Kerry: If We're Wrong on Climate Change, 'What's the Worst That Can Happen?'

[westwall]

I'm not big Pascal's Wager, but the climate does change and that we should pay attention to, since it can easily, has in the past, caused mass extinction.

No mass extinction has ever been laid at the door of warmth. Cold yes, but not warmth. The only place that pops up is in the fevered imaginations of the computer programs that the global warming pushers dream up.

But to date, there is zero empirical evidence to support warmth as a killer. Quite the opposite in point of fact. Look up the PETM for a well documented example of how beneficial warmth was to the mammals. More species were developed and prospered during that time than any other in recorded history.

 

[westwall]

I don't think the physics is wrong, but something tells me our understanding of the climate system is....

15 years of no warming!

Except that's not really the case.

Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists | Connecting the Dots | BillMoyers.com

So, as a public service, we gathered eight of the most common of these pseudoscientific arguments and asked some serious climate scientists — all working climatologists who have been widely published — to help us understand what makes these claims so misleading.

1. No, the Earth Hasn’t Stopped Warming Since 1998 (or 1996 or 1997)

This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends. With some careful cherrypicking of data, you get the argument that there’s been “no global warming for 17 years, 3 months.”


Kevin Trenberth
Distinguished senior scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research
What’s going on? “1998 was the warmest year in the last century,” explains Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist in the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “There was a big El Niño event in 1997 and 1998, and we have a lot of evidence that there was a lot of heat coming out of the ocean at that time. So that’s the real anomaly — the fact that we had what was perhaps the biggest El Niño event on record.”

“That’s one of the cherrypicking points for deniers — they take the highest value and then compare it” with lower points in the natural temperature fluctuation we know as “weather.” “If you choose the highest value,” says Trenberth, “then the odds are that all the other values are going to be lower — even in the presence of an overall warming climate.”

The masters of cherry picking are Trenberth and company. They created the famous hockeystick graph from the data provided by a single tree in the Yamal grove. Pot meet kettle!

 

[hazlnut]

You can small the bullshit on this OP a mile away--when only half of the statement is in "quotes" -- typical partisan hack dishonesty -- taking something out of context and putting it a new and misleading context.

Nice try Steph.

Fail.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't think the physics is wrong, but something tells me our understanding of the climate system is....

15 years of no warming!

Except that's not really the case.

Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists | Connecting the Dots | BillMoyers.com

So, as a public service, we gathered eight of the most common of these pseudoscientific arguments and asked some serious climate scientists — all working climatologists who have been widely published — to help us understand what makes these claims so misleading.

1. No, the Earth Hasn’t Stopped Warming Since 1998 (or 1996 or 1997)

This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends. With some careful cherrypicking of data, you get the argument that there’s been “no global warming for 17 years, 3 months.”


Kevin Trenberth
Distinguished senior scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research
What’s going on? “1998 was the warmest year in the last century,” explains Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist in the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “There was a big El Niño event in 1997 and 1998, and we have a lot of evidence that there was a lot of heat coming out of the ocean at that time. So that’s the real anomaly — the fact that we had what was perhaps the biggest El Niño event on record.”

“That’s one of the cherrypicking points for deniers — they take the highest value and then compare it” with lower points in the natural temperature fluctuation we know as “weather.” “If you choose the highest value,” says Trenberth, “then the odds are that all the other values are going to be lower — even in the presence of an overall warming climate.”

Phil Jones (Remember him) says you're wrong

BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming


Phil "Hide the Decline" Jones Yes, but only just.

 

[Seawytch]

What's the worse that could happen?!? Cleaner air and water with less dependence on dirty fossil fuels, that's what! That would hurt the Kochs...can't have that.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm not big Pascal's Wager, but the climate does change and that we should pay attention to, since it can easily, has in the past, caused mass extinction.

No mass extinction has ever been laid at the door of warmth. Cold yes, but not warmth. The only place that pops up is in the fevered imaginations of the computer programs that the global warming pushers dream up.

But to date, there is zero empirical evidence to support warmth as a killer. Quite the opposite in point of fact. Look up the PETM for a well documented example of how beneficial warmth was to the mammals. More species were developed and prospered during that time than any other in recorded history.

I can't disagree with that. A warmer world has benefited mankind immeasurably.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Kerry should have asked himself what's the worst that could happen before he let some quack turn his already ugly face into an even uglier plastic Halloween mask

 

[ScienceRocks]

One of the reasons I believe what I do is 2005 and 2014 are analog years within the ENSO. If you believe we warmed .05c/decade between 2005 and 2014 = .70 or .71c expected this year(giss and noaa). The fact that we don't walk away with the record this year is telling.

Secondly, every record of the past decade has been within .03c of each other. This is why they're so bunched up and in 6th place for January-April this year(noaa)...This isn't a sign of a warming planet.

 

[kaz]

I'm not big Pascal's Wager, but the climate does change and that we should pay attention to, since it can easily, has in the past, caused mass extinction.

