Climate Change Deniers Are Lying

[frigidweirdo]

Frigid -- You said..

If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it will rain", and it doesn't rain, I am wrong.
If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it might rain", and it doesn't rain, then what? Sure, my prediction was wrong, however I also expressed that there was doubt about what I said. I suggested that it might not rain.

So Frigid -- If the science is truly settled, --- how is it that the :"consensus" that you fanatics keep quoting is nothing BUT MIGHTs and COULDs????

Find me a RECENT projection of what the temperature anomaly in 2050 will be --- according to this "settled science"...

Your comment is CORRECT -- these CChange projections are full of doubt and coated with a hefty dose of BullShit. How do you get 97% consensus on doubt???

Science isn't "truly settled" and I even said this in a previous post. So you're trying to basically hit me with what you're comfortable with, not with what I said.

Again, we're talking about the future where there are unpredictable elements.

Again, the ice sheets are melting. Not consistently, but they're melting.
Again, global temperatures are rising, not consistently, but they're rising.
Again, CO2 levels are rising, consistently.
Again, things are going wrong.

What your argument appears to be is A) we can't predict the future totally accurately, so we shouldn't even try, and we shouldn't heed any warnings about the future and B) if you can't predict the future, shut up.

Can you predict that there WON'T be any problems in the future?

Science says something bad is coming. Weather is becoming more erratic. Hurricanes are becoming stronger, tornadoes are becoming more frequent, it's becoming warmer in the summer etc etc.

Yet you ignore all scientific data to stick your head up your ass. Why?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Frigid -- You said..

If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it will rain", and it doesn't rain, I am wrong.
If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it might rain", and it doesn't rain, then what? Sure, my prediction was wrong, however I also expressed that there was doubt about what I said. I suggested that it might not rain.

So Frigid -- If the science is truly settled, --- how is it that the :"consensus" that you fanatics keep quoting is nothing BUT MIGHTs and COULDs????

Find me a RECENT projection of what the temperature anomaly in 2050 will be --- according to this "settled science"...

Your comment is CORRECT -- these CChange projections are full of doubt and coated with a hefty dose of BullShit. How do you get 97% consensus on doubt???

Science isn't "truly settled" and I even said this in a previous post. So you're trying to basically hit me with what you're comfortable with, not with what I said.

Again, we're talking about the future where there are unpredictable elements.

Again, the ice sheets are melting. Not consistently, but they're melting.
Again, global temperatures are rising, not consistently, but they're rising.
Again, CO2 levels are rising, consistently.
Again, things are going wrong.

What your argument appears to be is A) we can't predict the future totally accurately, so we shouldn't even try, and we shouldn't heed any warnings about the future and B) if you can't predict the future, shut up.

Can you predict that there WON'T be any problems in the future?

Science says something bad is coming. Weather is becoming more erratic. Hurricanes are becoming stronger, tornadoes are becoming more frequent, it's becoming warmer in the summer etc etc.

Yet you ignore all scientific data to stick your head up your ass. Why?

Where do you get this bull shit?

Cyclonic energy is way down (50 year low)
Tornado energy is way down (60 year low)
Hurricane energy is at a (75 year low)
Sever storms globally are at 100 year lows.

The only ones with their heads up their asses is you (and few other alarmists). You have taken the lies hook, line, and sinker.. It is truly amazing that you folks cant even check your facts before posting and take the lies you spew as gospel truth.

 

[IanC]

In the 1980’s, James Hansen and Steven Schneider led the charge in informing the public of the risks of potential anthropogenic climate change. Sir John Houghton and Bert Bolin played similar roles in Europe. This charge was embraced by the environmental advocacy groups, and global warming alarmism was born. During this period I would say that many if not most researchers, including myself, were skeptical that global warming was detectable in the temperature record and that it would have dire consequences.
Source​

thanks for an outstanding link. On the Credibility of Climate Research Part II TowardsRebuilding Trust

I encourage everyone to read it. cnm, I am not sure what your quote from her is supposed to represent? that Schneider flipped from ice age scare to runaway warming scare? Hansen and the environmental groups invented CAGW alarmism? that most climate scientists were skeptical that a CO2 signal could be teased out of the global temp dataset?

other quotes from the link

Credibility is a combination of expertise and trust. While scientists persist in thinking that they should be trusted because of their expertise, climategate has made it clear that expertise itself is not a sufficient basis for public trust. The fallout from climategate is much broader than the allegations of misconduct by scientists at two universities. Of greatest importance is the reduced credibility of the IPCC assessment reports, which are providing the scientific basis for international policies on climate change. Recent disclosures about the IPCC have brought up a host of concerns about the IPCC that had been festering in the background: involvement of IPCC scientists in explicit climate policy advocacy; tribalism that excluded skeptics; hubris of scientists with regards to a noble (Nobel) cause; alarmism; and inadequate attention to the statistics of uncertainty and the complexity of alternative interpretations.

