2014, hottest year on record!

[MartinW 0]

 

It was a first attempt. Since then of course a plethora of other hockey stick graphs have pretty much matched the original.

 

 

 

In which he used every statistical trick in the book, and made up a few, to get the pre-conceived result he wanted.  

 

The others created since have probably used the same "adjusted", "corrected" and "improved" data he did and probably have all been PEER reviewed by his colleagues, in circular firing squad fashion. The system is rigged with respect to MMGW.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Garghhhhhh! This is so frustrating, it's like beating my head against a brick wall.

 

 

 

NO, he did not use "every statistical trick in the book", because he, didn't create the entire hockey team of graphs that have been generated since.

 

There is now an entire hockey team of graphs, tons of them, all generated by different research teams from different data, and they all tell us the same thing.

 

But then you know this, unless your memory has gone haywire, because we debated it in the other GW thread.

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Here it is again, from the other thread. I suggest you go back and read everything that was posted before, and peruse all of the links. This clearly demonstrates how you totally ignore my replies.

 

 

 

http://www.newscient...ml#.VG9DEU10ycx

http://www.newscient...oven-wrong.html

 

 

 

The original hockey stick graph was the "first" attempt to reconstruct average northern hemisphere temperature, and it certainly wasn't perfect. Since then there has been a plethora of other hockey stick graphs. All of which have supported the basic premise.

 

 

Quote

The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".

 

 

Quote

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.

Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems (see Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period), and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.

Update: as suggested by the academy in its 2006 report, Michael Mann and his colleagues have reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures for the past 2000 years using a broader set of proxies than was available for the original study and updated measurements from the recent past.

The new reconstruction has been generated using two statistical methods, both different to that used in the original study. Like other temperature reconstructions done since 2001 (see graph), it shows greater variability than the original hockey stick. Yet again, though, the key conclusion is the same: it's hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years.

In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.

Further back in the past, though, it certainly has been hotter - and the world has been a very different place. The crucial point is that our modern civilisation has been built on the basis of the prevailing climate and sea levels. As these change, it will cause major problems.

 

[MartinW 0]

By the way, "...on record...." only means back to 1880.

 

 

 

Of course it does! Prior to our CO2 emissions is hardly relevant to man made climate change. 

 

 

[ddavid 149]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' ><p>This thread is a lot like serving sardines at dinner - nobody eats them but it keeps the flies off the rest of the food. John</p></blockquote><blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' ><p>Garghhhhhh! This is so frustrating, it's like beating my head against a brick wall.Martin</p></blockquote>If this were a scientific discussion and not a political slanging match, I would be happy to contribute.Cheers - Dai.

[allardjd 1,853]

This is the problem John. If you continue to access sources like the Daily Mail [or as we call it in the UK The Daily FAIL] who spend most of their time illegally hacking into celebrities phones, or printing rubbish like this, or that dreadful website WhatsUpWithThat, or Rupert Murdoch's dreadful propaganda machine Fox News... you will always be on the wrong track. 

 

 

 

I see you're an adherent of Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

 

To whit, his rule #5 says...

 

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

 

The Daily Mail may indeed be a biased rag - most mainstream newspapers are to one extent or another these days. It doesn't matter, however, if a quote from a NASA director is carried in an article in the Daily Mail or on Fox News, in the Washington Post, the New York Times, Pravda, Al Jazeera or if it's found scribbled in sidewalk chalk in a back alley in Peshawar, Pakistan.  If it's accurate and correct, the source doesn't matter and ridiculing the source does not detract from anything they report factually.  

 

The fact is that NASA's Dr.Schmidt said exactly what the "Daily FAIL" said he said after the NASA report was released, and the original NASA report said what they said it said and conveniently omitted what they said it omitted. Being a faithful MMGW acolyte Dr. Schmidt, will no doubt be further "clarifying" what he said with ashes in his mouth until his peers tell him he can stop.

 

The second link in that post is from the Telegraph.  Do you have a disparaging little name for them too?

 

The report from the Berkeley project referenced in the Telegraph article is on their (Berkeley's) site for all to see.  Among other things, they say...

 

"Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01 C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty (0.05'C).  Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year."

 

This gives credence to the Daily FAIL article, directly supports the Telegraph article and illustrates that, yet again, the pro-MMGW scientific community skewed the message to support their favored conclusion.

