Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by sabotai

From the Muir Russel Review, page 13



Muir Russell Final

The full review of that claim starts on page 64.
[/size]

Uh-huh.

Pat Michaels: The Climategate Whitewash Continues: Don't Believe the 'Independent Reviews' About Goings on at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - WSJ.com

I didn't think the claim that the peer review process was rigged was particularly controversial.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Uh-huh.

Pat Michaels: The Climategate Whitewash Continues: Don't Believe the 'Independent Reviews' About Goings on at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - WSJ.com

I didn't think the claim that the peer review process was rigged was particularly controversial.

So your rebuttal is an op-ed piece penned by a senior fellow of the Cato Institute, the same institute who has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into Michael's private company specifically to produce anti-global warming testimony...and you're talking about most every other climate change scientist's work being "rigged" or suspect in some way??? Seriously?

*facepalm*

It just ain't worth it...

[Blackadar]

Actually, I just can't leave this one alone.

Cato gets huge funding and was founded in part by the Koch Brothers, who are avowed right-wing/libertarian extremists. They own oil processing plants that have capacity for over 800,000 barrels a day and own a couple of pipelines. They also have substantial investments in timber companies, asphalt companies, plastics, fertilizer, cattle...all industries threatened with the necessary regulations to curb climate change.

So when someone starts touting an Op-Ed piece by a senior fellow at Cato, I really wonder about them (and that's being very diplomatic). This is the *exact* same thing as someone trying to point out an anti-cancer research study funded by some little lab where the funding came from Phillip-Morris or RJR. Did people actually believe that shit too?

Also, trying to compare the rest of the scientific community with these charlatans is just simply a false equivalency. This is funding specifically to justify a conclusion. Some of you think that's what most of the funding out there is like, but that's simply not the case. Most of it is simply blind funding, where the conclusion is drawn from the data...and not vice versa. I really have to shake my head at this kind of stuff.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Uh-huh.

Pat Michaels: The Climategate Whitewash Continues: Don't Believe the 'Independent Reviews' About Goings on at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - WSJ.com

I didn't think the claim that the peer review process was rigged was particularly controversial.

He only references a few of the committees that investigated the claim in that op-ed. There were several that looked into the claim and cleared it.

And if it's true that the peer-review process has been rigged, how is it that Richard Lindzen keeps getting published? or Roy Spencer? or Henrik Svensmark? or John Christy?

The claim doesn't hold water for the simple fact that AGW skeptics are getting their papers published in peer-reviewed journals.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

So your rebuttal is an op-ed piece penned by a senior fellow of the Cato Institute, the same institute who has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into Michael's private company specifically to produce anti-global warming testimony...and you're talking about most every other climate change scientist's work being "rigged" or suspect in some way??? Seriously?

*facepalm*

It just ain't worth it...

That was the first complaint I read about the credibility of the group hired to clear the East Anglia email group. There were many others. No one was surprised when Russell ignored the obvious. It was not an independent review.

I'm not trying to argue the research itself. I'm not qualified to evaluate the meaning of differences in ice core samples. If anyone here is, great. All I can say about the science is that it is not all that much hotter than it was 100 years ago, and trying to tell me that Massachusetts has become North Carolina only hurts your own credibility.

I'm saying there are serious problems with the credibility of this specific process right now. And I'd say the same thing if the other side were making religious claims as well. AGW has become a religious debate, not a scientific one. The believers are not all that civil to those of us who aren't buying it right now. Since they're asking for trillions of dollars, which would end of our economy as we know it, we need more than fervent belief. We need a process that is above reproach.

I'm very troubled that someone can read the East Anglia emails and not lose confidence in the peer-reviewed journals. You don't need an advanced degree in climate science to see the problems there.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

[JediKooter]

That article seems to be cherry picking the data.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

That article seems to be cherry picking the data.

You can say that, but if I've learned anything from this thread, it's that you must be cashing a big fat juicy check every month from the green lobby and higher education cartel to have an opinion like that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

That article seems to be cherry picking the data.

As opposed to any other assessment of these 'facts'?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

As opposed to any other assessment of these 'facts'?

