Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming a Hoax?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Nick,

    You repeatedly violate your own standards here by;
    1) Engaging in science by consensus, rather than science by data.
    2) ACC/AGW proponents/supporters advocate a political agenda, based upon their unproven science claims.

    The article I linked above was proof of faulty science used to generate social hysteria to encourage un-needed political actions/changes to industrial and economic practices.

    (BTW, history of science shows it has been nearly 90% politics since way back. Ask Galileo )
    You miss the point.

    The vast majority of relevant scientists that have decided to express a view have said that man made global climate change is real.

    The vast majority of relevant scientific bodies which have decided to express a view have said that man made global climate change is real.

    I believe in a King Arthur figure. That means I'm open to the weird and wonderful. I'm also right of centre so I don't do Political Correctness such as Al Gore.

    The fact that I follow the mainstream opinion, despite being more than open to extreme views, means either the mainstream view is right, or The Doc is unable to get his viewpoint across to those that need to hear it.

    If The Doc is right, and based on his posts I doubt it, his belief on posting the indigestible and attacking those that do not agree with it hook, line and sinker is more akin to communist reality and practice than science.
    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
      You miss the point.

      The vast majority of relevant scientists that have decided to express a view have said that man made global climate change is real.

      The vast majority of relevant scientific bodies which have decided to express a view have said that man made global climate change is real.

      I believe in a King Arthur figure. That means I'm open to the weird and wonderful. I'm also right of centre so I don't do Political Correctness such as Al Gore.

      The fact that I follow the mainstream opinion, despite being more than open to extreme views, means either the mainstream view is right, or The Doc is unable to get his viewpoint across to those that need to hear it.

      If The Doc is right, and based on his posts I doubt it, his belief on posting the indigestible and attacking those that do not agree with it hook, line and sinker is more akin to communist reality and practice than science.
      52% is not a "vast majority."

      The only recent actual survey of actual relevant scientists was conducted for the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

      The preliminary results of the AMS survey tell us all we need to know about the so-called consensus…



      89% × 59% = 52%… A far cry from the oft claimed 97% consensus.




      Based on BAMS definition, global warming is happening. So, I would be among the 89% who answered “yes” to question #1 and among the 5% who said the cause was mostly natural.

      When self-described “climate scientists” and meteorologists/atmospheric scientists are segregated the results become even more interesting…



      Only 45% of meteorologists and atmospheric scientists endorse the so-called consensus. When compared to the 2009, American Geophysical Union survey, the collapsing paradigm sticks out like a polar vortex…

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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
        You miss the point.

        The vast majority of relevant scientists that have decided to express a view have said that man made global climate change is real.

        The vast majority of relevant scientific bodies which have decided to express a view have said that man made global climate change is real.

        I believe in a King Arthur figure. That means I'm open to the weird and wonderful. I'm also right of centre so I don't do Political Correctness such as Al Gore.

        The fact that I follow the mainstream opinion, despite being more than open to extreme views, means either the mainstream view is right, or The Doc is unable to get his viewpoint across to those that need to hear it.

        If The Doc is right, and based on his posts I doubt it, his belief on posting the indigestible and attacking those that do not agree with it hook, line and sinker is more akin to communist reality and practice than science.
        At the time of Galileo the "majority"/"consensus" of science was that Earth was the center of the universe and all celestial objects revolved around Earth. ~~~ I think you are missing the point.

        Repeat from another but similar thread;

        A few "layperson" points on "science";

        1) The Data/Information has to be open to all to validate/vet, as well as the methods/instruments used to aquire the data/information.

        2) The method of processing the data/information has to be reproducable by other parties, especially those that might be oppossed to the conclusions.

        3) The procesed data, and it's conclusion should provide a predictable result.

        4) Any other party should be able to replicate similar data aquisition, similar data processing, arrive at similar conclusions and be able to calculate similar predictions.

        Any one whom read the article I linked in my past posts(#283 of this thread) and the trail of embedded links to other articles with more of the "science" in them should see that there was a big fail, fourfold, especially in the "Prediction Department".

        But then, same folks and same schtick that about 40-50 years ago was "chicken little~the sky is falling" we're on the edge of Global Cooling and the next 'ice age' is around the corner.
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
        “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

        Comment


        • Global Warming a Hoax?