 

[allardjd 1,853]

Climate scientists rebuff skeptics' arguments against 2014 'warmest year' claim

 

2014 WAS ONE OF THE 3% COLDEST YEARS IN THE LAST 10,000

  

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/01/2014-was-one-of-the-3-coldest-years-in-the-last-10000.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+(Power+Line)

 

To re-state what the headline and the article say in a different way, about 9,700 of the last 10,000 years were warmer than 2014.

 

"Climate alarmists play a number of tricks to try to make their catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory seem plausible. One of the most important is that they focus on a ridiculously short period of time, beginning either in the late 19th century or at the beginning of the 20th. This is, of course, not even the blink of an eye in geologic time. Given that the Earth began emerging from the Little Ice Age in the mid to late 19th Century, it is hardly surprising–and a very good thing – that from then until now, temperatures have tended to rise.

 

Alarmists shriek that 2014 was the warmest year ever! But that claim is absurd if put in the context of the Earth’s recent history. As Dr. Tim Ball writes:

 

{In fact, 2014 was among the coldest 3 percent of years of the last 10,000, but that doesn't suit the political agenda.}"

 

Some problems with alarmist claims cited by Dr. Ball:

 

- "The quality of the surface temperature record is terrible, nowhere near good enough to support the alarmists' claims of precision."

 

- "...the surface temperature record has been corrupted.  The records are maintained by alarmist organizations, which have repeatedly "adjusted" historical data to make the past look cooler and the present warmer. - - - Typically these adjustments are carried out surreptitiously, and only come to light when someone comes across contemporaneous temperature records from , say, the 1930s, and finds that the temperatures reported at that time are different from the ones now claimed by the same agencies..." 

 

[allardjd 1,853]

This clearly demonstrates how you totally ignore my replies.

 

 

 

Like you did for four of my first five posts in the last round (#67, #68, #70 and #71)?

 

Your use of the word "totally" is more spin.  I can't respond to all your replies and you can't respond to all of mine, either in the past nor in this thread, nor would I expect you to.  We both cherry pick in the interest of time available and effort expended and out of a sense of mercy for anyone who is crazy enough to still be slogging through this.  

 

You know my opinions of Mann and his eyebrow raising statistical methods and his attempts to suppress independent review.  

[allardjd 1,853]

Of course it does! Prior to our CO2 emissions is hardly relevant to man made climate change. 

 

 

 

Despite the fact that there is ample geological evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels and temperatures in the past were higher than now?  It seems to me that might be relevant.

 

I read your "...hardly relevant..." as "...inconvenient".

[allardjd 1,853]

If this were a scientific discussion and not a political slanging match, I would be happy to contribute.Cheers - Dai.

 

 

 

Save your sanity, Dai.  The MMGW bunch took this from science to politics a long time ago.  

 

Neither Martin nor I are scientists.  We are, therefore, probably a pretty good representation of the views of the public, at least those near the poles of the opinion spectrum.  Not that anyone else is really very interested.  Those who are really scientists, on both sides of the "vast consensus", have their own places to argue this.

 

If we wanted to talk about a non-imaginary impending world crisis, perhaps we ought to start a thread on multiculturalism and Islamic fundamentalism?  Maybe we could find Odai and get him over here. Any takers?  (Just kidding, Joe.)

 

[allardjd 1,853]

...that includes misinterpreting what a range of uncertainty actually means!

 

 

 

I studied statistics and probability (several courses) for my degree, which is in a branch of engineering that relies heavily on that part of mathematics.  I do understand what an uncertainty range and a confidence level mean.  So does NASA, but despite understanding, they just forgot to mention it when proclaiming last year the "Hottest on Record".

[allardjd 1,853]

Well the climate sceptics, sorry deniers, are panicking like hell because their precious warming hiatus "might" be over. Of course, they are doing everything they can to deny that this might be the case. 

 

 

 

The same might be said of the pro-MMGW scientific community, sorry alarmists, sorry Climatistas. They are panicking like hell because their precious warming trend might have flattened out about 18 years ago and it may be that old Sol has a lot more to do with our climate and atmospheric CO2 a lot less than their models assumed.  Of course, they are doing everything they can to deny that might be the case, including trumpeting that last year was the hottest despite data that is pretty questionable, all the while failing to mention that the data was in fact questionable.

