Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

[AUDub]

AlGor thinks CO2 makes you stupid:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/28/al-gore-co2-makes-stupid/

Well, in his case.................it is probably true.

Either that, or all the tabackey plants he tended to, in the beds, as a little kid may be responsible.

(Anyone remember one his speeches, in one of his less successful Presidential bids, where he promised "there will always be tobacco"?)

Actually Harvard says it, and their study looks sound just peering at the abstract. Why don't you parse it?

 

[AUDub]

LOL at Gates letting his freak flag fly. He's partially correct though. Capitalism and free markets will not do that flies in the face of their immediate self interests. That includes sustainability.

 

[AUDub]

Scientists think Gov. Moonbeam is wrong:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...rry-brown-wrong-to-link-fires-climate-change/

Actually, he is more than wrong: he is an idiot.

So you'll actually take the scientists' words at face value on this one? Seems oddly contradictory. Brown is off the mark, though.

 

[CajunCrimson]

This thread is more fun when you learn the ignore button

 

[AUDub]

This thread is more fun when you learn the ignore button

 

[NationalTitles18]

This thread is more fun when you learn the ignore button

Amen to that! If an actual reasonable conversation could be had it might not be needed.

 

[cuda.1973]

Oh, dear................the humanity!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...shock-study-antarctica-growing-not-shrinking/

 

[AUDub]

Oh, dear................the humanity!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...shock-study-antarctica-growing-not-shrinking/

Oh, for Heaven's sake

We have a thread going on about this matter on another forum I frequent. One would think this rules out the global conspiracy thing, since it clashes with previously accepted conclusions (though the possibility of gains in these ares was discussed in the IPCCs latest assessment report.)

Of course, Zwally saw the inevitable coming a mile away:

“I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.”

And it's not at all a rosy picture.

Around the edges of the continent, Zwally’s team saw the same rapid retreat of glaciers that many other groups have documented.

But it is good news in the sense that Antarctica is acting as sink, helping mitigate sea level rise for the time being.

So does this mean you're taking these NASA studies at face value or only when they fit your denialist agenda?

 

[Aledinho]

I think we are finally starting see the agenda behind climate alarmists:

Solve climate change...make people smaller

The plan, at this point still sketchy, has three engineers. S Matthew Liao is a professor of bioethics at New York University. Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache are fellows who study ethics at the University of Oxford. The trio launched their "be-littler" idea in a paper called "Human engineering and climate change", in 2012 in the journal Ethics, Policy and the Environment.

It is interesting to note that the average height of a climate alarmist is 1.62 meters or 5 foot 3 inches, while the average height for skeptics is 1.86 meters or 6 foot 1 inch tall.

 

[AUDub]

I think we are finally starting see the agenda behind climate alarmists:

Solve climate change...make people smaller

It is interesting to note that the average height of a climate alarmist is 1.62 meters or 5 foot 3 inches, while the average height for skeptics is 1.86 meters or 6 foot 1 inch tall.

Well that's just stupid. One often wonders what goes on in University Philosophy departments. First the "kill all the predators!" nonsense last month and now this.

Im 6'3 by the way.

 

[MDBSnare]

Earth has a variable weather climate...known for a long while. Check this out...siap...

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009...-ice-in-order-to-prevent-another-ice-age.html

 

[AUDub]

Comment number 1 raises some good points. We've discussed the cooling scenario at length.

Start here.

 

[AUDub]

I like how AUDub can take any piece of evidence and fit it into his ever evolving theory, no matter how contradictory. If only there were a term for that...

Example?

 

[NationalTitles18]

http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

Judith Curry is unimpressed with NOAA's new claims of no slowdown in global warming.

