The science against climate change

[IanC]

Arctic ice, corals, food production in the world's breadbaskets, wildfires, droughts, floods, and the northward extension of tropical diseases, none of this means anything to the denialists. It does not agree with their politics, therefore cannot be true.

Interesting, as President Obama's second term draws to a close, there will be another election. And, by then, the affects of the warming will be all too apperant. And guess who has been on the very wrong side of the debate?

Yes, exactly.

Which is absolutely baffling, especially in an age where so much information is available from so many different sources and across such a vast range as aspects of climate.

I have been genuinely surprised how little science many so-called Deniers have as the basis for their beliefs. On a thread like this one it has been clear very few posters actually wish to present or debate scientific alternatives to AGW.

saigon- you are confusing the vast pile of data which has many possible interpretations with the alarmist conclusions that many climate scientists add on to the end of their studies even when the actual evidence shows no actual conclusive support.

add to that the outright hostility of many or most climate publications to publishing any studies that show skeptical results and you end up where we are now with two camps with differing viewpoints and no way to even settle the points of agreement or to have the concensus side back down from some of its more exaggerated claims.

the skeptics dont have to produce the correct hypothesis and models. they arent funded to do that. they only have to show the weakness in the consensus science, and they have done that albeit to deaf ears.

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

Not only do climate deniers have every bit as much funding as th opposing camp; there is also a wealth of data and science produced by entirely neutral scientists which both sides can use as they wish.

Despite all of the hysteria to the contrary, I think it is clear that the overwhelming majority of genuinely scientific papers are sound, objective and meet acceptable standards.

As for you other point, if deniers can not produce any other credible theory to explain the changes in climate, then I would have thought they were bound to accept the theory most scientists accept.

While I agre solar acitivity warrants further analysis, it does seem that for mos objective observers, solar acitivity alone can not explain many of the changes we know for a fact are taking place.

 

[IanC]

Ian C -

Not only do climate deniers have every bit as much funding as th opposing camp; there is also a wealth of data and science produced by entirely neutral scientists which both sides can use as they wish.

Despite all of the hysteria to the contrary, I think it is clear that the overwhelming majority of genuinely scientific papers are sound, objective and meet acceptable standards.

As for you other point, if deniers can not produce any other credible theory to explain the changes in climate, then I would have thought they were bound to accept the theory most scientists accept.

While I agre solar acitivity warrants further analysis, it does seem that for mos objective observers, solar acitivity alone can not explain many of the changes we know for a fact are taking place.

hahahaha, how can you seriously state that climate deniers have every bit as much funding as AGW proponents?

anyways, let's discuss one major area of contention. positive feedbacks that supposedly increase the temperature increase of doubling CO2 from ~1C (by reasonable but not necessarily correct theoretical calculation) to the 3-4C claimed by the IPCC and incorporated into climate models. most of the dire predictions are predicated on the much higher climate sensitivity but the reality of temperature data (which may also be itself exaggerated) show that climate models are statistically wrong. there are many indications thatthere are no net positive feedbacks, by many methods and more everyday, yet established science is finding it very hard to publically back down from their inflated numbers because their prediction scenarios would melt away to next to nothing.

if the next IPCC report carries an estimate of, say, 1.1-4C per doubling with a best guess of 2.2, will you see that as a victory for skeptics who worked tirelessly to correct faulty mathematics in consensus side papers, or just a new estimate from recent and better data and calculation records?

 

[skookerasbil]

This forum is hysterical............


You talk about a place to visit that exemplifies the definition of clueless..........this is the place. How many times do we come on here and read about "peer reviewed", "scientific papers", "consensus", "the IPCC says.....", "established science......".


But its not mattering for dick in the real world.

These people are like the guy who walks around with a museum piece gorgan, brags about it plenty but never gets to poke a single babe!!

You stupid oddball social invalids.................the level of inability to connect the dots is profound. You assholes come in here daily and post up the same BS year after year after year.......and where has it gotten you? Go look up the definition of "mental case"................ http://rodgerv.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/insanity-doing-the-same-thing-over-and-over-again-and-expecting-different-results/

 

[skookerasbil]

You climate change nuts should broaden your science horizons a bit.............theres lots of interesting stuff out there to be dabbling in that wuld be more productive...................

Here ya go.......some new information about nut hoarding squirrels....... Fox squirrels show long-term investment savvy when hoarding nuts

 

[skookerasbil]

http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Korchinski-Limits-of-Wind-Power.pdf

 

[Saigon]

hahahaha, how can you seriously state that climate deniers have every bit as much funding as AGW proponents?

