Alaska Glaciers - key indicator of climate change

[daveman]

Typical leftists.

That really is a terribly childish response.

Is there a left wing position and a right wing posiition on gravity?

Scientific proof does not rely on politics, and isn't - IMHO - a political subject.

The fact that you feel scientific proof relies on political opinions says quite a lot about how you read science, doesn't it?

You haven't been paying much attention to the global warming debate, have you?

The left has turned it into a political issue -- it's not a scientific debate. You can tell because:

1. Every "solution" proposed to the "problem" of global climate change is political in nature -- specifically, the transfer of wealth from primarily the United States to third-world nations, who are given free reign to continue emitting CO2. Apparently, only American CO2 is dangerous.

2. The science simply doesn't back up their claims. You can tell that because the way they've bastardized the peer-review process, and for the way they've cherry-picked, altered, and fabricated data; and for the way when, the data doesn't fit the model, they alter the data, not the model, as real science is conducted.

3. The way those who question AGW are treated. They're personally attacked in the media, calls are made for their professional accreditations to be revoked, and some have even suggested they be jailed and executed.

Scientific proof relies on good science. That's my position, and the position of everyone who takes scientific integrity seriously.

The AGW cult isn't interested in science. It's never been about saving the planet -- it's about greater government control over individual lives.

 

[daveman]

Not in climate science. In climate science, data from computer simulaitons is accepted as observation, hiding data, distorting data and tampering with data are widely accepted norms within the field.

There is absolutely no proof of that whatsoever - nor have I ever seen it suggested by a reputable source.

Faced with overwhelming scientific evidence you have two choices - read the science, or reject the science without reading it.

I'm puzzled you seem to have chosen the latter.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/199915-so-why-all-of-the-temp-adjustments.html

"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."​

They altered the data to fit the model when reality showed their model to be inaccurate.

That's incredibly bad science.

 

[daveman]

Here we go again. All the scientist in all the nations in the world are in on a conspiracy to decieve poor Bent.

Why do you keep pretending every scientist supports your cult?

That's dishonest. But then, you can't be honest and believe in AGW.

 

[daveman]

I would be more interested in why he thinks that there is current warming considering that world temps have been flat, if not going down slightly for the past decade and a half.

Most experts in solar acitivity have been fairly clear that the current changes in temperature can not be solely attributed to solar activity.

They seem to have people like the British Academy of Sciences and US Society of Physicists in their camp, and I'm comfortable with that.

The decade eding 2009 was the hottest on record, despite the fact that the rate of warming was higher in the 1990s. I don't see anything very newsworthy there.

the missing variable gambit. many climate scientists point to a very general measure of the Sun's output, TSI, and say that it cannot account for all the changes and then ignore it. the Sun's output in UV is much more variable and those changes as well as magnetic changes have an unknown but possibly profound effect on climate. if the paradigm was solar activity instead of CO2 we would have a different view of climate right now

But AL Gore can't sell Solar Credits. Governments can't tax the sun.

No, CO2 has to be the culprit behind Global WarmerCooling because it's quantifiable and it's a byproduct of industry. Therefore, it can be regulated, and governments and people can make money off of it.

The AGW cult sprung up around this.

 

[Saigon]

Daveman -

As I said earlier - most conservatives and most conservative parties have stated that human acitivty plays a key role in climate change.

Therefore, we can not write off climate change as being a left wing conspiracy.

Can you think of any other left wing conspiracies supported by most right wingers?

Until that point is addressed and explained, I don't see any point in going on to other points.

 

[wirebender]

Spencer specifically states that the curved polynomial fit is for 'entertainment' purposes. it may or may not mean anything. if the sceptical side just imitates the warmers' bad manners and unfounded conclusions why should the public believe us over them?

Spencer also claims that a cool object can further warm a warmer object in opposition to the second law of thermodynamcis so one really can't take his views with anything more than a grain of salt.

 

[Saigon]

Here we go again. All the scientist in all the nations in the world are in on a conspiracy to decieve poor Bent.

Why do you keep pretending every scientist supports your cult?

That's dishonest. But then, you can't be honest and believe in AGW.

You're right - only around 90% - 95% of scientists believe that human acitivity is a factor in climate change.

There is that 5% who don't agree.

Just as there were 5% of experts who claimed HIV did not cause aids and smoking did not cause cancer.

 

[daveman]

Daveman -

As I said earlier - most conservatives and most conservative parties have stated that human acitivty plays a key role in climate change.