          No, its a con-game.

          What do the people who say they can stop it want from you?

          Your money, and more political power for themselves.

          'Nuff said , right?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            52% is not a "vast majority."

            The only recent actual survey of actual relevant scientists was conducted for the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

            The preliminary results of the AMS survey tell us all we need to know about the so-called consensus…
            .
            .
            <snip>
            .
            .
            You really need to check your links. From your link:
            Perhaps more importantly, only about 1 out of 4 AMS Members responded to the survey. The extent to which the findings reported here represent the views of all AMS Members is therefore unknown.
            Your link is not evidence, and thus totally pointless.
            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
              Global Warming a Hoax?

              No, its a con-game.

              What do the people who say they can stop it want from you?

              Your money, and more political power for themselves.

              'Nuff said , right?
              It's a liberal conspiracy .

              If the people with money, say the oil industry among others, wanted to refute AGW they have the financial clout to do so. The fact they haven't is more than interesting.
              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                You really need to check your links. From your link:

                Your link is not evidence, and thus totally pointless.
                25% is a typical response rate. The AGU's 2008 response rate was 30% from a cherry-picked sample. Cook's response rate for his 2013 follow up survey of extremely cherry-picked authors was 14%.

                This is the *only* recent actual survey of actual relevant scientists on the subject of AGW. And it is the *only* actual survey of climate-relevant scientists in which the sample was not cherry-picked.

                It is the only actual evidence of the current scientific opinions of actual climate-relevant scientists on the subject of AGW. The AMS survey results are far more rerlective of the AAPG's position statement than that of any other society, including the AMS.

                Societal position statements reflect the opinions of a handful of members actively involved in the organizations political apparatus. The APS (physics) recently issued a revised draft statement which ignored their own panel of climate experts.
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                  It's a liberal conspiracy .

                  If the people with money, say the oil industry among others, wanted to refute AGW they have the financial clout to do so. The fact they haven't is more than interesting.
                  Setting aside the fact that your bizarre notion is so riddled with logical fallacies (i.e. proving a negative, non sequitur)... No business or industry could out-spend the Gorebots' enablers.

                  Unlike governments, academia and nonprofit organizations, businesses are legally bound to protect the fiduciary interests of their owners/shareholders. Spending large sums of shareholders' money for purposes not directly related to increasing shareholder value in not consistent with this fiduciary responsibility. The purpose of a business is to generate a profitable return for its owners/shareholders.

                  Governments, academia and nonprofit organizations are free to spend every bit of their income on AGW propaganda. Furthermore, governments have the power to confiscate business earnings and spend it on AGW propaganda.

                  Climatic Change
                  February 2014, Volume 122, Issue 4, pp 681-694
                  Date: 21 Dec 2013

                  Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

                  Robert J. Brulle

                  This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

                  http://link.springer.com/article/10....584-013-1018-7

                  The total average annual income of 91 "CCCM" organizations was ~$900 million from 2003-2010. An average of $64 million per year of that total came from philanthropic foundations. About 5% of the $64M/yr came from Koch affiliated foundations and about 1% came from the ExxonMobil Foundation.

                  The CCCM's include the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Cato and just about every pro-business libertarian/conservative think tank in the US. While all of these organizations devote at least a fraction of their resources to protecting the US economy from Gorebots, greenhadists and enviromarxists, the only ones primarily focused on the AGW fraud are Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which receive a whopping 2-3% of ~$64 million per year from as many as 140 different foundations.

                  The Natural Resources Defense Council is totally dedicated to the imposition of Enviromarxism in the USA and religiously devoted to the AGW myth. Their annual income ($100 million) is more than the combined income of the American Enterprise Institute ($45 million), Cato Institute ($29 million), Heartland Institute ($5) and Competitive Enterprise Institute ($6 million).

                  The Columbia Earth Institute (AKA Enviromarxism) has an annual budget of ~$130 million...
                  In the 21st century, the preeminent need of our economy and society is to solve the problem of global sustainability...

                  [...]

                  The problem with the modern university is that it is organized around disciplinary fields, like biology and economics, or professional skills, such as engineering and law. While public policy schools have brought together many fields to attempt to solve policy problems, and business schools have done the same in attempting to train business leaders, both lack the grounding in sciences and engineering needed to address the issues of global sustainability. What is needed is a new form of academic organization that is university-wide, with the mission of institutionalizing interaction among all of these fields to address the problems of global sustainability.