Because of the massive funding ploughed into research by the coal, oil and nuclear industries.

These industries generate several hundred times as much revenue as renewables, and spend several hundred times more on research as a result.

It's common sense and common knowledge, I would have thought.

 

[Old Rocks]

What is interesting here is that if we launch a satellite to observe the weather, the denialists count that as funded for AGW. If there is a study of glaciers, they count that as funded for AGW. A study of permafrost is counted as for AGW. You see, even though these studies are neutral in and of themselves, just providing data, since that data shows AGW to be a fact, they have to state that it is all part of a conspiracy.

Even as the predictions of the climatologists are coming true, they stand and deny that it is happening. No amount of evidence is going to change their minds. It is a political matter with them, reality be damned.

 

[IanC]

hahahaha, how can you seriously state that climate deniers have every bit as much funding as AGW proponents?

Because of the massive funding ploughed into research by the coal, oil and nuclear industries.

These industries generate several hundred times as much revenue as renewables, and spend several hundred times more on research as a result.

It's common sense and common knowledge, I would have thought.

if 97% of scientists believe in AGW that leaves 3% as sceptical scientists. you are saying those 3% are getting 30 times as much funding as the other 97%? would you care to name the skeptical scientists and the amounts they are getting to fund their work? it doesnt seem to make sense to me because it only retired or successfully established and tenured climate scientists have the temerity to buck consensus and speak against AGW.

actually it seems like people like Willie Soon were publically castigated for taking a few hundred thousand dollars over a decade, from the oil industry. surely you arent saying a few million dollars here and there amounts to anything more than a rounding error to the money passed out to study AGW?

 

[Saigon]

What is interesting here is that if we launch a satellite to observe the weather, the denialists count that as funded for AGW. If there is a study of glaciers, they count that as funded for AGW. A study of permafrost is counted as for AGW. You see, even though these studies are neutral in and of themselves, just providing data, since that data shows AGW to be a fact, they have to state that it is all part of a conspiracy.

Even as the predictions of the climatologists are coming true, they stand and deny that it is happening. No amount of evidence is going to change their minds. It is a political matter with them, reality be damned.

Exactly, and well said.

I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of scientists are honest, hard-working people who are far more interested in science than politics.

As a journalist I interviewed the head of physics at Finland's largest university a while ago. He is involved with research into cloud formation. This guy has dedicated his life to physics, loved it from the time he was a child. He has lectured in the US and is heavily involved in CERN.

And yet according to many of our posters here, we should ignore his research because Aalto University is funded by the Finnish government, and they are are biased. They are also conservatives and also support nuclear energy, but apparently they are biased and must be ignored, purely and simply because they listen to scientists.

This kind of thinking can ONLY be political.

 

[skookerasbil]

What is interesting here is that if we launch a satellite to observe the weather, the denialists count that as funded for AGW. If there is a study of glaciers, they count that as funded for AGW. A study of permafrost is counted as for AGW. You see, even though these studies are neutral in and of themselves, just providing data, since that data shows AGW to be a fact, they have to state that it is all part of a conspiracy.

Even as the predictions of the climatologists are coming true, they stand and deny that it is happening. No amount of evidence is going to change their minds. It is a political matter with them, reality be damned.

Actually Ray......its more a matter of economics than anything.


Id love to take a 10 minute drive this morning down to the local Nissan dealer and drive out with a new R35GTR. Unfortuantely, my financial obligations prohibit me from doing so..........doesnt take me long to reconcile that.


A couple of posts back, I threw up a link on the reality of wind power ( GlobalWarming.com or soemthing ike that............ ironically!!!! ) and its inherent flaws in making any appreciable difference in meeting our energy needs. At this point in the 21st century, my reality > your reality. And nothing is going to change that. Hopefully for your side, somebody becomes innovative with the technology and we can apply effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions. Short of that, indeed, any further discussion is economically and politically infeasible.


I admire the hell out of you for presenting your side Ray, but its simply not feasible................its like the analogy I made with a dripping faucet for a homeowner. Its ALWAYS last on the list of thngs to do. When a pipe bursts on the other hand, people pay attention..........when people are waterskiing in northern Alaska for three weeks in mid-January, the pipe will have burst.

