What Do We Think About Climate Change

lindzen got caught with his pants down taking money from the oil companies to write op ed pieces and then lying about it.

or did you forget our many pages concerning this very issue


wild claim #1

presented with no evidence to back it up

wild claim #2

again presented with no evidence to back it up

wild claim #3

and again absolutely not one shred of evidence to back it up

wild claim #4

and you guessed it
not one dot of data to back up yet another wild claim

wild claim #5

once more
no hypothesis is quoted, no information concerning it is listed and most obviously no data is listed in support of thes mythical hypothesis

wild claim #6

is laughably incorect and hardly bears repeating other than for humor factor
oh
and there was not a dot of data to back this wild claim up either

wild claim #7

abdicates responsibility and attempts to suggest that science is not dependent on data collection

refuting that is no problem

 

I refer you to Guillermo's post #4721.

Jimbo

 

and would you be referring to the local temp graph that is attempting to pass off the medieval warming period as a global event and that fails to have the resolution to properly denote the rapid increase in recent temp

or would you be referring to the fact that of the seven graphs presented not one was defined within the context of its time frame or shown along with the complete data set

once again pretty deceptive to be both presenting data within a graph resolution to poor to see the real issue and to be only presenting data from an area that experienced a local warming phenomenon when we are after all talking about global climate change

but we all know I responded to G in no uncertain terms in post #4744 which is well worth repeating

simple really Jim
G attempted as usual to misguide the muddleheaded with incomplete and misrepresented data rather than look at the global picture through the eyes of multiple data sets
a typical denialist tactic but one easily seen though

or is that asking a little to much to be looking at global conditions when speaking of global climate change

cheers
and best of luck with that

B

 

It appears that at this point in time perhaps no one will be accepted as a credible source by the warmist advocates if they do not follow the narrative that global warming is a man caused event. Once the role of the scientific community was to question the status quo and challenge various theories with repeatable experiments or model the same in a repeatable fashion with open and transparent data. How have we gotten to a point where that role has been abandoned?

The point of peer review is not to build consensus but to put the data and theories out there naked so others can conduct the experiments and modeling and compare results. The whole point is to work as accurately as possible and then hang your *** out and see if anyone can shoot holes in your position.

So again I ask is there anything, any data, any theory, you would approach with an open mind that is contrary to the global warming narrative advocated by the IPCC?

 

The evidence in the form of papers, complete quotations for all these items have been posted and re-posted and re-posted ad nauseum to this thread, yet you forget that (or pretend to forget) and then always come back to the same set of tired dogmas.

And Yet:

You've yet to come up with one single measurement study that shows that atmospheric CO2 has a sufficiently long residence time such that terrestrial emissions can cause an atmospheric accumulation, or an isotopic mass-balance study that corroborates the assertion that anthropogenic emissions have cause the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. And you never will be able to succeed on either of these items because no such residence time study or mass-balance study exists to corroborate these claims.

But you'll forget all that before you even go to bed tonight. You're like the main character in the movie "Memento"

Jimbo

 

and I would again state that although there is some small amount of anomalous data there is no competing theory

feel free to present one and maybe myself and the entire rest of the scientific community would be happy to review it.
As of yet and in spite of repeated requests for a compelling and coherent competing theory to the contrary

none has been presented

this statement is patently false
numerous studies and data sets have been quoted

please see my last few posts for most of the data that you now claim has not been forthcoming

maybe you think you are fooling some of the more occasional readers
cause you cant possibly believe your fooling anyone who has been paying attention

science not only knows how much total co2 is being produced by man but basic industry stats can be used to identify how much co2 is contributed by each industry



and its effects

 

Boston,
" I would again state that although there is some small amount of anomalous data there is no competing theory"

I get your position, but that has little to do with my question. I don't have to ask you any questions about what you feel, you've made it quite obvious.

The question to be specific is, and again I ask, Is there anything, any data, any theory, you would approach with an open mind that is contrary to the global warming narrative advocated by the IPCC?


Will you accept the possible existance of evidence contrary to the globalwarming consensus?

Another question, Will you deal with the evidence on it's own merits rather than try to overwhelm with volume?

 

That's it, Boston you convinced me. CO2 is a menace and must be cut down.

This is my plan for the future starting today.
I'll take my outboard to the tip and dump it together with my car.
Will row and walk from now on.
My electricity supply is history, I'll flick the switch and revert back to vegetable oil lamps. Hot water including the spa will come from a slow combustion fire fuelled with newspaper bricks I'll press myself in the backyard.
Cooking ditto.

I'll contribute to the de-population of the earth by
a) having a vasectomy.
b) spreading the word that animal fat is good for you. This will also bring down the number of belching cows.
c) start a new political party, "the retrogrades". I will promise no tax, no kids no future and I promise to bring back the dinosaurs.
d) start a new religion, a homosexual and sterile mother earth will be the new godess.
e) automatic castration will be compulsory togethr with circumsition for all new born. I will seek an excemption via an indulgence from the new vatican.

That should about do it methinks
Do you care to join me?