If it's all corrupt and funded by different interests why do you stand so firmly and exclusively behind one of the corrupt sides? I mean, you seem to have a very strong opinion behind this considering it's all tainted junk science.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by article

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Oh the irony!

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

As opposed to any other assessment of these 'facts'?

OMGzzz scientists are falsifying the dataz!! You do realize that it doesn't take changes of 5 or tens of degrees to offset the balance of things right? It only takes a couple of degrees.

644x358.jpg

Here's what their chart in the article would look like if they zoomed out from the 1997 to 2012 chart they have.

Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif



Here's what temperatures would look like if you zoomed out even further from the pic above:

2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


But lets not stop there. Lets go back even further in our Wayback Climate Time Machine...


12K year time period...
Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png



5 Million year time period...
Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png


65 Million year time period...
65_Myr_Climate_Change.png


I'm surprised that 'deniers' don't use the 65 million chart more often.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

If it's all corrupt and funded by different interests why do you stand so firmly and exclusively behind one of the corrupt sides? I mean, you seem to have a very strong opinion behind this considering it's all tainted junk science.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between. I don't think that's a terribly radical stance.

[gstelmack]

I believe the main point is that over the last several years, we've had the "champions" pointing to growing temperatures each year as more proof, and predicting major increases in the near future. That chart shows that these "champions" are full of it.

Yes, we should probably be taking a longer-term view, but then the "champions" should stop with their short-term dire predictions.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I believe the main point is that over the last several years, we've had the "champions" pointing to growing temperatures each year as more proof, and predicting major increases in the near future. That chart shows that these "champions" are full of it.

Yes, we should probably be taking a longer-term view, but then the "champions" should stop with their short-term dire predictions.

How about we listen to scientists? I don't know who these "champions" are that you're referring to, but scientists are generally very cautious about prescribing any specific anomaly or temperature variance on climate change. They are looking at long term trends.

And the predictions that I'm aware of average around 3 degrees increase over the next 100 years. That's not really a short term prediction.

[JPhillips]

This is great.

Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?

The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.

It isn't global demand, it's green energy subsidies!

[DaddyTorgo]

I <3 JediKooter.

That is all.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by KWhit

How about we listen to scientists? I don't know who these "champions" are that you're referring to, but scientists are generally very cautious about prescribing any specific anomaly or temperature variance on climate change. They are looking at long term trends.

And the predictions that I'm aware of average around 3 degrees increase over the next 100 years. That's not really a short term prediction.

There's also others pointing to another Maunder Minimum by 2030-2050. I've also heard others (which is at odds with one of the charts JediKooter posted) say that the warming in the late 90s, that peaked in 98, was due to several long term trends all hit at the same time.

Also, back in the 80s, El Ninos were a once every 7 years event. Now we know they can occur more frequently (and have done so).

The point is, our climate is a very complicated beast, and we are only now unraveling how it works. We will continue to see more data and more contradictory data coming in, and it is only through honest assessment of this data that we will be able to put together a strong understanding of how our climate works.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I don't know who these "champions" are that you're referring to

Just turn on the news or read nearly anything publically posted about climate change and global warming. You don't have to go farther than pretty much any pro-global-warming press release.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Al says Hurricane Sandy was a result of global warming.

Al Gore criticizes Obama on global warming | The Daily Caller

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i'm not saying. i'm just saying

[lungs]

Interesting talk about using cattle to stop desertification and help global warming:

http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savor...te_change.html

[Radii]

Originally Posted by lungs

Interesting talk about using cattle to stop desertification and help global warming:

http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savor...te_change.html

That's awesome, definitely worth the 20 minutes to watch IMO.

[RainMaker]

This is done by scientists unfortunately. We should wait for the uneducated opinions of people who are trying to score political points in their weird tribalism game.

Global warming is epic, long-term study says - CNN.com

[Warhammer]

Three items:

1) the cut off for that is convenient. Coming out of the last ice age the temp jumped by a greater amount within a few decades. That is just outside of this time range.

2). The last 12,000 years is a drop in the bucket over the entire history of the earth.

