The air is too dry.
To make snow, you need moisture in the air. As in water vapor.
If you have glaciers and ice and such, you do not want to consider them as cloud (and then) snow fodder.
You will have to melt them and evaporate them first.
It is possible to melt ice with warm air.
If your day air is warm enough to melt and then evaporate ice, you can then have snow. Which can make glaciers.
Which is why a time of warmer temperatures can melt caps, and other long-term ice reserves, and turn them into vapor, and then back into snow, which can result in new glaciers, and a ice age, in the sense of advancing glaciers, which will cool the air, and cause air to contract, with new air coming in to replace the space that the cooled air used to occupy, the result will be drought, and a change in what can grow there.
This exact thing has happened during the time of mankind in Europe. That area known today as the steppes used to be a forest. The drought ended the tree life, but it in turn allowed grasses to grow, both because they need less water, and because by the trees dieing, the earth was exposed to sunlight, which grass likes.
Do remember that any discussion of the future is conjecture. The best that can be surmised about the future is a guess, and a good guess will be developed by consideration of the past, and similar events and their outcomes.
So, we ought to climb down off our high horses, here, and work together to carefully consider past and current circumstances, and work to prepare for a probable future.

John Smith
02-24-2015, 06:40 PM
Believe it or not, the eastern US is not the whole world. For example, the pacific northwest is having a record WARM winter. That of course is weather NOT climate.

What I find remarkable is not only does "global warming" not way they'll be no more cold weather, but "The Day After Tomorrow", a movie on the subject, had the US being destroyed by severe cold.

Flying Orca
02-24-2015, 06:59 PM
not believing in catastrophic global warming

Rod, straight up, without fertilizer and without your usual wishy-washy quibbles: with which of the IPCC's conclusions do you disagree, and why?

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 07:03 PM
Rod, straight up, without fertilizer and without your usual wishy-washy quibbles: with which of the IPCC's conclusions do you disagree, and why?

http://www.megapib.nic.in/Images/fertilizer.jpg

WX
02-24-2015, 07:23 PM
What I find remarkable is not only does "global warming" not way they'll be no more cold weather, but "The Day After Tomorrow", a movie on the subject, had the US being destroyed by severe cold.
Wasn't that through changing ocean temps stopping the Atlantic Conveyor, otherwise known as the Gulf Stream?

WX
02-24-2015, 07:23 PM
Rod, straight up, without fertilizer and without your usual wishy-washy quibbles: with which of the IPCC's conclusions do you disagree, and why?
I'd like to know as well.

Flying Orca
02-24-2015, 07:41 PM
Perhaps Rod has no firsthand familiarity with the IPCC's work. Here is the top-level overview - the summary for policy-makers - of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, the most comprehensive and up-to-date scientific report on climate change:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPMcorr2.pdf

Rod, the IPCC's key findings are highlighted in grey boxes. Please tell me which you think are incorrect, and why.

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 07:46 PM
Perhaps Rod has no firsthand familiarity with the IPCC's work. Here is the top-level overview - the summary for policy-makers - of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, the most comprehensive and up-to-date scientific report on climate change:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPMcorr2.pdf

Rod, the IPCC's key findings are highlighted in grey boxes. Please tell me which you think are incorrect, and why.It's more than one page! Ya really think he will read the entire report? If you really think so, I think you are dreaming!:)

Canoeyawl
02-24-2015, 07:54 PM
This is a lot like talking to a cow, you are not going to change its mind.

RodB
02-24-2015, 08:30 PM
Rod, there is simply no longer any room for doubt that increased atmospheric CO2 levels from burning large amounts of fossil fuels are causing global warming. Claiming that that it's not happening puts one firmly into the position of denying clear and overwhelming evidence. It's the equivalent of closing your eyes tight, plugging your ears and yelling "Nyaah, nyaah, I can't hear you!!'; you lose all credibility. Now reasonable people may differ about what we ought to do about it. I suggest you think about that.

FWIW, I'm not in favor of 'alarm' either. I support sober, rational consideration of the evidence, and implementing the most effective and least costly changes to mitigate the problem.

I certainly agree with your last statement in bold...but I think the so called "settled science" leaves a lot to be desired when I have heard several scientists say most active scientists in the field of climate science are afraid to speak out against the "consensus" as they will not get funded or be ostracized.


See large list with varying view points of each group...

RodB



List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warminghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

RodB
02-24-2015, 08:32 PM
Perhaps Rod has no firsthand familiarity with the IPCC's work. Here is the top-level overview - the summary for policy-makers - of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, the most comprehensive and up-to-date scientific report on climate change:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPMcorr2.pdf

Rod, the IPCC's key findings are highlighted in grey boxes. Please tell me which you think are incorrect, and why.