                  The Earth Institute is precisely that: a new form of academic institution that integrates the knowledge base of the 21st century university to address the problems of global sustainability. Its mission is to develop programs of research, education, outreach and practical application of knowledge to address the critical issue of global sustainability.

                  [...]

                  The Institute is not a school, and does not grant degrees, but has partnered with schools to create and in many cases manage educational programs. These educational programs include non-degree programs of adult and executive education, but they also include the following degree programs:
                  • Undergraduate major in Sustainable Development,
                  • PhD in Sustainable Development,
                  • MS in Sustainability Management,
                  • MPA in Environmental Science and Policy,
                  • MPA in Development Practice, and
                  • MA in Climate and Society


                  http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3743197

                  $130 million per year to teach liberal arts majors to sound "sciencey" when spouting Enviromarxist psychobabble.

                  The Fed's spend about $21 BILLION per year in their war against climate change...



                  $21 billion per year stolen from productive Americans and p!$$ed away by Enviromarxists on Gorebot research grants and freebies for [email protected]

                  While the billions spent by Enviromarxist terrorist groups (NRDC, WWF,,Grennpeace, Sierra Club, etc.), academia and government pushing the AGW fraud are at least an order of magnitude larger than CCCM spending, the cost of Enviromarxist regulations is at least 3 orders of magnitude (1,000 times) CCCM spending.
                  Then there’s the matter of those escalating climate-premised EPA regulation costs that are killing businesses and jobs under cover of the Clean Air Act. These rampant overreaches are being justified by the agency’s Endangerment Finding proclaiming CO2 to be a pollutant. The finding ignored a contrary conclusion in EPA’s own “Internal Study on Climate” that: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based upon a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

                  The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included. CEI further observes that those regulation costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.436 trillion; tower over estimated individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87%; and reveal a federal government whose share of the entire economy reaches 35.5% when combined with federal 2010 spending outlays.

                  http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...ange-hysteria/

                  The Gorebots demonstrate even more mental deficiency when they babble on about ExxonMobil and the Koch Brothers than they do when they babble about the 97% consensus about a 95% failed hypothesis.



                  However, irrespective of the billions of dollars spent every year on AGW propaganda, reality is what drives public opinion...




                  No warming since the late 20th century leads to this...


                  • American Meteorological Society: 52% "Consensus"
                  • American Public Opinion: 48% "Consensus"
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                    Setting aside the fact that your bizarre notion is so riddled with logical fallacies (i.e. proving a negative, non sequitur)... No business or industry could out-spend the Gorebots' enablers.

                    Unlike governments, academia and nonprofit organizations, businesses are legally bound to protect the fiduciary interests of their owners/shareholders. Spending large sums of shareholders' money for purposes not directly related to increasing shareholder value in not consistent with this fiduciary responsibility. The purpose of a business is to generate a profitable return for its owners/shareholders.

                    Governments, academia and nonprofit organizations are free to spend every bit of their income on AGW propaganda. Furthermore, governments have the power to confiscate business earnings and spend it on AGW propaganda.

                    Climatic Change
                    February 2014, Volume 122, Issue 4, pp 681-694
                    Date: 21 Dec 2013

                    Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

                    Robert J. Brulle

                    This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

                    http://link.springer.com/article/10....584-013-1018-7

                    The total average annual income of 91 "CCCM" organizations was ~$900 million from 2003-2010. An average of $64 million per year of that total came from philanthropic foundations. About 5% of the $64M/yr came from Koch affiliated foundations and about 1% came from the ExxonMobil Foundation.

                    The CCCM's include the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Cato and just about every pro-business libertarian/conservative think tank in the US. While all of these organizations devote at least a fraction of their resources to protecting the US economy from Gorebots, greenhadists and enviromarxists, the only ones primarily focused on the AGW fraud are Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which receive a whopping 2-3% of ~$64 million per year from as many as 140 different foundations.