So who are the climate auditors? They are technically educated people, mostly outside of academia. Several individuals have developed substantial expertise in aspects of climate science, although they mainly audit rather than produce original scientific research. They tend to be watchdogs rather than deniers; many of them classify themselves as “lukewarmers”. They are independent of oil industry influence. They have found a collective voice in the blogosphere and their posts are often picked up by the mainstream media. They are demanding greater accountability and transparency of climate research and assessment reports.

The failure of the public and policy makers to understand the truth as presented by the IPCC is often blamed on difficulties of communicating such a complex topic to a relatively uneducated public that is referred to as “unscientific America” by Chris Mooney. Efforts are made to “dumb down” the message and to frame the message to respond to issues that are salient to the audience. People have heard the alarm, but they remain unconvinced because of a perceived political agenda and lack of trust of the message and the messengers. At the same time, there is a large group of educated and evidence driven people (e.g. the libertarians, people that read the technical skeptic blogs, not to mention policy makers) who want to understand the risk and uncertainties associated with climate change, without being told what kinds of policies they should be supporting. More effective communication strategies can be devised by recognizing that there are two groups with different levels of base knowledge about the topic. But building trust through public communication on this topic requires that uncertainty be acknowledged

( as an aside- the Chris Mooney mentioned above is a non scientist that was arbitrarily put on the AGU board of directors by the president. I hear lots of complaints about so-and-so only having a BA in (x) but I didnt hear anyone here complain that Mooney was under qualified to speak for the AGU. or that his rabid anticonservative position was anything but a positive attribute.)

 

[frigidweirdo]

Where do you get this bull shit?

Cyclonic energy is way down (50 year low)
Tornado energy is way down (60 year low)
Hurricane energy is at a (75 year low)
Sever storms globally are at 100 year lows.

The only ones with their heads up their asses is you (and few other alarmists). You have taken the lies hook, line, and sinker.. It is truly amazing that you folks cant even check your facts before posting and take the lies you spew as gospel truth.

This "bullshit" as you put it?

First, you've presented Accumulated Cyclone Energy and nothing else. The largest ACE for a hurricane was in 2006 at a level of 86 for Hurricane Loke, a cyclone in the Pacific.

Also, we're talking about weather being more erratic. This included massive hurricane seasons followed by extremely quiet hurricane seasons, that's the definition of erratic, you don't know what's going to happen.

Hmm, let's see some other stuff. From the same source as your chart

The number of tropical storms has increased. Some years there are less, like 2009 which would have been an average year in the 1970s.

Again, North Atlantic energy has also increased over time.

Here is a global tropical cyclone power dissipation index showing highs in the 1990s and 2000s.

There's a lot of data out there. A lot of it points to more erratic behavior from the weather. However it's not all up up up.

 

[jc456]

Still today?

I agree with what Judith Curry says here about the scientific consensus, which idea of scientists agreeing she uses when she wishes. She seems to disagree with you about the property of CO₂ and whether a hypothesis has been 'proven'.

So, what do climate scientists agree on? Scientists agree that

• Surface temperatures have increased since 1880
• Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
• Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet

NARUC Panel Discussion on Climate Change Climate Etc.​

And nothing blaming human kind for warming. Yep agree with her

 

[jc456]

Exactly what was twisted?? He quoted some 22 year projections, then launched in the BRAND NEW STUDY that projected seven years. And for EMPHASIS -- He dramatically repeated seven years..

Are you that biased that you can't fathom the facts??

P.S. We should probably be a bit ashamed of whatever Navy Research Agency that issued that 7 yr prediction came. And leave Al Gore to choke on all his "carbon credit" investment schemes.

Again, he said it MIGHT.

If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it will rain", and it doesn't rain, I am wrong.
If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it might rain", and it doesn't rain, then what? Sure, my prediction was wrong, however I also expressed that there was doubt about what I said. I suggested that it might not rain.

This is simple English.

If you pretend he said "will" when he did not say "will" then you are twisting.

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/222/ait.pdf

"The main scientific argument presented in the movie is for the most part consistent with the weight of scientific evidence, but with some of the main points needing updating, correction, or qualification."

"Most of the major elements of the scientific argument presented in AIT are consistent, in whole or in part, with the existing scientific consensus."

But this is science. We don't really understand perfectly the impact of global warming, either natural or man made. Man made is difficult in that it's not happened before.
So, Al Gore used scientific data, presented a POSSIBILITY of the immediate future. So, many people who deny that man is causing major problems, generally because they believe the advertising of the oil companies and others who have an interest in ignoring man made climate change.

What we knew back in 2005=2007 has changed. More data is available.

What is weird is that even though the Earth is warming up........

The US is warming up. Many people suggest that dips in warming are proof that warming isn't happening, but you have dips and you have rises. ANd the overall trend is a rise as you can see. However many people take US warming or cooling as evidence of GLOBAL cooling. But the US never has been the whole world.

Here are the global temperatures

We can see there is a rise in temperatures.


What is weird is that even though the world is warming up....... ice caps aren't melting as was previously predicted.

We just don't understand what they're doing. So predictions are made which are generally quite simplistic.

This doesn't mean there isn't a problem with man made global warming. It means it's worse. It means we can't predict what will happen with man made global warming, we know it's not going to be very nice though.