[allardjd 1,853]

 

 

Now, about that "vast consensus" and "settled science"...

 

"Contrary to the repeated insistence of both climate alarmists and the media, scientists do not all agree on the standard climate alarmism talking points.  A Purdue University scholar, surveying scientists in the agricultural sector including climatologists, found surprising disagreement on humanity’s role in climate change. These findings, though contrary to popular narrative on climate change, are unsurprising to anyone familiar with the prevalence of dissent in the scientific community."

 

"While 90 percent of scientists and climatologists surveyed thought the climate was changing, only about 50.4 percent contended that humans were the primary cause of these changes."

 

"...just 53 percent of climatologists surveyed thought “Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities.”"

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-long/2014/11/20/only-50-scientists-blame-mankind-climate-change-new-study 

 

I expect you will apply Alinsky's Rule #5 to this source too.

[MartinW 0]

 

This clearly demonstrates how you totally ignore my replies.

 

 

Like you did for four of my first five posts in the last round (#67, #68, #70 and #71)?

 

Your use of the word "totally" is more spin.  I can't respond to all your replies and you can't respond to all of mine, either in the past nor in this thread, nor would I expect you to.  We both cherry pick in the interest of time available and effort expended and out of a sense of mercy for anyone who is crazy enough to still be slogging through this.  

 

You know my opinions of Mann and his eyebrow raising statistical methods and his attempts to suppress independent review.

 

 

 

What the political stuff? Of course I did. I posted my opinion re the massive inequality in terms of the redistribution of wealth. Regarding this matter your have made your points and I have made mine. I have nothing further to add at this time. Much of this is subjective opinion anyway.

 

I also posted a couple of Forbes articles for you to read. You responded with your opinion.  I'm no expert in American financial matters, and again much of it is subjective opinion, so I have no more to add.

 

I have no problem with you not responding. Perhaps you agree with me [unlikely] perhaps you need time to process it, perhaps you can't be bothered. None of that bothers me. What is irritating is that only a few weeks ago we discussed a specific matter. Namely the hockey stick graph. The comments you made were quite simply wrong. Not open to interpretation, not subjective opinion, just wrong. It's a fact that there have been many hockey stick graphs created, by different research teams, and using different data.  I corrected you, pointed out the facts... now, a short time later, you return with the same inaccurate claim.

 

Don't respond if you don't want to, but if you decide to make the same claim again a matter of a few weeks later, at least address the counter argument you know I've already made.

 

You know my opinions of Mann and his eyebrow raising statistical methods and his attempts to suppress independent review.

 

 

There you go again, you are doing it again. You say that despite the fact it's irrelevant. you say that despite the fact that I have already pointed out, in two separate threads, the FACT that other research teams, have used different data, and achieved pretty much the same results as Mann. This is fact!  Again you will ignore me and come back in a few weeks, months maybe even a year and make the same claim.

 

If you want to be taken seriously... counter my argument!

 

It's frustrating. Most deniers aren't even debating the hockey stick graph anymore, they have moved on. Probably because they know it's been verified. Very surprising that you as a denier are stuck in the past.

 

Cheery picking isn't how I would describe my responses.They are based on the scientific consensus, from sources like New Scientist, Nature, Science, NASA etc... not from the Daily Fail, or Fox news, or other dubious sources.

 

Same applies to Climate Gate. I posted previously [with links] that other researchers investigated Climate Gate, and utilising  different sources of data, achived the same results as Mann. Thus, you may criticise Mann's methods, but they actually getared valid results... but again, you ignore the FACT that this occurred and make the same claim again... you couldn't make this stuff up.

[MartinW 0]

 

Of course it does! Prior to our CO2 emissions is hardly relevant to man made climate change. 

 

 

 

Despite the fact that there is ample geological evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels and temperatures in the past were higher than now?  It seems to me that might be relevant.

 

I read your "...hardly relevant..." as "...inconvenient".

 

 

Oh John really!

 

I don't mean to be rude, so apologies if it comes across that way but that's bizarre. Your reply is ignorant of even the basics of climate change.

 

Again... this is something I've addressed over and over again, both here and over at Just Flight. Why not offer your own counter arguments to my replies? You must recall how I've responded to that point in the past, I've done it numerous times.

 

Of course the temperature was higher in the past, of course it was. The temperature was also a lot lower.

 

But we know why!!!