                    The Natural Resources Defense Council is totally dedicated to the imposition of Enviromarxism in the USA and religiously devoted to the AGW myth. Their annual income ($100 million) is more than the combined income of the American Enterprise Institute ($45 million), Cato Institute ($29 million), Heartland Institute ($5) and Competitive Enterprise Institute ($6 million).

                    The Columbia Earth Institute (AKA Enviromarxism) has an annual budget of ~$130 million...
                    In the 21st century, the preeminent need of our economy and society is to solve the problem of global sustainability...

                    [...]

                    The problem with the modern university is that it is organized around disciplinary fields, like biology and economics, or professional skills, such as engineering and law. While public policy schools have brought together many fields to attempt to solve policy problems, and business schools have done the same in attempting to train business leaders, both lack the grounding in sciences and engineering needed to address the issues of global sustainability. What is needed is a new form of academic organization that is university-wide, with the mission of institutionalizing interaction among all of these fields to address the problems of global sustainability.

                    The Earth Institute is precisely that: a new form of academic institution that integrates the knowledge base of the 21st century university to address the problems of global sustainability. Its mission is to develop programs of research, education, outreach and practical application of knowledge to address the critical issue of global sustainability.

                    [...]

                    The Institute is not a school, and does not grant degrees, but has partnered with schools to create and in many cases manage educational programs. These educational programs include non-degree programs of adult and executive education, but they also include the following degree programs:
                    • Undergraduate major in Sustainable Development,
                    • PhD in Sustainable Development,
                    • MS in Sustainability Management,
                    • MPA in Environmental Science and Policy,
                    • MPA in Development Practice, and
                    • MA in Climate and Society


                    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3743197

                    $130 million per year to teach liberal arts majors to sound "sciencey" when spouting Enviromarxist psychobabble.

                    The Fed's spend about $21 BILLION per year in their war against climate change...



                    $21 billion per year stolen from productive Americans and p!$$ed away by Enviromarxists on Gorebot research grants and freebies for [email protected]

                    While the billions spent by Enviromarxist terrorist groups (NRDC, WWF,,Grennpeace, Sierra Club, etc.), academia and government pushing the AGW fraud are at least an order of magnitude larger than CCCM spending, the cost of Enviromarxist regulations is at least 3 orders of magnitude (1,000 times) CCCM spending.
                    Then there’s the matter of those escalating climate-premised EPA regulation costs that are killing businesses and jobs under cover of the Clean Air Act. These rampant overreaches are being justified by the agency’s Endangerment Finding proclaiming CO2 to be a pollutant. The finding ignored a contrary conclusion in EPA’s own “Internal Study on Climate” that: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based upon a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

                    The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included. CEI further observes that those regulation costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.436 trillion; tower over estimated individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87%; and reveal a federal government whose share of the entire economy reaches 35.5% when combined with federal 2010 spending outlays.

                    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...ange-hysteria/

                    The Gorebots demonstrate even more mental deficiency when they babble on about ExxonMobil and the Koch Brothers than they do when they babble about the 97% consensus about a 95% failed hypothesis.



                    However, irrespective of the billions of dollars spent every year on AGW propaganda, reality is what drives public opinion...




                    No warming since the late 20th century leads to this...


                    • American Meteorological Society: 52% "Consensus"
                    • American Public Opinion: 48% "Consensus"
                    The Oil Industry has more than enough clout to dismiss the IPCC stance if they wanted to. There are a myriad of ways to do this. Youtube, relevant scientists giving free lectures to students, media coverage etc etc.

                    The fact that they haven't speaks volumes.

                    The fact that no relevant scientific body disagrees with AGW speaks volumes.

                    Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists went from anti to a neutral stance in 2007. If any scientific organisation was going to discredit AGW it would be them.

                    The Oil Industry does not dismiss AGW. It is in their interests to do so, but make very little attempt to do so. When the body governing their scientists does not dismiss AGW either, someone needs to explain why they would do so?
                    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                      The Oil Industry has more than enough clout to dismiss the IPCC stance if they wanted to. There are a myriad of ways to do this. Youtube, relevant scientists giving free lectures to students, media coverage etc etc.

                      The fact that they haven't speaks volumes.

                      The fact that no relevant scientific body disagrees with AGW speaks volumes.

                      Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists went from anti to a neutral stance in 2007. If any scientific organisation was going to discredit AGW it would be them.