Again, it was the context of the speech and the doom and gloom to it. He was wrong, right?

 

[skookerasbil]

That makes no sense to anyone.

And Gore never predicted or said the Arctic would be ice free by now. That's a denier zombie lie that just won't die.

Bubble dwelling liars are ghey >>>




f'ing dUh



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/burnout.gif.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

These k00k progressives put it on a tee for you ALL the time!!! Like a big old pumpkin and you got the bat!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

Frigid -- You said..

If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it will rain", and it doesn't rain, I am wrong.
If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it might rain", and it doesn't rain, then what? Sure, my prediction was wrong, however I also expressed that there was doubt about what I said. I suggested that it might not rain.

So Frigid -- If the science is truly settled, --- how is it that the :"consensus" that you fanatics keep quoting is nothing BUT MIGHTs and COULDs????

Find me a RECENT projection of what the temperature anomaly in 2050 will be --- according to this "settled science"...

Your comment is CORRECT -- these CChange projections are full of doubt and coated with a hefty dose of BullShit. How do you get 97% consensus on doubt???

Science isn't "truly settled" and I even said this in a previous post. So you're trying to basically hit me with what you're comfortable with, not with what I said.

Again, we're talking about the future where there are unpredictable elements.

Again, the ice sheets are melting. Not consistently, but they're melting.
Again, global temperatures are rising, not consistently, but they're rising.
Again, CO2 levels are rising, consistently.
Again, things are going wrong.

What your argument appears to be is A) we can't predict the future totally accurately, so we shouldn't even try, and we shouldn't heed any warnings about the future and B) if you can't predict the future, shut up.

Can you predict that there WON'T be any problems in the future?

Science says something bad is coming. Weather is becoming more erratic. Hurricanes are becoming stronger, tornadoes are becoming more frequent, it's becoming warmer in the summer etc etc.

Yet you ignore all scientific data to stick your head up your ass. Why?

Sorry if I hit you with an allegation that doesn't fit.. ADMIRE that you actually want to discuss evidence.. Can't do it all in tainted thread like this.. Some of those "RAW" numbers on tornadoes and hurricanes just come from better and advanced detection tools. A LOT of tropical storms are now "hurricanes" for a day or an hour because of pro-active data gathering. Same with tornadoes. EF0 touchdowns are much detectable and verifiable than they were 20 years ago. AND (since I live in tornado country and helped design a part of the NextRad Weather system) they are declaring MORE tornadoes because a single storm track can now produce multiple touchdowns ---- all declared as separate events..

As for list of "warnings" ----

Again, the ice sheets are melting. Not consistently, but they're melting.
Again, global temperatures are rising, not consistently, but they're rising.
Again, CO2 levels are rising, consistently.
Again, things are going wrong.

This is all true. But not inconsistent with a recovery from a Little Ice Age in the 1700s. Even the more reliable proxy records like ice cores show that previous "warm periods" in the past 0.5mil years are not flat. And nobody should suspect that a complex system like the earth climate is free of "ringing" transients and unsettled movement to new equilibriums. Besides --- I'd rather suffer a 0.5degC rise in my lifetime and see some ice melting, than worry about a climate where the ice is growing.. Ice is a very non-linear thermometer and that's part of why I don't fuss over the yearly changes.

I understand that CO2 has some limited warming power. But Climate Science has in the past gone BEYOND the Physics approximation of 1degC/ doubling of CO2 to give CO2 magical SUPERPOWERS that multiply this ability to warm by ridiculous factors 4 to 8 times the actual warming power of CO2. When actually -- what we have OBSERVED since man started to contribute to CO2 loading in the atmos is WAAAAY closer to the Physics approximation and no where NEAR the failed modeling attempts to make it stronger..

The whole GW theory states that CO2 is only the trigger event for a 2degC (or so) change that cause the earth to self-destruct.. It's THAT part of the theory that is under attack and why I'm a skeptic..

You have MANY prominent scientists -- just in the past couple years, including ones formerly involved in the UN IPCC process and the BEST study -- who have stated that natural variations have been underestimated and the hysterical part of warming powers for CO2. have been overestimated. Pretty much what makes them all "deniers"...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Again, it was the context of the speech and the doom and gloom to it. He was wrong, right?

Was he wrong? No, I don't think so.

The world is changing. We're not in control of what goes on. At this level of change, within 30 or 40 years we're going to have major problems. What will they be? Hard to predict to an exact science, however we'd be looking at a warmer climate.

Could this make the equatorial areas uninhabitable at sea level? Perhaps, which would cause no end of immigration issues.

China has estimated its CO2 output will stabilise by about 2030. It's already pumping out too much for its own people, let alone for the rest of the world, and it's not even the worst. New Delhi is apparently the worst city right now.

Doom and gloom there is. We need to seriously start cutting back on CO2 emissions before we start killing ourselves and other animals.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thanks everyone for bringing up Gore again in a thread about lying.. My Gore file hadn't gotten any new additions in AGES.. Now this is news to me...