3). This is one sample from one spot on the earth. That does not mean the same results occur globally.

However, let's not let a few issues get in the way of your regularly scheduled alarmism.

[RainMaker]

No, we were waiting for the opinion of people who don't have advanced degrees in science. They are the ones who know what they are talking about. Not the people who are educated in it.

I know when I get sick the first person I look for is someone without a medical degree.

[Dutch]

Curious. What was the cause of the "1900-1909" decade registering as the coldest in the last 12,000 years?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Curious. What was the cause of the "1900-1909" decade registering as the coldest in the last 12,000 years?

It didn't register as the coldest in the last 12,000 years.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

We're going to die........again.

Hansen Says Tar-Sands Oil Makes Climate Change Unsolvable - Bloomberg

[CraigSca]

From the linked article:
"The scientist also said he’s working on a paper based on “speculative” research that indicates accelerating ice loss from Greenland will eventually cause the North Atlantic to cool, creating the conditions for more powerful storms along the lines of Hurricane Sandy, the largest Atlantic hurricane on record. "

Oh crap, it IS! (as of Nov. 29, 2012)
Greenland, Antarctica ice melt speeding up, study finds - CNN.com

Oh wait, no it's not (as of May 8, 2013)
Greenland Glaciers Not Melting as Quickly: Sea Level Rise Slower Than Predicted : Nature & Environment : Science World Report

[molson]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Oh wait, no it's not

No, they still are, its just a question of how fast. Everybody isn't go to have the exact same projected rate. Your "zinger" article just says its "rapid" instead of "very rapid"

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by molson

No, they still are, its just a question of how fast. Everybody isn't go to have the exact same projected rate. Your "zinger" article just says its "rapid" instead of "very rapid"

Right - which is why I highlighted "accelerating" in my post.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Right - which is why I highlighted "accelerating" in my post.

Except the opening line of the second paragraph of your zinger article specifically states:

Over the past decade, the melting seen on the Greenland Ice Sheet has been accelerating.

Did you read this before you bothered to link it?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

From the linked article:
"The scientist also said he’s working on a paper based on “speculative” research that indicates accelerating ice loss from Greenland will eventually cause the North Atlantic to cool, creating the conditions for more powerful storms along the lines of Hurricane Sandy, the largest Atlantic hurricane on record. "

Oh crap, it IS! (as of Nov. 29, 2012)
Greenland, Antarctica ice melt speeding up, study finds - CNN.com

Oh wait, no it's not (as of May 8, 2013)
Greenland Glaciers Not Melting as Quickly: Sea Level Rise Slower Than Predicted : Nature & Environment : Science World Report

Seriously, I'm always amused at the Drudge report reading types on this. Apparently science can be determined by some idiot looking outside and noticing its cold today - therefore Global warming is a crock.

[CraigSca]

You're right, my bad - I thought the ice sheet was not accelerating as much as originally thought in November, but when I look at the article, they're saying that the sea level may not be effected as much as previously thought.

Really, my point wasn't that global warming is a crock - my point is that we really don't know its extent.

Anyway, if I amused a few FOFCers today, then I did my part

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Seriously, I'm always amused at the Drudge report reading types on this. Apparently science can be determined by some idiot looking outside and noticing its cold today - therefore Global warming is a crock.

I don't care what you say. We're all going to die. Especially if I move to the Northeast evidently.

[Warhammer]

Wow, most of the ice melt in Antarctica is on the western side where there is some volcanic activity. The other side is gaining mass.

It is not unprecedented for Greenland to have a smaller sheet, many expect that is why the Vikings were able to colonize it during the MWP. Advancing ice sheets forced the, to leave later.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Seriously, I'm always amused at the Drudge report reading types on this. Apparently science can be determined by some idiot looking outside and noticing its cold today - therefore Global warming is a crock.

Then stop telling me it's not a crock because there was a hurricane.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

We're all going to die.......again.

Boxer uses Okla. tornado to push carbon tax | The Daily Caller

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

In the Midwest, we call this living too close to the water. On the coast, it's called global warming.

