Climate Scientist: We Don't Need Data, You Can See Global Warming on TV

[Crick]

If you think AR5 has no content, the claim you've made in the past to have read the whole thing falls on its face.

Are you ALL so dishonest?

 

[jc456]

If you think AR5 has no content, the claim you've made in the past to have read the whole thing falls on its face.

Are you ALL so dishonest?

what content are you referring to? Or are you going to give us another political speech brought to us by the liberal democratic party?

 

[mamooth]

How's this for a "new" tactic. What is the end game for you warmers? What will, ultimately make you happy? I want specifics. I want GHG numbers. I want details. What will make you happy? What is your goal, in detail? Define what you want and we can go from there.

Being you've already tried that tactic on this thread, it's clearly not a new tactic. I answered you, and you declared you weren't talking to me because I was so meeeeeeeeaaaaaaan. However, as you're responding to my posts now, you must have overcome your your outrage, so I'll repost what you avoided before.

If mankind hadn't altered it, CO2 would be around 280 ppm.

It's currently at 400 ppm and rising.

Climate has currently warmed by about 1.0C since the start of the industrial age.

If we stabilize at 450 ppm, we _might_ be able to hold it at a final 2.0C temperature rise.

2.0C is not good, but it's not catastrophic. Economic costs start going up exponentially above 2.0C, so it's not something we want to blow through.

 

[jc456]

How's this for a "new" tactic. What is the end game for you warmers? What will, ultimately make you happy? I want specifics. I want GHG numbers. I want details. What will make you happy? What is your goal, in detail? Define what you want and we can go from there.

Being you've already tried that tactic on this thread, it's clearly not a new tactic. I answered you, and you declared you weren't talking to me because I was so meeeeeeeeaaaaaaan. However, as you're responding to my posts now, you must have overcome your your outrage, so I'll repost what you avoided before.

If mankind hadn't altered it, CO2 would be around 280 ppm.

It's currently at 400 ppm and rising.

Climate has currently warmed by about 1.0C since the start of the industrial age.

If we stabilize at 450 ppm, we _might_ be able to hold it at a final 2.0C temperature rise.

2.0C is not good, but it's not catastrophic. Economic costs start going up exponentially above 2.0C, so it's not something we want to blow through.

again, what is your solution to do this? That is the question. What exactly are you looking for? How will you stabilize the CO2? What is that plan?

 

[LaDexter]

If mankind hadn't altered it, CO2 would be around 280 ppm.

It's currently at 400 ppm and rising.

Surface of growing urban areas has currently warmed by about 1.0C since the start of the industrial age.

There, fixed. The highly correlated satellite and balloon raw data shows no warming in the atmosphere. We could up Co2 to 8000 ppm and it still wouldn't warm anything.

Change the Sun to all IR and, yeah, that'd work.... but the Sun produces the spectrum, and IR is a tiny weak part of the spectrum.

 

[oldsoul]

What we want? I want to find Aladdin's Lamp.

We'd like all the governments of the world to deal with this problem as it actually requires.

Why do you ask?

So, are you saying that nothing short of a fantasy will satisfy you, or would you care to actually answer the questions?

 

[LaDexter]

There is only one "solution" to the "problem" of "climate change" - prosecution of the fudgebaking taxpayer funded liars.

 

[jc456]

There is only one "solution" to the "problem" of "climate change" - prosecution of the fudgebaking taxpayer funded liars.

^^^^ding, ding, ding, ding^^^^^^^^

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hmm. Who to trust ...
The actual facts, and all the world's scientists
or ...
A couple of weepy cultists who are just mouthing the approved PC mantras of their political cult.

Let me think about that.

In the mean time, since the thug tactics of you cultists have still failed, why don't you think up some new tactics? You're not going to be able to send any climate scientists to The Gulag. You need to accept that and move on.

Your ilk is trying real hard to destroy the 1st amendment and use Rico to send us to the gulags

Another lunatic myth of your astro-turfed cult, imbecile.

Lying to the public about life and death issues for your own personal profit is not legally protected 'free speech', no matter what lies your corporate puppet-masters tell you.

Lying to the public about life and death issues for your own personal profit is not legally protected 'free speech', no matter what lies your corporate puppet-masters tell you

link....

But its ok for alarmists to deprive people of food and fuels to keep warm to save the planet... Killing is ok if your an alarmist..

 

[Crick]

What we want? I want to find Aladdin's Lamp.