Copenhagen climate summit Al Gore condemned over Arctic ice melting prediction - Telegraph

Copenhagen Conference was in Dec 2009.

Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, has become embroiled in a climate change spin row after claiming that the Arctic could be completely ice-free within five years.

Speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, Mr Gore said new computer modelling suggests there is a 75 per cent chance of the entire polar ice cap melting during the summertime by 2014.
ADVERTISING
However, he faced embarrassment last night after Dr Wieslav Maslowski, the climatologist whose work the prediction was based on, refuted his claims.
Dr Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, told The Times: “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at.
“I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Alluding to Dr Maslowski’s work, he said: “These figures are fresh, I just got them yesterday.
"Some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of summer months could be completely ice free within five to seven years.

So it progresses from MIGHTs and COULDs to a phony claim of 75% certain... Except that the guy doing the work never GAVE a probability.. What else do you need to know about Climate Change and Liars?

Gore knows he will skate because only 1% of the people that heard his mangled prediction would ever hear the response from Maslowski.. Damage done.. Walk away...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Frigid -- You said..

If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it will rain", and it doesn't rain, I am wrong.
If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it might rain", and it doesn't rain, then what? Sure, my prediction was wrong, however I also expressed that there was doubt about what I said. I suggested that it might not rain.

So Frigid -- If the science is truly settled, --- how is it that the :"consensus" that you fanatics keep quoting is nothing BUT MIGHTs and COULDs????

Find me a RECENT projection of what the temperature anomaly in 2050 will be --- according to this "settled science"...

Your comment is CORRECT -- these CChange projections are full of doubt and coated with a hefty dose of BullShit. How do you get 97% consensus on doubt???

Science isn't "truly settled" and I even said this in a previous post. So you're trying to basically hit me with what you're comfortable with, not with what I said.

Again, we're talking about the future where there are unpredictable elements.

Again, the ice sheets are melting. Not consistently, but they're melting.
Again, global temperatures are rising, not consistently, but they're rising.
Again, CO2 levels are rising, consistently.
Again, things are going wrong.

What your argument appears to be is A) we can't predict the future totally accurately, so we shouldn't even try, and we shouldn't heed any warnings about the future and B) if you can't predict the future, shut up.

Can you predict that there WON'T be any problems in the future?

Science says something bad is coming. Weather is becoming more erratic. Hurricanes are becoming stronger, tornadoes are becoming more frequent, it's becoming warmer in the summer etc etc.

Yet you ignore all scientific data to stick your head up your ass. Why?

Sorry if I hit you with an allegation that doesn't fit.. ADMIRE that you actually want to discuss evidence.. Can't do it all in tainted thread like this.. Some of those "RAW" numbers on tornadoes and hurricanes just come from better and advanced detection tools. A LOT of tropical storms are now "hurricanes" for a day or an hour because of pro-active data gathering. Same with tornadoes. EF0 touchdowns are much detectable and verifiable than they were 20 years ago. AND (since I live in tornado country and helped design a part of the NextRad Weather system) they are declaring MORE tornadoes because a single storm track can now produce multiple touchdowns ---- all declared as separate events..

As for list of "warnings" ----

Again, the ice sheets are melting. Not consistently, but they're melting.
Again, global temperatures are rising, not consistently, but they're rising.
Again, CO2 levels are rising, consistently.
Again, things are going wrong.

This is all true. But not inconsistent with a recovery from a Little Ice Age in the 1700s. Even the more reliable proxy records like ice cores show that previous "warm periods" in the past 0.5mil years are not flat. And nobody should suspect that a complex system like the earth climate is free of "ringing" transients and unsettled movement to new equilibriums. Besides --- I'd rather suffer a 0.5degC rise in my lifetime and see some ice melting, than worry about a climate where the ice is growing.. Ice is a very non-linear thermometer and that's part of why I don't fuss over the yearly changes.

I understand that CO2 has some limited warming power. But Climate Science has in the past gone BEYOND the Physics approximation of 1degC/ doubling of CO2 to give CO2 magical SUPERPOWERS that multiply this ability to warm by ridiculous factors 4 to 8 times the actual warming power of CO2. When actually -- what we have OBSERVED since man started to contribute to CO2 loading in the atmos is WAAAAY closer to the Physics approximation and no where NEAR the failed modeling attempts to make it stronger..

The whole GW theory states that CO2 is only the trigger event for a 2degC (or so) change that cause the earth to self-destruct.. It's THAT part of the theory that is under attack and why I'm a skeptic..

You have MANY prominent scientists -- just in the past couple years, including ones formerly involved in the UN IPCC process and the BEST study -- who have stated that natural variations have been underestimated and the hysterical part of warming powers for CO2. have been overestimated. Pretty much what makes them all "deniers"...

You talk about what is consistent from ending a little ice age. However we're not ending a little ice age, in theory, as far as I can tell, we should be ending a peak in high temperatures.

We've gone through a large rise in temperatures as has happened three times in the past according to what we understand of Antarctic ice core data. This data suggests a higher rise, lesser rise, higher rise, could we predict a lesser rise as happened 200,000 years ago?
Then we should have expected a drop in temperatures.