Everything I have read about the IPCC leaves me with lots of doubt about their veracity.... with lots of exaggeration in the past... and Professor Lindzen certainly regretted his part in their report in the past.

R

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 08:35 PM
I certainly agree with your last statement in bold...but I think the so called "settled science" leaves a lot to be desired when I have heard several scientists say most active scientists in the field of climate science are afraid to speak out against the "consensus" as they will not get funded or be ostracized.


See large list with varying view points of each group...

RodBCan you give me any info as to who has been ostracized or not funded specifically or is this the only explanation you can come up with based on....

Boater14
02-24-2015, 09:20 PM
somebody tell the poor thing the difference between weather and climate. I did it last year about this time....its your turn.

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 09:24 PM
Wash, rinse, repeat doesn't work!

Peter Malcolm Jardine
02-24-2015, 09:28 PM
Funny, I was going to start a thread that wondered why there wasn't one of these threads..... given the cold and snow this winter has brought. This place is so predictable sometimes.

Yessiree, it's cold here, so dem dere scientists are just liars. Working for the da tree huggers and commienists. Incredible.

Flying Orca
02-25-2015, 08:20 AM
Everything I have read about the IPCC leaves me with lots of doubt about their veracity.... with lots of exaggeration in the past... and Professor Lindzen certainly regretted his part in their report in the past.

More gum-flapping without any substance whatsoever - "doubt"? "Exaggeration in the past"? Because one guy said so?! That's what you've got? Incredibly stupid.

Again: with which of the IPCC's findings do you disagree, and why? Right here, right now - your chance to prove you can think like a grown-up.

Keith Wilson
02-25-2015, 08:37 AM
The problem for R&R and the other deniers is that warming due to CO2 emissions is the ultimate 'tragedy of the commons' . The atmosphere is worldwide, the incremental damage from burning fossil fuels is distributed over the whole planet, and the individual benefit is large. There is simply no free-market non-governmental - libertarian, if you will - solution to this type of problem. They know this. Rather than trying to find the least unpalatable solution, it's much much easier to convince oneself it isn't happening - or allow oneself to be convinced, since there are folks making a great deal of money off the current system who are more than willing to spend some of it on convincing people that they should continue. Also, the mere existence of a serious problem that requires international law and cooperation and collective action to solve is a serious blow to their individualist nationalist laissez-faire anti-government worldview.

The trouble, of course, is that science describes reality - and reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

ljb5
02-25-2015, 01:09 PM
Dr. Roy Spencer kindly explains climate science in a way that six-graders, senators and alarmists can all understand.
Talk was at the The Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, which took place on July 7-9, 2014 in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
RodB


Just to be clear, RodB, when you posted this, did you know that you were referring to a fake conference hosted by an overtly political organization, not a legitimate scientific group?

I get the feeling that a lot of people don't know the difference between the Heartland Institute and legitimate organizations like the American Physical Society. Some of them don't even seem to realize that they ought to know the difference.

Also, it sometimes seems like the more political a person is, the less they care about stuff like that.

Just wondering if you were one of those.

John of Phoenix
02-25-2015, 01:23 PM
As of early 2015, the IEA Oil Market Report (https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/) forecast average demand for the year of more than 93 million barrels of oil and liquid fuels per day worldwide – that works out to more than 34 billion barrels a year.
http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/oil/


Is it possible that releasing the energy of several million barrels of oil every day has no effect on our planet?
ALL that energy - what possible effect could it have?

LeeG
02-25-2015, 03:58 PM
The problem for R&R and the other deniers is that warming due to CO2 emissions is the ultimate 'tragedy of the commons' . The atmosphere is worldwide, the incremental damage from burning fossil fuels is distributed over the whole planet, and the individual benefit is large. There is simply no free-market non-governmental - libertarian, if you will - solution to this type of problem. They know this. Rather than trying to find the least unpalatable solution, it's much much easier to convince oneself it isn't happening - or allow oneself to be convinced, since there are folks making a great deal of money off the current system who are more than willing to spend some of it on convincing people that they should continue. Also, the mere existence of a serious problem that requires international law and cooperation and collective action to solve is a serious blow to their individualist nationalist laissez-faire anti-government worldview.

The trouble, of course, is that science describes reality - and reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

Have you seen the movie The Kingsmen? The megalomaniac arch villain explains in very reasonable terms like you did why no one can address the consequences of releasing millions of years of trapped carbon in a centuries time. So, in an act of sincere clarity he attempts an early die off of humans. But of course the hero saves the day and gets laid. Biology, we're screwed.