Will Climate Change Destroy New York City? - Yahoo! News

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

IOn the coast, it's called global warming.

Because that's what it actually is.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Because that's what it actually is.

Yeah, but I thought we were in a warming pause.

Dire outlook despite global warming 'pause': study

No, we're cooling...

To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here - Forbes

What models can we trust?

Are climate change models becoming more accurate and less reliable? | The Curious Wavefunction, Scientific American Blog Network

The funny thing is I would love some more good old warming since more people would need to spend more money on their A/C units. But, unfortunately, I think we will be heading the other direction soon.

As I've said before, climate change is a big bogeyman. The climate is always changing (by definition) and that is not going to change.

[molson]

Looking up a few posts, I love how the thread's biggest attacker of the majority's global warming analyses uses a photo of a snowy day as his evidence.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

As I've said before, climate change is a big bogeyman. The climate is always changing (by definition) and that is not going to change.

Technically weather changes. Climate change is incrementally slow unless hastened by an outside force.

Guess it's the PR guy in me, but I just want to throttle almost everyone on both sides of this issue. The term "global warming" should never have been invented. It was based on preliminary science with all the facts. What we're learning is that with climate change, some places may get warmer and other places get cooler, or sometimes both in that the extremes are both higher and lower. On the other side, if you don't believe climate change is occurring for some reason (man made or otherwise), you're head is buried in the sand.

Anyone who claims to have a breakthrough on either side -- whether it's a study proving climate change is happening rapidly and we're all going to die, or it's someone who claims they have discovered a pattern proving everything is hunky dory and global warming is a vast conspiracy -- is lying.

[molson]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Anyone who claims to have a breakthrough on either side -- whether it's a study proving climate change is happening rapidly and we're all going to die, or it's someone who claims they have discovered a pattern proving everything is hunky dory and global warming is a vast conspiracy -- is lying.

Just out of curiosity, because it seems like you have a rational view on such things - what do you think then of big studies like the one cited above regarding potential climate change impact on a specific location like NYC? It's not quite an "everbody's going to die" proclamation, but they do seem to conclude that NYC faces some risk and needs to prepare. And there seems to be a lot of people involved in these conclusions.

And if both sides are nuts and possibly on the take - where does one get the correct info? Is there a middle side, and are they involved in any of these individual city studies or any of the other published scientific research?

Edit: Or in other words, should we try to do anything to prepare for this, or even mitigate it, or should we just write the whole thing of as the invention of a bunch of crazies. A bunch of really well-educated crazies.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Yeah, but I thought we were in a warming pause.

Dire outlook despite global warming 'pause': study

No, we're cooling...

To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here - Forbes

What models can we trust?

Are climate change models becoming more accurate and less reliable? | The Curious Wavefunction, Scientific American Blog Network

The funny thing is I would love some more good old warming since more people would need to spend more money on their A/C units. But, unfortunately, I think we will be heading the other direction soon.

As I've said before, climate change is a big bogeyman. The climate is always changing (by definition) and that is not going to change.

I'm tired of this horseshit and frankly I'm not going to be nice about it anymore.

You might as well be posting that the Earth is fucking flat.

First of all, learn to properly vet your sources. If you're going to believe someone from the Heartland Institute and ACRU who has absolutely no education about climate change, then simply don't post. Don't waste people's time posting links to articles that have zero credibility. We shouldn't have to do it for you. Posting something from Peter Ferrara is like asking RJ Reynolds about the links between smoking and cancer in the mid-80s. The guy is specifically PAID by groups to spread FUD (if you don't know what that is, look it up). If you want to pay me enough money, I'm sure I could say that child molestation isn't harmful. It still wouldn't mean that I'd have any proof or that I'd even know what the hell I was talking about.

Secondly, stop trying to cherry pick soundbites like they're conclusions. You know that global warming "pause" you just linked? 1998 was the warmest year on record until last year. So that's a pause, right? Uh, no. The warmest 10 years on record have occurred since 1998. That's not a pause, it's a trend. If a string of numbers is as follows:

1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 4, 3, 5, 4, 6, 9, 7, 8, 9, 8, 9, 8, 8

That is not a flat graph indicative of a pause. That's a trend and this is just statistics 101. Math ain't that hard.

