Consensus Reality

[Old Rocks]

Let's say 1990's had .1, .12, .14, .15, .17, .23, 25, 28, .32, , 26
Now let's say 2000's had .28c, .31, .30, .30, .27, .31, 32, .26, .28, .31

The 2000's avg out higher then the 1990's. The difference is the 1990's were warming and the 2000's were stable.

Maybe not so stable. According to Christy and Spencer, the Antarctic saw considerable warming in 2013.

 

[westwall]

Come on, asshole, just spit out what you are saying, rather than playing with innuendo and stupid threats. So what is this discovery? And how or who is he supposed to deliver this discovery to? Perhaps you have not figured that out yet?

I suggest you check with your hero, unlike you I actually AM an expert witness. Which means you get bupkus from me till the judgment.

Really? Well then, I hope the lawyer that questions you quotes your comments on this board. That would bring your 'expertise' into considerable question.

And, once again, you avoided answering the question. So, what is this discovery? And how or to whom is he supposed to deliver this discovery to? Come on, mister expert, spit it out.

As I said, check with your hero. He knows what has been asked of him and he refuses to submit it.

 

[IanC]

most of the scientists came out publically on one side or the other back in the 90's when the equivicable evidence was definitely supporting AGW even though it was more coincidental than definitive. it was also trendy and exciting to support a new paradigm that blamed humanity, not to mention the vast amounts of research money that became available. unlike the previous fad of global cooling which had no political pull to generate funding and bureaucratic layers.

most scientific societies also came out with their official statements at this time. any committee will come out with the safest and most politically correct party line that will be defendable against any possible outcomes. it is easy to cry 'chicken little' and back down incrementally as evidence falters, it is hard to stick with scientific principles and refuse to run with the herd by stating that the catastrophic predictions are unlikely when there is a chance that they may happen.

the IPCC led the charge against human caused warming, and funding was preferentially sent in that direction. there has been a lot of poor quality research funded andpresented solely to demonize CO2, even though much of it has been failing now that the data is being forcibly exposed to public scrutiny.

the main pillars of AGW and especially CAGW are collapsing now that temp records, sea level rise records, climate sensitivity records, and proxy records have been shown to be obviously twisted to support preconceived conclusions. now that nature is no cooperating, the problem has been renamed 'climate change', and weather is the main evidence even though historical weather records disagree with the premise.

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing at the irony.

"Consensus reality"


That is EXACTLY what the whole concept of global warming is.......the illussion of consensus reality.


To find out about "consensus reality" click on THIS >>> The individual vs. the illusion of consensus reality « Jon Rappoport's Blog

blog

Indeed it is a blog Ray, but then again, you post up Wikkipedia links which many consider bogus as well.

Blog or no blog, the fact remains that much of what we have learned over the past 40 years is all engineered to create a consensus reality. Most people are stuck in it up to their eyeballs, as I was until recently. I thought that there was actually this ideological struggle for power in this country............GOP vs Dems........liberal vs conservative. Like most other people, I was duped beyond words. A vast, vast majority are.

A great example is this business that FOX news is the alternative to the msm. What a bunch of bullcrap.......they are very good at making the meatheads think their way of thinking is having an impact on public policy. They are no different from CNN, MSNBC, PBS et. al..........but they provide the viewer with the illussion that they provide an alternative.


Congressional majorities..............congressional minorities...............Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama..........nothing changes except perhaps the relative speed we charge towards a system where the state decides everything. Year by year, our freedoms go deeper and deeper into the shitter. The grinding down of America has been occurring for many decades. They want the left to think it is winning sometimes and the right to think it is winning sometimes. It is all orchestrated my friend. In the end, we all lose.

The evidence is all there if people take a step back and see it. All the talk about climate change but nothing is really changing. Both sides think they are winning ( "consensus science" vs "energy production reality" )........( gun laws vs second ammendment rights )......( food stamps vs. illussion of a middle class ).......( minimum wage laws vs. tax cuts for corporations ). Keep all sides happy at all costs.