 

to answer your first question

in short

there is extremely little anomalous data

there is no competing theory

I approach all data with an open mind

there is no global warming narrative

there is a theory of Abrupt Global Climate Change



actually I think the IPCC has a few things kinda wrong but they are trivial compared to the overall abundance of data in support of there conclusions

Obviously there is in all scientific research a certain amount of anomalous data. This data although incongruous, is not always false or corrupted via inadequate processes, but is in some cases perfectly valid, for instance; elements of faster than light theory are derived from anomalous data of relativity as are elements of the electric universe theory derived from anomalous data within the study of cosmology. Anomalous data is a given however within the study of atmospheric sciences, there is comparatively very little of this anomalous data, significantly less so than in other areas of scientific research, This lack of contrary data is therefor one reason for the huge consensus among climate scientists.

there is no competing theory to consider
should one come along I would most certainly give it my full attention

I would, after all, prefer Rapid Global Climate Change Theory was wrong, but I find myself compelled, by the preponderance of evidence and the quality of that evidence to come to the grim realization that it is not wrong and that we are in big trouble

second question

were I to forgive the inaccurate wording of the question the simple answer would be a tentative

yes

but the wording is inaccurate so the response must be more thorough

once again there is always anomalous data
its existence however is not contrary to the theory of rapid climate change

what science does is build a puzzle picture of pieces of data
some pieces do not appear to fit at first
this does not mean we dont have a picture or a place that might fit that data
just means that we dont have an entirely complete picture yet

it seldom means that there is a whole other picture hidden within the pieces

I think we are having a semantic difficulty with the term contrary

third question

the question reveals a misunderstanding of the scientific process however the short answer again would be a tentative

yes

however

Science always considers the preponderance of data in support of a theory as lending some weight to the likelihood that the theory is sound. I'd be slacking in keeping up on my education in the scientific process to suggest otherwise. The quantity and quality of data in support of a theory obviously must be taken into consideration if a proper analysis is to be made of any given data pool.

with that in mind
anomalous data is always worthy of consideration however, that data's source its funding and its timbre is also worthy of note in any reasonable review as such considerations can weigh heavily on the impartiality of the work

I believe my recent review of Miskolczi's paper and its seriously flawed eq4 which not only does not add up using his own numbers but does not add up using the accepted values of the parameters defined within the equation, as well as his misquote of Kirchoff's law; both egregious errors that should have been caught by the review panel and Im sure were by the panels that rejected his work, is a good example of data being analyzed on its own merits.

the following review was instrumental in my analysis of FM's work

as did the fact that his paper was rejected numerous times by major publications

from there I read the paper and then looked for rebuttals and then reviewed the rebuttals authors as well

from there I contacted F Miskolczi and asked him to please justify these errors and asked him if he would print a correction and resubmit his paper for peer review

A stellar example of this process would be N. Oreske's treatment of her own error in her paper "Beyond the Ivory Tower"

while FM admitted his eq.4 was flawed an equation his paper claims is fundamental to his argument; he was not willing to justify this other than to ask that I ignore it, nor was he willing to show his work in converting the values of the known parameters of eq4 which he altered and then used throughout his paper to reflect the incorrect measurement system used in conjunction with his misrepresentation of Kerchoff's law, which he also misquoted.

He refused to print a correction although he does admit major errors exist within the paper
He also refused to withdraw the paper until such time as the appropriate corrections can be made

I believe I gave Miskolczi every chance to justify his paper and after speaking to him directly he failed to do so while at the same time admitting major flaws within its body

oh
he also blatantly refused to even discuss the rebuttals directly as he seemed rather set upon by some of the more stinging reviews
something tells me he has had a lot of questions to answer and he is not to happy about it

A review of my considerations concerning what few bits of valid anomalous data have been presented will show that I have given each its due consideration in the light of what merits it may or may not have had.

thus far such meritorious data has been seriously wanting and so you may have gotten the impression that I am not willing to consider data on its own, however, a careful look would reveal that I first check the source of data, then its funding, then its author, and then its content. exactly in the order as that procedure would be carried out on any paper presented to a panel review

 

The quotes from the leading AGW Nutcases have been out in the public domain for several years and have yet to be challenged by the effluent orifices that spouted the nonsense, no need to back up fact.


That there is no competing theory is not surprising, there is no unusual event taking place when one looks at the real temps as measured without doctoring. The glaciers aren't receding at an accelerated rate, the oceans are not going into flood mode, the temp has only experienced a net increase of .75f in 100 years, and the only drought in is the supply of truth from the IPCC.

Every single assertion, assumption and distortion of the IPCC has been countered by innumerble studies and research projects and every single alarmist claim has been debunked.

 

Their Own Mouths: Global Warming is a Fraud

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world." -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion." - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing." - Christopher Manes, Earth First!

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club.

Now, using the vacuous logic of the alarmists, prove that the above people didn't make those statements - lol!




No conspiracy here, these wack jobs are more out of the closet with their rule the world pipe dreams than Elton John is about his sexuality.

 

If you want funding as a scientist or lobby group just say there is global warming as just about every government has worked out a new tax to reverse it....thanks to the new data!!!
It seems like governments much prefer the 'pay to pollute' system

 

The only thing I have thought about is something Arthur C Clarke said,
" Just what will happen when most people in Asia aircondition their house"?

 

Here's some more quotes from Paul Ehrlich, one of the leading gloom and doomers in the world. His predictions are about as accurate as the temp charts used by the IPCC in AR1.

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death." (Population Bomb 1968)
"Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969)
"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." (1969)
"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." (1976)
"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people." (1969)
"By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million." (1969)

 

Most of those estimates are way out. I cannot see any of these things happening for at least another 20 or 30 years. By then my kids can worry about it. Unlikely I will have grand kids because my sons seem to have little interest in breeding.

The only real shortages right now in developed countries are oil and, in some places, fresh water but that can be solved with desal plants.

Rick W