We'd like all the governments of the world to deal with this problem as it actually requires.

Why do you ask?

So, are you saying that nothing short of a fantasy will satisfy you, or would you care to actually answer the questions?

I did answer the question. Would you care to answer mine?

 

[oldsoul]

What we want? I want to find Aladdin's Lamp.

We'd like all the governments of the world to deal with this problem as it actually requires.

Why do you ask?

So, are you saying that nothing short of a fantasy will satisfy you, or would you care to actually answer the questions?

I did answer the question. Would you care to answer mine?

"We'd like all the governments of the world to deal with this problem as it actually requires." How does this answer the question of what you want in specific terms?

Fine, I'll answer your question. It's simple really. I want to know what your goals are. I want to know where you, not someone else, you, see things going that would satisfy you. I want a DETAILED explanation of what you want. Why is that not self-evident from the way I phrased my question? It really should be a pretty easy question to answer, complex maybe, but easy to give. Unless, of course, one is chasing a boogie man that can never be caught, or one is using "Global Warming" as a tool to further the real cause they fight for.
So, what'll it be? Answer the question or expose yourself as the hack that you likely are.

 

[Crick]

What I want has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of AGW.

 

[jc456]

What I want has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of AGW.

Really? Why do you bitch about fossil fuels then?

 

[Crick]

What reasons have I given you over and over and over again to do so?

 

[jc456]

What reasons have I given you over and over and over again to do so?

Gee Sherlock, it's not like you're my life so sorry. You present so much blah it it's hard to know.

 

[Crick]

Buh-bye

 

[jc456]

Buh-bye

Yep, I see u'r doing what a loser does

 

[RollingThunder]

Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…

Another bit of extremely fraudulent propaganda from the usual fossil fuel industry propaganda outlets. Posted, of course, by the braindead denier cult troll WitheredMan.

In the real world.....

‘Anatomy of a Smear’ or ‘How the Right Wing Denial Machine Distorts The Climate Change Discourse’
The Huffington Post
Dr. Michael Mann - Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University; Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center
07/15/2016
(excerpts)
Several weeks ago, on June 17, I provided testimony about the threat of human-caused climate change to the Democratic Party Platform drafting committee in Phoenix Arizona. Fittingly, my testimony was just one day before record heatstruck Phoenix. At the beginning of my testimony, I made the point, using slightly lofty language appropriate for the occasion, that the impacts of climate change are now so profound that we no longer need sophisticated signal-detection machinery to see them:

I am a climate scientist, and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate model output and observational climate data, trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change. What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see the impacts of climate change playing out in real time on our television screens in the 24 hour news cycle. Regardless of how you measure the impacts of climate change — whether it be food, water, health, national security, our economy — climate change is already taking a great toll. And we see that tool in the damage done by more extreme floods, like the floods we’ve seen over the past year in Texas and in South Carolina. We see it in the devastating combination of sea level rise and more destructive hurricanes which has led to calamities like “Superstorm” Sandy and what is now the perennial flooding of Miami beach. We see it in the unprecedented drought, like that which continues to afflict California, a doubling in the area of wildfire, fire burning in the western U.S., and indeed, in the record heat we may see this weekend in phoenix. The signal of climate change is no longer subtle. It is obvious.​

My point—that we don’t need sophisticated techniques to identify the human fingerprint present in e.g. the doubling of extreme heat or the tripling (in fact) of western wildfire that we have seen in the U.S. in recent decades, ought to be clear to any honest observer. It would be absurd to conclude that I was arguing that climate models and climate data are no longer necessary in climate science, especially given that they continue to form the bread and butter of my own scientific research (I’ve published over a dozen scientific articles using climate models and climate data during the past year alone). So you can imagine my shock—yes, shock—that climate change deniers and conservative media outlets that serve as mouthpieces for them, would seek to convince their readers of just that. It is an instructive ontological exercise to follow this particular affair—from its inception through the latest developments, sort of like observing a deviant version of the game “telephone” (or “Chinese whispers” for British readers) wherein the participants are actually trying to distort the message as it is passed along from one person to the next.