 

[IanC]

What is interesting here is that if we launch a satellite to observe the weather, the denialists count that as funded for AGW. If there is a study of glaciers, they count that as funded for AGW. A study of permafrost is counted as for AGW. You see, even though these studies are neutral in and of themselves, just providing data, since that data shows AGW to be a fact, they have to state that it is all part of a conspiracy.

Even as the predictions of the climatologists are coming true, they stand and deny that it is happening. No amount of evidence is going to change their minds. It is a political matter with them, reality be damned.

OK. you have a point. but the data that is collected is also held by pro-AGW scientists who decide if it will be released. Lonnie Thompson is the poster boy for making inconvenient data disappear if it is not useful for AGW and probably would be a boon for the sceptics.

I wish Big Oil would pony up the cash so that Steve McIntyre could have a couple of interns to do the grunt work for his investigations. I wish some University would assign some of their statisticians to audit the methodologies of climate science. I wish Science and Nature and many of the other peer review paper publishers would actually follow their rules for making data available.

 

[skookerasbil]

What is interesting here is that if we launch a satellite to observe the weather, the denialists count that as funded for AGW. If there is a study of glaciers, they count that as funded for AGW. A study of permafrost is counted as for AGW. You see, even though these studies are neutral in and of themselves, just providing data, since that data shows AGW to be a fact, they have to state that it is all part of a conspiracy.

Even as the predictions of the climatologists are coming true, they stand and deny that it is happening. No amount of evidence is going to change their minds. It is a political matter with them, reality be damned.

OK. you have a point. but the data that is collected is also held by pro-AGW scientists who decide if it will be released. Lonnie Thompson is the poster boy for making inconvenient data disappear if it is not useful for AGW and probably would be a boon for the sceptics.

I wish Big Oil would pony up the cash so that Steve McIntyre could have a couple of interns to do the grunt work for his investigations. I wish some University would assign some of their statisticians to audit the methodologies of climate science. I wish Science and Nature and many of the other peer review paper publishers would actually follow their rules for making data available.

For what end s0n? For what end exactly?


Not going to change dick on the landscape...........hate to burst your bubble but that is just the way it is.

 

[flacaltenn]

What is interesting here is that if we launch a satellite to observe the weather, the denialists count that as funded for AGW. If there is a study of glaciers, they count that as funded for AGW. A study of permafrost is counted as for AGW. You see, even though these studies are neutral in and of themselves, just providing data, since that data shows AGW to be a fact, they have to state that it is all part of a conspiracy.

Even as the predictions of the climatologists are coming true, they stand and deny that it is happening. No amount of evidence is going to change their minds. It is a political matter with them, reality be damned.

OK. you have a point. but the data that is collected is also held by pro-AGW scientists who decide if it will be released. Lonnie Thompson is the poster boy for making inconvenient data disappear if it is not useful for AGW and probably would be a boon for the sceptics.

I wish Big Oil would pony up the cash so that Steve McIntyre could have a couple of interns to do the grunt work for his investigations. I wish some University would assign some of their statisticians to audit the methodologies of climate science. I wish Science and Nature and many of the other peer review paper publishers would actually follow their rules for making data available.

Or how about the IPCC just changing it's mission statement to "INVESTIGATE CLIMATE CHANGE" --- rather than only investigating those "contributions of MAN-MADE climate change"..

Funny thing about skeptics.. Even in the case of OTHER political hijinks.. They FEED on the less than FULL AND HONEST disclosure from the KEEPERS of that info.. Skeptics multiply because information is whitewashed or withheld in the first place.

OPEN UP the process on AGW that has amply been demonstrated to be closed and restricted to the normal scientific enquiry ----- and you'd kill A LOT OF US skeptics faster than just calling us names..

And NO O.R. --- I don't count an orbiting solar observatory as an expenditure on AGW. That would be ridiculous. What is NOT ridiculous -- is when a group of pro-AGW academics HIJACK the data set from that satellite and start applying ARBITRARY corrections OVER THE OBJECTIONS of the creators of that instrumentation and directors of it's mission and the IPCC blesses those corrections in order to PRESERVE their mission of pushing ANTHROPOMORPHIC influences. ..

Because then -- they've turned a valuable scientific tool into a weapon of propaganda dissemenation and they SHOULD be charged for the total cost of that mission.

 

[westwall]

What is interesting here is that if we launch a satellite to observe the weather, the denialists count that as funded for AGW. If there is a study of glaciers, they count that as funded for AGW. A study of permafrost is counted as for AGW. You see, even though these studies are neutral in and of themselves, just providing data, since that data shows AGW to be a fact, they have to state that it is all part of a conspiracy.