Maybe the Democrats should start by not using climate change as a hammer to implement socialism. It's hard to take anyone seriously who says sending trillions of dollars to poor countries will solve it. And here, they use it as an attack vehicle to win elections. They are either lying or they are seriously stupid people, and why should we believe either liars or stupid people?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Well Mr Kerry the sky could fall. How about that? /sarcasm

If we cant afford to make the earth better we really have to look at our priorities. lol..I mean, we only live here...calm down hehe

 

[kaz]

One of the reasons I believe what I do is 2005 and 2014 are analog years within the ENSO. If you believe we warmed .05c/decade = .70 or .71c expected this year(giss and noaa). The fact that we don't walk away with the record this year is telling.

Secondly, every record of the past decade has been within .03c of each other. This is why they're so bunched up and in 6th place for January-April this year(noaa)...This isn't a sign of a warming planet.

As much as I disagree with Bono, I have tremendous respect for his belief in his cause fighting starvation in Africa. He was attacked by liberals for holding fundraisers with Republicans. He replied he'll raise funds with anyone who helps him. That's someone dedicated to his cause. On the other hand Democrats use global warming as a hammer and a divisive issue. The ice caps will melt and we'll all flood and die, but I only want your help if you agree with my politics!!! Yeah, what an effective strategy that is...

 

[bripat9643]

What's wrong with energy conservation, clean air, clean water?

Fine, so long as it doesn't cost $trillions of dollars and send our economy swirling down the toilet bowl.

Turds like you seem to believe this stuff doesn't have a cost.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't think the physics is wrong, but something tells me our understanding of the climate system is....

15 years of no warming!

Then again, based on the 100,000 year cycle, we should be getting a lot colder.

It's basic math.

If we should be, hypothetically, 3 degrees cooler than 20 years ago, and we're at the same level, then we're 3 degrees warmer than we should be.
That's natural global cooling plus man made global warming and it equals what?????

It equals the possibility that we're getting much warmer than we think we are, and that when the shed hits the fan, we're in trouble.

Oh, but as long as we're making a profit in the meantime, before we all die out, that's okay.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What's wrong with energy conservation, clean air, clean water?

Fine, so long as it doesn't cost $trillions of dollars and send our economy swirling down the toilet bowl.

Turds like you seem to believe this stuff doesn't have a cost.

Cost. Cost in money or cost the environment. How much do you think those who think only about money care about the cost to the environment?

 

[bripat9643]

What's wrong with energy conservation, clean air, clean water?

Fine, so long as it doesn't cost $trillions of dollars and send our economy swirling down the toilet bowl.

Turds like you seem to believe this stuff doesn't have a cost.

Cost. Cost in money or cost the environment. How much do you think those who think only about money care about the cost to the environment?

It's obvious that numskulls like you don't give a damn about the cost in terms of that dirty grubby money. Of course, money spent on this horseshit means millions of kids who can't get orthodontia for their crooked teeth, a new bicycle, an XBOX, a vacation to Disneyland or thousands of other things that make life a little more bearable.

You don't give a shit about them, do ya?

 

[westwall]

Well Mr Kerry the sky could fall. How about that? /sarcasm

If we cant afford to make the earth better we really have to look at our priorities. lol..I mean, we only live here...calm down hehe

So mr. we've got to do SOMETHING!" What exactly do we get for the expenditure of 76 trillion dollars? Who gets all that money...other than all the third world dictators ho are hoping to score big I mean...who else?

 

[westwall]

What's wrong with energy conservation, clean air, clean water?

Fine, so long as it doesn't cost $trillions of dollars and send our economy swirling down the toilet bowl.

Turds like you seem to believe this stuff doesn't have a cost.

Cost. Cost in money or cost the environment. How much do you think those who think only about money care about the cost to the environment?

Quite a bit considering they live in the environment. They also seem to be better educated than you silly people. After all, thanks to policies you all shoved up the ass of Californians with your MTBE bullshit, you idiots managed to do more environmental damage in 10 years than Big Oil did in 100.

Great job asshole!

 

[ScienceRocks]

One of the reasons I believe what I do is 2005 and 2014 are analog years within the ENSO. If you believe we warmed .05c/decade between 2005 and 2014 = .70 or .71c expected this year(giss and noaa). The fact that we don't walk away with the record this year is telling.

Secondly, every record of the past decade has been within .03c of each other. This is why they're so bunched up and in 6th place for January-April this year(noaa)...This isn't a sign of a warming planet.

And no, I am not comparing this year to the great Nino of 1998. I am reading the data from the noaa and giss and you could plot the data yourself from the giss yearly.... http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt More comparing 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009.

To the poster above...I seriously doubt we've had the negative forcing for -3c of cooling with a +3c of co2 positive forcing. Maybe if this is the 1970s (aerosols) we could be closer to -.5c of negative forcing...Which could explain some of the pause.

 

[depotoo]

His point is valid. Why shouldn't we respect our environment, regardless of climate change?

We should. But on the other hand, we shouldn't be using it as a means to commit fraud. That's because AGW is a scam.

97% of scientists say it's not a scam. But you'd rather believe the 3% who are paid by the right to believe differently. After all, it's worth the exposure, right?

It's better to have name recognition for being a kook rather than nothing at all.

No they don't.

 

[Antares]

What's wrong with energy conservation, clean air, clean water?

That is not what it has been about for 2 decades now, thats just the canard thrown out by the Left.