Therefore, we can not write off climate change as being a left wing conspiracy.

Can you think of any other left wing conspiracies supported by most right wingers?

Until that point is addressed and explained, I don't see any point in going on to other points.

Until you acknowledge European conservatives are far to the left of American conservatives, there's no need at all.

 

[daveman]

Here we go again. All the scientist in all the nations in the world are in on a conspiracy to decieve poor Bent.

Why do you keep pretending every scientist supports your cult?

That's dishonest. But then, you can't be honest and believe in AGW.

You're right - only around 90% - 95% of scientists believe that human acitivity is a factor in climate change.

There is that 5% who don't agree.

Just as there were 5% of experts who claimed HIV did not cause aids and smoking did not cause cancer.

I'd like to see something credible that backs up your 90-95% claim.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well DaveBoy, why don't you check out what the Scientific Societies policy positions are on AGW. Might also do the same for the National Academies of Science for the various nations in the world. Try doing the same for the major Univesities in the world.

 

[Saigon]

I'd like to see something credible that backs up your 90-95% claim.

Ok. Here are the names of 50 academic institutions which back climate change.

Can you find more than 10 who disagree?

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.

InterAcademy Council

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Chemical Society[41]

American Institute of Physics[42]

American Physical Society[43]

Australian Institute of Physics[44]

European Physical Society[45]

European Science Foundation[46]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[wirebender]

Ok. Here are the names of 50 academic institutions which back climate change.

I see you also are not quite able to differentiate between the political heads of organizations and the body of said organizations. One's primary purpose in the world is to seek funding, the other's primary purpose is to do science.

An honest look at those various named organizations would yield that nothing like the majority of any of the bodies of those organizations (actual scientists as opposed to politicians) are onboard the AGW bandwagon. The sad fact is that you would have a very hard time finding any credible scientist who is on the bandwagon who does not depend on grant money in order to purchase his daily bread. Those who are slaves to grant money are, alas, the vast minority of scientists.

The myth that 97% of the worlds scientists are on board with AGW is the result of a few handfulls of un named scientists who claimed climate science as their field answering a couple of loaded questions. That survey was then blown up into 97% of the world's scientists being on the AGW bandwagon. That, my friend, is how climate science is performed. In short, it is meaningless.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW is the Pet Rock of science

 

[wirebender]

I have to say - you seem to have a good head for science and good knowledge of the science relating to this topic, but responses like this do you no favours.

Again - you can not claim climate change is a left wing conspiracy when almost every right wing party outside the US disagrees with you. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I never said, or believe that climate change is a left wing conspiracy. I don't give the left credit for that much intelligence. It would take pure genius to actually manufacture such a conspiracy and lets face it, the left just isn't that bright. The leadership of the left consists largely of activists, political bureucrats, and media hacks. There isn't enough brains among all 3 combined to come up with something like this.

AGW has become a politically expedient means to an end. There is little rational argument to be made that the left hasn't jumped on this issue as a means to an end. That end being tight regulation of industry.

I just do not believe science is being falsified, twisted, faked or anything else.

And there you have it. Even when shown undeniable evidence of data tampering, cherry picking, etc., you can not bring yourself to believe that science is being falsified, or in some other way corrupted. It would go against your political ideology to believe such a thing.

I met a Professor in Physics a few weeks back and talked to him at length about the research he is doing on cloud formation. The guy has devoted his life to this subject, and speaks about it with real passion and integrity.

The cloud formation folks are no friends of climate science as a whole. The further cloud research progresses, the less important and scary CO2 becomes and since you can't tax clouds, the research is of little importance to politicians and their pet pseudoscientists.

To suggest he fakes all that as part of some evil plot strikes me as simply paranoid.

I have seen no evidence of fakery with the CERN folks or cloud research as a whole as opposed to AGW as a whole. The cloud research isn't pointing the finger at man's use of fossil fuels as a source of warming. The more they learn and prove, the more my own position is bolstered.

 

[wirebender]

Most experts in solar acitivity have been fairly clear that the current changes in temperature can not be solely attributed to solar activity.

Tell me, other than the core of the earth which also can not be laid at the feet of fossil fuel, what other energy source does the earth have? Warming and cooling are the result of shifts in energy input, no more and no less.

They seem to have people like the British Academy of Sciences and US Society of Physicists in their camp, and I'm comfortable with that.

As you may well have to be. Personally, I can do the math, I understand the physics and can tell you, and demonstrate that they are wrong by doing nothing more complicated than quoting the laws of physics.

