What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Nice job of rewriting history there, Jimbo. You make it sound so simple.

Unfortunately, the idea that a major scientific consensus can be traced to the nefarious actions of three evil scientists, who somehow imposed their will on scientists all over the world by publishing eight papers, is classic, comic-book-simple conspiracy theory.

To claim they had to flip an opposing 'overwhelming, nearly unanimous consensus' to manage it is one of those nice little touches that make this thread so much fun to read....

Then it should be easy to step up and show us a few recons that are not works of "The Team", that show a puny, regional MWP rather than a large global MWP as "The Team" continues to assert. It would also be a nice touch if you could show such a recon dated before 2001.

Did you even bother to read the linked page? I know you don't like to delve too deeply into opposing views, no matter how coherent, but that bit of personal sloth means you missed this:

"Further, if you compare graph 1) 1976-2000 on fig. 2 with the original temperature graph IPCC 1990-2001 on fig.1., you will see a stunning match. This indicates that the consensus of a WARM middle age before year 2001 was likely to be a real consensus."



Wasn't it amazing that the IPCC was able to predict the conclusions of recons that had not yet been compiled, let alone published?

Quoting from the same article:

"Several results came later that confirmed the IPCC’s 2001 Opinion: Hockey sticks, mainly tree lines. But how could the IPCC know what the future results on the MWP would be? If the conclusions of “climate gate” are even remotely true, then this would explain that the IPCC controlled the future results."

Golly, what remarkable clairvoyance! Maybe they should pick a few horse races and buy Lotto tickets, too Oh wait, THOSE games are honest

Jimbo

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Then it should be easy to step up and show us a few recons that are not works of "The Team", that show a puny, regional MWP rather than a large global MWP as "The Team" continues to assert. It would also be a nice touch if you could show such a recon dated before 2001.

Did you even bother to read the linked page? I know you don't like to delve too deeply into opposing views, no matter how coherent, but that bit of personal sloth means you missed this:

"Further, if you compare graph 1) 1976-2000 on fig. 2 with the original temperature graph IPCC 1990-2001 on fig.1., you will see a stunning match. This indicates that the consensus of a WARM middle age before year 2001 was likely to be a real consensus."



Wasn't it amazing that the IPCC was able to predict the conclusions of recons that had not yet been compiled, let alone published?

Quoting from the same article:

"Several results came later that confirmed the IPCC’s 2001 Opinion: Hockey sticks, mainly tree lines. But how could the IPCC know what the future results on the MWP would be? If the conclusions of “climate gate” are even remotely true, then this would explain that the IPCC controlled the future results."

Golly, what remarkable clairvoyance! Maybe they should pick a few horse races and buy Lotto tickets, too Oh wait, THOSE games are honest

Jimbo

Jimbo, I'm sure you've already been shown anything I could show you, and you've turned it down or ignored it. There's no good reason for me to waste my time turning this thread into even more of a broken record...ecord...ecord.....

Unfortunately, your skepticism is strictly one-way. You remind me of what David Aaronovich said about Nigel Lawson, chairman of The Global Warming Policy Foundation:

"People such as Lord Lawson are not sceptical, for if one major peer-reviewed piece of scientific research were ever to be published casting doubt on climate change theory, you just know they’d have it up in neon at Piccadilly Circus. They are only sceptical about what they don’t want to be true."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6928868.ece

[troy2000]

Jimbo, I just checked out the negative points you gave me, along with the message you added. I commend you for signing your name, instead of trying to anonymously slime me.

But I see no reason for hiding your literary talents under a bushel basket; why don't we share our little exchange with everyone here?

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

You really don't understand the first thing about this subject; but are just a classic seedpicking troll with a set of preconceived yet ill-informed opinions and no desire to back up even one thing you say with data.

[quote=troy2000]

Your opinions (and your posts) are worthless, Jimbo, because they're filtered through a screen of 'only-what-I-want-to-hear." You wouldn't recognize an objective fact if it reared up and bit you in the arse.