 

We know why the temperature was higher in the past. For example...  The Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, caused by massive abrupt releases of methane from clathrates.  Or the Cretaceous Thermal Optimum, caused by the position of the continents and thus changes in ocean current circulation.

 

None of those natural events are happening now! However, we do have a correlation between our CO2 emissions and rising temperature. Yes, that's right, the hockey stick graph, which has been improved and, replicated numerous times from different sources of data... same result.

 

The analyses of the CO2 in our atmosphere tells us that it's our fossil fuel CO2 that's in the atmosphere. Basic climate science tells us what the consequences will be. Precisely, no, but evidence from the past tells us that it will be detrimental.

 

Your quote above demonstrates that you haven't taken the time to study any of the science in this respect. I'm no expert either, but at least I understand the simple stuff.

 

We release CO2

CO2 is NOT the most powerful greenhouse gas

The temperature of the atmosphere rises to a degree

The increase in temperature causes greater evaporation

Water vapour is the most powerful greenhouse gas

The temperature rises even more

More Co2 and methane [an even more powerful green house gas] are released form places like permafrost

the temperature rises even higher

More evaporation

And the cycle continues.

 

The above is fact! It doesn't take much contemplation to understand that mankind is messing with the very finely balanced gases in the atmosphere that regulate temperature!

 

The above is science.  Don't deny science. Don't deny science that dates back to the 19th century. The first calculations of human induced climate change date back to 1896. This is NOT a scary conspiracy by scientists and politicians to steal your taxes.

[MartinW 0]

 

...that includes misinterpreting what a range of uncertainty actually means!

 

 

I studied statistics and probability (several courses) for my degree, which is in a branch of engineering that relies heavily on that part of mathematics.  I do understand what an uncertainty range and a confidence level mean.  So does NASA, but despite understanding, they just forgot to mention it when proclaiming last year the "Hottest on Record".

 

 

Nonsense. Read the links provided. I even quoted for you...

 

Schmidt says there is, of course, some uncertainty in the global temperature data, which NASA has long acknowledged. But even when these uncertainties are considered, the data still shows that 2014 was most likely the warmest year.

 

 

 

NASA have made this clear all along. Not that a single year is relevant of course.

 

[MartinW 0]

 

 

 

Now, about that "vast consensus" and "settled science"...

 

"Contrary to the repeated insistence of both climate alarmists and the media, scientists do not all agree on the standard climate alarmism talking points.  A Purdue University scholar, surveying scientists in the agricultural sector including climatologists, found surprising disagreement on humanity’s role in climate change. These findings, though contrary to popular narrative on climate change, are unsurprising to anyone familiar with the prevalence of dissent in the scientific community."

 

"While 90 percent of scientists and climatologists surveyed thought the climate was changing, only about 50.4 percent contended that humans were the primary cause of these changes."

 

"...just 53 percent of climatologists surveyed thought “Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities.”"

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-long/2014/11/20/only-50-scientists-blame-mankind-climate-change-new-study 

 

I expect you will apply Alinsky's Rule #5 to this source too.

 

 

"Newsbusters" give me a break!

 

You must be trying to wind me up now, yes?

 

Now that is cheery picking of the worst kind.

 

I give you facts from a renowned scientific publication, like 1000 peer reviewed papers all telling us that mankind is making a significant contribution to warming. So that's a FACT!

 

And you give me... "Newsbusters".

 

 

 

 

[MartinW 0]

Climate scientists rebuff skeptics' arguments against 2014 'warmest year' claim

 

2014 WAS ONE OF THE 3% COLDEST YEARS IN THE LAST 10,000

  

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/01/2014-was-one-of-the-3-coldest-years-in-the-last-10000.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+(Power+Line)

 

To re-state what the headline and the article say in a different way, about 9,700 of the last 10,000 years were warmer than 2014.

 

"Climate alarmists play a number of tricks to try to make their catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory seem plausible. One of the most important is that they focus on a ridiculously short period of time, beginning either in the late 19th century or at the beginning of the 20th. This is, of course, not even the blink of an eye in geologic time. Given that the Earth began emerging from the Little Ice Age in the mid to late 19th Century, it is hardly surprising–and a very good thing – that from then until now, temperatures have tended to rise.

