Scientists and warnings.

[Meister]

That was of course in the title. But here is what the article defined it as.

"Global temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.22 Fahrenheit (0.12 Celsius) per decade since 1951. But since 1998, the rate of warming has been only 0.09 F (0.05 C) per decade"

Which, if you ever bothered to read the literature, is a number below the ability of the instruments to measure...which means it's a fictitious number which means it's a lie.

Speaking of lies...here's a peer reviewed paper where the authors make the claim that it is OK to lie about the climate.

How's that for a peer reviewed study!


Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements



Abstract

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.






Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements

Whatever you want to pole vault to next I guess. I still waiting for you to prove that NASA, NOAA, The UK's Met Office and the IPCC all disagree with me.

The deniers are waiting for the proof from the cult without manipulated data and models.

 

[BlindBoo]

So, what exactly does this mean?

............................ "Despite Recent Slowdown"

From YOUR link... I rest my case....

That was of course in the title. But here is what the article defined it as.

"Global temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.22 Fahrenheit (0.12 Celsius) per decade since 1951. But since 1998, the rate of warming has been only 0.09 F (0.05 C) per decade"

.22 of a degree in 10 years????????? can that even be measured? two tenths of a degree-----------

are a total fricken loon?

One could even say that with the lack of solar activity during solar cycle 24 the mean temperature should be dropping. Hopefully the next cycle will be just as low.

 

[BlindBoo]

Whatever you want to pole vault to next I guess. I still waiting for you to prove that NASA, NOAA, The UK's Met Office and the IPCC all disagree with me.

The deniers are waiting for the proof from the cult without manipulated data and models.

Hey Zippy, westwall said that NASA, NOAA, The UK's Met Office and the IPCC all disagree with me when I said that the earth was still warming.

 

[Meister]

Whatever you want to pole vault to next I guess. I still waiting for you to prove that NASA, NOAA, The UK's Met Office and the IPCC all disagree with me.

The deniers are waiting for the proof from the cult without manipulated data and models.

Hey Zippy, westwall said that NASA, NOAA, The UK's Met Office and the IPCC all disagree with me when I said that the earth was still warming.

And I wasn't, sooooo we're still waiting for the proof and not just some political motive.

 

[Coyote]

Moved to Environment

 

[flacaltenn]

That was of course in the title. But here is what the article defined it as.

"Global temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.22 Fahrenheit (0.12 Celsius) per decade since 1951. But since 1998, the rate of warming has been only 0.09 F (0.05 C) per decade"

Which, if you ever bothered to read the literature, is a number below the ability of the instruments to measure...which means it's a fictitious number which means it's a lie.

Speaking of lies...here's a peer reviewed paper where the authors make the claim that it is OK to lie about the climate.

How's that for a peer reviewed study!


Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements



Abstract

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.






Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements

Whatever you want to pole vault to next I guess. I still waiting for you to prove that NASA, NOAA, The UK's Met Office and the IPCC all disagree with me.

Proving it to you would be impossible.. Since you STARTED this poker game quoting a propaganda website and claiming that there was no halt to the warming. NOW you're quoting sources who are all jazzed to tell you about 0.09degC/decade and you don't understand that the number IS essentially zero because of accuracies of measurement and STATISTICAL significance..

At a rate of 0.09degC/decade --- THERE WOULD BE NO PLANETARY EMERGENCY.. Do you at least understand that part???

Let's let Barack Obama explain this to you.. Despite MOUNTAINS of reporting and Terrabits of discussion -- your tax dollars JUST went to a brand new WHouse website to SPIN the Global Warming fantasy.. Part of the Dem Party desperate attempt to revive this puppy..

Here's what BHO says today.. Maybe you'll understand your CIC...

Why did Earth?s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade? | NOAA Climate.gov

Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?
Friday, November 8, 2013
The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon.

Global warming 'hiatus' puts climate change scientists on the spot - Los Angeles Times

Global warming 'hiatus' puts climate change scientists on the spot
Theories as to why Earth's average surface temperature hasn't risen in recent years include an idea that the Pacific Ocean goes through decades-long cycles of absorbing heat.

Curry isn't the only one to suggest flaws in established climate models. IPCC vice chair Francis Zwiers, director of the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium at the University of Victoria in Canada, co-wrote a paper published in this month's Nature Climate Change that said climate models had "significantly" overestimated global warming over the last 20 years — and especially for the last 15 years, which coincides with the onset of the hiatus.