I'd say this is consistent with what we're seeing. We ARE seeing a drop in NATURAL temperatures.

Scientists have been predicting a rise in temperatures because of man made stuff. We're seeing this too. A drop and a rise have seen slight rises in temperatures, or a levelling out of temperatures.

So, if we're seeing data that you say is consistent with a time we shouldn't be seeing for a while, then that would be a little worrying, right? Rather than data that is consistent with where we would expect to be.

Scientists often look at things from a certain perspective. It's hard to understand why a scientist says something one way or another.
Funding could be a big thing. Some give data which is pro-Apocalypse because they're paid to. Others are paid to give no change, no worries messages.

What I'm seeing with the evidence that seems to be available, is that we're warming up.

When I was a kid we had snow, lots of snow. Then the snow stopped. It came back a little but no where near as much as before. Natural? Well I'd suggest again that we should be getting colder. But what I'm seeing with my eyes, and what I'm seeing with a lot of the evidence available, is that we're just not going in that direction.

We're getting warmer in a manner that is inconsistent with how we think the temperatures should be going. Now, if CO2 is rising and rising and rising, this could mean a continuing rise of what? You're suggesting only a few degrees then the effects wear off. Perhaps. What is more worrying is that, say, in China where cancer rates are increasing. Partly due to a population that is stable for the first time in a long time, but also due to massive amounts of pollution in the air.

PubMed Central Table 2 Cancer Biol Med. 2012 Jun 9 2 128 132. doi 10.3969 j.issn.2095-3941.2012.02.009

Chinese lung cancer rates are 14.3% among women and 14.5% among American women.

Seeing as you don't see many women smoking in China, it's mostly a male thing that is changing, yet rates are about the same in women, is perhaps due to the amount of pollution in big and small cities in China.

PubMed Central Table 1 Cancer Biol Med. 2012 Jun 9 2 128 132. doi 10.3969 j.issn.2095-3941.2012.02.009

In Chinese men it's 21.7% and US men 15.4%.

There's a lot of information here about what this could mean, but simply said the Chinese lung cancer rate is higher. More smokers in China than the US? Possibly. 2/3rds of men smoke in China (compared to 4% of women) compared to 18% of men in the USA.

However I'd also suggest that a lot of smokers are older men, who may never get tested for cancer in China. You get ill and your family can't afford to pay to go to hospital, you don't get found out as a victim of cancer.

The mother of some Chinese girl I knew had cancer and she couldn't afford it, she died while being told that traditional chinese medicine could cure her.

So, I'd suggest that lung cancer rates in China are sky high, and it's to do with pollution. China will grow, if it becomes the level of the US in terms of economic and comfort levels for most people, then pollution levels with triple, quadruple in the next 15 years of growth in pollution that is estimated.

On top of this we have the uncontrollable and unknown effects this could have on weather, we should probably be scared.

Then imagine India gets up to Chinese levels. That's be an extra 1.5 billion, 1/5 of the world's population alone, that would be pumping out pollution at US levels. Things are going to get nasty.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Thanks everyone for bringing up Gore again in a thread about lying.. My Gore file hadn't gotten any new additions in AGES.. Now this is news to me...

Copenhagen climate summit Al Gore condemned over Arctic ice melting prediction - Telegraph

Copenhagen Conference was in Dec 2009.

Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, has become embroiled in a climate change spin row after claiming that the Arctic could be completely ice-free within five years.

Speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, Mr Gore said new computer modelling suggests there is a 75 per cent chance of the entire polar ice cap melting during the summertime by 2014.
ADVERTISING
However, he faced embarrassment last night after Dr Wieslav Maslowski, the climatologist whose work the prediction was based on, refuted his claims.
Dr Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, told The Times: “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at.
“I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Alluding to Dr Maslowski’s work, he said: “These figures are fresh, I just got them yesterday.
"Some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of summer months could be completely ice free within five to seven years.

So it progresses from MIGHTs and COULDs to a phony claim of 75% certain... Except that the guy doing the work never GAVE a probability.. What else do you need to know about Climate Change and Liars?

Gore knows he will skate because only 1% of the people that heard his mangled prediction would ever hear the response from Maslowski.. Damage done.. Walk away...

It's kind of funny. Gore said a lot of stuff. He used a lot of scientific data to back up his argument.

One thing he said was used in terms of "it could happen".

He was using science to predict what would happen in the future. If someone got the science wrong, or slightly out, then Gore is going to get some things wrong.

Many of the things he has said are not being attacked on here. What is being attacked is one thing which didn't happen.

 

[flacaltenn]

Frigid --- Not MAJOR Ice Age --- Little Ice Age ---

About Environmental History Resources

Little Ice Age
The Little Ice Age was a period of regionally cold conditions between about AD 1300 and 1850. The Little Ice Age was a period of regionally cold conditions between roughly AD 1350 and 1850. The term "Little Ice Age" is somewhat questionable, because there was no single, well-defined period of prolonged cold. There were two phases of the Little Ice Age, the first beginning around 1290 and continuing until the late 1400s. There was a slightly warmer period in the 1500s, after which the climate deteriorated substantially. After 1600, there are indications that average winter temperatures in Europe and North America were as much as 2°C lower than at present.

