The risks of climate disaster demand straight talking

[Katzndogz]

Summers are hot. Winters are cold. This is not climate change, it is weather.

 

[Trakar]

The Debate Is Over Sound Clip , Quote, MP3, and Ringtone

"If you look at the peer reviewed scientific literature, the debate is over."
​

So, how's that whole I-get-to-define-reality thing working out for you?

Al Gore was speaking of his understanding of the scientific climate science debate, if you want to argue with Al Gore over his understandings have at it. There has been no declaration by any major scientific body, that I am aware of indicating that we know all there is to know about any area of scientific investigation. As the last IPCC survey of the field indicates -

Extremely likely (>95%)

Anthropogenic change has been detected in surface temperature with very high significance levels (less than 1% error probability). This conclusion is strengthened by detection of anthropogenic change in the upper ocean with high significance level. Upper ocean warming argues against the surface warming being due to natural internal processes. Observed change is very large relative to climate-model simulated internal variability. Surface temperature variability simulated by models is consistent with variability estimated from instrumental and palaeorecords. Main uncertainty from forcing and internal variability estimates (Sections 9.4.1.2, 9.4.1.4, 9.5.1.1, 9.3.3.2, 9.7).
----------------

Very Likely (>90%)

This warming took place at a time when non-anthropogenic external factors would likely have produced cooling. The combined effect of known sources of forcing would have been extremely likely to produce a warming. No climate model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global warming trend over the 2nd half of the 20th century. Main uncertainties arise from forcing, including solar, model-simulated responses and internal variability estimates (Sections 2.9.2, 9.2.1, 9.4.1.2, 9.4.1.4; Figures 9.5, 9.6, 9.9).

Very Likely (>90%)

All multi-signal detection and attribution studies attribute more warming to greenhouse gas forcing than to a combination of all other sources considered, including internal variability, with a very high significance. This conclusion accounts for observational, model and forcing uncertainty, and the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by models. Main uncertainty from forcing and internal variability estimates (Section 9.4.1.4; Figure 9.9).
--------

​

of course this report is 5 years old with the next report not coming out till next year.

Need some help moving the goalposts?

No goalpost moving required or attempted.

You said no one said the debate was over.

Please reference the post where I said this. What I refuted was your implication that there had been any proclamation by science that the "debate was over," that was what we were talking about, and the context of the entire thread. It was clearly inherent to the post to which you responded and the responses I have given. I can't say that I find it terribly surprising that context and critical analysis are absent from your personal proficiencies-list.

Your only possible response was, "Yes, I was wrong. Someone did say the debate was over."

But like most cultists, you're unable to admit when you're wrong.

There you go again, looking in a mirror and complaining about what you see.

 

[Old Rocks]

Blah, blah, blah. Among those that lack the ability to differentiate politics from science, they are still clinging to idiotic denial sound bites, blah.

Most ironic post I've seen here to date...

Really? OK, dumb ass, present your evidence that all the continents are growing upwards. This is a scientific debate, bring some science to it, not just idiotic flap yap.

 

[flacaltenn]

Blah, blah, blah. Among those that lack the ability to differentiate politics from science, they are still clinging to idiotic denial sound bites, blah.

Most ironic post I've seen here to date...

Really? OK, dumb ass, present your evidence that all the continents are growing upwards. This is a scientific debate, bring some science to it, not just idiotic flap yap.

THIS debate is still going on.. Arbitrary corrections like GIA just add credence to the concept that you warmers will do ANYTHING to make the data conform to your "beliefs". The water in a kiddie pool does not RISE when you inflate the edges more. And YET grown-up scientists will RATIONALIZE this to fit their data adjustments.

The article posted SAID that the embarrassment of doing such a thing is SOOOO dam huge that the "researchers are considering a compromise".. Yeah mom, I'll put back 1/2 the cookies you caught me stealing from the cookiie jar....

The AMOUNT of sea level rise we have measured isn't even exceeding LOCAL variations due to tides, thermal effects and currents. It's no wonder there's a pressing need to fabricate data and overreach on corrections..

You go girl on predicting FUTURE POSSIBLE bad effects of climate change.. But give us a break on the hype about how it's already alarmingly obvious..

 

[Katzndogz]

Was the Sahara once an ocean? Has England always been an island?

Both the desertifictation of the Sahara and the submerging of the land between England the Europe were the results of planetary changes that had nothing to do with what mankind did. Although had mankind existed, they would undoubtably have blamed themselves.

 

[Bigfoot]

Man made global warming doesn't effect my life in any way, shape or form. You know why? Because it's natural and I conform to the weather that is outside my door.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've been observing the way OleRocks handles all these inconvienient truths about AGW tactics. So I overheard this conversation at the OleRocks compound when the GrandKids came to visit..


Gramps!!! Gramps!!! The water is our pool is going down. It's lower than it's 'sposed to be..

Hey Gramps !!! Get off USMB and help us..

--- OK -- just a minute kids, I have to win this argument with a paper from a 1853. There.