 

Alarmists shriek that 2014 was the warmest year ever! But that claim is absurd if put in the context of the Earth’s recent history. As Dr. Tim Ball writes:

 

{In fact, 2014 was among the coldest 3 percent of years of the last 10,000, but that doesn't suit the political agenda.}"

 

Some problems with alarmist claims cited by Dr. Ball:

 

- "The quality of the surface temperature record is terrible, nowhere near good enough to support the alarmists' claims of precision."

 

- "...the surface temperature record has been corrupted.  The records are maintained by alarmist organizations, which have repeatedly "adjusted" historical data to make the past look cooler and the present warmer. - - - Typically these adjustments are carried out surreptitiously, and only come to light when someone comes across contemporaneous temperature records from , say, the 1930s, and finds that the temperatures reported at that time are different from the ones now claimed by the same agencies..." 

 

 

 

 

 

Here we go again. Oh John please stop it.

 

It took me about 30 seconds to discover that the individual that wrote that garbage above is none other than John Hinderaker!

 

John Hinderaker is nice and cosy with the Koch brothers, who are Infamous for funding the climate denier machine. The Koch briothers of course invest biliones of dollars in fossil fuel extraction and infracstucture projects.

By the way, PowerlineBlog.com and Hinderaker devote much of their time defending the Koch brothers. Which makes sense, given the close relationship between Hinderaker and Charles Koch.

As I said... I post links and graphs from respected publications like New Scientist, Nature, Science, NASA. And you give me...

The Koch brothers best pal!

Unfortunately, a well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign is poisoning the climate change debate. They use tricks and stunts that PR firms invented for the tobacco lobby, energy-industry contrarians are trying to confuse the public, to forestall individual and political actions that might cut into exorbitant coal, oil and gas industry profits.

It's a shame you fall for it!

[allardjd 1,853]

This has gone on long enough.

 

Here is a synopsis of my opinions on the topic.  It is useless to further respond to your posts in this thread.  It's become too convoluted, too troublesome, too unproductive and your comments are becoming too personal.  If you'd like to post a synopsis of your opinions, or a few million more bytes of comments and quotes, have at it.  It's your thread now, but you may notice a bit of an echo here after this.  I have better things to do than to engage in a popcorn throwing contest with you. This is your free shot - the last word.  Frankly, I doubt anyone else is still reading anyway. I won't be.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - 

 

Climate change is occurring.  It's almost always been occurring.  Most everyone agrees to that.  We are, for instance, still warming from the "Little Ice Age", that lasted about 550 years and ended around 1850, though that seems to have paused in the last 18 years or so, quite possibly because the sun is unusually quiet.  It may well resume.  We may well be contributing to it but the magnitude of that contribution is indeterminate.

 

I've recently read that some scientists are postulating that we are not yet at the optimum levels of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.  They argue that it may well be that the Earth and mankind might benefit by increased crop yields and lower energy requirements if the climate warms and plant life flourishes.  Obviously that is not proven, but it's as plausible as the dire predictions of the alarmists for what a degree of temperature rise over the next century might do.

 

I'm not convinced by your quotes and the arguments of the pro-AGW crowd any more than you are by arguments from me and from those who don't accept what is being sold by the IPCC and their supporters.  I believe much of the pro-MMGW case to be biased, self-serving, exaggerated and in some cases dishonestly created from whole cloth, not least by "adjusting and improving" the data.  There are many examples of this, some of which I've cited.  It's beyond convenient, actually is suspicious, that the improvements and adjustments are always such as to bolster their position, and are only revealed, reluctantly, when they are caught.

 

There have been enough identified cases of that to cause the entire process to be in question.  I enumerated some of them in our earlier thread, to which you've referred.  I won't play them back and you won't accept them so its a stalemate, just as almost every aspect of this current discussion is.  

 

I have no more difficulty finding quotes, articles, graphs and data to support my position than you do for yours.  You frequently apply Alinsky's rule 5 to mine and wrinkle your nose at the sources but you cannot do more than disagree, attempt to discredit the source and point to a different opinion by someone else.  For every "Koch Brothers", there is an algore, a Thomas Steyer, a George Soros or a Michael Moore who does as much or more in the opposite direction than the Kochs ever thought of doing.  Each of them hypocritically leaves about the same personal carbon footprint as a six-unit coal fired power plant while arguing that each of us must reduce ours or we're doomed.  In Steyer's case, he invests heavily and profitably in those things he publicly condemns.  Ridicule is not rebuttal, nor is it proof that the ridiculed source is inaccurate or incorrect.

