Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
    He's been saying this for years. Back in 2006, he wrote to the Royal Society of London arguing that humans were not causing global warming. This is just sensationalist rehashing of his old argument by an extremely biased (and scientifically illegitimate) website.
    In your humble opinion, of course...
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
      Since there has been no global warming since at least 2001, he was right in 2006.



      Biased... Yes. Very biased in favor of free market capitalism.

      How, exactly, is Heartland "scientifically illegitimate"?
      2001-present is far too small a time period to conclude that AGW was just a short fad. It has been repeatedly stated that the pause in temperature increase is due to La Nina and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifting excess heat to the deep ocean. The upward climb in temperature is expected to resume relatively soon.

      As for the Heartland Institute, that was covered earlier in the "Global Warming a Hoax" thread:

      Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
      Take the "industry-funded Heartland Institute," for instance. (What a shock, big business looking to deny global warming to make a quick buck! )

      A few years ago this site boasted a "list" of tens of thousands of 'scientists' who subscribed to its beliefs. This 'list' is no longer featured, for the following reason:

      When it was found out that all one had to do to appear as a name on this list was simply print out the website's 'certification paper,' fill in some bogus credentials and a statement denying man-made climate change, then mail it back to the site, some High School students decided to get in on the act. Dozens of students printed out these 'certificates,' filled them out, and mailed them to the Heartland Institute. Lo and behold, their names appeared on the list as qualified scientists! When the H.I. was called out for it, they were forced to briefly take down their site to remove the names. Needless to say, this list of thousands of 'scientists' no longer appears on their website.

      Anyone used to be able to pose as a 'scientist' for the Heartland Institute's propaganda.

      From desmogblog (link: http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/17...land-institute) (The first paragraph is a statement by the Heartland Institute)
      “Fact: Most scientists don’t believe the effect of human activities on climate is sufficiently well understood to make predictions about future climate conditions, and many believe the modest warming that may occur would be beneficial.”


      This is a sad, sad attempt to continue what Heartland does best on climate change: say anything but the truth. Without valid refutation, Heartland fully dismissed our citations of two separate peer-reviewed studies (from PNAS, 2010 and Environmental Research Letters, 2013) showing 97%-98% consensus among active climate scientists about the existence and cause of global warming. Nor did Heartland acknowledge the review of thousands of peer-reviewed papers on climate change, concluding that only 24 of 13,950 rejected global warming.

      Here's the really sad part: Heartland cites a 2009 survey by Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman that supposedly shows “most scientists do not side with Greenpeace on the issue.”

      Except that's not what the study concludes at all. Rather, Doran and Zimmerman found a 96-97% consensus among specialized scientists that took part in the survey who agree that the earth's temperature is rising and humans are the cause. The end of the paper specifically points out the greater understanding of climate change by scientists who took part in the survey and those without scientific expertise:

      “It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”
      Heartland's other citations aren't any better. One is Heartland president Joseph Bast's “reasonable interpretation” of conclusions he'll never accept, and the rest comes from a retired TV weatherman named Anthony Watts (who's not a climate scientist), who runs the climate denier blog WattsUpWithThat. Watts was on Heartland's payroll last year for a $44,000 project to undermine climate change evidence gathered from weather stations, funded by Heartland's billionaire “anonymous donor,” Barre Seid. But this is what we expect–Heartland has always demanded legitimacy despite its inherent lack thereof."

      Comment


      • Well, I'm skeptical too.

        Why doesn't our media cover stories like this one about a Canadian car ferry getting stuck in the ice off of Nova Scotia? Story dated yesterday.

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...P=share_btn_fb
        Homo homini lupus

        Comment


        • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
          2001-present is far too small a time period to conclude that AGW was just a short fad. It has been repeatedly stated that the pause in temperature increase is due to La Nina and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifting excess heat to the deep ocean. The upward climb in temperature is expected to resume relatively soon.

          As for the Heartland Institute, that was covered earlier in the "Global Warming a Hoax" thread:
          You do realize that you are citing desmogblog as if it was an actual.source... right?

          And that the PDO is a temperature index? It can't actually drive anything... right?

          And that a La Niña dominated ENSO is what global cooling during the Holocene has been... right?

          The list of excuses for the hiatus is now 52 entries long...

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-f...lobal-warming/

          Regarding this logical fallacy...
          Here's the really sad part: Heartland cites a 2009 survey by Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman that supposedly shows “most scientists do not side with Greenpeace on the issue.”