Go back and take a listen to the last 30 SOTU addresses. Mostly nothing but talk, talk, talk by a bunch of empty suits.........all part of the Reality Manufacturing Company.

Department of Homeland Security..............what a scam. NSA survellience......The Patriot Act........all the wars..........


Who is prospering in 2014?


Not me...........not you........not anybody typing in these pages.



Here in New York, decades ago, you went to the local mall to shop for everything and anything. Birthdays, holidays, clothes. Now you go into any area mall and what stores do you have there? All upscale stores. My wife and I make pretty good salaries........we cant afford to shop there. Most LOng Islanders cant shope there. Meanwhile, the announcement yesterday that 500 Radio Shack stores will be closing. JC Penny ( always a store for the average Joe ) is down to $20.00/ and will soon be going out of business.


3 out of 4 Super Bowl ads this year were pushing high end cars like Audi's and Mercedes Benz. How many of the 100+ million people watching can afford them?


Only jackasses would think the govenrment can just print 80 billion dollars a month with no consequences.


When this shit collapses and within a few days peoples world goes away, it'll all make sense to a handful........but not to most.

People need to start connecting the dots here...........

 

[emilynghiem]

True Consensus requires true forgiveness in order to overcome conflicts to reach it.

The healing process is spiritual but it follows natural laws which can be demonstrated scientifically to follow a universal pattern of reconciliation documented by empirical statistics.

None of which is scientific, either.

Thank you for your support.[/QUOTE]

????

Obviously you haven't studied the process of NATURAL spiritual healing, or you would find it 100% consistent with science and medicine.

The body and mind are designed to heal themselves naturally.
If something BLOCKS that process, then imbalanced conditions impair the natural flow of life and healing energy, so this can cause weakness or disease. Even cancer cells can build up where these are normally shed by the body.

To reverse this, spiritual healing involves IDENTIFYING the areas of blockage.
What mental conflict or unforgiven memory causes someone to rebel and get
addicted to smoking, drinking or other drugs or abuse?

By FIRST identifying the root cause of the IMBALANCE in the person's mind or spirit,
then this can be removed by FORGIVENESS and healing. And then the
mind and body FOLLOW, since the natural flow is restored and NO LONGER BLOCKED.

Spiritual healing has been applied to cure:
Schizophrenia and demonic voices/obsessions
Cancer
Diabetes
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Drug and Sexual addictions especially those caused by abuse
and other diseases

I listed resources for research on freespiritualhealing | Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy

If you want to interview people who help heal people for free,
you can contact Dr. Goldfedder at Healing Is Yours
who is a licensed neurosurgeon who went into spiritual healing full time after he found it more effective in healing more people free instead of placating symptoms at greater cost

or my friend Olivia Reiner at 713 820 0899 who also helps people receive free healing from cancer and other diseases, especially any kind of abuse or addictions nothing else can cure.

 

[chikenwing]

When words like more than likely,or most likely,one should pause just a bit to reflect.

 

[joshuah]

Let's say 1990's had .1, .12, .14, .15, .17, .23, 25, 28, .32, , 26
Now let's say 2000's had .28c, .31, .30, .30, .27, .31, 32, .26, .28, .31

The 2000's avg out higher then the 1990's. The difference is the 1990's were warming and the 2000's were stable.

This is pretty similar to what the actual data shows. I think it's more helpful to look at the 10-year moving average - if it is going up, then temps are increasing at a constant rate across the decades. However, it is not.

For example, an analysis of NCDC's numbers shows the decade-to-decade rate of increase peaking in 2006 and falling sharply since then.

The 10-year moving average has actually fallen slightly the last three years, and the hottest consecutive 10-year period on record is still 2001-2010. Even if each decade continues to be the "hottest on record," if the increase is less than 0.1 degree Celsius, how important is it?

