What Do We Think About Climate Change

Yes Troy you are correct again, however I hoped you could see past the letters in my last sentence.

You must concede that the BEHAVIOUR of those who support the hypothesis of AGW with all it's faults and qualities goes a long way to make a parallel with religious preachers who would happily KILL anyone who dares to confront them. Now don't tell me you have not killed anyone. That is not the point, we are talking behaviour or even perceived behaviour or attitude...and that goes of course for both sides.
However since I am in the heretic side, to me it appears that the other side is throwing a lot more and bigger stones.
But that is just me.

 

I'm sorry, Jimbo...but a few sensationalist headlines are hardly the same thing as a scientific consensus. There was never even a simple majority of scientists who bought into the claims about an impending ice age back in the day, much less a worldwide consensus. Or don't you understand the difference between a journalist and a scientist?

At the moment, there isn't a scientific society in the world that seriously disputes AGW. On the other hand, if you go back to 1970 you won't find a single scientific society supporting the notion that another ice age was on the way.

 

I don't recall that part of the story. Can you supply the scriptural reference (chapter and verse).

Thanks.

 

Jimbo,

Where does the data come from for the second of your three graphs? Can you supply the reference?

 

Thank you for posting the numbers. Could I request again that you also post the source of those numbers?

 

There is no record of that, rather that Lot himself offered not one but two virgin daughters to an angry mob to protect the two angels.
In a culture were women were less, just like in the islamic culture, such was a plausible way out.
(See the priority of the author in describing the return of Lot from captivity ... 16And he [Abraham] brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people. }
Yet it did not come to that.
The bible is full of the most horrendous situations done in the name of the Lord.
I reconcile this with the simple fact that it is a book and it was written by man in those times.

 

The Hockey Schtick




Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Re-recorded History
The animation below shows how the surface, weather balloon, and even satellite data has been adjusted between years 1995, 2000, and 2006:


Don't forget to watch this video! http://blip.tv/file/3539174

 

I don't need to 'research' the 70's; I was there. As a matter of fact, I was in college on the GI Bill during part of that time. Had there been any consensus, it couldn't have escaped my notice.

I repeat: there was no consensus of scientific opinion that the world was facing an ice age. There wasn't even a simple majority. There were a few scientists proposing it as a possibility, and some sensationalist articles in newspapers and popular magazines. Those do not a consensus make....


Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers.


In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

And by the way, I did go to Yahoo and do a search for professor Kenneth Watt. All I found was the same thing I found on Google: a long list of climate change deniers gleefully repeating the same quote about a coming ice age, and attributing it to Watt on Earth Day in 1970. If he were anyone important in the world of science, don't you think there'd be a bio of him, or some reference to his accomplishments, or something besides that one asinine quote being repeated ad infinitum?

 

Enjoy the coming ice age because your theory is a load of carp.

 

What would motivate these mainstream magazines to carry these "few sensationalist headlines" Troy, except for the fact that this was all the rage among serious scientists back then. Had the temps kept declining another 5 or 10 years, the call for "we must do something NOW" would have gotten much louder. The thing that changed was not the science but the weather. Circa 1979, a warming trend took off that lasted until sometime in the mid '90's. It ended ~1994-95, with the anomalously warm year of 1998 now acknowledged to be statistically insignificant. They never had anything but a Wild *** Guess about the future climate, which is why the warming trend of ~1979-1994 caught them completely off guard. More recently, they have been completely caught off guard by the flat to cooling trend of ~1994 to present. It's clear that they don't really have a good grasp of what drives climate, so predictions going out 5 or 10 years are good for birdcage liner, and not much else. The idea that a 50 or 100 year trend can be predicted on the basis of a trend in the trace gas CO2 is just laughable.

But it is YOU who are re-writing history if you say that the mainstream climate people were NOT warning of a coming ice age, brought on by anthropogenic emissions. They absolutely were.

Jimbo

 

Troy,

All this proves is what happens when you get the politicians in on the game early, as they did with AGW. In the 70's there was no giant bloated government bureaucracy designed to promote the idea that global cooling is real and we must come up with a taxation/regulation scheme to fix it. This meant that the science was still a self-correcting body, with bad ideas falling by the wayside as better science and observations come along.

But the IPC has COMPLETELY corrupted this process by making it an insular, self-promoting good ol' boys club; it is no longer self-correcting as those that agree are invited into the club and those that don't are stuck on the outside looking in. That's why you can't use a consensus argument as credible proof that any of what they say is true, you need to look at the objective facts.

Fortunately this is not difficult as there is plenty of data readily at hand for those who will look.

Jimbo

 

Sensient beings, of course, know this but "taxation/regulation scheme to fix it" is only the tip of the iceberg. More immediate, is that the political opponents of the leftists tend to be, shall we say, more "reality based" and easy to knock off in an election when they are going against the tide of prevailing consensus science.
"This is too important to ignore" and "I am the one that will fix this for you" are the undertones planted in a voter's mind.

 

I am attaching a plot of global temperature anomaly data. It is an overlay of four different sets of data. I got this data from the website http://www.co2science.org/data/temperatures/temps.php. This is a website promoting global warming skepticism. The four sets of data are plotted in four different colors.

According to this data there is an unmistakable warming trend.

 

By the way, the data itself does not identify the cause(s) of global warming, only that it is occurring. I am posting the data to see if there is at least a recognition and consensus here that warming is an observed experimental fact, whatever the cause.

 

No one doubts that a warming trend is documented.

What we doubt is the duration of the warming trend and the contention that it is man-made.

No men on Mars but warming and cooling mirror same on Earth.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislat.../Al-Gore-Scours-for-Extraterrestrial-SUVs.htm