          Except that's not what the study concludes at all. Rather, Doran and Zimmerman found a 96-97% consensus among specialized scientists that took part in the survey who agree that the earth's temperature is rising and humans are the cause. The end of the paper specifically points out the greater understanding of climate change by scientists who took part in the survey and those without scientific expertise:

          “It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”

          These cherry-picked and second hand opinion surveys are designed to enable this sort of demagoguery...


          No Schist, Sherlock.

          One of the most frequent refrains is the assertion that “climate scientists” endorse the so-called consensus more than other disciplines and that the level of endorsement is proportional to the volume of publications by those climate scientists. Well… No schist, Sherlock! I would bet a good bottle of wine that the most voluminous publishers on UFO’s are disproportionately more likely to endorse Close Encounters of the Third Kind as a documentary. A cursory search for “abiogenic hydrocarbons” in AAPG’s Datapages could lead me to conclude that there is a higher level of endorsement of abiogenic oil among those who publish on the subject than among non-publishing petroleum geologists.

          These exercises in expertise cherry-picking are quite common. A classic example was Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009. This survey sample was limited to academic and government Earth Scientists. It excluded all Earth Scientists working in private sector businesses. The two key questions were:
          1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

          2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

          I would answer yes to #1 and my answer to #2 would depend on the meaning of “human activity is a significant contributing factor.” If I realized it was a “push poll,” I would answer “no.”

          Interestingly, economic geologists and meteorologists were the most likely to answer “no” to question #2…
          The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants answering yes to question 2 were economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).

          The authors derisively dismissed the opinions of geologists and meteorologists…
          It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

          No discipline has a better understanding the “nuances” than meteorologists and no discipline has a better understanding of the “scientific basis of long-term climate processes” than geologists.

          [...]

          The most recent example of expertise cherry-picking was Stenhouse et al., 2014.

          The 52% consensus among the membership of the American Meteorological Society explained away as being due to “perceived scientific consensus,” “political ideology,” and a lack of “expertise” among non-publishing meteorologists and atmospheric scientists…
          While we found that higher expertise was associated with a greater likelihood of viewing global warming as real and harmful, this relationship was less strong than for political ideology and perceived consensus. At least for the measure of expertise that we used, climate science expertise may be a less important influence on global warming views than political ideology or social consensus norms. More than any other result of the study, this would be strong evidence against the idea that expert scientists’ views on politically controversial topics can be completely objective.

          Finally, we found that perceiving conflict at AMS was associated with lower certainty of global warming views, lower likelihood of viewing global warming as human caused, and lower ratings of predicted harm caused by global warming.

          So… Clearly, 97% of AMS membership would endorse the so-called consensus if they were more liberal, more accepting of unanimity and published more papers defending failed climate models. No schist, Sherlock!

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/1...mate-paradigm/
          Last edited by The Doctor; 21 Mar 15, 20:07.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • Call me a denier, I couldn't care less, man made climate change is a hoax and there are many making a ton of money promoting that crap, mother Earth will do what she wants to do and We ain't going to do a damn thing about it, no matter how hard we try!
            Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

            Comment


            • http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/med...ent-on-patric/

              Credibility is minimal.

              Here is a video for our academically challenged members that explains climate versus weather.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                Call me a denier, I couldn't care less, man made climate change is a hoax and there are many making a ton of money promoting that crap, mother Earth will do what she wants to do and We ain't going to do a damn thing about it, no matter how hard we try!
                This! Global warming is a myth.
                “I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
                --Salmon P. Chase

                Comment


                • Yep. Obama's a Muslim Communist, we're all human sheep. It's a giant conspiracy. We're being lead down the road to a New World Order of chemtrails and mind-control, and it starts with... Global Warming! (which hasn't been talked about among scientists since the '70s or anything...)

                  The world's wrong, the Republican Party of the United States of A'murica is right! Everyone who disagrees is a dirty Enviro-Marxist economy-hating hippie...

                  Grab yer tinfoil hats, ladies and gents, and wave the ol' Dixie Flag high!


                  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  But on a serious note, this is what the NOAA says:
                  "The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon."

                  http://http://www.climate.gov/news-f...ng-past-decade

                  The very first sentence on the Wikipedia Article "Scientific opinion on Climate Change:"

                  "The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels."
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

                  in addition:

                  "No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its statement to its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                    Yep. Obama's a Muslim Communist, we're all human sheep. It's a giant conspiracy. We're being lead down the road to a New World Order of chemtrails and mind-control, and it starts with... Global Warming! (which hasn't been talked about among scientists since the '70s or anything...)