 

It is my belief that the once vaunted scientific process is as broken as our political systems, particularly where it involves the climate science debate.  The personal and professional attacks leveled against those who don't toe the line speak volumes about the low level of integrity to which the AGW-supporting scientists have sunk.  If the scientific method still produces truth, they should be happy to see both points of view funded and let the science speak for itself.  Instead of encouraging or even permitting that, dissent is ostracized, punished, ridiculed and threatened; urgency in arresting global warming is invented at every opportunity so that truly settling the science in a true scientific manner can be characterized as a luxury we cannot afford.  

 

The peer review process is largely broken because the key articles are peer reviewed by like-minded others in the scientific community - not by the independent sources, much less the skeptics.  As an example, recall Dr. Jones' frantic efforts to keep his source data at East Anglia from independent review, as revealed in the Climategate hack.  If he was truly confident of his results he'd have had no need to work so hard and so unethically to keep his data from other potential reviewers.  He should have welcomed its broad release, unless he had something to hide, and it turns out he did indeed have things to hide.  

 

Scientists and their institutions live primarily on government money.  Many of the universities and institutions engaged in scientific research are in fact government entities.  All of them fund their research, which includes very nice salaries, bonuses, fringe benefits and retirement accounts for the scientists and their bosses, with government grant money.  The scientists and those to whom they answer in the administration and management of those institutions know which goose is laying the golden eggs.  They also know that the gravy train may very well dry up for them if the results they produce are not what the goose would like to see.

 

Now, to address the goose.  The Global Warming/Climate Change issue is potentially the greatest windfall for governments since taxes were invented.  Governments know that this is an issue that can be characterized as being almost above criticism, saving the world from certain disaster.  They are working hard to paint that picture so that they will be justified in raising taxes to unheard of levels.  The disbursement of government money is true power and taxes enable that power.  Governments are climbing on the bandwagon as fast as the political opinions of their constituencies will allow.  The reason that the US congress hasn't passed serious global warming measures is that those politicians know they'll lose their place at the trough if they were to do so in today's political climate in the US.  What is happening is that the President and his administration, primarily the EPA (but John Kerry is in there pitching too) are doing what they can while preparing the rest of us to be further fleeced without protesting too much.  

 

The goose, i.e. the governments, continue to supply the grant money to those institutions and scientists who reliably bring home the bacon in the form of pro-AGW study results.  This provides the government with ever more ammunition with which to convince us that more must be done and that more of our money is needed to do so. 

 

Their actions have already made cheap energy expensive through confiscatory tax levels on energy and by magnanimously supporting with the taxpayers' money, puny, unproven, inefficient and questionable alternative sources that cannot begin to replace current sources nor compete on their own economic merits in the market place.  Whether the cheap electricity from the power plants is taxed up to parity with wind, solar and the other alternatives, or whether the public is taxed so that subsidies or tax relief can be given to the green sources, the bottom line for the consumer is that he is paying far, far more for his energy than he ought to. They have already adversely affected the standard of living of most of the industrialized world and they are just getting started. 

 

The UN, the mother of the IPCC, is beneath contempt.  Their primary capability is to make mountains of other people's money disappear into their own pockets or those of their family and friends.  It may very well be the most corrupt and least accountable organization that has ever existed. The IPCC was initially staffed selectively with biased scientists who had already concluded that AGW was real and devastating.  Their process is highly politicized and systematically excludes or minimizes any data or opinion that goes counter to their mantra - that humans are killing themselves and the Earth, but for a mere few trillions of dollars of other people's money, they can save us from ourselves by altering the climate. There's nothing arrogant about that.

 

We saw how well their ~ 90 models fared in using historical data to predict current global temperature.  They missed on the high side, all of them, most by quite a lot.  Unless or until they can do better than that, they have a long way to go to convince me and a lot of other people that their alarmist claims have any substance.

 

[mutley 4,497]

Phew it's getting warm in here 

[MartinW 0]

Climate change is occurring. It's almost always been occurring. Most everyone agrees to that. We are, for instance, still warming from the "Little Ice Age", that lasted about 550 years and ended around 1850, though that seems to have paused in the last 18 years or so, quite possibly because the sun is unusually quiet. It may well resume. We may well be contributing to it but the magnitude of that contribution is indeterminate.