 

[flacaltenn]

The consensus is that the addition by man of GHGs to the atmosphere is warming the globe and changing the climate, to the detrimate of agriculture and infrastructure. Now there is much debate as to the rate, and timing of the effects. We are doing a grand experiment from which there is no turning back. And our grandchildren get to appreciate what the effects are going to be, and the timing of those effects.

Why that's no different than the skeptic CONSENSUS that says the climate is ALWAYS changing and that man ought to be prepared to cope with the consequences.. What we OBSERVED is that the rate of warming now appears to be no more than the BARE NAKED 1.2DegC per doubling that physics predicts for CO2 additions alone. No Magic Multipliers verified means no CO2 crisis.. So all your consensus really is -- is unfounded hysteria about changes in the climate becoming amplified.. Your Consensus is simply a theory that the Earth climate system will destroy itself if it's jolted by a couple degrees.

But that list of authorities could NEVER AGREE what the temp anomaly will be in 2056, so all the SPECULATION is just that -- speculation designed to move public policy..

 

[Abraham3]

And they have presented us with no measurable metric to gauge the success of their "predictions" which are so vague as to be meaningless. Kind of like Nostradamus.

Not to mention the fact that the CO2 just keeps rising but the warming just won't get with the program.

The ToA radiative imbalance has been climbing since the first satellite took a measurement in 2001. Explain that.

Any takers?

 

[Abraham3]

The consensus is that the addition by man of GHGs to the atmosphere is warming the globe and changing the climate, to the detrimate of agriculture and infrastructure. Now there is much debate as to the rate, and timing of the effects. We are doing a grand experiment from which there is no turning back. And our grandchildren get to appreciate what the effects are going to be, and the timing of those effects.

Why that's no different than the skeptic CONSENSUS that says the climate is ALWAYS changing and that man ought to be prepared to cope with the consequences.. What we OBSERVED is that the rate of warming now appears to be no more than the BARE NAKED 1.2DegC per doubling that physics predicts for CO2 additions alone. No Magic Multipliers verified means no CO2 crisis.. So all your consensus really is -- is unfounded hysteria about changes in the climate becoming amplified.. Your Consensus is simply a theory that the Earth climate system will destroy itself if it's jolted by a couple degrees.

But that list of authorities could NEVER AGREE what the temp anomaly will be in 2056, so all the SPECULATION is just that -- speculation designed to move public policy..

Will never agree on the anomaly in 2056? That's a completely bullshit demand and you know it. HOWEVER, I guarantee you that we could get well over 95% agreement that the temperature will be significantly higher than it is today. So will sea level and, in all likelihood, so will atmospheric GHG levels.

No one in climate science is talking about lowering the climate sensitivity values. The only paper I've seen on the topic was one about clouds that one of YOU linked to that suggested it was closer to 5C than 3.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You'll get your wish soon enough. I am supporting Dr. Ball in Mann's suit against him. We are looking forward to the discovery which Mann has so far been unwilling to deliver..... I wonder why that might be

What's the status on the frivolous suit with Mann against Mark Steyn?

 

[Abraham3]

Not good for Mr Steyn.

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/30/a_defamation_lawsuit_may_kill_national_review/

Could A Climate Scientist's Defamation Suit Shut Down The Nation's Leading Conservative Magazine? | ThinkProgress

Climate scientist?s lawsuit could wipe out conservative National Review magazine | The Raw Story

http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/20/mann-v-steyn-mann-wins-round-one/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/07/24/antiscience_defamation_climate_scientist_michael_mann_lawsuit_to_move_forward.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/mann_vs_steyn_heresy_shall_be_crushed.html

 

[Abraham3]

Are you claiming to be an expert witness in Mann's lawsuit? Yes or no.

Well?

 

[westwall]

You'll get your wish soon enough. I am supporting Dr. Ball in Mann's suit against him. We are looking forward to the discovery which Mann has so far been unwilling to deliver..... I wonder why that might be

What's the status on the frivolous suit with Mann against Mark Steyn?

