@Azure260 Nasa actually did studies on solar activity because obviously if the Earth is warming the first thing they're going to check is the sun. The satellites found that solar activity is actually declining and has no correlation to the warming climate. However, there is a strong correlation between carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and climate change. The sun argument holds little merit.
Pollack: But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.
Cook: A growing body of evidence clearly shows that hydroclimatic variability during the putative MWP (more appropriately called the “Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA) was more regionally extreme (mainly in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So … the MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.
Cook: I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead
Barnett: [IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
Santer: there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor tests we’ve applied.
Climate change as a vehicle for man-kind's latest paranoia has definitively lost its wheels just like Ozone holes over the Arctic did 10 years ago!
The new horror is the economic meltdown..and people losing jobs and homes....climate change is suddenly concern number...heck....what maybe 157?
Darn...it was so promising too....for the Enron like corporations..... all set to sell Cap and Trade certificates....and make a few hundred billion dollars..
One of the best essays on greenhouse myth-making from a left perspective comes from Denis Rancourt, an environmental science researcher and professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. I recommend his Feb 2007 essay "Global Warming: Truth or Dare?" on his website, which has also featured fine work by David Noble on the greenhouse lobby.
I am as frustrated with the idiocy and irresponsibility of the media as Ed is, and I can understand his frustration. There is NO debate among climate scientists about whether or not we are causing the planet to warm. NONE. The overwhelming consensus supports that we are causing global warming with the burning of fossil fuels. The only "debate" among scientists is on the severity and the impacts of this warming, and most of the scenarios are not good.
@mographzach … ANY scientist who claims "the debate is over and we have won!" – like the AGW crowd has done on numerous occasions – ceases to be an honest scientist and has instead become a political tool. And let's not even start with the data manipulation and "cleaning", silencing of dissident opinions by way of tampering with the peer review process and/or pressuring editors of scientific journals.
@macmarine Yeah, and where do you get all of that from? If a biologist goes to work one day and tries to publish a paper saying that evolution was false, and that we spontaneously generated into our present form from pixie dust 2,000 years ago, there would probably be a sense of "pressure" or "persecution" for said biologist. But that doesn't make it unwarranted. AGW is so clearly happening and so widely accepted by climatologists that any climatologist rejecting it probably doesn't have a basis
@mographzach The keyword in your reply is "probably"! The debate is NOT over just because the AGW crowd says so. That's definitely not the scientific process I am used to. If some biologist – as in your example – tries to get utter bullsh!t published, he'd be laughed out of his job. But there's a big difference between your "pixie dust" and not underwriting the current dogma of CO2-driven AGW: there are serious researchers who point out other hypothetical mechanisms for GW, e.g. sun activity.
@macmarine I say "probably" because science doesn't deal in absolutes. If you think it does, you don't know science. The sun will "probably" rise tomorrow, but we don't "know" if it will or not. The real question is, does the evidence warrant preventative measures to combat/mitigate climate change, or at least the worst effects, and most climate scientists would say yes. Also, solar activity and global temperatures lined up fairly well until 1985 with both went in opposite directions.
@mographzach "science doesn't deal in absolutes" No shit, Sherlock?! But when it comes to CO2-induced AGW we suddenly seem to be absolutely certain. I was referring to your "any climatologist rejecting it PROBABLY doesn't have a basis". We don't know for sure (we never will). I am not an expert in atmospheric physics and chemistry, I just got the basics covered as any grad in natural sciences. But I'm willing to listen to dissenters, like the physicist Henrik Svensmark, before spending billions.
@macmarine Just like we'll never know for sure if evolution happened, or if the earth is 4 billion years old, or if gravity is really dictated by mass. However, we know these things to be true beyond reasonable doubt. We have to trust the science we have now, and right now the science is telling us that AGW is real and is caused by us. It's our choice to brush it off onto future generations to deal with (your plan) or to deal with it and mitigate the worst effects (i prefer this option).
@mographzach VERY daring comparisons you bring up: the model of CO2-based AGW is not by a long shot comparable to basic scientific tenets! Newtonian mechanics, the Theories of Gravity and Evolution are backed by loads of empirical data … which CO2-AGW is sorely lacking. There are hundreds of reasons–political, pragmatic and economic, health and environmental–for cleaning up our environment, for conservation of energy, for developing alternate fuels, etc. Global warming is not one of them.
@macmarine I don't think you understand how AGW works. And true, we have plenty of reasons to get real when it comes to the environment. Even if AGW isn't true (which it is true), we have major sustainability issues to address, which would solve global warming if we paid more attention to them. Factory farms producing runoff into streams, massive resources used to grow meat, deforestation, loss of habitat, and the fact that nearly all of our energy is unsustainable.
@mographzach I do understand the AGW postulates … I just don't think that the data bear out the claims.
See: independent org/publications/article asp?id=1714 on some issues and also: activistteacher blogspot com/2007/02/global-warming-truth-or-dare.html
At least we agree on "There are hundreds of reasons–political, pragmatic, economic, health and environmental–for cleaning up our environment, for conservation of energy, for developing alternate fuels, etc. [I add: AGW is not one of them]
@macmarine Sorry man, I'm going to go with the opinion of the majority of climatologists that we are causing global warming. Yes, we have plenty of reasons other than AGW to switch to clean renewable energy, increase biodiversity, reforest deforested areas, etc, but without the inconvenient fact that AGW is real, we won't do these things fast enough. We'll have a false sense of safety, that we can put it off until later.
@macmarine We had enough evidence 20 years ago to start mitigating AGW, and we've put it off. Now, people like you are linking to blogs and think-tanks thinking that this somehow disproves the thousands of peer-reviewed papers done by climatologists. You have linked me to an article/paper that is over 6 years old. Is this the best you've got? Can you please link me to peer-reviewed papers by climatologists? Otherwise I'm not interested.
@macmarine "I just don't think that the data bear out the claims." really? And what are your qualifications? You don't think the data bear out the claims? Write a paper on it and get it published then! Again, people like you with no qualifications skip the peer-review spanking you'd get and instead go onto youtube to try to convince people there that AGW isn't real. Why do you care anyway? Nobody is doing anything about it. My heart tells me we'll solve this but my brain tells me we're screwed.
@mographzach "And what are your qualifications?" As said, in clinical research, not in climatology. So no publication in that field, sorry. But many of the problems with AGW pointed out by MIT Prof. Lindzen still stand. On top of that we had that little inconvenient moment of truth now dubbed CLIMATEGATE. Therefor, I vehemently oppose the scaremongering, bullying and intimidation of dissenting opinions by scheming subjects like Al Gore, who have BIG financial interest in AGW cap'n trade.
@macmarine "climategate" was a fake, bogus, manufactured scandal. They found 1-2 quotes in the thousands of emails that they replayed over and over and over on the news, hardly a mass conspiracy. You love to talk about this ONE scientist. Again, the overwhelming majority of climatologists (98%) say that we're altering the climate, and you're shopping around to find the 1% that doesn't. Would you do this if 98% of electricians said you need new wiring for your house or it will catch fire?
@macmarine "like Al Gore, who have BIG financial interest in AGW cap'n trade." This is an ad hominim attack, a logical fallacy. Even IF Al Gore's only motivation was money, and not to save the planet, the science still stands. We are still causing climate change, and we still have to act. The climate doesn't care about humanity's willful ignorance, it's going to do it's thing no matter what we believe. If we pump obscene amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, things will happen.
@mographzach … the science really doesn't stand on AGW. I'm all for mitigating the countless ecological AND socio-political disasters humanity has caused. But pouring countless billions of tax payers' money into curbing CO2 output will not solve any of these ecological damages. It will only waste money for nothing. Prof. Lindzen has pointed out quite succinctly that even a doubling of current atmospheric CO2 would only have a miniscule additional effect on global temperature.
@zeroceiling … I think you put me on the wrong (AGW) side! I don't buy into the "save the planet" crap. As for the data: just look at today's "ClimateGate 2.0" batch of emails … it – again – paints a damning picture of how the scientific process got perverted by the IPCC and its minions.
sorry I misread your comment...but glad to see you are on the side of sanity...and that IPCC should be run out of town....it would actually be interesting to see 2500 stretch Cadillac SUV's all heading for the Airport at the same time....
@macmarine So you found the emails that were interesting enough to be released two years ago to be convincing? After Climategate1.0 proved to be nothing but sensationalism. Have you actually read the full emails or just the quotemined bits designed to make people who don't know much about this stuff go, "Oh my goodness. This looks bad"
I find it interesting that those who complain about a supposed "team IPCC" then misrepresent honest discussions of uncertainties a conspiracy. It's pathetic.
@macmarine So what do you think was meant by that statement? What was declining? How, or in what way, was it hidden? I wonder if you actually looked past the propaganda of the denialsphere.