                      The Oil Industry does not dismiss AGW. It is in their interests to do so, but make very little attempt to do so. When the body governing their scientists does not dismiss AGW either, someone needs to explain why they would do so?
                      There is nothing "neutral" about the AAPG Position Statement...
                      Climate Change (PDF)

                      Issue:

                      In the last century, growth in human population has increased energy use. This has contributed additional carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases to the atmosphere. Although the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases, AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate is important.

                      Background:

                      Geologists study the history of the earth and realize climate has changed often in the past due to natural causes. The earth’s climate naturally varies continually, in both directions, at varying rates, and on many scales. In recent decades global temperatures have risen. However, our planet has been far warmer and cooler today than many times in the geologic past, even within the past 10,000 years.

                      Statement:
                      • AAPG supports expanding scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate specifically including the geological, solar, and astronomic aspects of climate change. Research should include understanding causes of past climate change and the potential effects of both increasing and decreasing temperatures in the future. This research should be undertaken by appropriate agencies involved in climate research and their associated grant and contract programs.
                      • Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Academy for the Advancement of Science, and American Meteorological Society. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum-case scenarios forecast in some models.
                      • AAPG supports research to narrow probability ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate.
                      • AAPG supports reducing emissions from fossil fuel use as a worthy goal. (However, emission reduction has an economic cost, which must be compared to the potential environmental gain).
                      • AAPG supports the premise that economies must retain their vitality if they are to be able to invest in alternative energy sources as fossil fuels become more expensive.
                      • AAPG supports the pursuit of economically viable technology to sequester carbon dioxide emissions and emissions of other gases in a continuing effort to improve our environment and enhance energy recovery.
                      • AAPG supports measures to conserve energy.

                      AGW disproved...
                      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 and very precisely failed. They precisely miss the mark to the high side...




                      James Hansen, formerly of NASA-GISS and now a full time criminal, first proved that AGW was wrong 25 years ago and then delivered an endless stream of idiotic alarmism.

                      Back in 1988, he published a climate model that, when compared to his own temperature data, substantially disproves AGW...




                      GISTEMP has tracked the Hansen scenario in which a [email protected] utopia was achieved more than a decade ago.

                      Hansen's model used an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 4.2°C per doubling of pre-industrial CO2. The IPCC "consensus" is 3.0°C. The maximum physically possible ECS is 2.0°C. The maximum physically possible ECS, consistent with the observations, is 1.0°C. Recent papers have concluded that solar forcing has been underestimated by a factor of six and CO2 forcing is much lower than the so-called consensus estimate.

                      The following CMIP5 model was parameterized (fudged) to accurately retrocast HadCRUT4 from 1950-2004.



                      Eight years and out! Within eight years, the observed temperature is on the verge of dropping out of the lower error band.

                      This model from Kaufmann et al., 2011 simulated natural and anthropogenic (primarily CO2) forcing mechanisms from 1999-2008. Natural forcing won by a score of 3-1.

                      [/I]

                      Then there's the IPCC's 20 years of failed models...







                      The IPCC have failed so miserably that they now have a 97% consensus, with 95% certainty, that they have no fracking idea what the climate's sensitivity to CO2 is...

                      [...]

                      The new report states clearly that with 95% confidence, humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming. The only difference in the percent of confidence from the previous reports is that the 95% figure is higher than all the other reports. This higher level of confidence is rather odd since they state that the climate systems sensitivity to forcing from greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide is unknown! The report states that “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”. Without a solid understanding of what the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide and other forcings is, the whole “dominant cause” statement has no meaning. It’s a statement designed to inspire confidence in what they admittedly don’t understand.

                      What they are saying is that they are 95% sure that humans are the dominant cause of global warming but that they are so unsure of how the climate system reacts to increases in carbon dioxide, they can’t give us an “estimate” of how much global warming it causes. Yea, that inspires confidence for sure. Based on that “high level of confidence” we should abandon what works (fossil fuels) and gamble our future and prosperity on so called “renewables” that can’t survive without massive government support.