The models had predicted that the average global surface temperature would increase by 0.21 of a degree Celsius over this period, but they turned out to be off by a factor of four, Zwiers and his colleagues wrote. In reality, the average temperature has edged up only 0.05 of a degree Celsius over that time — which in a statistical sense is not significantly different from zero.

Carry on with your denial BlindBoo...

 

[Old Rocks]

Hummmm ...."... pollution does not cause climate change"
Here is another one that is a favorite of mine: "Tobacco does not cause lung cancer." That little phrase was brought to us courtesy of the tobacco lobby during the 40's, 50's, 60's, and into the 70's. They spent billions selling that lie. Because of that lie millions and millions of people died and the tobacco lobby made a bunch of money on the deaths of others.
Did you know that the energy lobby is using some of the same techniques as the tobacco lobby. They have even purchased scientists and labs much like the tobacco industry.
Here is a thought, 'big anything' will do whatever it takes to remain "big." If that means lying and putting out false propaganda they will do so. They love people like you who refuse to question and accept facts. They really do. You make their job easy. As for me, I will remember what the tobacco lobby did and I will accept the research of 90+% of climate scientists who say pollution causes climate change.
You, on the other hand, can stick with the less that 10% of climate scientists who are bought and paid for by big energy. Hopefully when it dawns on you and the rest of the deniers it will not be to late.

So, lets see here. smoking causes lung cancer so burning wood in your fireplace causes the climate of the planet to change ----------- Uhhh, OK.

said another way, your attempt at analogy FAILS

might be time for your paxil. take it with vodka tonight.

redfish, having to explain things to you on a third grade level will be embarrassing to you but I will do what I have to do.
The tobacco companies DID NOT want to admit that smoking was bad for a persons health. They knew it would cut into their profits. So, they hired PR firms to muddy the water and to put out false and misleading propaganda. They put out lovely commercials of actors in white coats wearing stethoscopes talking about how smoking wasn't dangerous. They purchased labs and had them do phony research proving smoking wasn't harmful. As more and more data came in they were eventually forced to admit that smoking had severe health risks associated with it. Even people who didn't smoke but were in rooms with smokers were at risk. Their ploy worked for a long time. The tobacco companies made billions and millions and millions died because they believed those tobacco companies.
Now, jump ahead to the turn of the century. The big energy companies DID NOT want to admit that their products produced green house gases that caused global warming. They knew it would cut into their profits. They wanted people to use more oil, coal, and gas. So, they hired PR firms to muddy the water and to put out false and misleading propaganda. The ads were lovely showing nature and wildlife and telling us that energy companies were really, really concerned about the environment. And like the tobacco lobby they hired scientists and labs to produce propaganda that could be used to fool people.
As for me, I will remember what the tobacco lobby did and I will accept the research of 90+% of climate scientists who say pollution causes climate change.
You, on the other hand, can stick with the less that 10% of climate scientists who are bought and paid for by big energy. Hopefully when it dawns on you and the rest of the deniers it will not be to late.
Do you understand it now? Gosh, I hope so. I don't believe I can make it any simpler unless I am forced to go to "Once upon a time there was this dinosaur who ....."

In fact, the energy companies hired the very same companies as the tobacco companies. After all, they were proven adept liars. Unlike Westwall, who is a very inept liar.

 

[skookerasbil]

Blaming everything that happens in nature on climate change would work, but only if the earth were now 100 years old. Bad shit in nature has been happening since the beginning of time......a few years before the advent of the SUV.


If you go look at the chronology of extreme weather, it is crystal clear that weather extremes have been happening forever.....at least we can see it here in recorded history >>>


Chronology of Extreme Weather


Of course, this link decimates any of these extreme nature/weather events being linked to stuff man-made.


dEciMaTeS

 

[Abraham3]

They do not.

All events have causes. Extreme weather in the past, the present and the future all have cause. To contend that it's occurrence from one cause precludes its occurrence from another is completely unsupportable.

When I was a child I broke my leg falling from a tree. Is that proof that one cannot break a leg in a car accident?

 

[paulitician]

Give it some time, the Communists/New World Order Globalists will invent another fear mongering scam. This one's dying, and they know it. The People don't want more Government intervention and control of their lives. If someone wants to use one square of toilet paper to save the World, than so be it. But all People should not be forced to do that. So look for em to invent a new scam in the near future. Maybe 'Global Cooling?' Who knows?