Jones: GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be correct.
Wils: What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably
Mann: the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what [Real Climate] is about.
Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”
@macmarine It seems you're just looking for excuses now. You put a massive, ridiculous, unrealistic burden of proof on the climatologists, yet you don't apply this anywhere else. We have decades of solid science backing this up, and it gets more and more compelling each year. Yet, you still refuse to believe it. This kind of thinking is going to destroy us. We're at the highest CO2 concentration in 400,000 years, 390ppm, when it's been 250ppm up until this century.
@mographzach "We're at the highest CO2 concentration in 400,000 years, 390ppm, when it's been 250ppm up until this century." And how much temperature increase exactly has that caused on a global scale? How about the additional effects of water vapour, methane, aerosols? Are there any valid and reliable models that can factor in these additional effects within reasonable margins of accuracy? Don't get me wrong: my so-called carbon footprint is rather small … I just don't give a damn about it!
@macmarine Do you raise an eyebrow at the scientific method in any other area, or just climatology? Is the peer-review process flawed in other areas of science? Or is it just climatology? Surely you accept and enjoy the benefits of the scientific method in other areas, like medicine, water treatment, higher food-yields, etc? Do you have a problem with the peer-review process that brought those benefits along? Or just climatology? I await your answer.
@mographzach "Is the peer-review process flawed in other areas of science?" Well, I can only speak from my little corner of clinical medicine, and I'd have to say: it depends. There are some areas where certain types of dogma are carried forward and it is very hard for any scientist to get divergent results published b/c of "gatekeepers" and citation-cartels. If you move in new uncharted territories your chances are better. Also, the reputation of your institution and your boss is key.
you guys can hate on Ed, hate on Al Gore, hate on Obama, hate on the EU, but that doesn't change the fact that we're destroying the planet and the ecosystems that sustain life and sustain our quality of life. You see, saving the planet isn't about the planet. It's about ourselves. Earth is going to be just fine, it has all of the time in the world to recover from our destruction. WE'RE the ones who are screwed. Green is about saving US from OURSELVES.
Nearly a billion people worldwide don't have reliable access to food, according to United Nations estimates, and some experts worry climate change will drive that number even higher.
I'm from the Uk, that reported is an idiot - he's British but pretending to have US values about Government intervention. Of course it makes sense to ban inefficient incandecent lightbulbs that have been around for a hundred odd years, who in their right mind would get annoyed with their Government for introducing regulations that will cost you bugger all and make your energy bills cheaper?
@samrah2afar My friend uses a thermostat and a couple of 100 watt light bulb to keep his outdoor well head from freezing; its safe and the solution costs him a couple of bucks.
Now tell me why some stupid bureaucrat with his head up his anus has a better solution?
Passenger rail has been around for a hundred odd years; lets let the government ban taxpayer subsidies for it you little nascent Hitler
@MrSirGareth I'm not really sure what your point about rail travel is, because I think its a good idea that Government is encouraging the transition from an inefficient technology to a newer more efficient one I am somehow against Government intervention (not to mention the fact that makes me a nazi dictator in the making?)? Rail travel is an essential part of the transport infrastructure and there is no waiting more efficient alternative so its a stupid example to compare to.
Only a confirmed socialist would be sufficiently delusional to link the term government with efficiency in any positive way. Using 18th century technology to carry people along fixed tracks where authorities think they should need to go is not efficient; sooner or later all tracks lead to Auschwitz.
@MrSirGareth Lucky lucky him.... yes it must be awful for me coming from one of the best countries in the world for education, employment opportunities, health care, judiciary and policing, welfare, governance etc etc I don't know how people cope living here.
I've been lucky enough to see much of the world and know there is nothing to complain about here.
@samrah2afar A recent poll reflected the fact that over 50% of your population would leave if they could. It really doesn't matter because even if you stay, England will have left you. The most popular name for an "English boy" is now Mohammad and soon your courts will be dominated by sharia law replete with public stoning; your yearnings for Camelot will not save you since you now lack the virility for procreation.
@MrSirGareth OMG what planet do you live on, Mohammed is not even in the top thirty names - its no 38 apparently, and only then because Muslims choose from a smaller pool of names. With 3% of the population being Muslim (most arriving just after WW2) I have no worries that sharia law will be stoning people here any more than we are currently crucifying people. Your inability to understand the frequency of names doesn't bode well for your understanding of complex science.
@samrah2afar I live on a planet that is not undergoing as crisis in climate, it is different from the one that the the BBC lives on; i will grant that. Americans are nothing like Europeans, we have never trusted government to prod us along but quite the opposite; we endure the political class as long as their rapaciousness is checked but don't take them for anything other than what they are; a criminal class
@samrah2afar Moreover I have worked with professionals in the UK on joint projects over many months including Sun Alliance, Barclays Bank, The Royal Bank of Scotland, Dunlop Tire etc etc. I have always detected a resentment towards the deal that they get in the UK vs what Americans "get" - The reason why we "get" what they want was made evident in Concord MA in 1775.
One always has to be stunned by those who got an A in their college physics class and suddenly think they are thus qualified to categorically state that the people who study atmospheric physics for a living don't understand or are overconfident regarding what they are doing. Pure arrogance.
....A world where molecules move vast distances so that our ability to measure a temperature is destroyed.
Well they do move rather fast in the air the jet stream exceeds 100 miles per hour and sea currents easily can reach several miles per hour and those little buggers take a new route every time. All I want to know is how infinitesimally small collection of those we trap accurately represents the untold trillions times more of those we don't?
@MrSirGareth I do know. It's fundamental thermodynamics. Scientists take thousands of measurements in thousands of places each year. You would make a good creationist. Here's two fossils and another one that is an intermediary says the scientist. "Where is the two intermediary between the three stages?" says you. When that is produced where is the 4 ones between those?
You stick to your faith in adder's fork & wolf's bane. I'll stick with hypothesis, experiment, math, and independent repetition.
@rugbyguy59 ....but thousands of measurements, I hope you would agree would be rather insufficient to the task if they were all within 100 square miles.
What manner of spacial or temporal distributions are required to assess the "average" thermal energy of every molecules composing the entire planet; I haven't a clue as to what the temp is 100 miles beneath me I could be off by many degrees.
@rugbyguy59 How do you know that? You use "average" pretty loosely but averages can be fairly complex. Do you mean "average" over a period of time or "average" over the entire earth for a specific time. Is that 0.1 or 0.10 or 0.11 or 0.12 or 0.13 or 0.14? or maybe you mean 0.05 or 0.06 or 0.07 etc I think it might be pretty important.
I wouldn't make a good 'ist' of anything; I don't have a dog in any creation myth fight. I could give a rats ass if Darwin was better than Moses or Mohammed --- pick your own myth it's all boringly inconsequential to me how you think you got here is your issue; in all probability your mother's condom failed.
Oh, and there is no repetition in the AGW scientism myth except the in incantations of their catechism
@MrSirGareth Ah but you are an "ist" through and through. A denialist, anarchist, egoist. You're the pawn of the Church of Denial's high priests. You've been manipulated by fear and ignorance. Fear of humanity working together and true responsibility. Ignorance of science and its methods. You are an illustration of the depths of human dishonesty and cynicism. Cynicism is your way of life so add cyncist to the list. But keep using the prayer beads the way of the sheeple is for you. Fear knowledge
@rugbyguy59 Those are you labels not mine, I have no priests, I take no ones word as sacred, I take no revealed truth as anything other than a scam. I've seen the results of humanity "working together" to fulfill some politician's idea of utopia: Stalin, Hitler, Fidel, Kim Sung Il etc. I'm not joining your herd or theirs, all of this "green" BS is simply more statist tyranny.
@MrGareth You may not label yourself anything but you are what you are. Your priests are the purveyors of cynicism without evidence, the mythic founding fathers and goddess Ayn Rand. There is a difference between requiring evidence before acceptance and simple denial of anything you don't like. You insist on your own facts
Your characterization of working together as herd behaviour and "utopian" shows your position as politically motivated. If it requires unity it must be denied. You're a zealot
More on this. Just to serve my curiosity about what you think you know about the AGW catechism.
If we took the "average" temperature of a just single point on the globe. Just a single point mind you. Would it faithfully register a man made global warming signal over your last 150 years equally to any other single point or could some points on the globe be held harmless and register no warming at all?
I'm eager to hear your considered response as a zealot of the faith.
@MrSirGareth "the "average" temperature of a just single point on the globe.... Would it faithfully register a man made global warming signal over your last 150 years"
As warming takes place at different rates it is very unlikely one spot would reflect the global average trend. When compared to the average temps for 1951-80 almost the entire planet was warmer. Some places were the same, a few areas have slightly cooled.
h ttp: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/File: GISS_temperature_2000-09_lrg. png
@rugbyguy59 RE: "Some places were the same, a few areas have slightly cooled."