That one I have no idea of, I'm not a friend of Steyn. Knowing how smart Steyn is though, I think Mann is headed for some real trouble. I did find it amusing that Mann found it necessary to edit his CV so that it no longer claims he's a Nobel recipient

I think he might be slapped with a Contempt of Court ruling for failure to provide discovery in Ball's case, however. I know they tried to get Balls attorney in trouble but that fell flat as the Canada Bar Assn. found the accusations to be baseless.

Just typical delaying BS when you have no case, to try and run the poor guy out of money. Fortunately for Tim he has a lot of friends and he won't be running out of money anytime soon. David Suzuki though....he better find a way to hide his money!

 

[westwall]

Are you claiming to be an expert witness in Mann's lawsuit? Yes or no.

Well?

That, as they say, is none of your business.

 

[westwall]

Not good for Mr Steyn.

A defamation lawsuit may kill National Review - Salon.com

Could A Climate Scientist's Defamation Suit Shut Down The Nation's Leading Conservative Magazine? | ThinkProgress

Climate scientist?s lawsuit could wipe out conservative National Review magazine | The Raw Story

Mann v. Steyn -- Mann Wins Round One | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy

Anti-science defamation: Climate scientist Michael Mann lawsuit to move forward.

Articles: Mann vs. Steyn: Heresy Shall Be Crushed

Yeah, that's what happens when you listen to timid lawyers. Steyn is taking it over now so we will see what happens in the next few weeks. Should be entertaining. Though I must say, why try and dismiss the suit? I would have enjoyed the hell out of taking Mann and his enormous ego to court. The Federal judge hearing the case is clearly biased so take it out of her hands and place it in the hands of the jury.

 

[Darkwind]

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate
system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least
95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities
that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such
as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely
that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by
increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed
in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international
standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual
scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall
scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas
of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarized in these
high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies
have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These
assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

o Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by
increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread
melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
o Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely
due to human activities.[6]
o "Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary
widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and
polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7]
Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger
or more rapid warming."[7]
o "[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage
costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase
over time"[8]
o "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this
century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated
disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean
acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change,
pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of
resources)"[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing
maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main
points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting
the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current
non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those
focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

ORGANIZATIONS HOLDING CONCURRING POSITION STATEMENTS

Since 2001 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and
both the international Inter Academy Council and International Council
of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal
declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations
to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy
statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements
and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in
2007.

[As you look at the many and varied organizations on this list,
try to justify for each of these, the charge they are all falsely
supporting the IPCC and AGW theory simply to get grant money - for
instance, how much climate change research money flows into the coffers
of America's pediatricians?]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
United States National Research Council
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
African Academy of Sciences
European Academy of Science and Arts
European Science Foundation
Inter Academy Council
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
Sciences
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Society of Agronomy
Crop Science Society of America
Soil Science Society of America
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventative Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Astronomical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Canada
The Institution of Engineers Australia
International Association for Great Lakes Research
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
The World Federation of Engineering Organizations

ORGANIZATIONS HOLDING NON-COMMITTAL POSITION STATEMENTS

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (formerly the only
major organization rejecting AGW). Their statement now reads:

the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that
anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature
increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming
trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG
respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current
climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural
variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do
not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some
models.[97]

Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major
scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human
influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of
the American Quaternary Association.[10] Explaining the plan for a
revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007:

Members have threatened to not renew their memberships... if AAPG
does not alter its position on global climate change... And I have been
told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of
our current global climate change position... The current policy
statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and
prospective members.[98]

AAPG President John Lorenz announced the "sunsetting" of AAPG's Global
Climate Change Committee in January 2010. The AAPG Executive Committee
determined:

Climate change is peripheral at best to our science [...] AAPG does
not have credibility in that field [...] and as a group we have no
particular knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics.[99]

American Geological Institute "...strongly supports education
concerning... the potential for future climate change due to the current
building of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases..."