 

[flacaltenn]

Give it some time, the Communists/New World Order Globalists will invent another fear mongering scam. This one's dying, and they know it. The People don't want more Government intervention and control of their lives. If someone wants to use one square of toilet paper to save the World, than so be it. But all People should not be forced to do that. So look for em to invent a new scam in the near future. Maybe 'Global Cooling?' Who knows?

My money is on Global Contagion. A movement based on rented science showing that herd farming is the source of increasingly complex and undefendable disease.. And of course the only solutions are to go VEGAN and outlaw farming that is corporate owned.....

 

[Iceweasel]

My money is on Global Contagion. A movement based on rented science showing that herd farming is the source of increasingly complex and undefendable disease.. And of course the only solutions are to go VEGAN and outlaw farming that is corporate owned.....

Not bad. It could spin off the methane is a greenhouse gas mantra and how deadly cow farts truly are.

 

[paulitician]

Give it some time, the Communists/New World Order Globalists will invent another fear mongering scam. This one's dying, and they know it. The People don't want more Government intervention and control of their lives. If someone wants to use one square of toilet paper to save the World, than so be it. But all People should not be forced to do that. So look for em to invent a new scam in the near future. Maybe 'Global Cooling?' Who knows?

My money is on Global Contagion. A movement based on rented science showing that herd farming is the source of increasingly complex and undefendable disease.. And of course the only solutions are to go VEGAN and outlaw farming that is corporate owned.....

Could be? Who knows? It's all about New World Order Globalist control of the People. So who knows what's next in that effort.

 

[Abraham3]

I'm guessing democracy.

 

[westwall]

I'm guessing democracy.

You haven't got a Democratic bone in your body. All of your "solutions" are of the final kind and revolve around powerful governments deciding what people can and can't do.

 

[skookerasbil]

They do not.

All events have causes. Extreme weather in the past, the present and the future all have cause. To contend that it's occurrence from one cause precludes its occurrence from another is completely unsupportable.

When I was a child I broke my leg falling from a tree. Is that proof that one cannot break a leg in a car accident?

Opinions are like assholes......everybody ( everybody knows the rest )

 

[nodoginnafight]

Rain forest preservation is one of my big things. Mankind should do everything possible to prevent that irreparable harm.

Your Great Pacific Garbage patch is not visible to the naked eye for the most part. In fact when researchers skimmed the area a few years back they couldn't find anything but microscopic plastic bits.

Yes coal has been burned for over 100 years. However,a single major volcanic eruption puts more crap into the atmosphere than all of mans pollution for all of mans history. So, big deal.

Pollution from China should be greatly curtailed. Especially their particulate discharge. None of the GHG's they emit matter however.

AGW has been shown to be a false theory. You need no longer worry about it.

A volcano is a natural reaction. And the affect is typically a more cold snowy winter down the road.

I love you libs---volcanoes cause snow------wow, who knew?

well ... people who know anything about volcanoes know this.

 

[jc456]

Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have just seen a tragedy concerning a landslide, predicted by scientists, and ignored by all that could have done something to lessen the toll. Politically not expediant to make people uncomfortable. Until they start dieing from that sick set of mind.

Now we have the vast majority of scientists from all over the world stating that global warming is a clear and present danger, one that is already creating problems. And they will be damned by the very same kind of people that let others die for political expediancy.

So what exactly is your point? Is your point that people ignored the warning that a landslide would happen, or is it that global warming causes landslides?

First off, the people who live in the path of the landslide are the ones ignoring not anyone from the midwest. Second, if I live near a river and never expect the river to rise, I am a fool. As unfortunate as the landslides were, it doesn't relieve the owners from fault for failing to recognize the potential hazard. So, where global warming comes into this is your pipe dream.

 

[jc456]

Blaming everything that happens in nature on climate change would work, but only if the earth were now 100 years old. Bad shit in nature has been happening since the beginning of time......a few years before the advent of the SUV.


If you go look at the chronology of extreme weather, it is crystal clear that weather extremes have been happening forever.....at least we can see it here in recorded history >>>


Chronology of Extreme Weather


Of course, this link decimates any of these extreme nature/weather events being linked to stuff man-made.


dEciMaTeS

What about Noah? 40 days and 40 nights of rain. Wasn't that before Christ? Hmm... not sure but that seems a bit extreme to me. Those coal burners from that time should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Abraham3]

? ? ? ?

Are you suggesting that Noah's flood is evidence of extreme weather prior to human GHG emissions?