What precautions were taken to place weather stations in the places it places that didnt warm or actaully cooled. In equal numbers to places where it actually warmed.
So here my next question: Where are the sites where it will actually get cooler in the future according to AGW theory?
@MrSirGareth "What precautions were taken to place weather stations in the places it places that didnt warm or actaully cooled. In equal numbers to places where it actually warmed."
Precautions? That's stupid. Adjustments? Why don't you go read the source studies or information about the source data for yourself?
"So here my next question: Where are the sites where it will actually get cooler in the future according to AGW theory?"
@MrSirGareth That's true. Which is what the skeptical and denialist scientists have done. No working ideas to explain their theories. No studies that make it through post publication critiques or replication studies.
However the vast majority of climate scientists continue to produce study after study that advances our knowledge of climate and the problems. That this hasn't led to concrete action is thanks to cynical followers of the Church of anti-Personal Responsibility like yourself.
@MrSirGareth Salk did have to do study after study to get his vaccine into production. He then set up an excellent research center because he knew the value of all the studies before he came along and the ones that still needed to be done.
If peer review in its current form had existed Newton would have submitted his findings that way. In any case his findings had to be verified and replicated. Knowledge was advanced as happens today. We should act based on what we know.
@MrSirGareth The Nazi scientists produced a lot of valid and accurate information about human beings. It was done in a disgusting and thoroughly immoral manner and IMHO it should have been destroyed. However your attempt at guilt by association fails. Just saying they were scientists and climatologists are scientists therefore they are the same is rather pathetic but typical of your bigoted approach.
If you can prove climate scientists are immoral then do that otherwise you prove your own idiocy
Respond to this video...If you cant tell which sites should be getting cooler and which ones should be getting cooler according to AGW scientism then how can one know if the sites that record the "average" temperature of the planet is being measured at the right points. You could have a preponderance of the weather stations in the wrong places.
@MrSirGareth AGW science doesn't say some areas should get warmer and others cooler. It says that the planet as a whole will warm. We take more than enough readings to know that is clearly true and there isn't a single serious scientist (skeptic, denier, proponent) who says it isn't. If you looked at the anomalies map that it would be plain to see. But you wouldn't see because you view science with the eyes of a creationist.
The area with the fewest stations is where it is warming the most.
@rugbyguy59 I was once denied an A in physics class because I took a test ahead of time and the professor lost my test - he corrected my "missing data" by taking the average of what the rest of the class did on the test and used that average to correct for the hole in my record for the missing test data. I fought him over his method over several weeks until he finally found my test, graded it, and handed it back - It turns out my test score was the highest in the class; I got my A.
@MrSirGareth Congrats on your A, but it's irrelevant. If you're saying this is an analogy to avg. temp. Just doing an average for all measurements won't give an accurate reading for an unmeasured spot. A more accurate analogy would be to test a class and calculate an average score. Then after reteaching give a new version of the same test. If the class average rises they likely in general know more than before. This has flaws but scientists are aware of the flaws and don't just do this blindly.
@MrSirGareth One thing scientists also know is the idea of increasing temperature averages can be tested in the real world. If it was warming we would be expecting to see earlier spring melts, earlier migration of birds, earlier blooming of plants, animals changing habitats to stay in similar temperature zones, melting icecaps and sea ice. All of these things are occurring all over the planet.
In addition nights warming more than days and winters more than summers tell us it is an enhanced GHE.
@MrSirGareth The urban heat island has its effects. Effects that are compensated for in measurements and more importantly since this effect persists well beyond urban areas we can rule it out.
@rugbyguy59 RE: "Effects that are "compensated for..."
Impossible, corrupted data cannot be compensated or fudged. Saying that you can do it is not proving you can do it. Complete fraud. RE: "it has everything to do with CO2" Pure nuttiness to believe that one of the least present (00.0380% of the atmosphere) is the driving force behind the earths climate. particularly in light of the fact that it has been over 7000 ppm during the Paleozoic with no catastrophic consequences.
@MrSirGareth You have evidence of corrupted data? Hope you aren't going to bring up the CRU vindication affair. Will it be Watts pictures of temp stations. If so read Menne (2010) or better yet Watts et al. (2011). Yes it's the same Watts in both cases.
Considering all persistent GHGs amount to way less than 1% of the atmosphere why would CO2's % matter? It is what it is. Try a very, very tiny dose of strychnine. Just because you can't conceive it doesn't make you right.
@rugbyguy59 Of course I have evidence of corrupted data. Cities in literally every part of the country have overgrown the previously pristine locations of weather stations. There is no way to erase the effects of urbanization and merely claiming you can resurrect the signal from the noise is insufficient in all but faith based science i.e. religion. When I lived in Chanhassen MN (NOAA) it was decidedly very rural, now its urban; what magic erases this transformation from the record.
Both strychnine and CO2 are biological agents. Try putting 00.0038% strychnine in a solution of sea water and see how much it affects the PHYSICAL properties of sea water. The CRU has an agenda and none of it's unprovable assertions are worth a tinkers dam. And by the way the Bible is "read" and science is "done" don't confuse the two. GHGs, do not "persist" CO2 is rapidly assimilated by life.
@MrSirGareth Science is done. Paper's are written. They then get read. You should read some.
The CRU agenda is finding out what's going on. Their work is testable and holds up unless the person reading it is sees science as just another money grubbing sham. That does say a lot about you and what you're doing. Those who think others are cheats are usually one themselves.
Low levels of strychnine have an effect based. So does CO2. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
@MrSirGareth CO2 isn't the only driver. But this time it is the primary driver possibly almost the only driver in the past 30 years.
As for the Paleozoic, the sun was weaker back then. More CO2 was needed to avoid glaciation. 3000ppm in Ordovician Period. And there is evidence linking high CO2/low ocean O2 to the Paleozoic extinctions. I'd say that was pretty catastrophic.
Error 1: Something alarming is happening to the earths climate: Pure sandwich board nuttiness none of it based in reality.
Error 2: Assuming that crazy Error 1 isnt really crazy, the natural gas called CO2 (000.0038% of the atmosphere) dominates the physics of the earth climate. Pure sandwich board nuttiness again
Error 3 Earth has an ideal climate that if established, will render the greatest economic benefit to \ourselves and our posterity - pure nuttiness again.
@MrSirGareth Fact 1: something alarming is happening to the earth's climate. I can point to evidence. You just say shit.
Fact 2: CO2 doesn't dominate the earths climate, but it does have known and significant effects. Right now there is no other way to explain current warming.
Fact 3: There is no ideal climate for the earth. However the one we have works for us and we have never, since we began agriculture, faced as significant or as rapid a change as is happening now. Why break what is working?
@rugbyguy59 There was no other explanation for the bad luck that befell the Salem Massachusetts colonies except that the witches conspired with the devil. Having no explanation except your favorite premise is an old "trick" of scientism.
@MrSirGareth You demonstrate the decline of the American intellect in a flurry of posts. Salem witchhunts as science? LOL
When did trespassing become more dangerous than letting authority do as they wish? So much for your "we don't let government prod us" bollocks, instead you are willing to be led by the nose by the corporate world.
You don't even know the difference between astrology and astronomy. Nor racism/ideology and science. Guilt by association.
@rugbyguy59 "RE: When did trespassing become more dangerous than letting authority...."
First, private property owners are not "authorities" and had it been my property your "scientist" would at least received a concussion and several broken ribs and limbs if it was my property I had him removed from
This nut job is an unhinged messianic fool.
"corporate word"??? let me guess, another friggin commie. We'll do the cold war all over again - I'll side with the people who won the last one
@MrSirGareth ""corporate word"??? let me guess, another friggin commie."
Commie? Nope. But I know authority comes in many different forms. Big business is just as dangerous as big government. Since you're more worried about a coal company that uses financial might to dictate how things will be done, I can see you're a corporatist. Freedom comes from democracy, community, and individuality combined not just one or the other.
@rugbyguy59 How many death camps have "big business" run.
Can they compel me go kill for them or face prison? can they force me to buy their product, to work for them? or to invest in them?
Sorry All of these things government has done and will continue to do. The biggest threat that big business can pose is the same as my neighbor could pose; the duty to perform under the terms of a mutually agreed upon contract.
@MrSirGareth As a social studies teacher I can see that your understanding of history and politics is very limited and biased. Big businesses that run death camps? The Nazi's were put into power by big business because they suited their needs. They also happily provided materials and expertise for the job. In Africa today we've got numerous big businesses with their private armies as well as the civil wars they run.