There is substantial historical evidence for the Little Ice Age. The Baltic Sea froze over, as did many of the rivers and lakes in Europe. Pack ice expanded far south into the Atlantic making shipping to Iceland and Greenland impossible for months on end. Winters were bitterly cold and summers were often cool and wet. These conditions led to widespread crop failure, famine, and population decline. The tree line and snowline dropped and glaciers advanced, overrunning towns and farms in the process. There was a lot of social unrest as large portions of the population were reduced to starvation and poverty.

The period between 1600 and 1800 marks the height of the Little Ice Age and is characterized by cold and long winters as well as well as some unusual warmth during the summer. Climate variability in Northern Europe became more pronounced than before. The period was also characterized by the expansion of European trade and the formation of European sea born Empires. This was directly linked to advances in technology harnessing more of nature's power and towards the end of the period of fossil-fuelled power. The 17th and 18th centuries also saw the specialization of agricultural regions, which produced specific products for local and international markets.

Now THERE is some immediate warnings about the climate changing. This dinky 0.5degC rise in your lifetime is NOT a headline. Storms don't care a whit if the cold layers and warm layers are all 0.5degC warmer. They feed off of DIFFERENTIALS -- not ABSOLUTES... Differences in temperature, differences in humidity, differences in pressure, differences in wind patterns... ALL those things intensify weather.. If it's hot at the surface AND aloft -- not much happens..

Don't want to live in a climate where glaciers are growing..

And I'd love to discuss REAL pollution with you and how we should be actually focusing on that. But it has nothing to do with Climate Change...

 

[flacaltenn]

Thanks everyone for bringing up Gore again in a thread about lying.. My Gore file hadn't gotten any new additions in AGES.. Now this is news to me...

Copenhagen climate summit Al Gore condemned over Arctic ice melting prediction - Telegraph

Copenhagen Conference was in Dec 2009.

Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, has become embroiled in a climate change spin row after claiming that the Arctic could be completely ice-free within five years.

Speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, Mr Gore said new computer modelling suggests there is a 75 per cent chance of the entire polar ice cap melting during the summertime by 2014.
ADVERTISING
However, he faced embarrassment last night after Dr Wieslav Maslowski, the climatologist whose work the prediction was based on, refuted his claims.
Dr Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, told The Times: “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at.
“I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Alluding to Dr Maslowski’s work, he said: “These figures are fresh, I just got them yesterday.
"Some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of summer months could be completely ice free within five to seven years.

So it progresses from MIGHTs and COULDs to a phony claim of 75% certain... Except that the guy doing the work never GAVE a probability.. What else do you need to know about Climate Change and Liars?

Gore knows he will skate because only 1% of the people that heard his mangled prediction would ever hear the response from Maslowski.. Damage done.. Walk away...

It's kind of funny. Gore said a lot of stuff. He used a lot of scientific data to back up his argument.

One thing he said was used in terms of "it could happen".

He was using science to predict what would happen in the future. If someone got the science wrong, or slightly out, then Gore is going to get some things wrong.

Many of the things he has said are not being attacked on here. What is being attacked is one thing which didn't happen.

You haven't been around long enough.. Gore has been shredded on DOZENS of stupid and misleading statements.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You haven't been around long enough.. Gore has been shredded on DOZENS of stupid and misleading statements.

Right..... just like you're "shredding" him now.

He made a predication. He didn't say it would come true. He said it could happen. It didn't. Okay, so the prediction was wrong. It wasn't Gore's prediction, it was someone else's. Yet people come on here and call him a liar as if he just made something up knowing it wouldn't happen.

Arctic sea ice to melt by 2015 - Telegraph

Here is someone making a similar claim which would concern this summer.

"
Arctic sea ice could completely melt away by the summer of 2015"

"Could melt", not "will melt".

Arctic ice melting to a record low scientists warn - Science - News - The Independent

"
Arctic sea ice partially melts each summer and reforms again in the winter, but over the past 35 years of satellite readings the summer retreat has been getting significantly greater, with a record summer minimum recorded in September 2007.

However, scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, said that this summer's melt season in the Arctic has been so rapid and extensive that 2012 will almost certainly see sea ice coverage reach a new low."

NASA - NASA Finds Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster

"GREENBELT, Md. -- A new NASA study revealed that the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean’s floating ice cap."

So, we can see a decline. 2015 looks way to early, we'd be looking at about another 17 years or so before that blue line its 3 million square kilometers, with some summers being far below this 3 million square kilometers and some summers being higher.

