What Do We Think About Climate Change

Thx, memo. "An Australian sea-level team pulled the tree down, so
it would not remain as proof that sea levels were not rising!" Something only an "environmentalist" would even think to do.

 

having nearly completed my summer project and being done with my lecture series I thought Ild come check what flotsam was drifting around on the oil and gas industry funded forums
as I suspected
nothing has changed
so let me reiterate and assure you
there is absolutely no debate within the scientific community concerning the theory of rapid global climate change
nor is there any comprehensive or even partial competing hypothysis being presented
what there is is a public relations campaign within the public domain ( and specifically not the scientific domain ) funded by the oil and gas industry to subvert and delay meaningful change,
change that; although necessary for the well-being of the planet, would cut into corporate profits
the battle is one of public opinion
not scientific debate
personally I just finished a summer long lecture series on this very subject
which included audiences from NOAA and NCAR and the general public
so these few attempts to distract from the realization that there is no scientific debate are simply going to be shown exactly that
attempts at distraction
an effort to delay the necessary changes because industry doesn't want to have to change its ways

as has been earlier pointed out, there simply is no scientific debate
it is lack of fundamental understanding concerning the wealth of information dedicated to this subject that leads to these kind of public mosh pits


of what few dissenting opinions exist a dam few are from honest scientists
and those few are drowning in a sea of tens of thousands of corroborating and detailed reviewed articles accepted and cited by the community as a whole and collated into a coherent theory that has stood the tests of prediction and time

there is simple no competing theory
nor is there even a competing hypothesis

if there is
please enlighten us with it
I challenge anyone to present a reviewed and published counter theory to rapid global climate change and I suggest that an immediate failure to do so is tantamount to an admission that there simply isnt one

I couldnt help but notice that no one was willing to present any competing theories in the last what
twenty pages of pure BS since my last visit
but instead only claim that anomalous data exists
no ****
yes
anomalous data always exists
its the preponderance of anomalous data that's whats relevant
and in the case of climate change
there is only a very small percentage of such anomalous data
the big bang theory and the theory of evolution have not only greater levels of anomalous data
but hugely significant levels of such anomalous data, whereas the theory of rapid global climate change has but an extremely small level of anomalous data
simply put
I cant recall any scientific theory enjoying such a huge consensus agreement
ever

arguing the value of such anomalous data is hardly presenting a coherent and detracting argument, nor does it represent a detailed hypothesis for the scientific community to consider

what some people are doing is clinging to a few tidbits of data
and ignoring the ware houses full of research that all agree
climate change is real
science is not debating this issue
what its doing at this point is actively measuring the rate of change
and plugging that new data into the theory as a whole
what its not doing is wasting time with a few hold outs who still think the world is flat

cheers
B

 

What a load of hogwash.

The only identifiable group that is being PAID to spread distorted data and religious propaganda is precisely that sector of the "scientific" community who would lose positions and funding if they were to defy the dogma. You live from defending one, at best dubious, at worst intentionally falsified an manufactured hypothesis who's ultimate purpose is to create a universal tax and concentrate power in the hands of unelected clan members.

Nothing new, it has been done before.

There is no point "debating" anything at all, since the proof of the lies that we had to listen to in the last 15 years is in the public domain provided by honest scientist who have lost funds and support for doing so. As for the "oil and gas industry funded forums", that is a good one>
You assume that an oil company is unethical by default, and that therefore just naming "oil company paid forum" it equtes to say "paid by the drug barons" or similar words. Which part of the world do you live in? Labour party, or the Democrats, or the greens are pure at heart and clean souls only interested in ethics and altruism right? So is AlGore and the Pope correct?
You have something else coming.
If there is any money given around for those who support truth and oppose lies and religious propaganda, I want to enlist. Count me on. BP, Shell, Caltex, whoever you are, I want to be part of it. The so called global warming lobby is leaning on every political and "environmental" organisation they can. I must use whoever is on the other side.
You have however a great advantage, talking up the biggest con in human history is your profession. I am just an amateur.

 

A consensus does indeed exist on the subject of rapid climate change, and that consensus is that it is "highly unlikely" (UN IPCC AR4) The consessus is that AGW will be gradual.

But thanks anyway for the assurance; we were beginning to worry

Natural climate variability. The hockey stick and it's son's, daughter and cousins are all dead. The same disease killed them all: Cherry Picking. (Global warming apparently means 12 carefully selected trees in Siberia.)

For each single dollar spent funding skeptical research/advocacy, $1000 is spent on pro AGW research and advocacy. But I guess that money has been blessed by the Pope or your favorite Shaman or whatever so that, though much more influential by virtue of relative size, the $1000 won't corrupt anyone.

You've still failed to show how ceasing exploring/drilling for new petroleum reserves would negatively impact oil industry profits. Since we're not going to stop using fossil fuels anytime soon, and ceasing expanding our supplies will only drive to commodity prices higher, it seems obvious that the industry will ultimately profit handsomely from the AGW hysteria.

The very poor predictive skill of the AGW hypothesis and models built on it is one of it's key weaknesses. Shall we have another go at parading out the many predictions that have failed?

