Ocean News

Quote
Ted Cruz’s claim that satellite data are “the best” is unjustified and false
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...act-check-which-temperature-data-are-the-best

 

the correct terms applicable to all the temperature data and to emissions data and man contributed CO2 is: obsession with minutia (one degree C warming in a century) and libido dominandi.
http://www.definitions.net/definition/libido dominandi

You want to force the whole world to your philosophy, but you can't!

Speaking of scarce data, exactly how many thermometers do you have in the oceans?
Land based thermometers are concentrated in urban heat areas and few in remote areas. Oceans cover 70% of the planet. You need more than twice as many sea thermometers as land thermometers, and the land thermometers aren't sufficient in number or uniformly distributed.

ONLY the satellites can take equal spaced readings and you say those are unreliable.

Hey! Wake up!
The data is flawed, the climate models are flawed, the ethics of the climate scientists are flawed, the man made warming hypothesis is flawed, and your hope to convert the world to your religion has a big stumbling block.
The USA.
We aren't buying it. Not the majority.

 

Quote
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/201...ay-climate-change-is-happening/4111445374964/

AUSTIN, Texas, Oct. 20 (UPI) -- Slowly but surely, attitudes about global warming among the American public are beginning to more closely reflect those held by scientists.

The latest results from the University of Texas, Austin Energy Poll show that more than three out of every four Americans think "climate change is occurring" -- 76 percent of respondents. Even the majority of Republicans now acknowledge global warming, with 59 percent saying the climate is changing.

The latest results reveal the largest consensus since political scientists at Texas started polling on the subject in 2012 -- and a 68 percent increase since last year

The percentage of Americans who deny climate change flat out also dropped in the latest findings, from 22 percent in 2012 to 14 percent.

 

Quote

Missing fish: 30 percent of global fish catch unreported
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/201...-catch-unreported/2911453222534/?spt=slh&or=4

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Jan. 19 (UPI) -- A new report out of Canada suggests nearly a third of the global fish catch goes unreported. For those in charge of managing commercial fish stocks, ignorance is not bliss.

"The world is withdrawing from a joint bank account of fish without knowing what has been withdrawn or the remaining balance," Daniel Pauly, the report's lead author and a professor of marine biology at the University of British Columbia, said in a press release.

Pauly and his colleagues estimate 109 million metric tons of fish are taken from the planet's oceans every year -- 30 percent more than the 77 million metric tons officially reported. That's a lot of missing fish.

Researchers say the discrepancy is the cumulative failure of dozens of nations to account for artisanal, subsistence, and illegal fishing. At least 9 percent of the global catch are discarded fish -- fish caught and thrown back by commercial operations.

 

Strawman.
I don't know ANYBODY who claims climate doesn't change, has always, and probably will always.
Global warming and anthropogenic global warming are NOT the same thing.
Just like your fake "consensus" was based on papers that global warming was MENTIONED, now you want to claim polls are in your favor with the same dishonest inferences.
Agreeing global warming has occurred is NOT the same as claiming man caused it, and it's intellectually dishonest to infer such a link.

The TRUTH?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/...gw-but-you-wouldnt-know-it-from-the-headline/

73% of Americans do NOT believe man is the main cause of warming or climate change.

Please attribute this information to:
Monmouth University Poll
West Long Branch, NJ 07764
www.monmouth.edu/polling
Follow on Twitter: @MonmouthPoll
CONTACTS:
For commentary on poll results:
TONY MACDONALD, Director, Urban Coast Institute
732-865-6471(cell); 732-263-5392 (office);
amacdona@monmouth.edu
For information on poll methodology:
Monmouth University Polling Institute
732-263-5860; polling@monmouth.edu
Released: Tuesday, January 5, 2016

 

Quote
Big Gap between What Scientists Say and Americans Think about Climate Change
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...hows_americans_believe_in_global_warming.html

 

Quote

https://wbgo.org/newsarticle/poll-public-says-climate-change-is-real

A Monmouth University poll finds there's a growing consensus that climate change is an important issue.

Tony MacDonald is the director of Monmouth University's Urban Coast Institute.

He says 70 percent of Americans surveyed believe the world's climate is undergoing a change that's leading to extreme weather patterns and sea level rise, and it's not just coastal communities that are being affected.

"You're having the flooding in the Mississippi and the Missouri right now. So I think the connections are being made that these issues particularly with the increased intensity of storms is going to impact everybody both along the shoreline as well as inland."

64 percent "majority" of Americans say the government should do more to reduce activities that lead to climate change, but many officials are reluctant to act.