 

 

And we know why warming occurred in the past, the causal factors are known. Again you have been told this. Again you ignore me and don't provide a counter argument. And you wonder why I get frustrated.

 

No we are not warming still from the little ice age. That is simply "wrong". The little ice age wasn't an ice age, it was a symptom of the Maunder Minimum. It was short term and local. Caused by variations in solar output. Short term and local is NOT climate change as you have been told many times. You made that up!

 

No we have not experienced a warming hiatus due to a reduction in solar output. The oceans have continued to warm As you've been told before in the previous thread. Climate change is analysed by looking at temperature LONG TERM, greater than 30 years, in order to eliminate short term variables like the recent hiatus. The cause of this brief lull in temperature rise is ocean current changes. As you know, we discussed it in the previous debate, as usual you ignore the science and prefer amateur speculation!

 

Our contribution isn't "indeterminate" Read the links I gave you previously. Scientists aren't fools! Our emissions are in step with warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Our CO2 emissions have a particular chemical composition, we know it's our CO2 in the atmosphere and basic science tells us that the temperature will thus rise. We've known this since the late 19th century.

 

I've recently read that some scientists are postulating that we are not yet at the optimum levels of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. They argue that it may well be that the Earth and mankind might benefit by increased crop yields and lower energy requirements if the climate warms and plant life flourishes. Obviously that is not proven, but it's as plausible as the dire predictions of the alarmists for what a degree of temperature rise over the next century might do.

 

 

With respect, do some research. Look at the Earths environment in our past, when natural climate change generated the temperatures we are heading toward. Look at the sea level, many metres of sea level rise you will notice, consider the consequences of such a huge rise in sea level. Look at the extent of sea ice loss. Look at the disruption to the thermohaline circulation. Look at ocean anoxia. Worse still, look at clathrate decomposition. Now consider the social unrest that would be generated by shortages in food supply and loss of habitable land. We "know" these effects have occurred in the past when temperature reaches a given level. 

 

To suggest such things are in some way "good", because we "might get more crops" is mind-blowingly ill-informed.

 

I'm not convinced by your quotes and the arguments of the pro-AGW crowd any more than you are by arguments from me and from those who don't accept what is being sold by the IPCC and their supporters.

 

 

 

The difference of course is that I quote from the huge scientific consensus [1000+ peer reviewed papers, research that is replicated, repeatable] Whereas you quote from a best friend of the infamous Koch brothers and other sources that are known to be biased liars connected to the oil industry.

 

not least by "adjusting and improving" the data. There are many examples of this, some of which I've cited

 

 

All  of which I have addressed and given you "facts". Not conspiracy theory. For example: CRU, exonerated, original data that their results were generated from looked at again, verified, same results achieved, validated independently. Hockey stick graph, repeated by numerous other researchers, many hockey stick graphs all agreeing with Mann's. Tree ring data adjustment, essential, because some northern hemisphere tree rings don't coincide with atmospheric temperature. All addressed all explained with fact, but still you deny and hold dear your implausible conspiracy theory.

 

I have no more difficulty finding quotes, articles, graphs and data to support my position than you do for yours. You frequently apply Alinsky's rule 5 to mine and wrinkle your nose at the sources but you cannot do more than disagree, attempt to discredit the source and point to a different opinion by someone else. For every "Koch Brothers", there is an algore, a Thomas Steyer, a George Soros or a Michael Moore who does as much or more in the opposite direction than the Kochs ever thought of doing.

 

 

Except that your quotes come from organisations and individuals who aren't scientists but do happen to be known right wing deniers. My quotes on the other hand come from respected scientific journals. Like Nature, Science etc. Of course I discredit your sources when they have been caught out telling bare faced lies on numerous occasions, even lying about scientists lying. Of course I discredit your sources when they have been caught out deliberately misinterpreting the science. Of course I discredit your sources when they have been paid large sums to discredit the science.

 

If you can't see the huge problem with trusting sources of information from organisation that have "billions" to lose in terms of lost revenue if we effectively combat climate change... well , what can I say.