--- I'm SURE that the problem is KPD. (Kid - induced Pool Depression. I kept warning you that if you continued to jump into that little pool, that you would alter it's basic shape and volume. But you didn't listen did ya?

But Gramps -- we think there's a hole in the bottom and ....

--- That's ridiculous -- Lars Novemska wrote about this in 1744 and there is no further science on the subject. It's a volumetric expansion that we have to correct for. So take this yardstick and this cellphone app I wrote laboriously estimating the minute perturbations that you've induced by your actions on the pool. I've reduced all that to a SINGLE correction factor valid for any pool anywhere on the globe. Just count the number of leaps into the pool and use the yardstick to measure the water and then CORRECT the water level measurement by the number you find corresponding to the number of leaps.. Got IT??

Come take a LOOK Gramps. We NEED MORE WATER in the pool..

--- Nonsense. I don't need to look, and I've GIVEN YOU more water in the pool.

Nevermind -- c'mon Albert, let's go ride our bikes..

 

[flacaltenn]

.... And THAT boys and girls is the TRUE story of how we got a GIA adjusted sea level measurement.. ..

 

[westwall]

Blah, blah, blah. Among those that lack the ability to differentiate politics from science, they are still clinging to idiotic denial sound bites, blah.

Most ironic post I've seen here to date...

Most ironic or idiotic?

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Walleyes, come on, man. Date and time of your lecture at the AGU Conferance. Hell, at this rate, I will make it to the podium before you do. LOL.

Walleyes, present some real peer reviewed articles that support your nonsense. Trackar and I have both presented articles to support our points of view, your turn.

Oh, by the way, Arctic Sea Ice at 3.2 square kilometers, and dropping fast.

 

[Trakar]

Was the Sahara once an ocean? Has England always been an island?

Both the desertifictation of the Sahara and the submerging of the land between England the Europe were the results of planetary changes that had nothing to do with what mankind did. Although had mankind existed, they would undoubtably have blamed themselves.

And smoking doesn't cause cancer, CFCs don't affect the ozone layer, and it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summer time.

 

[Trakar]

Man made global warming doesn't effect my life in any way, shape or form. You know why? Because it's natural and I conform to the weather that is outside my door.

bigfoot talking about conforming to the natural, seriously?

 

[daveman]

Al Gore was speaking of his understanding of the scientific climate science debate, if you want to argue with Al Gore over his understandings have at it. There has been no declaration by any major scientific body, that I am aware of indicating that we know all there is to know about any area of scientific investigation. As the last IPCC survey of the field indicates -

Extremely likely (>95%)

Anthropogenic change has been detected in surface temperature with very high significance levels (less than 1% error probability). This conclusion is strengthened by detection of anthropogenic change in the upper ocean with high significance level. Upper ocean warming argues against the surface warming being due to natural internal processes. Observed change is very large relative to climate-model simulated internal variability. Surface temperature variability simulated by models is consistent with variability estimated from instrumental and palaeorecords. Main uncertainty from forcing and internal variability estimates (Sections 9.4.1.2, 9.4.1.4, 9.5.1.1, 9.3.3.2, 9.7).
----------------

Very Likely (>90%)

This warming took place at a time when non-anthropogenic external factors would likely have produced cooling. The combined effect of known sources of forcing would have been extremely likely to produce a warming. No climate model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global warming trend over the 2nd half of the 20th century. Main uncertainties arise from forcing, including solar, model-simulated responses and internal variability estimates (Sections 2.9.2, 9.2.1, 9.4.1.2, 9.4.1.4; Figures 9.5, 9.6, 9.9).

Very Likely (>90%)

All multi-signal detection and attribution studies attribute more warming to greenhouse gas forcing than to a combination of all other sources considered, including internal variability, with a very high significance. This conclusion accounts for observational, model and forcing uncertainty, and the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by models. Main uncertainty from forcing and internal variability estimates (Section 9.4.1.4; Figure 9.9).
--------

​

of course this report is 5 years old with the next report not coming out till next year.

Need some help moving the goalposts?

No goalpost moving required or attempted.

You said no one said the debate was over.

Please reference the post where I said this. What I refuted was your implication that there had been any proclamation by science that the "debate was over," that was what we were talking about, and the context of the entire thread. It was clearly inherent to the post to which you responded and the responses I have given. I can't say that I find it terribly surprising that context and critical analysis are absent from your personal proficiencies-list.

You're kidding, right?

Two things pretty much killed the climate change debate.
1) The proclamation that the debate was over
2) All the cooking of the books and rationalization that the flawed data was necessary to generate the level of public concern necessary to end the debate...

Except that neither of these things ever occurred.

You look like an idiot trying to deny you said what you said.

Just another day at the office.

Your only possible response was, "Yes, I was wrong. Someone did say the debate was over."

But like most cultists, you're unable to admit when you're wrong.

There you go again, looking in a mirror and complaining about what you see.

Perhaps you can find a post of mine where I claim not to have said something I said.

You know, like you just did.

 

[Trakar]

Need some help moving the goalposts?