Look at what you're claiming: according to you, a few years ago there was a nearly-unanimous consensus that 20th century climate was completely normal. Then three guys (using fudged data and coming to erroneous conclusions) published eight peer-reviewed papers--and for some reason you haven't explained, almost the entire effing scientific community suddenly reversed course, changed its mind, and started blindly agreeing with them.

How stupid is that? I don't need to be a scientist to recognize a classic conspiracy nut--and I'd advise you not to get too close to any squirrels, come fall.

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Jimbo, I'm sure you've already been shown anything I could show you, and you've turned it down or ignored it. There's no good reason for me to waste my time turning this thread into even more of a broken record...ecord...ecord.....

Unfortunately, your skepticism is strictly one-way. You remind me of what David Aaronovich said about Nigel Lawson, chairman of The Global Warming Policy Foundation:

"People such as Lord Lawson are not sceptical, for if one major peer-reviewed piece of scientific research were ever to be published casting doubt on climate change theory, you just know they’d have it up in neon at Piccadilly Circus. They are only sceptical about what they don’t want to be true."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6928868.ece

The trouble is you've never shown ANYTHING and you never will! You can't even be troubled to read a one page article that proves quite factually by a compilation of 54 relevant recons the provenance of the IPCC's 'new religion' (since 2001) on the MWP! That was a 2 inch putt, man and you missed! How could you be expected to do a real search for anything, which is more like a 350 yard drive with a dog leg at the fairway?!

The recons I've challenged you to find (NOT sourced from the team, showing 20th century climate is anomalous, published before 2001) simply DON'T EXIST! Not that there were no recons before 2001; on the contrary, there were HUNDREDS! A list of the then available recons was published to this thread a couple of years back with the conclusions, much like the list of the residence time studies that has been posted to the thread (It's the same situation with the residence time studies; the ones I've challenged you to find DON'T EXIST!). The vast majority showed evidence of a prominent global MWP. A small minority showed little evidence. NONE had evidence that refuted the existence of the MWP. Not one. The first recons that claimed to refute the existence of the MWP were published by "The Team".

This should be troubling to you, as you have claimed to posses some grasp of the technicalities involved. But apparently the yawning gaps in the AGW narrative don't trouble you at all, leading to the conclusion that either:

You are a close-minded ideologue, or

You simply don't understand the issues at all.

I tend to believe it's a bit of both with an emphasis on the latter. But with just enough close-mindedness, you'll NEVER get to the point of truly understanding the nature and importance of the gaps in the AGW narrative, since the side you've latched onto will never be able to provide coherent answers to the pertinent questions, which is the heart of the problem with their narrative...

IT DOESN'T ADD UP!

Jimbo

[troy2000]

Jimbo, baby. Think for a minute, before you post. If the entire scientific consensus on global warming could be refuted by a one-page article, there wouldn't be a scientific consensus, would there? The simple fact that you're claiming such supernatural powers for it tells me I'd be wasting my time reading it....

I'm not claiming any special expertise on the subject. But I will lay claim to possessing a little common sense. And my common sense tells me that if the vast majority of scientists studying climatology believe one thing, and some guy named Jimbo on a boat design forum believes another, the odds are good that Jimbo is full of it.

No guarantees, mind you. But I tend to go along with Ecclesiastes 9:11 as expanded upon by Damon Runyon: The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong--but that's the way to bet.

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by fasteddy106

Ah yes, let's just leave the world and civilization to the "experts". Great idea!

Agreed as usual fasteddy.

Consensus: Eat ****. Millions of flies can not be wrong.

History: Ha ha, love the experts on history in this forum.

Troy: how old are you 12? Still playing with giving me negative feedback when you don't like my post?

Experteese and my right to comment: To use the argument of the Canadian minister for the environment in my favour I say that the Global Warming Movement is so dangerous that even if Andropogenic warming is true, the whole idea should be scrapped and burned and forgotten because the damage this lunatics will do to our way of life will surpass by far the minuscule damage if existent at all we may do the enviroment in the next 100 years.
Furthermore who gets to decide that cooler is better than warmer? The wilderness society?
And someone please explain this to me: THEY ARE TELLING US THAT THEY DO THIS FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN....HA HA HA WHAT DO THEY CARE ABOUT OUR CHILDREN WHEN THEIR GOAL IS TO DECIMATE HUMANITY DOWN TO ONE BILLION MAX, PREFERABLY 500 MILLIONS? Pleeese!!!