Business does not work as directly as government that's why they buy government.
@rugbyguy59 Ahhh I guessed it "social studies" My understanding of history and politics is limited compared with whom?
I've lived and paid taxes in three different countries and four different states; In addition I've worked in the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Finland, Turkey, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, Venezuela and Brazil.
I read both World and US history as a hobby and would mop up the floor with you; I am and have been active in politics at the state level in two states.
@MrSirGareth "My understanding of history and politics is limited compared with whom?"
Compared to anyone with an open mind to different points of view. Your science and politics are selected to support your ideology. Your history is likely similar.
"they have all but ruined the industrial base of the US"
Yeah, sure. Corporations played no role in that. Bwaahahahahaha. And sure, the plutocracy was created by unions. So it's the union members with all the vast wealth. Bwaahahahahaha
RE: "The Nazi's were put into power by big business because they suited their needs. " Hitler's party (The German National Socialist Workers Party - NASDP - later morphed to NAZI) was swept into power by garnering huge plurality (37%) of the popular vote in the 1932 elections in which 15 parties competed for power after economic collapse following WW I. Hitler's Germany was as far from laissez-faire capitalism as Kim Jong Il's North Korea is - you are a fool
RE: Business does not work as directly as government that's why they buy government.
The teachers union, public employee unions, and bar associations constitute the largest political lobbies in the county. Look at Wisconsin.
Our government run schools are a complete mess and the fact that teachers like you propagandize our kids rather than teaching them anything useful is appalling. I know, I tutor high school kids trying to master algebra who cant read or write or do arithmetic.
I'm very curious, my training in science consists of mathematics through differential and integral calculus, statistics, physics (with math) at the collegiate level, inorganic chemistry at the collegiate level as well as many years of work in the applied sciences in electronics and the computer sciences. What qualifications enable you to understand what you "read" in science?
But without question your background makes you more qualified to read the science. So what happened? Instead you go with "we can't measure every molecule" or ludicrous comparisons of ovens to the earth. The science you don't like you denigrate rather than disprove
The answer is you're blinded politically and are unable to assess the science dispassionately. It's all an evil government plot to you. Amazing how we got the birds, flowers, and ice to play along
@rugbyguy59 Congratulations you got this basic chemistry equation properly balanced and if you did it with only a periodic table and a calculator/spreadsheet as a helper you at least know 99% more than the average AGW groupie and 100% more than any US social studies teacher I have ever run into, although your history is still deplorable. My chair healing time is now about over so Ill cut short this debate.
@MrSirGareth Why has the government done so little on climate change? Big answer, because they are protecting the interests of their big business sponsors.
I'm not anti-business nor am I pro-government. I am suspicious of both because both can be as harmful as the other. The problem with America's government in particular is that it represents the plutocracy that owns it. It , both Reps and Dems, created the regulations or lack thereof that created the financial crisis.
they have all but ruined the industrial base of the US along with other politicians other misguided policies; they have squandered close to 100 billion in total waste and accomplished nothing. AGW is and always has been a wealth and power grab - a fraud. Plutocracy? maybe but it used to be a meritocracy before unions, big government and lawyers.
I'm retired and recovering from an injury; whats your excuse for wasting your time with me? How old are you? What do you do? Who pays you? Are you a bread winner? For whom?
@MrSirGareth My excuse is I'm an idiot who doesn't like to give others the last word, especially when they are talking out their ass. As for me, I'm 52 and a high school teacher of 26 years. The school district I work for pays me and I'm the primary income earner for my family.
Does that somehow make a difference to the science and what science really is?
@rugbyguy59 Oh god please don't tell me you teach any science classes; Social studies I could believe, I have spent my entire life designing high capacity network hardware and software that enjoy world markets; My products sell in all industrialized counties helping reduce our trade deficit. You; a government union employee of a totally failed primary government school system question my intelligence or understanding of "real" science? Hutzpah!
@MrSirGareth I'm pleased for you and your business. I hope you've enjoyed your career and I'm sure its been valuable, but better me than you in a science class. After all you've demonstrated a profound ignorance of and disgust for science, the scientific method, and those who practice it.
As for who pays me, yes it is the government and yes I am in a union. I'm neither boastful nor ashamed of that. I do a job that helps people and I like that.
@MrSirGareth And I'm not American. My school system is one of the tops systems as measured by the OECD. Personally I've taught students to the highest marks in the province on the compulsory exams and several of my classes have had the province's highest class average on those same exams. Where I teach public schools regularly outdo the elite private schools.
Your intelligence and understanding of real science is highly questionable. You seem to conflate business experience with wisdom
@MrSirGareth The rapid rate of change in the temperature, the rate of ice melt, sea level rise, the early signs of permafrost melt, and not climate but related, the rate at which the ocean is acidifying for starters.
Which temperature? starting when ending when? How much greater has it been to other changes?
I'm sure that you are aware that the salinity of the ocean always increases, its not static and never has been; ditto for the ph which fluctuates with its temperature, nothing alarming about that. Is the rate of ice melting greater now than it was 8,000 years ago - what was it then and nwo in tons per year
@MrSirGareth "the salinity of the ocean always increases" of course it does, but why is it decreasing in the poles? Because of fresh water coming from melting ice. Why is the ice melting? It's getting warmer.
"ditto for the ph which fluctuates with its temperature" absolutely, but that happens largely due to CO2 levels changing with temperature. So why is it getting more acidic now? Because we're creating so much CO2
8000 yrs ago 100s of millions of people didn't live within metres of sea level
@rugbyguy59 Error4 "climatologists" know the ideal climate and have the means available to regulate it by regulating human behavior: Pure nuttiness boardering on criminal insanity.
Error5 Thinking that know-nothing government bureaucrats have discerned what "nature/god" purpose truly is and can label "Paleozoic extinctions" as "catastrophic" How so? How do they know what nature wants?
@MrSirGareth Fact 4: No one says we can maintain an ideal climate. We do have the ability to reduce the impact and magnitude of the change we are forcing.
Fact 5: Nature doesn't want anything. It is what it is. If I was a Paleozoic animal I might have thought the extinction of my species or myself was catastrophic. I know intentionally driving my own species to an avoidable destruction or knowingly collapsing this nice thing we've got going here would be, to me, catastrophic. Apparently not you.
@MrSirGareth Really? The Urban Heat Island myth? A few scientists have looked at this
Hansen 2001 found most differences fell within uncertainty ranges. 42% were cooler: parks
Peterson 2003 "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures"
Parker 2006 "temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development"
@rugbyguy59 RE: "A few scientists have looked at this"
Why would they it discredits their agenda.
RE: "Hansen 2001"
Hansen is a nutjob who belongs in an asylum:
Mutliple arrests?? Only government would pay a delusional schizophrenic in charge of "climate studies" instead of scheduling him for the lobotomy he needs - get a sane protagonist for your fanciful claims next time.
@MrSirGareth "Hansen is a nutjob who belongs in an asylum"
Typical ad hominem. When you have no facts, and apparently you have only made up shit, you punt.
Stick those fingers in your ears buckko. With the amount of evidence coming in every month you must be closing your eyes tighter and yelling "I can't hear you, I can't hear you" at the top of your lungs.
Hanson's a lot saner than you. And he isn't criminally ignorant like you.
@rugbyguy59 "Ad hominum" this Hansen guy has unhinged from reality long ago; twice arrested for trespassing on private property he is your arch-typical pseudo-scientist equipped with only a messianic complex that he is here to "save us" from ourselves - this your "dispassionate" search for truth??? Roll up you pants its to late to save your shoes. Give this guy a match and he'll be burning witches in heartbeat.
@MrSirGareth Have you been to see a doctor lately? Early Onset Alzheimer's isn't out of the range of possibilities. More likely just a raging case of delusional paranoia. This is often found amongst those who attend one too many Tea Bagger rallies.
Key symptoms: Subject thinks their own random observations equals a scientific study. Subject thinks they know as much as everybody else no matter who. Subject is convinced everyone is after their wallet's contents.
@MrSirGareth "So the laws of motion were not valid until tested at 10,000 locations over 100 years?"
You want the temperature of every molecule on the planet taken before we can establish a basic temperature so why not. How do we really know there isn't a few corners of the world where they don't apply? Scientism?
However the real point is your random observations are not a scientific study. The hypothesis of motion had to be properly tested before they became the consensus position.
@MrSirGareth Good for you on the amount of taxes you pay. I don't pay as much because I obviously don't make as much, something I'm fine with by the way. However I do pay about $25,000 in income taxes. I do so quite happily. They are the membership dues for belonging to such a successful society.
If you really want I can give you the link to the studies. Then maybe you could make a real argument. You might begin by providing some evidence that the preponderance of evidence shows a problem.