No goalpost moving required or attempted.
Please reference the post where I said this. What I refuted was your implication that there had been any proclamation by science that the "debate was over," that was what we were talking about, and the context of the entire thread. It was clearly inherent to the post to which you responded and the responses I have given. I can't say that I find it terribly surprising that context and critical analysis are absent from your personal proficiencies-list.

You're kidding, right?You look like an idiot trying to deny you said what you said.
Just another day at the office.

Again, looking in the mirror and not liking what you see. Well, I can't say I blame you there.

Obviously, context is a concept beyond your obviously limited capacities, I'll leave it for one of you pack ministers to explain to you.

 

[westwall]

No goalpost moving required or attempted.
Please reference the post where I said this. What I refuted was your implication that there had been any proclamation by science that the "debate was over," that was what we were talking about, and the context of the entire thread. It was clearly inherent to the post to which you responded and the responses I have given. I can't say that I find it terribly surprising that context and critical analysis are absent from your personal proficiencies-list.

You're kidding, right?You look like an idiot trying to deny you said what you said.
Just another day at the office.

Again, looking in the mirror and not liking what you see. Well, I can't say I blame you there.

Obviously, context is a concept beyond your obviously limited capacities, I'll leave it for one of you pack ministers to explain to you.

Let's see......moving the goalposts...let me count the ways...

Have you allways been this big a moron? Are these enough examples of the ever changing goalposts? I can post a few dozen more if you would like to really be made a fool of. What's the matter, you have problems with both long and short term memory?
Sad, it would be nice if you actually had some debate and research skills instead of just being a pathetic parrot.

Something might actually be learned, however, as you are no more than a parrot, we just get to play "whack a moron" with you and your posts.


Scientists 'expect climate tipping point' by 2200 - Science - News - The Independent

Tipping Points In Environmentalist Rhetoric: An Unscientific Survey of Nexis - Hit & Run : Reason.com

World has only ten years to control global warming, warns Met Office - Telegraph

BBC News - Green decline 'may bring irreversible change'

'We have hours' to prevent climate disaster - thestar.com

 

[Old Rocks]

Third year in a row with major crop losses in the world's breadbaskets due to stalled weather systems. But that is not relevant, right?

How the decline in Arctic Ice actually creates this situation.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg]Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daveman]

No goalpost moving required or attempted.
Please reference the post where I said this. What I refuted was your implication that there had been any proclamation by science that the "debate was over," that was what we were talking about, and the context of the entire thread. It was clearly inherent to the post to which you responded and the responses I have given. I can't say that I find it terribly surprising that context and critical analysis are absent from your personal proficiencies-list.

You're kidding, right?You look like an idiot trying to deny you said what you said.
Just another day at the office.

Again, looking in the mirror and not liking what you see. Well, I can't say I blame you there.

Obviously, context is a concept beyond your obviously limited capacities, I'll leave it for one of you pack ministers to explain to you.

You left out part of my post (as if that means it doesn't exist -- man, you leftists sure do like to pretend uncomfortable things simply aren't there, don't you? )

"Perhaps you can find a post of mine where I claim not to have said something I said.

You know, like you just did."

Hop to it, boy. School's starting, and you have homework.

 

[Trakar]

You're kidding, right?You look like an idiot trying to deny you said what you said.
Just another day at the office.

Again, looking in the mirror and not liking what you see. Well, I can't say I blame you there.

Obviously, context is a concept beyond your obviously limited capacities, I'll leave it for one of you pack ministers to explain to you.

You left out part of my post (as if that means it doesn't exist -- man, you leftists sure do like to pretend uncomfortable things simply aren't there, don't you? )

"Perhaps you can find a post of mine where I claim not to have said something I said.

You know, like you just did."

Until you find someone appropriately qualified to make a statement for mainstream science who says "the debate is over" you haven't demonstrated anything I've said is incorrect or improper. Correct and resubmit and I'll consider giving you partial credit.

 

[daveman]

Again, looking in the mirror and not liking what you see. Well, I can't say I blame you there.

Obviously, context is a concept beyond your obviously limited capacities, I'll leave it for one of you pack ministers to explain to you.

You left out part of my post (as if that means it doesn't exist -- man, you leftists sure do like to pretend uncomfortable things simply aren't there, don't you? )

"Perhaps you can find a post of mine where I claim not to have said something I said.

You know, like you just did."

Until you find someone appropriately qualified to make a statement for mainstream science who says "the debate is over" you haven't demonstrated anything I've said is incorrect or improper. Correct and resubmit and I'll consider giving you partial credit.

You lose. You said what you said, I proved you wrong, and no amount of dishonest weaseling on your part is going to change it.

 

[whitehall]

Why is the left so desperate to create a crisis within a couple of months of the election? Democrats thrive on fake crisis. The US is weakened because of the recent economic downturn and that's when radical lefties strike. Go to freaking China or Russia or Afghanistan and complain about global warming and leave the US alone for a couple of decades to recover and create alternate sources of energy instead of whining that the sky is falling.