The Global warming movement together with their cousins the greens and assorted lunatics, want the clock turned back. They want the population of the earth culled back to one billion tops (their own mothers wifes and close family excepted) Cities turned into wilderness, de-industrialisation at massive scale, thrid world countries to starve and die from deseases en-masse to make room for animals and plants. Anyone proposing this without the magic component "The Planet" would be jailed for life.

Basically this good people consider humanity to be a plague to be dealt with by taking away energy. They state that the worst that could happen is to find a cheap source of energy. This people are the real enemy and as I said at the beginning, the Global Warming movenemt should be outlawd as you would a cult that wants to release sarin gas in the subway.

Alan Rockwood
AND YOU HONESTLY WANT ME TO STOP HAVING AN OPINION AND LIVE IT TO THE EXPERTS WHEN THEY DEMONSTRATED TO BE CORRUPT, INEXCUSABLY BIASED, UN-SCIENTIFIC, MERCENARY FOR THEIR GRANTS?
PULL THE OTHER ONE !!!!!!!!!!

After all you yourself have only posted personal opinion of what you like or dislike.

Warm is good, Cold is bad. I hate global warming histeria.
I will buy one million shares in the biggest coal mine I can find.

[Guillermo]

Coming back again to the "Data Analysis of Recent Warming Pattern in the Arctic" by Ohashi and Tanaka, 2010:

From the Discussion:
".....the sea ice thickness relates closely to the variability of the Beaufort High."

Here we have another evidence on loss of Arctic ice thickness is due to the winds and not to an imagined effect of GHGs. It is sad to see how this fallacy is still being flagged by the scaremongering alarmists. And more sad to see people still believing them.

And:
"We also analyzed the winter SAT pattern related to the AO in the late 20th century. It is very important to mention that there is no SAT pattern in the observation for the 20th century responded to the external forcing as shown by the EOF-1 of IPCC-AR4 models. The most dominant mode in the observation is the AO pattern, whereas the most dominant pattern is the ice-albedo pattern in the model. The winter SAT pattern observed in the late 20th century is not the response to the external forcing, but the natural variability related to the AO."

As we see evidence continues to accumulate against the flawed conclusions of the IPCC's reports resulting from their inadecuate modeling.

How much of such evidende will be needed for the people and governments realize IPCC's AR4 reccomendations to policymakers are not trustable enough to keep on risking huge amounts of money and efforts trying to stupidly fight climate back?

[Marco1]

Guillermo, I admire your persintence in posting scientific data. Well done.

Howver in my opinion and just as it is the case for religious beliefs, people choose what they want to believe WAY BEFORE they choose a side or a church go to. In other words, just like people choose to believe in re-encarnation Budism, Christianity or Shintoism, before seeking the fundamentals behind it, people line up for "ANTI" or "PRO" way before they even read one graph on temperature.
Peoples minds are made up based on different values. Axes to grind. Own peculiar biases. Being vegetarian. Smoking Marihuana, anything comes before the temperature graphs and the theories that are to be defended from the infidel.
I am sure you couldn't miss the fact that the debate on andropogenic global warming has nothing to do with science and facts and truth and practicality and vlaue for money but it has all to do with fervorous "BELIEF" that "we must do something"...whatever that is.

The current debate is about a massive power shift based on smoke and mirrors and the one pulling the strings are using the odd and the dissenter to support their agenda.

Eppur si muove.

[alanrockwood]

Originally Posted by Marco1

Alan Rockwood
AND YOU HONESTLY WANT ME TO STOP HAVING AN OPINION AND LIVE IT TO THE EXPERTS

Dear Marco,

Please quit misrepresenting what I said!

I absolutely did NOT say that you cannot have an opinion. Quite the opposite in fact. I said that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Furthermore, I did NOT say that you cannot state your opinion to anyone you want.