The fact that the societies you name are onboard is the result of an often repeated phenomenon within the various sciences. It is called an error cascade. In the case of climate science, at its bedrock foundations, certain laws of physics were, to put it kindly, bastardized. Those errors were accepted as fact and then simply assumed and used as factual bases for future research up till today.

Actual scientists (physicists, chemists, etc.) have been going back to the basic research and proving with startling regularity that the basis upon which climate science is based is flawed. They don't get much press because they are upsetting the apple cart. Nikolov and Zeller for example (a couple of physicists) have recently successfully predicted the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere using little more than the ideal gas laws and have found, and proven that the composition of a planet's atmosphere has little to do with its temperature. Take venus for example. Warmists like to hold it up as an example of runaway global warming but fail to mention that the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than that of earth. If you travel up into the venusian atmosphere to an altitude where the atmospheric pressure is the same as that of earth, and make a simple correction for the amount of energy received due to the difference in distance from the sun between earth and venus, one finds that the temperature at that altitude is the same as that of earth even though the atmosphere is composed almost entirely of so called greenhouse gasses.

The decade eding 2009 was the hottest on record, despite the fact that the rate of warming was higher in the 1990s. I don't see anything very newsworthy there.

That bit of sleight of hand is mainly achieved by lowering the temperature of the past. You have been shown blatant evidence of the lowering of past temperatures for the explicit purpose of making the present seem warmer and it is as if you were blind to the evidence. You have seen the lowered past temperatures and then state that the present is the warmest ever as if it were actually true.

The fact that you don't think blatant data tampering is newsworthy literally speaks volumes about the validity of your position.

 

[wirebender]

Your position seems to be based on the assumption that scientists either have not considered the solar question thoroughly, or are distorting their findings to downplay the solar factor.

I just don't find either point terribly credible - at least not with major universities and research units.

That is because you won't recognize the effect hundreds of billions of dollars has on people. My bet is that you had no problem equating money with the mechanizations carried out by the tobacco industry but completly miss the boat with climate science where the sheer amount of money and power at stake makes the tobacco business look like minor parking violations.

The idea that a good 50 - 60 research units around the world would all be secretly working together to ensure that their research produced complimentary results implies the involvement of thousands of people in dozens of countries. It would be a conspiracy far greater than anything we have ever seen - and it would occur without a single person talking to a journalist.

Go back to the error cascade. When certain flawed assumptions on basic science become part of the general science as accepted fact, it doesn't take long before an entire branch of science becomes corrupt. It doesn't have to be deliberate or even subconscious.

 

[Saigon]

And there you have it. Even when shown undeniable evidence of data tampering, cherry picking, etc., you can not bring yourself to believe that science is being falsified, or in some other way corrupted. It would go against your political ideology to believe such a thing.


.

I don't have a political ideology. I don't consider myself left wing.

I'd be THRILLED to hear there was no climate change - and I think most people would be.

I just don't see any evidence at all of any systematic wrong doing or fraud.

As I said earlier, I've met Professors of Physics here and been very impressed by their passion for their topic, their integrity and hard work.

I do believe in science, and in scientists, and I'd need to hear about a lot of fraud before I started to think there was really a deep set problem.

I know you disagree...but that's life.

 

[Saigon]

That is because you won't recognize the effect hundreds of billions of dollars has on people. My bet is that you had no problem equating money with the mechanizations carried out by the tobacco industry but completly miss the boat with climate science where the sheer amount of money and power at stake makes the tobacco business look like minor parking violations.
.

I don't imagine the solar and wind industries have deeper pockets than coal or oil.

I do wonder if the reason this topic is so political in the US is because of the coal and oil money....

 

[wirebender]

You're right - only around 90% - 95% of scientists believe that human acitivity is a factor in climate change.

Are you really unaware of where that 95% myth came from? I am sure you won't like the sources but if you can't dispute the data, then the info you find there stands.

The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Blog: The Consensus Myth: 97% of Nothing

 

[wirebender]

I just don't see any evidence at all of any systematic wrong doing or fraud.

Then it is because you have your hands clamped firmly over your eyes and are screaming LA LA LA LA LA at the top of your lungs to be sure you don't hear any evidence either. Again, for your viewing pleasure.

These are only a few of the many many blatant examples of data tampering. Now you look at these and tell me with a straight face that you don't see any evidence of systematic wrongdoing or fraud. Note the agencies from which these examples come from and then deny systematic fraud.