@rugbyguy59 Oh I guess replacing native forest and grasslands with hundreds of square miles of concrete, asphalt, chimneys, millions of furnaces, and factories has no effect on local ambient temperature but the few wisps of CO2 that escape the factories and homes dominate the entire global temperature?
Nope, it isn't. It's about the trends and the trends are not different. The 42% of overall sites, the ones in urban parks and such, also have cooler absolute values than the concrete jungle ones but the trends are the same. Climate is about trends.
29 billion tonnes of CO2 is a few wisps? Raising the concentration of a key GHG by 40% is a little more than minor.
@MrSirGareth Jones et al 2008, "Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China," found urban trends were not different than trends in rural area. That was particularly interesting in China where so much area has recently become urbanized.
Does that mean absolute values aren't different? Not at all, but climatologists aren't interested those they look at the long term trends.
You find the wrong answers because you're looking at the wrong things.
@rugbyguy59 So what you are saying is that when I apply an extra blanket of insulation to my oven that overall if I keep the energy input constant that some areas inside the oven will actually get colder?
@MrSirGareth Hey congratulations. You actually addressed something with a based science approach.
So you want to compare a small, simple oven to a global climactic system with all it's natural variation and all that implies. You need to study up and learn to make relevant comparisons.
In the end the earth is warming. Some areas are a little cooler but overall the warming is pronounced, especially in the arctic as predicted by AGW.
@rugbyguy59 So AGW is only "fundamental thermodynamics" which has been well understood for about 150 years. Why are we spending nearly 100 billion bucks attempting to prove it?
I can take thousands of measurements in my backyard pond too
What percentage of the entire globe is sufficient to take its temperature and can you just site these places by accident of history or would there need to be some more rigorous method of sampling all of the earth molecules.
@MrSirGareth We aren't spending money trying to prove AGW. That's a done deal. Money is now being spent, amongst other things, on better understanding climate itself (past and present), how much change we'll see, the effects of change, mitigation. Spending more money on if it's warming or does CO2 warm the planet would be a waste.
"What percentage of the entire globe is sufficient to take its temperature"
Satellites give us 100%. The results from them confirm our previous coverage was sufficient
@rugbyguy59 You just recently told us that the average earth temperature includes all of its molecules Now you say satellites give "us" 100% of them; First who is is "us" are you on the payroll or just a groupie?
Second you are pretty gullible if you think orbiting satellites can measure the thermal energy of every molecule on earth.
@rugbyguy59 Again a non-answer, you simply don't know so you punt. Just how do satellites "average" the thermal energy of all of earth molecules; that['s a bold assertion? - prove it!
Anthony Watts has now published a peer reviewed article on the questionable siting of weather stations.His conclusion is that he was wrong in saying the trends were corrupted: "The opposite-signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications."
So while daily data is questioned there are no differences between well and poorly sited station trends. Watts wrong again.
@MrSirGareth "6) report importance of air vs sea temperature."
Gee do you think no one else ever thought of that? Sea temperatures are both measured separately and combined with air to get global average temperature readings. The sea is warming too. It's thermal inertia explains why, even if we cut CO2 emissions today, it would still warm for decades.
Nice fail. You once again show you ignorance of the actual science.
@rugbyguy59 Gosh the sea is pretty deep and those molecules are always moving in rather unexplainable ways how to they know how to get the right infinitesimally small representation of all of them when they take all of the oceans temperatures?
The average depth is about two miles but the haitian trench is about six miles deep; do they get them too.
I'm sure you know how this is done so you will tell me how all of those moving molecules got their vote registered in the "average"
@MrSirGareth What an image. Little packs of high energy molecules bopping around finding all the little places we can't find them. A world where molecules move vast distances so that our ability to measure a temperature is destroyed. Why did the scientists think of such things?
I know, because they don't live in deluded fantasy worlds where the laws of physics are ignored when convenient
Are there uncertainties? Absolutely we need to know more but nothing that makes you scenario valid
Mix in this and add in this 'n that 'n add m all up n divide by this n multiply by that ..... and voila - their you have it - a totally accurate measurement of all of the earth's molecule's thermal energy.
Since you know this is all good stuff tell me more....
Another question how many measurements make up this average and are they spatially distributed evenly?
@MrSirGareth "That sounds kinda abra-cadabra to me"
Well we've always known that the accomplishments of science looks like magic to a stone age mind.
"how many measurements make up this average and are they spatially distributed evenly?"
The various methods use different numbers and distributions. Each method has strengths and weaknesses. However they are largely in agreement and satellites which do measure the whole planet agree with them.
@rugbyguy59 Well they don't to me. Only AGW scientism appears to baffle me. The point being that you are now waffling, sure various magic potions have their "strengths and weaknesses:" Eye of newt, and toe of frog, Wool of bat, and tongue of dog, Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting, Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing,-- For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble." The bard of Avon has AGW pegged. Sorry these methods are tuned to agree...
@MrSirGareth "Sorry these methods are tuned to agree... "
You're a good troll. No evidence to back up your claims so conspiracy and specious arguments of scientism is all you can muster. Interesting how the latest two measurement methods are administered by contrarians and yet even they have to admit the earth is warming at the rate described by the earlier methods.
Somehow to you basic measurement turns into witch craft but then you do have a primitive mind. Still lost in the middle ages.
No evidence that AGW scientismists massage and tweek data to bring it into some temporary compliance with their ever changing postulations????
Where have you been Rip Van Winkle. The whole issue is the secrecy of their cult has been called into question and people now really want to see how all those numbers popped into being; the frustrations must be enormous - look for a suicide soon and thank you for repeating my term for belief based cult science - It's Websters next.
@MrSirGareth "If he was wrong before why should I accept that he is right now?'
Why? You don't have to. You won't because you're closed minded regarding actual analytic thought.
Why it's interesting is Watt's is a major denier like you. Like you he saw pictures of individual temperature sites and decided they must be corrupted and blathered on all over the web about it. When he finally did a peer reviewed paper he found the trends were unaffected.
Ed makes a good point about physics scholars as being authorities regarding global warming but his regard for peer review journals is naive and flawed. Publishing, health care institutions and science academia have all been tainted through endowments by those pushing an agenda. And the light bulbs the anchorman was talking about are now being phased in.
RE: "1910 to 1945 - natural reasons for climate change alone can't explain the rise"
1945 to 1965 - natural reasons can't explain the cooling etc etc.
What unmitigated arrogance, simply because an army of ignorant bureaucrats you call "scientists" don't understand something it doesn't mean we need to hire more of them and turn our economy over to these ignoramuses. Let them explain the medieval warming - nature or man's "sin"?
Ed Begley is too stupid to understand that physicists created climate science.
juscurious 1 week ago
The sun causes climate change. End of.
Scam! Scam! Scam!
Azure260 1 month ago
@Azure260 Nasa actually did studies on solar activity because obviously if the Earth is warming the first thing they're going to check is the sun. The satellites found that solar activity is actually declining and has no correlation to the warming climate. However, there is a strong correlation between carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and climate change. The sun argument holds little merit.
mattt1994 3 weeks ago
wow...
M9andG27 2 months ago
Pollack: But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.
Cook: A growing body of evidence clearly shows that hydroclimatic variability during the putative MWP (more appropriately called the “Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA) was more regionally extreme (mainly in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So … the MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.
macmarine 2 months ago
Cook: I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead
Barnett: [IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
Santer: there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor tests we’ve applied.
macmarine 2 months ago
Climate change as a vehicle for man-kind's latest paranoia has definitively lost its wheels just like Ozone holes over the Arctic did 10 years ago!
The new horror is the economic meltdown..and people losing jobs and homes....climate change is suddenly concern number...heck....what maybe 157?