It all started on Monday June 27th with Steven J. Milloy and his outlandishly untruthful claim “Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics.” Milloy, who actually calls himself the “junk man” with no apparent sense of irony, is a denier-for-hire who happily takes money from tobacco interests, chemical interests, and of course fossil fuel interests to do their dirty work, attacking seemingly any scientist whose findings threaten their financial bottom line. Milloy frequently publishes columns in the notorious Washington Times. Which brings us to the next stage of the affair... Later that same day, the Washington Times—a paper founded by Reverend Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church, ran a piece by one Valerie Richardson entitled “Michael Mann, scientist: Data ‘increasingly unnecessary’ because ‘we can see climate change’”. Somehow ‘tools’ have become ‘data’. It almost seems like they’re going out of their way to misrepresent my statements, doesn’t it? Almost as if to demonstrate that they too have absolutely no sense of irony, the Washington Times referred to me in the piece as a “Leading climate doomsayer” (the Unification Church, you see, is often considered a doomsday cult). The Washington Times also happens to be closely tied to ALEC—a Koch Brothers-funded organization that promotes climate change denialism and subverts efforts to incentivize renewable energy.

(Read much more of the truth of this matter at website)

 

[Crick]

Thank you RT.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…

Another bit of extremely fraudulent propaganda from the usual fossil fuel industry propaganda outlets. Posted, of course, by the braindead denier cult troll WitheredMan.

In the real world.....

‘Anatomy of a Smear’ or ‘How the Right Wing Denial Machine Distorts The Climate Change Discourse’
The Huffington Post
Dr. Michael Mann - Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University; Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center
07/15/2016
(excerpts)
Several weeks ago, on June 17, I provided testimony about the threat of human-caused climate change to the Democratic Party Platform drafting committee in Phoenix Arizona. Fittingly, my testimony was just one day before record heatstruck Phoenix. At the beginning of my testimony, I made the point, using slightly lofty language appropriate for the occasion, that the impacts of climate change are now so profound that we no longer need sophisticated signal-detection machinery to see them:

I am a climate scientist, and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate model output and observational climate data, trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change. What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see the impacts of climate change playing out in real time on our television screens in the 24 hour news cycle. Regardless of how you measure the impacts of climate change — whether it be food, water, health, national security, our economy — climate change is already taking a great toll. And we see that tool in the damage done by more extreme floods, like the floods we’ve seen over the past year in Texas and in South Carolina. We see it in the devastating combination of sea level rise and more destructive hurricanes which has led to calamities like “Superstorm” Sandy and what is now the perennial flooding of Miami beach. We see it in the unprecedented drought, like that which continues to afflict California, a doubling in the area of wildfire, fire burning in the western U.S., and indeed, in the record heat we may see this weekend in phoenix. The signal of climate change is no longer subtle. It is obvious.​

My point—that we don’t need sophisticated techniques to identify the human fingerprint present in e.g. the doubling of extreme heat or the tripling (in fact) of western wildfire that we have seen in the U.S. in recent decades, ought to be clear to any honest observer. It would be absurd to conclude that I was arguing that climate models and climate data are no longer necessary in climate science, especially given that they continue to form the bread and butter of my own scientific research (I’ve published over a dozen scientific articles using climate models and climate data during the past year alone). So you can imagine my shock—yes, shock—that climate change deniers and conservative media outlets that serve as mouthpieces for them, would seek to convince their readers of just that. It is an instructive ontological exercise to follow this particular affair—from its inception through the latest developments, sort of like observing a deviant version of the game “telephone” (or “Chinese whispers” for British readers) wherein the participants are actually trying to distort the message as it is passed along from one person to the next.

It all started on Monday June 27th with Steven J. Milloy and his outlandishly untruthful claim “Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics.” Milloy, who actually calls himself the “junk man” with no apparent sense of irony, is a denier-for-hire who happily takes money from tobacco interests, chemical interests, and of course fossil fuel interests to do their dirty work, attacking seemingly any scientist whose findings threaten their financial bottom line. Milloy frequently publishes columns in the notorious Washington Times. Which brings us to the next stage of the affair... Later that same day, the Washington Times—a paper founded by Reverend Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church, ran a piece by one Valerie Richardson entitled “Michael Mann, scientist: Data ‘increasingly unnecessary’ because ‘we can see climate change’”. Somehow ‘tools’ have become ‘data’. It almost seems like they’re going out of their way to misrepresent my statements, doesn’t it? Almost as if to demonstrate that they too have absolutely no sense of irony, the Washington Times referred to me in the piece as a “Leading climate doomsayer” (the Unification Church, you see, is often considered a doomsday cult). The Washington Times also happens to be closely tied to ALEC—a Koch Brothers-funded organization that promotes climate change denialism and subverts efforts to incentivize renewable energy.

(Read much more of the truth of this matter at website)