What I DID say is that an opinion from someone who doesn't know much about a subject is likely less valid than one who is an expert, and I stand by that statement.

I WILL REPEAT THIS ONE MORE TIME, WORD FOR WORD, SO YOU CAN GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.

I absolutely did NOT say that you cannot have an opinion. Quite the opposite in fact. I said that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Furthermore, I did NOT say that you cannot state your opinion to anyone you want.

What I DID say is that an opinion from someone who doesn't know much about a subject is likely less valid than one who is an expert, and I stand by that statement.

Quit misrepresenting what I said!

Alan

[Brent Swain]

To all the vehicle exhausts we can add the exhausts from jet planes: a single transcontinental flight on one puts out ones total CO output for an entire year of driving: multiplied by the number of flights per day and per year..
Many major airports around the world have one land every 30 minutes.
To this we can add the fact that the average food item in North America travels 1400 miles on roads before reaching our tables , in transport trucks. How much exhaust does that add up to , multiplied by the over 300 million people in the US, 30 million in Canada, etc etc.
To this we add the exhausts from freighters shipping out food from around the world. Then there's the exhausts from the supertankers supplying the fuel from halfway around the planet in many cases.
And some say this has no effect on the climate? ********!

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

To all the vehicle exhausts we can add the exhausts from jet planes: a single transcontinental flight on one puts out ones total CO output for an entire year of driving: multiplied by the number of flights per day and per year..
Many major airports around the world have one land every 30 minutes.
To this we can add the fact that the average food item in North America travels 1400 miles on roads before reaching our tables , in transport trucks. How much exhaust does that add up to , multiplied by the over 300 million people in the US, 30 million in Canada, etc etc.
To this we add the exhausts from freighters shipping out food from around the world. Then there's the exhausts from the supertankers supplying the fuel from halfway around the planet in many cases.
And some say this has no effect on the climate? ********!

Amazing in light of your post how many agw alarmists insist on galivanting all over the globe in their own private jets, figuratively mooning all us toothless rednecks with their fancy travel patterns and revealing their elitist hypocrisy in the process.

http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/03...ounter-attack/

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

Amazing in light of your post how many agw alarmists insist on galivanting all over the globe in their own private jets, figuratively mooning all us toothless rednecks with their fancy travel patterns and revealing their elitist hypocrisy in the process.

http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/03...ounter-attack/

Total sidetrack, Hoyte. Ranting about elitists does nothing to advance any sort of argument whatsoever. But offhand, I'd say relatively few 'agw alarmists insist on galivanting all over the globe in their own private jets.'

As a matter of fact, I'm guessing the numbers are probably much lower than the number of private jet flights taken by executives from the oil industry--the industry that is manufacturing and funding most of the so-called 'skepticism' out there.

It's doing so the same way the tobacco industry did it for years, and even using some of the same hired guns to masquerade as objective scientists. Can we say "Oregon Project," boys and girls? I knew you could.....

[hoytedow]

At least the oil industry produces something besides charlatans.

[Guillermo]

This probably has not yet special significance, except for the fact that the trend should be slowing down by this time instead of keep on growing, but the current Arctic Sea Ice Extent is presently at the mean 1979-200 average for the first time since 2001.

Source: NSDIC

[powerabout]

Scientist in the UK have been complaining that to do any research that might conflict with the govermnent line is like saying the world in flat and hence kiss your finding goodbye.
This is why people like me are sceptical.
You cant tax a volcano so when they erupt they dont really contribute to global warming ( as some on here are claming)

Should we polute less..absolutely
Should we tighten up epa regs..absolutley
should goverments tax you for a permit to polute...NO
Was there any outcome other that raising govermnet revenue by inventing global warming?
Emission regulations have been on the move for over 40 years which has been a good thing but cars using less fuel and poluting less actual lower goverment revenue in fuel tax.
The move to hybrid cars and people using home grown bio fuel also lower government revenue.
Goverments allowing mass migration from 3rd world to 1st must be a major contributor to the Co2 per person. What has been done about this?
But you can tax their consumption after they arrive i guess and it gives a quick boost to the economy in the short term.