Natural climate variability. Go your way in peace; You have now been enlightened.

There have been many rapid climate change events recorded in the paleoclimate, all clearly without human interventions of any kind. But the consensus view is that there is not going to be any rapid climate change as a result of AGW.

Natural climate variability.

When the hysteria is based on a mere 1*C temperature increase over more than a century, the anomalous data becomes more important. Are we witnessing an actual change that is outside of the range of natural variability, or rather witnessing the deterioration of the accuracy of key parts of our temperature data gathering system. The evidence suggests it's mostly the latter.

Jimbo

 

97%, 97%, 97%, 97%...
http://www.mamashealth.com/child/headbang.asp

 

Huuu? Head banging? 97%? I dont get it....repeating the globe is warming the sky is falling is like a child head banging? Mmm, OK sound plausible for some uncomfortably insecure souls I suppose...

 

I haven't heard any reasonable explanation as to how the scientists told me we were entering an ice age when I was in highshcool and how noe they tell me we are having global warming. These faceless "scientists" are no different from the priests that teach us that what we don't understand is a mystery and we are not qualified to question it. I piss on pseudo science.

 

Terry and Jimbo,

I do´nt want to step in here, much too exhausting. Just a comment, I noticed there are some difficulties to understand a German website.

Do´nt pay too much attention on Georg Beck´s elaborations, there is mainly some rant against a handful of authors and scientists to be found. His scientifical background is vague, and he does´nt provide better proof of his statements than his opponents. In fact he provides nothing, he just argues about the unprecise methods of them.
Do´nt get his links wrong! Every student can use the university site to place a article. That gives quite often the impression one reads something backed up by the universities studies.

enjoy your next round..............
Richard

 

scare tactics

Well said, Marco1,
In another age, they would have used eclipses to try to scare the ignorant uninformed and stupid. Viva la verdad!

 

Beck's insights into the history of the CO2 measurements, and his historical account of how we came to believe that atmospheric CO2 was at a level of 280ppm for eons until we came along are entirely accurate and verifiable through other accounts of the same events. His assertions about the Callendar data are not even controversial, and were freely admitted by Callendar at one time. Callendar omitted the >400ppm for ~30 years spike in mid 19th century CO2 concentration to suit the agenda of the group (IPCC) to which he was was re-presenting the data. Chemical analysis done contemporaneously also reflects this spike which was recorded in Callendar's ice cores. Beck contends that this episode proves the chemical analysis data deserves more stature, and could/should be used to calibrate other proxies, like ice cores. In any normal scientific debate without the strong political implications as the AGW debates has, this would be a 'no brainer'; OF COURSE the chemical analysis data set would be so employed. But not so with the pro AGW people; they want no part of it.

This is the gist of Beck's presentation on the subject.

Jimbo

 

Don't you love it when you are mothered! Oh such fond memories

 

Hogwash

was a term you like to use. Lets use it again...

And keep on going, the dogs still are barking................

 

I've too done strange things when I've been drunk.....

Now, do we believe in Beck, I mean; "believe" ?

 

Deconstructing Global Warming, by Richard S. Lindzen:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf

From there:
“THE ARCTIC OCEAN IS WARMING UP, ICEBERGS ARE GROWING SCARCER AND IN SOME PLACES THE SEALS ARE FINDING THE WATER TOO HOT. REPORTS ALL POINT TO A RADICAL CHANGE IN CLIMATE CONDITIONS AND HITHERTO UNHEARD-OF TEMPERATURES IN THE ARCTIC ZONE. EXPEDITIONS REPORT THAT SCARCELY ANY ICE HAS BEEN MET WITH AS FAR NORTH AS 81 DEGREES 29 MINUTES. GREAT MASSES OF ICE HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY MORAINES OF EARTH AND STONES, WHILE AT MANY POINTS WELL KNOWN GLACIERS HAVE ENTIRELY DISAPPEARED.”
-US WEATHER BUREAU, 1922

 

Our old friend Habibullo Abdussamatov, Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory and Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria, keeps on insisting:

"Experts of the United Nations in regular reports publish data said to show that the Earth is approaching a catastrophic global warming, caused by increasing emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is "not guilty" and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop."
.....................
"Analyzing data on solar activity, the American astrophysicist John Eddy in 1976 noted a correlation between periods of significant change in the number of spots in the past millennium and large changes in the climate of the Earth, changes that have profoundly influenced the life of peoples and states, initiating economic and demographic crises. Later, St. Petersburg geophysicist Eugene Borisenkov showed (1988) that in each of 18 deep minima of solar activity of the Maunder Minimum type, minima which have occurred about every 200 years for the last 7500 years, there have been periods of deep temperature decline, while in the periods of high sunspot maxima, there have been periods of global warming. Such changes in the climate of the Earth could be caused only by lasting and significant changes in the Sun, because there was absolutely no industrial effect on nature in those times. This supports the idea that in the bicentennial periods of maximum levels of solar activity, the TSI has always substantially increased, and it has noticeably decreased in periods of minima."

http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf

Cheers.

Note: dotted line in graph represents the present evolution within the 200 years cicle