What is a fact is that the Arctic is losing ice at a high rate. This wouldn't be a problem if we expected the temperatures to be getting hotter. However we'd expect temperatures to be getting COLDER, based on a 100,000 year cycle.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Frigid --- Not MAJOR Ice Age --- Little Ice Age ---

About Environmental History Resources

Little Ice Age
The Little Ice Age was a period of regionally cold conditions between about AD 1300 and 1850. The Little Ice Age was a period of regionally cold conditions between roughly AD 1350 and 1850. The term "Little Ice Age" is somewhat questionable, because there was no single, well-defined period of prolonged cold. There were two phases of the Little Ice Age, the first beginning around 1290 and continuing until the late 1400s. There was a slightly warmer period in the 1500s, after which the climate deteriorated substantially. After 1600, there are indications that average winter temperatures in Europe and North America were as much as 2°C lower than at present.

There is substantial historical evidence for the Little Ice Age. The Baltic Sea froze over, as did many of the rivers and lakes in Europe. Pack ice expanded far south into the Atlantic making shipping to Iceland and Greenland impossible for months on end. Winters were bitterly cold and summers were often cool and wet. These conditions led to widespread crop failure, famine, and population decline. The tree line and snowline dropped and glaciers advanced, overrunning towns and farms in the process. There was a lot of social unrest as large portions of the population were reduced to starvation and poverty.

The period between 1600 and 1800 marks the height of the Little Ice Age and is characterized by cold and long winters as well as well as some unusual warmth during the summer. Climate variability in Northern Europe became more pronounced than before. The period was also characterized by the expansion of European trade and the formation of European sea born Empires. This was directly linked to advances in technology harnessing more of nature's power and towards the end of the period of fossil-fuelled power. The 17th and 18th centuries also saw the specialization of agricultural regions, which produced specific products for local and international markets.

Now THERE is some immediate warnings about the climate changing. This dinky 0.5degC rise in your lifetime is NOT a headline. Storms don't care a whit if the cold layers and warm layers are all 0.5degC warmer. They feed off of DIFFERENTIALS -- not ABSOLUTES... Differences in temperature, differences in humidity, differences in pressure, differences in wind patterns... ALL those things intensify weather.. If it's hot at the surface AND aloft -- not much happens..

Don't want to live in a climate where glaciers are growing..

And I'd love to discuss REAL pollution with you and how we should be actually focusing on that. But it has nothing to do with Climate Change...

I know the difference between a major and minor ice age. The reality is we were not in either. So, again, it's a little worrying that you think we're seeing signs of leaving an ice age, however large or small, when we're not experiencing one, isn't it?

 

[Crick]

They're also currently arguing that we are moving right back in to ANOTHER ice age. The interglacial period was, what, 17 years long?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frigid -- You said..

If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it will rain", and it doesn't rain, I am wrong.
If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it might rain", and it doesn't rain, then what? Sure, my prediction was wrong, however I also expressed that there was doubt about what I said. I suggested that it might not rain.

So Frigid -- If the science is truly settled, --- how is it that the :"consensus" that you fanatics keep quoting is nothing BUT MIGHTs and COULDs????

Find me a RECENT projection of what the temperature anomaly in 2050 will be --- according to this "settled science"...

Your comment is CORRECT -- these CChange projections are full of doubt and coated with a hefty dose of BullShit. How do you get 97% consensus on doubt???

Science isn't "truly settled" and I even said this in a previous post. So you're trying to basically hit me with what you're comfortable with, not with what I said.

Again, we're talking about the future where there are unpredictable elements.

Again, the ice sheets are melting. Not consistently, but they're melting.
Again, global temperatures are rising, not consistently, but they're rising.
Again, CO2 levels are rising, consistently.
Again, things are going wrong.

What your argument appears to be is A) we can't predict the future totally accurately, so we shouldn't even try, and we shouldn't heed any warnings about the future and B) if you can't predict the future, shut up.

Can you predict that there WON'T be any problems in the future?

Science says something bad is coming. Weather is becoming more erratic. Hurricanes are becoming stronger, tornadoes are becoming more frequent, it's becoming warmer in the summer etc etc.

Yet you ignore all scientific data to stick your head up your ass. Why?

Sorry if I hit you with an allegation that doesn't fit.. ADMIRE that you actually want to discuss evidence.. Can't do it all in tainted thread like this.. Some of those "RAW" numbers on tornadoes and hurricanes just come from better and advanced detection tools. A LOT of tropical storms are now "hurricanes" for a day or an hour because of pro-active data gathering. Same with tornadoes. EF0 touchdowns are much detectable and verifiable than they were 20 years ago. AND (since I live in tornado country and helped design a part of the NextRad Weather system) they are declaring MORE tornadoes because a single storm track can now produce multiple touchdowns ---- all declared as separate events..

As for list of "warnings" ----

Again, the ice sheets are melting. Not consistently, but they're melting.
Again, global temperatures are rising, not consistently, but they're rising.
Again, CO2 levels are rising, consistently.
Again, things are going wrong.

This is all true. But not inconsistent with a recovery from a Little Ice Age in the 1700s. Even the more reliable proxy records like ice cores show that previous "warm periods" in the past 0.5mil years are not flat. And nobody should suspect that a complex system like the earth climate is free of "ringing" transients and unsettled movement to new equilibriums. Besides --- I'd rather suffer a 0.5degC rise in my lifetime and see some ice melting, than worry about a climate where the ice is growing.. Ice is a very non-linear thermometer and that's part of why I don't fuss over the yearly changes.