Darn...it was so promising too....for the Enron like corporations..... all set to sell Cap and Trade certificates....and make a few hundred billion dollars..
zeroceiling 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One of the best essays on greenhouse myth-making from a left perspective comes from Denis Rancourt, an environmental science researcher and professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. I recommend his Feb 2007 essay "Global Warming: Truth or Dare?" on his website, which has also featured fine work by David Noble on the greenhouse lobby.
activistteacher blogspot com/2007/02/global-warming-truth-or-dare.html
macmarine 3 months ago
youtube com/watch?v=MDP0W9GYGTQ&feature=related
and read: counterpunch org/2007/06/09/dissidents-against-dogma/
macmarine 3 months ago
I am as frustrated with the idiocy and irresponsibility of the media as Ed is, and I can understand his frustration. There is NO debate among climate scientists about whether or not we are causing the planet to warm. NONE. The overwhelming consensus supports that we are causing global warming with the burning of fossil fuels. The only "debate" among scientists is on the severity and the impacts of this warming, and most of the scenarios are not good.
mographzach 4 months ago
@mographzach … ANY scientist who claims "the debate is over and we have won!" – like the AGW crowd has done on numerous occasions – ceases to be an honest scientist and has instead become a political tool. And let's not even start with the data manipulation and "cleaning", silencing of dissident opinions by way of tampering with the peer review process and/or pressuring editors of scientific journals.
macmarine 3 months ago
@macmarine Yeah, and where do you get all of that from? If a biologist goes to work one day and tries to publish a paper saying that evolution was false, and that we spontaneously generated into our present form from pixie dust 2,000 years ago, there would probably be a sense of "pressure" or "persecution" for said biologist. But that doesn't make it unwarranted. AGW is so clearly happening and so widely accepted by climatologists that any climatologist rejecting it probably doesn't have a basis
mographzach 3 months ago
@mographzach The keyword in your reply is "probably"! The debate is NOT over just because the AGW crowd says so. That's definitely not the scientific process I am used to. If some biologist – as in your example – tries to get utter bullsh!t published, he'd be laughed out of his job. But there's a big difference between your "pixie dust" and not underwriting the current dogma of CO2-driven AGW: there are serious researchers who point out other hypothetical mechanisms for GW, e.g. sun activity.
macmarine 3 months ago
@macmarine I say "probably" because science doesn't deal in absolutes. If you think it does, you don't know science. The sun will "probably" rise tomorrow, but we don't "know" if it will or not. The real question is, does the evidence warrant preventative measures to combat/mitigate climate change, or at least the worst effects, and most climate scientists would say yes. Also, solar activity and global temperatures lined up fairly well until 1985 with both went in opposite directions.
mographzach 3 months ago
@mographzach "science doesn't deal in absolutes" No shit, Sherlock?! But when it comes to CO2-induced AGW we suddenly seem to be absolutely certain. I was referring to your "any climatologist rejecting it PROBABLY doesn't have a basis". We don't know for sure (we never will). I am not an expert in atmospheric physics and chemistry, I just got the basics covered as any grad in natural sciences. But I'm willing to listen to dissenters, like the physicist Henrik Svensmark, before spending billions.
macmarine 3 months ago
@macmarine Just like we'll never know for sure if evolution happened, or if the earth is 4 billion years old, or if gravity is really dictated by mass. However, we know these things to be true beyond reasonable doubt. We have to trust the science we have now, and right now the science is telling us that AGW is real and is caused by us. It's our choice to brush it off onto future generations to deal with (your plan) or to deal with it and mitigate the worst effects (i prefer this option).
mographzach 3 months ago
@mographzach VERY daring comparisons you bring up: the model of CO2-based AGW is not by a long shot comparable to basic scientific tenets! Newtonian mechanics, the Theories of Gravity and Evolution are backed by loads of empirical data … which CO2-AGW is sorely lacking. There are hundreds of reasons–political, pragmatic and economic, health and environmental–for cleaning up our environment, for conservation of energy, for developing alternate fuels, etc. Global warming is not one of them.
macmarine 3 months ago
@macmarine I don't think you understand how AGW works. And true, we have plenty of reasons to get real when it comes to the environment. Even if AGW isn't true (which it is true), we have major sustainability issues to address, which would solve global warming if we paid more attention to them. Factory farms producing runoff into streams, massive resources used to grow meat, deforestation, loss of habitat, and the fact that nearly all of our energy is unsustainable.
mographzach 3 months ago
@mographzach I do understand the AGW postulates … I just don't think that the data bear out the claims.
See: independent org/publications/article asp?id=1714 on some issues and also: activistteacher blogspot com/2007/02/global-warming-truth-or-dare.html
At least we agree on "There are hundreds of reasons–political, pragmatic, economic, health and environmental–for cleaning up our environment, for conservation of energy, for developing alternate fuels, etc. [I add: AGW is not one of them]
macmarine 3 months ago
@macmarine Sorry man, I'm going to go with the opinion of the majority of climatologists that we are causing global warming. Yes, we have plenty of reasons other than AGW to switch to clean renewable energy, increase biodiversity, reforest deforested areas, etc, but without the inconvenient fact that AGW is real, we won't do these things fast enough. We'll have a false sense of safety, that we can put it off until later.
mographzach 3 months ago
@macmarine We had enough evidence 20 years ago to start mitigating AGW, and we've put it off. Now, people like you are linking to blogs and think-tanks thinking that this somehow disproves the thousands of peer-reviewed papers done by climatologists. You have linked me to an article/paper that is over 6 years old. Is this the best you've got? Can you please link me to peer-reviewed papers by climatologists? Otherwise I'm not interested.
mographzach 3 months ago
@macmarine "I just don't think that the data bear out the claims." really? And what are your qualifications? You don't think the data bear out the claims? Write a paper on it and get it published then! Again, people like you with no qualifications skip the peer-review spanking you'd get and instead go onto youtube to try to convince people there that AGW isn't real. Why do you care anyway? Nobody is doing anything about it. My heart tells me we'll solve this but my brain tells me we're screwed.
mographzach 3 months ago
@mographzach "And what are your qualifications?" As said, in clinical research, not in climatology. So no publication in that field, sorry. But many of the problems with AGW pointed out by MIT Prof. Lindzen still stand. On top of that we had that little inconvenient moment of truth now dubbed CLIMATEGATE. Therefor, I vehemently oppose the scaremongering, bullying and intimidation of dissenting opinions by scheming subjects like Al Gore, who have BIG financial interest in AGW cap'n trade.
macmarine 3 months ago
@macmarine "climategate" was a fake, bogus, manufactured scandal. They found 1-2 quotes in the thousands of emails that they replayed over and over and over on the news, hardly a mass conspiracy. You love to talk about this ONE scientist. Again, the overwhelming majority of climatologists (98%) say that we're altering the climate, and you're shopping around to find the 1% that doesn't. Would you do this if 98% of electricians said you need new wiring for your house or it will catch fire?
mographzach 3 months ago
@macmarine "like Al Gore, who have BIG financial interest in AGW cap'n trade." This is an ad hominim attack, a logical fallacy. Even IF Al Gore's only motivation was money, and not to save the planet, the science still stands. We are still causing climate change, and we still have to act. The climate doesn't care about humanity's willful ignorance, it's going to do it's thing no matter what we believe. If we pump obscene amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, things will happen.
mographzach 3 months ago
@mographzach … the science really doesn't stand on AGW. I'm all for mitigating the countless ecological AND socio-political disasters humanity has caused. But pouring countless billions of tax payers' money into curbing CO2 output will not solve any of these ecological damages. It will only waste money for nothing. Prof. Lindzen has pointed out quite succinctly that even a doubling of current atmospheric CO2 would only have a miniscule additional effect on global temperature.
macmarine 3 months ago
@mographzach … This is an ad hominim attack. Nope, it's not even an AD HOMINEM attack … it's simply pointing out facts!
macmarine 3 months ago
@macmarine
you must be proud to make such an important correction!
...and facts?!! ...the whole thing was a shrill defense of a self sanctified lifestyle Begley has prostrated himself in front of...
zeroceiling 2 months ago
@zeroceiling … I think you put me on the wrong (AGW) side! I don't buy into the "save the planet" crap. As for the data: just look at today's "ClimateGate 2.0" batch of emails … it – again – paints a damning picture of how the scientific process got perverted by the IPCC and its minions.
macmarine 2 months ago
@macmarine
sorry I misread your comment...but glad to see you are on the side of sanity...and that IPCC should be run out of town....it would actually be interesting to see 2500 stretch Cadillac SUV's all heading for the Airport at the same time....
zeroceiling 2 months ago
@macmarine So you found the emails that were interesting enough to be released two years ago to be convincing? After Climategate1.0 proved to be nothing but sensationalism. Have you actually read the full emails or just the quotemined bits designed to make people who don't know much about this stuff go, "Oh my goodness. This looks bad"
I find it interesting that those who complain about a supposed "team IPCC" then misrepresent honest discussions of uncertainties a conspiracy. It's pathetic.
rugbyguy59 2 months ago
@rugbyguy59 … hide the decline!
macmarine 1 month ago
@macmarine So what do you think was meant by that statement? What was declining? How, or in what way, was it hidden? I wonder if you actually looked past the propaganda of the denialsphere.
rugbyguy59 1 month ago
Jones: GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be correct.
Wils: What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably
Mann: the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what [Real Climate] is about.
Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”
macmarine 2 months ago
@macmarine It seems you're just looking for excuses now. You put a massive, ridiculous, unrealistic burden of proof on the climatologists, yet you don't apply this anywhere else. We have decades of solid science backing this up, and it gets more and more compelling each year. Yet, you still refuse to believe it. This kind of thinking is going to destroy us. We're at the highest CO2 concentration in 400,000 years, 390ppm, when it's been 250ppm up until this century.
mographzach 3 months ago
@mographzach "We're at the highest CO2 concentration in 400,000 years, 390ppm, when it's been 250ppm up until this century." And how much temperature increase exactly has that caused on a global scale? How about the additional effects of water vapour, methane, aerosols? Are there any valid and reliable models that can factor in these additional effects within reasonable margins of accuracy? Don't get me wrong: my so-called carbon footprint is rather small … I just don't give a damn about it!
macmarine 3 months ago
@macmarine Do you raise an eyebrow at the scientific method in any other area, or just climatology? Is the peer-review process flawed in other areas of science? Or is it just climatology? Surely you accept and enjoy the benefits of the scientific method in other areas, like medicine, water treatment, higher food-yields, etc? Do you have a problem with the peer-review process that brought those benefits along? Or just climatology? I await your answer.
mographzach 3 months ago
@mographzach "Is the peer-review process flawed in other areas of science?" Well, I can only speak from my little corner of clinical medicine, and I'd have to say: it depends. There are some areas where certain types of dogma are carried forward and it is very hard for any scientist to get divergent results published b/c of "gatekeepers" and citation-cartels. If you move in new uncharted territories your chances are better. Also, the reputation of your institution and your boss is key.
macmarine 3 months ago
you guys can hate on Ed, hate on Al Gore, hate on Obama, hate on the EU, but that doesn't change the fact that we're destroying the planet and the ecosystems that sustain life and sustain our quality of life. You see, saving the planet isn't about the planet. It's about ourselves. Earth is going to be just fine, it has all of the time in the world to recover from our destruction. WE'RE the ones who are screwed. Green is about saving US from OURSELVES.
mographzach 4 months ago
This ed guy is a twat. Whats his role in america anyone, politician?
maxcroydon 4 months ago
The deniers are consisted of a minority of weathermen and few climate scientists.
Some are even on payrolls of big oil. Even if Global Warming isn't a threat, the way these deniers have acted is disgusting and smell of corruption.
In another word, business as usual in the US.
Neosaigo 4 months ago
@Neosaigo
All the planets in the solar system got warmer as well when it reached its peak, didnt know the smog of my SUV reached that far.
Global warming caused my humans is a hoax.
YourWrong951 4 months ago
ed you dick jew fucker
guitatac 4 months ago
To begin with, even if this hoax were true, ho owns the planet? The UN? Why should everyone pay THEM taxes? Since when they own this fucking planet?
AllanSanches 5 months ago
an example of a has-been/never-was, trying to get his face out there by any means.....Go away Ed....nobody cares about you or your opinions....
timtipton5071256 5 months ago
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
Feeding a hotter, more crowded planet
.
Nearly a billion people worldwide don't have reliable access to food, according to United Nations estimates, and some experts worry climate change will drive that number even higher.
.
Talk of the Nation, NPR
Opinion, 13 August 2011
Nightversionn 5 months ago
what a nutjob
MrYJ99 5 months ago
Who is there a debate at all if there is undisputed proof?
suksdn 6 months ago
Ed Begley=Dickhead!
tigerwarner 6 months ago
@tigerwarner Is he also a jewish "dickhead" ???,I think so !.
StructuredDRIVING 6 months ago
The global warming camp will make TRILLIONS on this sceme. Thats all you need to know.
Stillwater900 7 months ago
All I know is that when you run your car in the garage, you die.
MPaulHolmes 7 months ago
I'm from the Uk, that reported is an idiot - he's British but pretending to have US values about Government intervention. Of course it makes sense to ban inefficient incandecent lightbulbs that have been around for a hundred odd years, who in their right mind would get annoyed with their Government for introducing regulations that will cost you bugger all and make your energy bills cheaper?
samrah2afar 8 months ago
@samrah2afar My friend uses a thermostat and a couple of 100 watt light bulb to keep his outdoor well head from freezing; its safe and the solution costs him a couple of bucks.
Now tell me why some stupid bureaucrat with his head up his anus has a better solution?
Passenger rail has been around for a hundred odd years; lets let the government ban taxpayer subsidies for it you little nascent Hitler
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth I'm not really sure what your point about rail travel is, because I think its a good idea that Government is encouraging the transition from an inefficient technology to a newer more efficient one I am somehow against Government intervention (not to mention the fact that makes me a nazi dictator in the making?)? Rail travel is an essential part of the transport infrastructure and there is no waiting more efficient alternative so its a stupid example to compare to.
samrah2afar 8 months ago
@samrah2afar
Only a confirmed socialist would be sufficiently delusional to link the term government with efficiency in any positive way. Using 18th century technology to carry people along fixed tracks where authorities think they should need to go is not efficient; sooner or later all tracks lead to Auschwitz.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
RE: "I'm from the Uk, that reported is an idiot - "
He had the sense to get out...whats your excuse?
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth Lucky lucky him.... yes it must be awful for me coming from one of the best countries in the world for education, employment opportunities, health care, judiciary and policing, welfare, governance etc etc I don't know how people cope living here.
I've been lucky enough to see much of the world and know there is nothing to complain about here.
samrah2afar 8 months ago
@samrah2afar A recent poll reflected the fact that over 50% of your population would leave if they could. It really doesn't matter because even if you stay, England will have left you. The most popular name for an "English boy" is now Mohammad and soon your courts will be dominated by sharia law replete with public stoning; your yearnings for Camelot will not save you since you now lack the virility for procreation.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth OMG what planet do you live on, Mohammed is not even in the top thirty names - its no 38 apparently, and only then because Muslims choose from a smaller pool of names. With 3% of the population being Muslim (most arriving just after WW2) I have no worries that sharia law will be stoning people here any more than we are currently crucifying people. Your inability to understand the frequency of names doesn't bode well for your understanding of complex science.
samrah2afar 8 months ago
@samrah2afar I live on a planet that is not undergoing as crisis in climate, it is different from the one that the the BBC lives on; i will grant that. Americans are nothing like Europeans, we have never trusted government to prod us along but quite the opposite; we endure the political class as long as their rapaciousness is checked but don't take them for anything other than what they are; a criminal class
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@samrah2afar Moreover I have worked with professionals in the UK on joint projects over many months including Sun Alliance, Barclays Bank, The Royal Bank of Scotland, Dunlop Tire etc etc. I have always detected a resentment towards the deal that they get in the UK vs what Americans "get" - The reason why we "get" what they want was made evident in Concord MA in 1775.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@samrah2afar RE: " I have no worries that sharia law....."
Step by step:
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
From the Sunday Times
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One always has to be stunned by those who got an A in their college physics class and suddenly think they are thus qualified to categorically state that the people who study atmospheric physics for a living don't understand or are overconfident regarding what they are doing. Pure arrogance.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
Comment removed
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
....A world where molecules move vast distances so that our ability to measure a temperature is destroyed.
Well they do move rather fast in the air the jet stream exceeds 100 miles per hour and sea currents easily can reach several miles per hour and those little buggers take a new route every time. All I want to know is how infinitesimally small collection of those we trap accurately represents the untold trillions times more of those we don't?
A rather simple question but you don't know
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth I do know. It's fundamental thermodynamics. Scientists take thousands of measurements in thousands of places each year. You would make a good creationist. Here's two fossils and another one that is an intermediary says the scientist. "Where is the two intermediary between the three stages?" says you. When that is produced where is the 4 ones between those?
You stick to your faith in adder's fork & wolf's bane. I'll stick with hypothesis, experiment, math, and independent repetition.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 ....but thousands of measurements, I hope you would agree would be rather insufficient to the task if they were all within 100 square miles.
What manner of spacial or temporal distributions are required to assess the "average" thermal energy of every molecules composing the entire planet; I haven't a clue as to what the temp is 100 miles beneath me I could be off by many degrees.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth "I haven't a clue as to what the temp is 100 miles beneath me I could be off by many degrees."
You wouldn't. But the earth contributes,on average, 0.1W/sq metre.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 How do you know that? You use "average" pretty loosely but averages can be fairly complex. Do you mean "average" over a period of time or "average" over the entire earth for a specific time. Is that 0.1 or 0.10 or 0.11 or 0.12 or 0.13 or 0.14? or maybe you mean 0.05 or 0.06 or 0.07 etc I think it might be pretty important.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
I wouldn't make a good 'ist' of anything; I don't have a dog in any creation myth fight. I could give a rats ass if Darwin was better than Moses or Mohammed --- pick your own myth it's all boringly inconsequential to me how you think you got here is your issue; in all probability your mother's condom failed.