 

Does it matter much what people believe? Don't half of all Americans have below average intelligence? Isn't there plenty of evidence showing what poor choices people make? 75% believe in pie in the sky magic. We're majorly, devastatingly involved with degenerate lunatics overseas because people thought it would be a good idea, people thought it was the right thing to do. Who cares what people think, why would they know anything about it? The question is, what do scientists think? What do the educated people studying the problem think about it?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...um-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

 

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

This approach to downplay the significance of climate change were copied from tobacco lobbyists; in the face of scientific evidence linking tobacco to lung cancer, to prevent or delay the introduction of regulation. Lobbyists attempted to discredit the scientific research by creating doubt and manipulating debate. They worked to discredit the scientists involved, to dispute their findings, and to create and maintain an apparent controversy by promoting claims that contradicted scientific research. ""Doubt is our product," boasted a now infamous 1969 industry memo. Doubt would shield the tobacco industry from litigation and regulation for decades to come."[136] In 2006, George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian about similarities between the methods of groups funded by Exxon, and those of the tobacco giant Philip Morris, including direct attacks on peer-reviewed science, and attempts to create public controversy and doubt

 

most of the high school dropouts are liberal democrats...the party that believes in AGW. More college graduates are republican and don't believe in AGW. I don't belong to either or any other party. I think for myself after I research a topic. I believe the current warming is a natural cycle and CO2 has nothing to do with it. CO2 certainly didn't cause the roman and medieval warm periods, or the warming prior to 1950...ie most of the current period warming.
Scientists are people first and people are biased by their politics.
And the "consensus: is a bald faced LIE!
Many reputable scientists refute AGW.

As to tobacco causing cancer, it doesn't in the vast majority of smokers. And non smokers get cancer. So where is the proof smoking causes cancer? It's a belief.
What does it matter what people believe?
Draconian laws result!

 

Since the folks believing and not believing in AGW are divided strictly along political lines, isn't it simply obvious, AGW is politics, not science?

Since science was well respected, people thought they could enlist science to support their belief systems. pseudo science was born, and all science lost a lot of credibility.
The AGWers also came up with the 'consensus" lie, and try to claim everybody that agrees it's warming, also thinks it's man caused, man's CO2. Another lie. Believing one isn't believing the other. Why do this? Seeking credibility from numbers, because the AGW hypothesis has none on it's own.

 

51% is a simple majority, 2/3s is a Super majority, and 3/4s or more is a VAST majority.


" Based on United States statistics, the lifetime risk that a man will develop lung cancer is 7.62%, or 1 in 13 people. For women, lifetime risk is 6.61% or 1 in 15. The lifetime risk of a man dying from lung cancer is 6.26% or 1 in 16, and 4.99% or 1 in 20 women will die from the disease. Clearly these numbers would be higher for people who smoke and much lower for people who have never smoked.

Studies in other countries have broken down the risk further to differentiate between never smokers, former smokers, and current smokers.

In a 2006 European study, the risk of developing lung cancer was:

0.2% for men who never smoked (0.4% for women)
5.5% for male former smokers (2.6% in women)
15.9% for current male smokers (9.5% for women)
24.4% for male “heavy smokers” defined as smoking more than 5 cigarettes per day (18.5% for women)

An earlier Canadian study quoted the lifetime risk for male smokers at 17.2% (11.6% in women) "


The VAST majority (more than 75%) of smokers never get lung cancer.

As to the other cancers, skin, prostate, pancreatic, breast, uterine, ect...no link is claimed between them and smoking.


What people know isn't a problem. It's what they KNOW that isn't so, that is a problem!


As to the smokers having a higher incidence of lung cancer, statistics don't work that way. Likely heavy smokers are also heavy drinkers and have other unhealthy habits. Poor diets, ect. You can't isolate a single factor in a cancer patient and point the finger at the culprit. Not credibly.
You might blame milk. All cancer patients of all types of cancer drank milk as children! Eureka, the cause is discovered!
Now you begin to understand junk statistics.

But do you understand pseudo-science? When you experiment and another scientist gets the same result from repeating the same experiment, but changing a parameter in the experiment, doesn't produce the same result (falsification), that is real science.

Pseudo-science is all the hypothesis/philosophies that are impossible to design experiments for, and regardless of the limited life span of scientists or the scale of the experiment, like the atmosphere. If you can't test by experimentation, it's only a belief, not a true scientific theory. You don't get an exception because you can't do the experimentation!
Many pseudo-scientists claim they are entitled to exemption from scientific principles. They substitute "peer reviewed". It's pseudo-scientific unprincipled.

 

Quote
Denialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.[1] Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of an historical experience or event, by the person refusing to accept an empirically verifiable reality.[2] In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial ideas.[3] The terms Holocaust denialism and AIDS denialism describe the denial of the facts and the reality of the subject matters,[4] and the term climate change denialist is applied to people who argue against the scientific consensus that the global warming of planet Earth is a real and occurring event primarily caused by human activity.[5] The forms of denialism present the common feature of the person rejecting overwhelming evidence and the generation of political controversy with attempts to deny the existence of consensus.[6][7] The motivations and causes of denialism include religion and self-interest (economic, political, financial) and defence mechanisms meant to protect the psyche of the denialist against mentally disturbing facts and ideas.

1.Conspiracy theories — Dismissing the data or observation by suggesting opponents are involved in "a conspiracy to suppress the truth".

2.Cherry picking — Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look as though they base their ideas on weak research.

3.False experts — Paying an expert in the field, or another field, to lend supporting evidence or credibility.

4.Moving the goalpost — Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often unfulfillable) piece of evidence.

5.Other logical fallacies — Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to consequences, straw man, or red herring.

 

So what do you call folks that contrive a "consensus" by doing a word search for "global warming" among published scientific papers? Mentioning global warming doesn't in anyway indicate the authors views. what would you call folks that insisted they had a consensus thus obtained?
Trustworthy?

 

I don't deny reality.
I believe reality is global warming is a natural cycle and not caused by CO2, man's or any other kind.
CO2 never drove climate in all earth's past, so it's irrational to think it suddenly began driving climate during recent times.