That same article? It's also predicting a raise of global temperature of 4C - consistent with pretty much the mean of virtually every other major study done in the last 15 years. So stop trying to impress people with misleading headlines and read the damn data behind it before you post anything.

Same thing goes with the American Scientific article. Yes, the models are more complex, leading to more variability. But again, going back to the source material, it still doesn't mean there's no climate change or even that there's a scientific debate about climate change. Here's the conclusion of that same study: "We do not need to demand impossible levels of certainty from the models to envisage a better, safer future.” More complex models are a good thing, even if they offer more uncertainty.

But guess what? There's still virtually no uncertainty! You may think that climate change is some hocus-pocus, but frankly your opinion isn't important. What is important is the science. The number of scientists who believe in climate change is 97% Of 13,950 peer-reviewed studies between 1991-2012, only 24 rejected climate change. In scientific terms, that's pretty much an absolute certainty.

I'm sure the Heartland Institute wants you to believe differently. After all, they're paid by Big Oil, Big Coal, the Koch Brothers and pretty much every other group who is threatened by having to clean up their pollution. You want to believe them? Then fine, go smoke some cigarettes because they don't cause cancer either.

I'm not fighting with you. I'm not going to bother asking you to actually learn something that might somehow threaten your preconceived notions. I'm just tired of Flat-Earthers like yourself trying to make a debate out of something that isn't debatable in that way. If you don't want to believe, then no one is ever going to make you believe. Just like I can't make you believe in gravity, evolution or that Paul wasn't dead. But don't waste our fucking time with stupid shit like that.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Yeah, but I thought we were in a warming pause.

Dire outlook despite global warming 'pause': study

No, we're cooling...

To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here - Forbes

What models can we trust?

Are climate change models becoming more accurate and less reliable? | The Curious Wavefunction, Scientific American Blog Network

The funny thing is I would love some more good old warming since more people would need to spend more money on their A/C units. But, unfortunately, I think we will be heading the other direction soon.

As I've said before, climate change is a big bogeyman. The climate is always changing (by definition) and that is not going to change.

So the first article says:

Because of the hiatus, warming in the next 50 to 100 years "is likely to lie within the range of current climate models, but not at the high end of this range," said Alexander Otto of Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute, co-author of the new study.

The third article says:

The article goes on to note that in spite of this growing uncertainty the basic predictions of climate models are broadly consistent.

And the second was written by a guy with this bio:

I am Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, Senior Advisor for Entitlement Reform and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, General Counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

Just out of curiosity, because it seems like you have a rational view on such things - what do you think then of big studies like the one cited above regarding potential climate change impact on a specific location like NYC? It's not quite an "everbody's going to die" proclamation, but they do seem to conclude that NYC faces some risk and needs to prepare. And there seems to be a lot of people involved in these conclusions.

And if both sides are nuts and possibly on the take - where does one get the correct info? Is there a middle side, and are they involved in any of these individual city studies or any of the other published scientific research?

Edit: Or in other words, should we try to do anything to prepare for this, or even mitigate it, or should we just write the whole thing of as the invention of a bunch of crazies. A bunch of really well-educated crazies.

There's the danger of false equivalency and why it's so effective.

SI

[Dutch]

Just for clarification (for myself and others)...Climate Change and Global Warming are two different things right?

Climate Change --> Natural change in global climates (Ice Ages are climate change).

Global Warming --> Man-made rise in global temps.

Agree or disagree?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Just for clarification (for myself and others)...Climate Change and Global Warming are two different things right?

Climate Change --> Natural change in global climates (Ice Ages are climate change).

Global Warming --> Man-made rise in global temps.

Agree or disagree?

Wrong. Climate change is the more accurate term for the changes the Earth's climate is experiencing. In most regions this results in warming, and overall, the Earth as a whole is warming, but the change doesn't mean every region on Earth is warming - climate is more complex than that.

Whether it is man-made or not has nothing to do with the terms.