RodB
02-25-2015, 09:14 PM
The problem for R&R and the other deniers is that warming due to CO2 emissions is the ultimate 'tragedy of the commons' . The atmosphere is worldwide, the incremental damage from burning fossil fuels is distributed over the whole planet, and the individual benefit is large. There is simply no free-market non-governmental - libertarian, if you will - solution to this type of problem. They know this. Rather than trying to find the least unpalatable solution, it's much much easier to convince oneself it isn't happening - or allow oneself to be convinced, since there are folks making a great deal of money off the current system who are more than willing to spend some of it on convincing people that they should continue. Also, the mere existence of a serious problem that requires international law and cooperation and collective action to solve is a serious blow to their individualist nationalist laissez-faire anti-government worldview.

The trouble, of course, is that science describes reality - and reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.




Consider this a chart to match your take on this issue... Y>

R



http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php#axzz3SoRmVCvn
CLIMATEGATE: A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY (UPDATED FOR WINTER 2015)

THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE



Read more: whatreallyhappened.com (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php#ixzz3SoSKJ5k7) http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php#ixzz3SoSKJ5k7


"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." -- Carl Sagan
"The real deniers are people who think our climate was and should remain static and unchanging." -- Paul Driessen and Chris Skates




The corporate media has launched a blitz of claims that 2014 was the hottest year on record, despite the record cold and snow this winter. The claim that 2014 is the hottest year on record was put forward by a Japanese global warming researcher and supported by both NASA and NOAA, which work for the same government that assured you Saddam had nuclear weapons.
However, NASA is already hedging their bets by admitting that the statistical methods used to arrive at this claim have a very wide margin of error, so much so that it is only a 38% chance the claim is accurate. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html)

Meanwhile, the satellite launched to measure Earth's temperature does not confirm this claim. In fact, 2014 came in at sixth place in the time since since the satellite was launched! (http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/12/satellite-data-says-2014-actually-wasnt-the-warmest-on-record/)


Chinese scientists doing very finely detailed measures of isotopes trapped in giant clam shells have reconstructed a detailed record of Earth's climate that confirms that the Roman and Medieval warm periods were indeed far warmer than Earth is today, and oddly enough, were also periods of lower CO2 content in the atmosphere. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/05/hottest-year-ever-giant-clam-reveals-middle-ages-were-warmer-than-today/)


Contrary to the carbonazis' claims of impending doom if the Earth gets warmer, the Roman and Medieval warm periods were times of immense fertility and productivity, allowing humans freed from the scramble to find food to create the flowering of the Roman civilization, with its art and engineering, then later the Renaissance.


Report: Temperature Data Being Faked to Show Global Warming (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/global-warming-temperature-date-faked/2015/02/08/id/623494/)
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html)
Global warming? Only the data is heated (http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/global-warming-only-the-data-is-heated/?cat_orig=education)


Global warming in Buffalo, New York! (http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/Buffalowinter14-15/index.html)
As cold as the Polar Vortex! New York City plunges to 4F in freezing cold, Boston reaches (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2955250/Biting-cold-air-follows-latest-New-England-snowstorm.html)...


Read more: whatreallyhappened.com (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php#ixzz3SoSgTbDU) http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php#ixzz3SoSgTbDU

S.V. Airlie
02-25-2015, 09:21 PM
The only thing that ever consoles Rod for the stupid posts he makes is the praise he always gives himself for making them." -- Oscar Wilde (sorry Oscar fify)

Glen Longino
02-25-2015, 09:22 PM
Consider this a chart to match your take on this issue... Y>

R


\
What is so hard about this, Rod? Psychoanalyst...Pronto!
Trust me!
Do you want to be delusional for the rest of your life?

Chip-skiff
02-25-2015, 09:24 PM
Carbonazis?

That's hilarious!

Tom Montgomery
02-25-2015, 09:26 PM
Consider this a chart to match your take on this issue...
Sheesh....

Still ignoring the advice your compatriot gives others, I see:


That's the reason we got to be very careful about things we read on the internet Ian.....

:rolleyes:

S.V. Airlie
02-25-2015, 09:30 PM
Sheesh....

Still ignoring the advice you give others I see:



:rolleyes:Of course he does when he finds anything that AGREES (no matter the source) with his uuum, own warped ideas of his pseudo-reality.

Glen Longino
02-25-2015, 09:31 PM
Carbonazis?

That's hilarious!

:)They are ignorant, semi-literate, Troglodytic, and self-destructive, but they can damn sure turn a phrase!:)

Tom Montgomery
02-25-2015, 09:35 PM
Of course he does when he finds anything that AGREES (no matter the source) with his uuum, own warped ideas of his pseudo-reality.
My mistake.