American Institute of Professional Geologists "...professionals
in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the
potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared..."

Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences "The level of CO2 in our
atmosphere is now greater than at any time in the past 500,000 years;
there will be consequences for our global climate and natural systems as
a result".

DISSENTING

None.

Big deal. Opinions are like assholes.....everybody's got one.

Except my side has about a gazillion more than your side. And the smarter someone is, the more likely they are to be on my side. That makes me feel way better than it make you feel.

Are you familiar with the history surrounding Galileo?

He too, was dealing with consensus science.

Look it up sometime.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Big deal. Opinions are like assholes.....everybody's got one.

Except my side has about a gazillion more than your side. And the smarter someone is, the more likely they are to be on my side. That makes me feel way better than it make you feel.

Are you familiar with the history surrounding Galileo?

He too, was dealing with consensus science.

Look it up sometime.

and the church....

Yes the church believed that everything want around the earth and everything want around in perfect circles...

 

[westwall]

Except my side has about a gazillion more than your side. And the smarter someone is, the more likely they are to be on my side. That makes me feel way better than it make you feel.

Are you familiar with the history surrounding Galileo?

He too, was dealing with consensus science.

Look it up sometime.

and the church....

Yes the church believed that everything want around the earth and everything want around in perfect circles...

Yep, that was the consensus of the day. And look how many times the consensus folks have been shown to be wrong in the intervening 600 years. Over and over and over again.

 

[flacaltenn]

The consensus is that the addition by man of GHGs to the atmosphere is warming the globe and changing the climate, to the detrimate of agriculture and infrastructure. Now there is much debate as to the rate, and timing of the effects. We are doing a grand experiment from which there is no turning back. And our grandchildren get to appreciate what the effects are going to be, and the timing of those effects.

Why that's no different than the skeptic CONSENSUS that says the climate is ALWAYS changing and that man ought to be prepared to cope with the consequences.. What we OBSERVED is that the rate of warming now appears to be no more than the BARE NAKED 1.2DegC per doubling that physics predicts for CO2 additions alone. No Magic Multipliers verified means no CO2 crisis.. So all your consensus really is -- is unfounded hysteria about changes in the climate becoming amplified.. Your Consensus is simply a theory that the Earth climate system will destroy itself if it's jolted by a couple degrees.

But that list of authorities could NEVER AGREE what the temp anomaly will be in 2056, so all the SPECULATION is just that -- speculation designed to move public policy..

Will never agree on the anomaly in 2056? That's a completely bullshit demand and you know it. HOWEVER, I guarantee you that we could get well over 95% agreement that the temperature will be significantly higher than it is today. So will sea level and, in all likelihood, so will atmospheric GHG levels.

No one in climate science is talking about lowering the climate sensitivity values. The only paper I've seen on the topic was one about clouds that one of YOU linked to that suggested it was closer to 5C than 3.

What is the IPCC range for climate sensitivity? And what does a GLOBAL climate sensitivity MEAN anyway? You wonder why public policy aint moving your way.. It's because the warning of "significantly higher than it is today" is NOT a scientific statement. Certainly aint getting our money's worth out of that NON-consensus are we?

So stuff the all the hubbub about what's gonna happen when the temperatures get "significantly higher". Channeling the Skooks and Hillary Clinton --- What does it matter? No one cares. When the "consensus" says that 2056 temperatures WILL BE 2.5degC higher and the oceans will rise by X.XX feet --- and 90+% agree to THOSE statements -- then bugger us all some more about "consensus"..

In FACT --- you are all over this forum screaming about the SIGNIFICANCE of TODAY'S temperatures and whacky weather. To YOU --- we are ALREADY at significance.. So how is one to interpret "significantly higher" ???