As for "Gore, a Thomas Steyer, a George Soros or a Michael Moore", I've never quoted them and never will... because they are not scientists. You can quote from individuals who have zero qualifications, no PhD's in the field if you like. I go to the scientists, you know, the guys that gave you the very computer you are using now. The guys that have given us everything we hold dear in the modern world, the guys who's inventions and discovery's have saved countless lives. You know, the guys who's research you accept willingly when it's to your advantage, but deride when they tell you something you don't want to hear, something that might affect the dollar in your pocket. Forget about money, think about your grandchildren [if you have any] or their children, or their children's children.

 

Now, to address the goose. The Global Warming/Climate Change issue is potentially the greatest windfall for governments since taxes were invented. Governments know that this is an issue that can be characterized as being almost above criticism, saving the world from certain disaster. They are working hard to paint that picture so that they will be justified in raising taxes to unheard of levels.

 

 

This is an old one. A product of a decades long well financed and purposely deceitful effort from the fossil fuel industry to paint climate change as a liberal plot to raise taxes. I suppose your entire US Congress, who deny MMGW is happening have suddenly become altruistic politicians on a mission to save the world from  taxes have they? Look at the science! Try to understand it!

 

Politicians are using climate change to steal our money are they, but the oil industry isn't bothered about losing billions and isn't  misinterpreting and downright lying about the science?

 

 

magnanimously supporting with the taxpayers' money, puny, unproven, inefficient and questionable alternative sources that cannot begin to replace current sources nor compete on their own economic merits in the market place.

 

Really! Photovoltaic energy is already so cheap that it competes with oil, diesel and liquefied natural gas in much of Asia "without subsidies". Also worth noting that the fossil fuel industry has been the recipient of huge subsides over the years. But lets ignore that. Fossil fuels currently receive subsidies via at least 250 mechanisms.

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to $1 trillion annually in fossil fuel subsidies. In 2011 the nuclear industry benefited from $73 billion in subsides.

 

they have a long way to go to convince me and a lot of other people that their alarmist claims have any substance.

 

 

Wrong! They will never convince you. You could be provided with 100% definitive evidence for MMGW, and you would still deny.

 

You deride the hockey stick graph. I show you that it's been replicated and validated by other teams using different data sources - and still you deride the hockey stick graph. I could demonstrate the validity of the hockey stick graph till the cows come home... and you would still deny!

 

You claim CRU are all con men. I show you that they have been exonerated numerous times and that their results, that you deride, have been reassessed from the original core data by an independent team and CRU's results validated - still your deny.

 

You imply that "MMGW isn't happening because it was hot in the past". Demonstrating no understanding of the subject matter and no willingness to learn.

 

Previously, you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the biogeochemical cycle. You have claimed our emissions are too small compared to the bulk of the atmosphere to have any effect at all. [Not sure if you still believe this, if not, some progress] This demonstrates no understanding at all of the basics of climate science.

 

You ironically tell us that climate change is highly politicised... while simultaneously chanting the identical anti-science mantra of the Republican Party.

 

Rather than looking at the science and attempting to understanding it, you ignore 1000 peer reviewed papers, tell us scientists are all liars, government are trying to steal our money, and that billionaire climate change deniers connected to the oil industry like the Koch brothers and the discredited Heartland Institute are awesome sources of information.

 

Finally, it should be noted. I have known for a very long time that convincing you of the validity of MMGW is impossible, no matter how much valid scientific information I give you. The only reason I continue to counter your claims is because there are many individuals out there that are undecided. I would not want them to be nudged in the wrong direction and misled by conspiracy theories, the anti-scientific agenda, and politically motivated opinions.

[MartinW 0]

Phew it's getting warm in here 

Hopefully over.

And apologies for the subject matter and heat... but it is global "warming".

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

Do I sense some climate change in here? Is it natural or man made?

[brett 2,314]

I could use a little warming, I'm freezing and tired of shoveling snow.

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

... I can't respond to all your replies and you can't respond to all of mine, either in the past nor in this thread, nor would I expect you to.  We both cherry pick in the interest of time available and effort expended and out of a sense of mercy for anyone who is crazy enough to still be slogging through this.  

 

 

Thanks John.

 

This is the BEST confession/explanation of how a forum ... discussion...operates on contentious issues that I have read in a while.

Kudos to BOTH John and Martin on the level of Civil discourse they have been maintaining...even as they challenge each other for Not reading every damned link each other posted.

 

A fine example of why this is such a fine forum.

 

/salute to all.

[mutley 4,497]

Well said Captain.