I understand that CO2 has some limited warming power. But Climate Science has in the past gone BEYOND the Physics approximation of 1degC/ doubling of CO2 to give CO2 magical SUPERPOWERS that multiply this ability to warm by ridiculous factors 4 to 8 times the actual warming power of CO2. When actually -- what we have OBSERVED since man started to contribute to CO2 loading in the atmos is WAAAAY closer to the Physics approximation and no where NEAR the failed modeling attempts to make it stronger..

The whole GW theory states that CO2 is only the trigger event for a 2degC (or so) change that cause the earth to self-destruct.. It's THAT part of the theory that is under attack and why I'm a skeptic..

You have MANY prominent scientists -- just in the past couple years, including ones formerly involved in the UN IPCC process and the BEST study -- who have stated that natural variations have been underestimated and the hysterical part of warming powers for CO2. have been overestimated. Pretty much what makes them all "deniers"...

You talk about what is consistent from ending a little ice age. However we're not ending a little ice age, in theory, as far as I can tell, we should be ending a peak in high temperatures.

We've gone through a large rise in temperatures as has happened three times in the past according to what we understand of Antarctic ice core data. This data suggests a higher rise, lesser rise, higher rise, could we predict a lesser rise as happened 200,000 years ago?
Then we should have expected a drop in temperatures.

I'd say this is consistent with what we're seeing. We ARE seeing a drop in NATURAL temperatures.

Scientists have been predicting a rise in temperatures because of man made stuff. We're seeing this too. A drop and a rise have seen slight rises in temperatures, or a levelling out of temperatures.

So, if we're seeing data that you say is consistent with a time we shouldn't be seeing for a while, then that would be a little worrying, right? Rather than data that is consistent with where we would expect to be.

Scientists often look at things from a certain perspective. It's hard to understand why a scientist says something one way or another.
Funding could be a big thing. Some give data which is pro-Apocalypse because they're paid to. Others are paid to give no change, no worries messages.

What I'm seeing with the evidence that seems to be available, is that we're warming up.

When I was a kid we had snow, lots of snow. Then the snow stopped. It came back a little but no where near as much as before. Natural? Well I'd suggest again that we should be getting colder. But what I'm seeing with my eyes, and what I'm seeing with a lot of the evidence available, is that we're just not going in that direction.

We're getting warmer in a manner that is inconsistent with how we think the temperatures should be going. Now, if CO2 is rising and rising and rising, this could mean a continuing rise of what? You're suggesting only a few degrees then the effects wear off. Perhaps. What is more worrying is that, say, in China where cancer rates are increasing. Partly due to a population that is stable for the first time in a long time, but also due to massive amounts of pollution in the air.

PubMed Central Table 2 Cancer Biol Med. 2012 Jun 9 2 128 132. doi 10.3969 j.issn.2095-3941.2012.02.009

Chinese lung cancer rates are 14.3% among women and 14.5% among American women.

Seeing as you don't see many women smoking in China, it's mostly a male thing that is changing, yet rates are about the same in women, is perhaps due to the amount of pollution in big and small cities in China.

PubMed Central Table 1 Cancer Biol Med. 2012 Jun 9 2 128 132. doi 10.3969 j.issn.2095-3941.2012.02.009

In Chinese men it's 21.7% and US men 15.4%.

There's a lot of information here about what this could mean, but simply said the Chinese lung cancer rate is higher. More smokers in China than the US? Possibly. 2/3rds of men smoke in China (compared to 4% of women) compared to 18% of men in the USA.

However I'd also suggest that a lot of smokers are older men, who may never get tested for cancer in China. You get ill and your family can't afford to pay to go to hospital, you don't get found out as a victim of cancer.

The mother of some Chinese girl I knew had cancer and she couldn't afford it, she died while being told that traditional chinese medicine could cure her.

So, I'd suggest that lung cancer rates in China are sky high, and it's to do with pollution. China will grow, if it becomes the level of the US in terms of economic and comfort levels for most people, then pollution levels with triple, quadruple in the next 15 years of growth in pollution that is estimated.

On top of this we have the uncontrollable and unknown effects this could have on weather, we should probably be scared.

Then imagine India gets up to Chinese levels. That's be an extra 1.5 billion, 1/5 of the world's population alone, that would be pumping out pollution at US levels. Things are going to get nasty.

You chart shows CO2 LAGGING temperature on both the increase and decline.

How can that be? I thought CO2 drives temperature

 

[frigidweirdo]

You chart shows CO2 LAGGING temperature on both the increase and decline.

How can that be? I thought CO2 drives temperature

You thought? Or you think this is a nice little safe topic for you to suddenly put in because.... because you don't want to respond to what I wrote.

However, to answer your 90 degree turn question.....

Here's the thing.

With natural temperature rise and fall these charts suggest that this is the case. Why? I'm not sure, there are various possibilities.

With man made input of CO2 then what happens?

What we're seeing is that man made CO2 in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities, as we have right now, appears to be keeping temperature levels higher than we expected them to be.

So.... what's your point?