Even as the predictions of the climatologists are coming true, they stand and deny that it is happening. No amount of evidence is going to change their minds. It is a political matter with them, reality be damned.

OK. you have a point. but the data that is collected is also held by pro-AGW scientists who decide if it will be released. Lonnie Thompson is the poster boy for making inconvenient data disappear if it is not useful for AGW and probably would be a boon for the sceptics.

I wish Big Oil would pony up the cash so that Steve McIntyre could have a couple of interns to do the grunt work for his investigations. I wish some University would assign some of their statisticians to audit the methodologies of climate science. I wish Science and Nature and many of the other peer review paper publishers would actually follow their rules for making data available.

Or how about the IPCC just changing it's mission statement to "INVESTIGATE CLIMATE CHANGE" --- rather than only investigating those "contributions of MAN-MADE climate change"..

Funny thing about skeptics.. Even in the case of OTHER political hijinks.. They FEED on the less than FULL AND HONEST disclosure from the KEEPERS of that info.. Skeptics multiply because information is whitewashed or withheld in the first place.

OPEN UP the process on AGW that has amply been demonstrated to be closed and restricted to the normal scientific enquiry ----- and you'd kill A LOT OF US skeptics faster than just calling us names..

And NO O.R. --- I don't count an orbiting solar observatory as an expenditure on AGW. That would be ridiculous. What is NOT ridiculous -- is when a group of pro-AGW academics HIJACK the data set from that satellite and start applying ARBITRARY corrections OVER THE OBJECTIONS of the creators of that instrumentation and directors of it's mission and the IPCC blesses those corrections in order to PRESERVE their mission of pushing ANTHROPOMORPHIC influences. ..

Because then -- they've turned a valuable scientific tool into a weapon of propaganda dissemenation and they SHOULD be charged for the total cost of that mission.

I agree they should be "charged", tried, convicted and sentenced to long terms in the state prison.

 

[skookerasbil]

Check this out boys.........the k00ks are back at it this am..........

Arctic Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise May Pose Imminent Threat To Island Nations, Climate Scientist Says



And what a surprise............always talking about the Arctic ice. As if the south pole doesnt exist!!!

 

[konradv]

Check this out boys.........the k00ks are back at it this am..........

Arctic Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise May Pose Imminent Threat To Island Nations, Climate Scientist Says

And what a surprise............always talking about the Arctic ice. As if the south pole doesnt exist!!!

How about reading an article once in a while? Antarctica IS mentioned. FAIL!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Check this out boys.........the k00ks are back at it this am..........

Arctic Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise May Pose Imminent Threat To Island Nations, Climate Scientist Says

And what a surprise............always talking about the Arctic ice. As if the south pole doesnt exist!!!

How about reading an article once in a while? Antarctica IS mentioned. FAIL!!!

LOL........where the ice is expanding!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Except for a tiny area in the western part of Antarctica, the whole fucking thing is expanding faster than Oprah coming off her twinkie diet.........the dickhead scientist conveniently ignores that though!!!

 

[Saigon]

LOL........where the ice is expanding!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Except for a tiny area in the western part of Antarctica, the whole fucking thing is expanding faster than Oprah coming off her twinkie diet.........the dickhead scientist conveniently ignores that though!!!

You are a silly, pathetic little child, really, aren't you Skooks?

The Antarctic as a whole IS losing ice. Fact.

"Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too."

NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?

An honest poster would admit this, and thus come a little closer to understanding something of the topic- Do you have those kind of balls?

Let's see.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL........where the ice is expanding!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Except for a tiny area in the western part of Antarctica, the whole fucking thing is expanding faster than Oprah coming off her twinkie diet.........the dickhead scientist conveniently ignores that though!!!

You are a silly, pathetic little child, really, aren't you Skooks?

The Antarctic as a whole IS losing ice. Fact.

"Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too."

NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?

An honest poster would admit this, and thus come a little closer to understanding something of the topic- Do you have those kind of balls?

Let's see.

Let's see, in relatively recent geological times the ice melted from entire North American continent -- including all of Canada, but that process stopped and is only restarting because of the "extra" CO2 as a result of burning "Fossil fuels"?

Is that right?

The temperature rose enough to melt an entire continent of ice....but then it stopped -- and then restarted in the last 100 years.

Does that even sound sane to you?