It was RonW who cautioned Ian about trusting internet sources, not RodB. I confused the two. Go figure.

Evidently RodB throws caution to the wind!

Clearly he is a wild and extremely crazy guy! :D

S.V. Airlie
02-25-2015, 09:41 PM
It happens It's hard to tell them apart! Rod is standing if that helps!

http://25.media.tumblr.com/9dae7f5ada98c9e408755c822bacc4f0/tumblr_mp9wxlWrWE1qjkhtjo1_500.jpg

Duncan Gibbs
02-26-2015, 01:21 AM
Consider this a chart to match your take on this issue... Y>

R

snip...

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." -- Carl Sagan



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ5u-l9Je0s

Right back atcha Roderick!

PeterSibley
02-26-2015, 02:29 AM
I wonder if Rod realises he is in favour of the greatest gamble ever made, to reject the advice of the scientific community in favour of "common sense" ?

Does he think his ''common sense'' is better than the cumulative knowledge and expertise of 99% of those who have devoted their lives to the study ?

RodB
02-26-2015, 11:07 PM
Rod, straight up, without fertilizer and without your usual wishy-washy quibbles: with which of the IPCC's conclusions do you disagree, and why?


The first few months I did some homework on GW... the veracity of the IPCC was consistently pointed out to be suspect from many sources... with a history of dishonesty and with no real scientists actually writing the report. That may have changed...but I'm not interested in reading report put together by an organization with a definite agenda... not necessarily real science. If so... scientists all over the world would be funded to try to disprove the GW consensus.

I don't understand now why all you true believers suddenly think the whole world should just accept everything the IPCC says now... have they turned into angles of complete truth about guess about our future?

I doubt it.

As I said before...
Even if most of the consensus were absolutely true ... what to do about it is the issue. There is lots of room here to equivocate about.



RodB

Glen Longino
02-26-2015, 11:16 PM
Once again, I must face the lamentable truth that my friend and fellow Texan, Rod, has refused my advice to visit his nearest psychoanalyst ASAP... tsk, tsk!

Flying Orca
02-26-2015, 11:40 PM
The first few months I did some homework on GW

The "first few months" of what? Scientists have been seriously studying global warming for about forty years now.


the veracity of the IPCC was consistently pointed out to be suspect from many sources... with a history of dishonesty and with no real scientists actually writing the report.

There isn't a single major or national scientific organization in the entire world - not one - that does not accept the basic findings of the IPCC. The only people who have consistently attempted to point the finger of suspicion at the IPCC are shills for big oil. This is extremely well documented.


That may have changed...but I'm not interested in reading report put together by an organization with a definite agenda... not necessarily real science.

Rod, every single thing you read that reinforces your false narrative on climate change comes from organizations with a definite agenda - their agenda is to safeguard the profits of oil companies by delaying action on climate change for as long as possible. You want to talk "not necessarily real science"? Thousands of scientific papers every year bear out various aspects of the science of climate change - science that is as well-settled as the science of evolution, or of aerodynamics, or of astrophysics. A handful of papers take a contrary position, and not one has been found to provide good scientific evidence that the basic findings of the IPCC are in doubt.

I don't think you even know what the IPCC's findings are. In fact, I'd be surprised if you've even read a recent assessment report.

Duncan Gibbs
02-26-2015, 11:46 PM
snip... with no real scientists actually writing the report. That may have changed...but I'm not interested in reading report put together by an organization with a definite agenda... not necessarily real science.
http://manonthelam.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Flat-Earth-Sign.jpg?bbf45e

BTW, You're missing an 'a' in your statement. :p

RodB
02-27-2015, 08:48 PM
This from the UN.... Looks like a future progressives would love.

R


U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

02/10/2015 06:43 PM ET


Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man's stewardship of the environment. But we know that's not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."
The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/121712-637369-golden-age-created-by-private-sector.htm?ntt=milton%20friedman) at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.
Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming "the economic development model" because she's really never seen it work. "If you look at Ms. Figueres' Wikipedia page," notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3T04CjHtK
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dW0sw4iSyr3P7iab7jrHtB&u=IBDinvestors) | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dW0sw4iSyr3P7iab7jrHtB&u=InvestorsBusinessDaily)

S.V. Airlie
02-27-2015, 08:52 PM
And Rod thinks Gods farted

http://pulsoverde.nrdc.org/Smog%20over%20Los%20Angeles_Flickr_vlasta2.jpg

WX
02-28-2015, 12:27 AM
Give it up guys, he is not interested...period.