                    The world's wrong, the Republican Party of the United States of A'murica is right! Everyone who disagrees is a dirty Enviro-Marxist economy-hating hippie...

                    Grab yer tinfoil hats, ladies and gents, and wave the ol' Dixie Flag high!


                    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    But on a serious note, this is what the NOAA says:
                    "The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon."

                    http://http://www.climate.gov/news-f...ng-past-decade

                    The very first sentence on the Wikipedia Article "Scientific opinion on Climate Change:"



                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

                    in addition:
                    Right... NOAA blames the lack of warming on the lack of warming. We got that.

                    Regarding the 95-97% consensus lie..






                    This is a 97% bald faced lie...

                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Rale View Post
                      http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/med...ent-on-patric/

                      Credibility is minimal.

                      Here is a video for our academically challenged members that explains climate versus weather.
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k
                      Citing Greenpeace as a credible source is even more laughable than citing Desmogblog or Skeptical Science.

                      Here is the "Great Global Warming Blunder" in one graph...


                      95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
                      February 7th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

                      I’m seeing a lot of wrangling over the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc.

                      These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

                      I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979...

                      [...]

                      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/...must-be-wrong/

                      Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying ...

                      [...]

                      http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                        Yep. Obama's a Muslim Communist, we're all human sheep. It's a giant conspiracy. We're being lead down the road to a New World Order of chemtrails and mind-control, and it starts with... Global Warming! (which hasn't been talked about among scientists since the '70s or anything...)

                        The world's wrong, the Republican Party of the United States of A'murica is right! Everyone who disagrees is a dirty Enviro-Marxist economy-hating hippie...

                        Grab yer tinfoil hats, ladies and gents, and wave the ol' Dixie Flag high!


                        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        But on a serious note, this is what the NOAA says:
                        "The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon."

                        http://http://www.climate.gov/news-f...ng-past-decade

                        The very first sentence on the Wikipedia Article "Scientific opinion on Climate Change:"



                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

                        in addition:
                        Has nothing to do with the Republican party. Its just plain common sense.
                        “I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
                        --Salmon P. Chase

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Savez View Post
                          Has nothing to do with the Republican party. Its just plain common sense.
                          It's just the scientific method...

                          Hypothesis: A doubling of the preindustrial atmospheric CO2 concentration from ~280 to 560 ppmv will cause the Earth’s average surface temperature to rise by 2 to 4.5°C, most likely 3°C.

                          Procedure: The current level of ~400 ppmv should have yielded ~1.3°C of warming since ~1850. The average surface temperature should be about 1.3°C warmer than the Medieval Warm Period. The procedure is to compare the observed and reconstructed temperatures to the hypothesized warming.

                          Observations: The observed warming since 1850 has been less than 0.8°C, at least half of which was natural.



                          It is currently no warmer than it was during the Medieval Warm Period...



                          The models have consistently failed...



                          Conclusions: The climate is relatively insensitive to CO2 variations and the vast majority of observed climate change has been natural
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                            Well, I'm skeptical too.

                            Why doesn't our media cover stories like this one about a Canadian car ferry getting stuck in the ice off of Nova Scotia? Story dated yesterday.

                            http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...P=share_btn_fb
                            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

                            Hi Jannie:
                            the largest declines in Arctic Sea ice cover in 2015 are in areas where the deep water 'warm plumes' penetrate, - the Barents Sea and the Sea of Oktosk.

                            Bob the Bararian appears to be right: Deep water warming has occurred and is melting the arctic. A new low is expected in 2015
                            The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                            Comment


                            • Here's an op ed piece in the local paper by a ex-Democrat on the state's corporation commission. Her piece is a cluster of idiocy.

                              http://www.azcentral.com/story/opini...west/25377907/

                              Comment


                              • What The Environmental Movement Should Learn From Religion: That They're A Religion
                                By Hank Campbell | April 6th 2015

                                This past weekend, 2 billion Christians celebrated Easter, when Jesus was a martyr for the sins of man. The weekend before that, environmentalists celebrated ignorance, poverty, and backwardness under the name Earth Hour, and they wondered why more people did not help them crash the grid to save the world.

                                There is one big reason.

                                Religion has no small amount of fear and blame and, if you are Catholic, some guilt. Environmentalism has those also yet they don't have 5 billion members the way religion does because they lack the one important thing: Religion offers salvation along with the guilt.

                                Environmentalism doesn't...

                                [...]

                                Read more: http://www.science20.com/science_20/...#ixzz3WeBzd2fN

                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X