1. They make 11 changes (not all are explained) producing the ERSSTv4 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) dataset that includes new estimates for the different way SSTs are measured from ships (intake or buckets). They also add 0.12°C to each buoy to bring their measurements in line with those taken from ships. These issues have been raised before by the UK Met Office when compiling their HadSST3 ocean surface temperature dataset, see, ‘A review of uncertainty in in situ measurements and data sets of sea surface temperature’2. The greatest changes are made since 1998, which is interesting because this is when we have the highest quality of data and global coverage using several methods. Only this analysis finds any increase in global annual average surface temperature over this “hiatus” period. The authors have produced a dataset that is at odds with other surface temperature datasets, as well as those compiled via satellite.
3. The authors start their trend estimates in 1998 and 2000. This has long been considered unwise as 1998 is a very strong El Nino year and 1999-2000 is a much cooler La Nina period. The difference between them distorts their trend estimates. For example, their 1998-2014 trend is 0.106+/- 0.058°C per decade. Starting two years later (during La Nina influenced years) yields a trend of 0.116 +/- 0.067°C per decade as one would expect from starting at a lower temperature. Ignoring these caveats the authors say their analysis produces twice as much warming for 1998-2014 than earlier estimates. Their conclusion is, ironically, based on inbuilt biases in their analysis.

She continues with more criticisms of the study which seems fairly reasonable.

I'm sure she didn't reveal that BP funded her baby seal clubbing expeditions in one of her published papers or that she's generally an idiot, but I'll gladly not read the comment(s) of the dismissive genius with diarrhea of the keyboard trying to tell me since I have no interest in reading an unyielding activist's lectures.

 

[AUDub]

http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

Judith Curry is unimpressed with NOAA's new claims of no slowdown in global warming.

She continues with more criticisms of the study which seems fairly reasonable.

I'm sure she didn't reveal that BP funded her baby seal clubbing expeditions in one of her published papers or that she's generally an idiot, but I'll gladly not read the comment(s) of the dismissive genius with diarrhea of the keyboard trying to tell me since I have no interest in reading an unyielding activist's lectures.

 

[Tide1986]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...e-to-the-paris-climate-talks/article27388857/

Even if all these problems were overcome and every nation lived up to its commitments, the effect on the planet would be negligible. Bjorn Lomborg, head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, did the math in a new study published in the journal Global Policy. “If all nations keep all their promises, temperatures will be cut by just 0.05°C (0.09°F),” he stated in the news release. “Even if every government on the planet not only keeps every Paris promise, reduces all emissions by 2030, and shifts no emissions to other countries, but also keeps these emission reductions throughout the rest of the century, temperatures will be reduced by just 0.17°C (0.3°F) by the year 2100.”

The hard truth about global warming is that there is no public policy solution. We need a lot more candour about that. Until we develop significant technological breakthroughs on a massive scale, nothing that we do will make much if any difference. Even if we figure out substitutes for fossil fuels, converting our entire global infrastructure to other power sources will take decades.

About 80 per cent of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency estimates that global energy demand is set to grow another 37 per cent by the year 2040. As greenhouse gas emissions level off in the developed world, almost all of that increase will come from poorer countries such as China. By 2040, the IEA estimates, 75 per cent of all our energy will still come from oil, gas and coal – the major sources of greenhouse gasses.

The other hard truth is a simple human one. No one is going to give up the material comforts of life today for the avoidance of an uncertain disaster many years in the future. Any politician who fails to reckon with that will soon be turfed from office.

 

[cuda.1973]

The gubbament would never lie..................of course not...............

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/

 

[Bama4Ever831]

The gubbament would never lie..................of course not...............

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

Palmer’s claim that “we are building an entire agenda on falsified data” has no basis in evidence. Even as these claims of data manipulation have resurfaced, there is now a general consensus that 2014 was the hottest single year since temperature record keeping began. This same conclusion has been reached by NOAA and NASA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the World Meteorological Organization. The United Kingdom’s Met Office said that 2014 was among the warmest along with 2010, but it is impossible to say for sure that 2014 was hotter. According to NASA, nine of the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 2000, with 1998 the lone exception.

Even climate skeptics agree!

Berkeley Earth, a climate science nonprofit founded in early 2010 by scientists expressing skepticism at the time about global warming, has also found no undue manipulation of temperature data in its own analyses. Its page specifically on the Paraguayan Puerto Casado station that Homewood mentioned shows the adjusted readings do in fact show a rise in temperature over time.

But you know, people on a message obviously know better...

 

[ValuJet]

We may have to ban AUDub since it's Auburn week.

 

[CajunCrimson]

We may have to ban AUDub since it's Auburn week.