                      To further inspire this 95% confidence level we have the musings of the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri. In October of 2008 he stated that “We’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate”. A glance at the actual temperature data at that time shows that there was no such thing occurring. Even earlier in 2007 he said “If there is no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.” Gee, here it is 2013 and we’ve had no warming since 1998, no increase in the number or strength of hurricanes, the fewest number of tornadoes since reliable measurements began, and despite forecast of a “very active” hurricane season we’ve had only two category 1 hurricanes to date and sea-level rise has not accelerated. Oh, and those predictions of an ice free Arctic Ocean never happened either. Is this a defining moment?

                      [...]

                      EnergyTribune

                      So... I guess the consensus of 97.1% of the world's scientists must be...



                      The unknowable 97.1% of scientists are supposedly 95% certain that humans have caused most or all of the warming since 1950 and that a doubling of the assumed unchanging 275 ppmv CO2 will cause at least 1 °C and possibly as much as 6 °C of warming relative to the assumed unchanging handle of the preindustrial Hockey Sitck.

                      Yet, the supposed 97% of scientists can't agree on a likely value for how much warming a doubling of the assumed preindustrial atmospheric CO2 will yield.



                      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


                      • So was has not the AAPG opposed AGW?

                        Is it because they cannot? Or is it perhaps most are scientists?
                        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                          So was has not the AAPG opposed AGW?

                          Is it because they cannot? Or is it perhaps most are scientists?
                          The AAPG's position statement clearly and politely disagrees with the so-called consensus. While there are no recent surveys of AAPG members, 65% of 2004 poll respondents supported the earlier, less polite, position statement...



                          The AGU's 2008 survey found that less than 50% of government and academic economic geologists supported the AGW "consensus." And a 2008 survey of government and industry geoscientists in Alberta found nearly 70% opposition to the so-called AGW consensus. Geoscientists have consistently been far more likely to think that modern climate changes have been driven by overwhelmingly natural processes...





                          APEGA is the organization responsible for certifying and licensing professional geoscientists and engineers in Alberta, Canada.

                          This study is very interesting because it analyzes the frames of reference (Kuhn's "different worlds") in which opinions are formed. Skeptical geologists are most likely to view climate change as overwhelmingly natural. Skeptical engineers are more likely to view it as a matter of economics or fatalism. The cost of decarbonization would far outweigh any benefits and/or would have no measurable effect on climate change.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • Probably a good place for this for consideration;
                            The Anti-Science Left
                            John Stossel | Wednesday Jun 17, 2015 12:01 AM

                            This year is the 10th anniversary of a book called “The Republican War on Science.” I could just as easily write a book called “The Democratic War on Science.”

                            The conflict conservatives have with science is mostly caused by religion. Some religious conservatives reject evolution, and some oppose stem cell research.

                            But neither belief has a big impact on our day-to-day lives. Species continue to evolve regardless of what conservatives believe, and if conservatives ban government funding of stem cell research, private investors will continue the work.

                            By contrast, the left’s bad ideas about science do more harm.
                            ...
                            http://humanevents.com/2015/06/17/th...-science-left/
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                            “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                              Probably a good place for this for consideration;
                              The Anti-Science Left
                              John Stossel | Wednesday Jun 17, 2015 12:01 AM

                              This year is the 10th anniversary of a book called “The Republican War on Science.” I could just as easily write a book called “The Democratic War on Science.”

                              The conflict conservatives have with science is mostly caused by religion. Some religious conservatives reject evolution, and some oppose stem cell research.

                              But neither belief has a big impact on our day-to-day lives. Species continue to evolve regardless of what conservatives believe, and if conservatives ban government funding of stem cell research, private investors will continue the work.

                              By contrast, the left’s bad ideas about science do more harm.
                              ...
                              http://humanevents.com/2015/06/17/th...-science-left/
                              The dip-schist author of The Republican War on Science has a degree in English, no scientific credentials whatsoever... Yet he is routinely cited as some sort of climate scientist... The AGU, supposedly a scientific society, even put this clown on their board...

                              Congrats to new AGU Board member Chris Mooney!
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment


                              • Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions
                                http://wiseenergy.org/

                                Worth a close look and filled with article and paper links ...
                                Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case
                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDE...e_gdata_player

                                Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

                                This critique fully debunks the “97% of Scientist…” claim

                                97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus”

                                Global Warming: Manmade or Not?

                                ^ Just a sampling from one section of the above site.


                                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                                “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X