Oh, and there is no repetition in the AGW scientism myth except the in incantations of their catechism
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth Ah but you are an "ist" through and through. A denialist, anarchist, egoist. You're the pawn of the Church of Denial's high priests. You've been manipulated by fear and ignorance. Fear of humanity working together and true responsibility. Ignorance of science and its methods. You are an illustration of the depths of human dishonesty and cynicism. Cynicism is your way of life so add cyncist to the list. But keep using the prayer beads the way of the sheeple is for you. Fear knowledge
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Those are you labels not mine, I have no priests, I take no ones word as sacred, I take no revealed truth as anything other than a scam. I've seen the results of humanity "working together" to fulfill some politician's idea of utopia: Stalin, Hitler, Fidel, Kim Sung Il etc. I'm not joining your herd or theirs, all of this "green" BS is simply more statist tyranny.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrGareth You may not label yourself anything but you are what you are. Your priests are the purveyors of cynicism without evidence, the mythic founding fathers and goddess Ayn Rand. There is a difference between requiring evidence before acceptance and simple denial of anything you don't like. You insist on your own facts
Your characterization of working together as herd behaviour and "utopian" shows your position as politically motivated. If it requires unity it must be denied. You're a zealot
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
More on this. Just to serve my curiosity about what you think you know about the AGW catechism.
If we took the "average" temperature of a just single point on the globe. Just a single point mind you. Would it faithfully register a man made global warming signal over your last 150 years equally to any other single point or could some points on the globe be held harmless and register no warming at all?
I'm eager to hear your considered response as a zealot of the faith.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth "the "average" temperature of a just single point on the globe.... Would it faithfully register a man made global warming signal over your last 150 years"
As warming takes place at different rates it is very unlikely one spot would reflect the global average trend. When compared to the average temps for 1951-80 almost the entire planet was warmer. Some places were the same, a few areas have slightly cooled.
h ttp: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/File: GISS_temperature_2000-09_lrg. png
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 RE: "Some places were the same, a few areas have slightly cooled."
What precautions were taken to place weather stations in the places it places that didnt warm or actaully cooled. In equal numbers to places where it actually warmed.
So here my next question: Where are the sites where it will actually get cooler in the future according to AGW theory?
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth "What precautions were taken to place weather stations in the places it places that didnt warm or actaully cooled. In equal numbers to places where it actually warmed."
Precautions? That's stupid. Adjustments? Why don't you go read the source studies or information about the source data for yourself?
"So here my next question: Where are the sites where it will actually get cooler in the future according to AGW theory?"
Don't know. That's why we need to keep studying.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 "studying" without "producing" is "goofing off"
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth That's true. Which is what the skeptical and denialist scientists have done. No working ideas to explain their theories. No studies that make it through post publication critiques or replication studies.
However the vast majority of climate scientists continue to produce study after study that advances our knowledge of climate and the problems. That this hasn't led to concrete action is thanks to cynical followers of the Church of anti-Personal Responsibility like yourself.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Did Jonas Salk produce "study after study" or vaccine that worked ?
Did Issac Newton do "peer reviewed studies" or did he formulate a workable relationship between force, mass, and acceleration? (F=ma)
Did Hitler's race scientists do anything other than "peer reviewed studies" with summaries for "policy-makers"?
Which are the real scientists
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth Salk did have to do study after study to get his vaccine into production. He then set up an excellent research center because he knew the value of all the studies before he came along and the ones that still needed to be done.
If peer review in its current form had existed Newton would have submitted his findings that way. In any case his findings had to be verified and replicated. Knowledge was advanced as happens today. We should act based on what we know.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth The Nazi scientists produced a lot of valid and accurate information about human beings. It was done in a disgusting and thoroughly immoral manner and IMHO it should have been destroyed. However your attempt at guilt by association fails. Just saying they were scientists and climatologists are scientists therefore they are the same is rather pathetic but typical of your bigoted approach.
If you can prove climate scientists are immoral then do that otherwise you prove your own idiocy
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
Respond to this video...If you cant tell which sites should be getting cooler and which ones should be getting cooler according to AGW scientism then how can one know if the sites that record the "average" temperature of the planet is being measured at the right points. You could have a preponderance of the weather stations in the wrong places.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth AGW science doesn't say some areas should get warmer and others cooler. It says that the planet as a whole will warm. We take more than enough readings to know that is clearly true and there isn't a single serious scientist (skeptic, denier, proponent) who says it isn't. If you looked at the anomalies map that it would be plain to see. But you wouldn't see because you view science with the eyes of a creationist.
The area with the fewest stations is where it is warming the most.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 I was once denied an A in physics class because I took a test ahead of time and the professor lost my test - he corrected my "missing data" by taking the average of what the rest of the class did on the test and used that average to correct for the hole in my record for the missing test data. I fought him over his method over several weeks until he finally found my test, graded it, and handed it back - It turns out my test score was the highest in the class; I got my A.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth Congrats on your A, but it's irrelevant. If you're saying this is an analogy to avg. temp. Just doing an average for all measurements won't give an accurate reading for an unmeasured spot. A more accurate analogy would be to test a class and calculate an average score. Then after reteaching give a new version of the same test. If the class average rises they likely in general know more than before. This has flaws but scientists are aware of the flaws and don't just do this blindly.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth One thing scientists also know is the idea of increasing temperature averages can be tested in the real world. If it was warming we would be expecting to see earlier spring melts, earlier migration of birds, earlier blooming of plants, animals changing habitats to stay in similar temperature zones, melting icecaps and sea ice. All of these things are occurring all over the planet.
In addition nights warming more than days and winters more than summers tell us it is an enhanced GHE.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Nights warming more than days is a known effect of increasing urbanization. Its has nothing to do with the trace gas called CO2
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth The urban heat island has its effects. Effects that are compensated for in measurements and more importantly since this effect persists well beyond urban areas we can rule it out.
It has everything to do with the trace gas CO2.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 RE: "Effects that are "compensated for..."
Impossible, corrupted data cannot be compensated or fudged. Saying that you can do it is not proving you can do it. Complete fraud. RE: "it has everything to do with CO2" Pure nuttiness to believe that one of the least present (00.0380% of the atmosphere) is the driving force behind the earths climate. particularly in light of the fact that it has been over 7000 ppm during the Paleozoic with no catastrophic consequences.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth You have evidence of corrupted data? Hope you aren't going to bring up the CRU vindication affair. Will it be Watts pictures of temp stations. If so read Menne (2010) or better yet Watts et al. (2011). Yes it's the same Watts in both cases.
Considering all persistent GHGs amount to way less than 1% of the atmosphere why would CO2's % matter? It is what it is. Try a very, very tiny dose of strychnine. Just because you can't conceive it doesn't make you right.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Of course I have evidence of corrupted data. Cities in literally every part of the country have overgrown the previously pristine locations of weather stations. There is no way to erase the effects of urbanization and merely claiming you can resurrect the signal from the noise is insufficient in all but faith based science i.e. religion. When I lived in Chanhassen MN (NOAA) it was decidedly very rural, now its urban; what magic erases this transformation from the record.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Non-sequiter,
Both strychnine and CO2 are biological agents. Try putting 00.0038% strychnine in a solution of sea water and see how much it affects the PHYSICAL properties of sea water. The CRU has an agenda and none of it's unprovable assertions are worth a tinkers dam. And by the way the Bible is "read" and science is "done" don't confuse the two. GHGs, do not "persist" CO2 is rapidly assimilated by life.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth Science is done. Paper's are written. They then get read. You should read some.
The CRU agenda is finding out what's going on. Their work is testable and holds up unless the person reading it is sees science as just another money grubbing sham. That does say a lot about you and what you're doing. Those who think others are cheats are usually one themselves.
Low levels of strychnine have an effect based. So does CO2. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth CO2 isn't the only driver. But this time it is the primary driver possibly almost the only driver in the past 30 years.
As for the Paleozoic, the sun was weaker back then. More CO2 was needed to avoid glaciation. 3000ppm in Ordovician Period. And there is evidence linking high CO2/low ocean O2 to the Paleozoic extinctions. I'd say that was pretty catastrophic.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59
Error 1: Something alarming is happening to the earths climate: Pure sandwich board nuttiness none of it based in reality.
Error 2: Assuming that crazy Error 1 isnt really crazy, the natural gas called CO2 (000.0038% of the atmosphere) dominates the physics of the earth climate. Pure sandwich board nuttiness again
Error 3 Earth has an ideal climate that if established, will render the greatest economic benefit to \ourselves and our posterity - pure nuttiness again.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth Fact 1: something alarming is happening to the earth's climate. I can point to evidence. You just say shit.
Fact 2: CO2 doesn't dominate the earths climate, but it does have known and significant effects. Right now there is no other way to explain current warming.
Fact 3: There is no ideal climate for the earth. However the one we have works for us and we have never, since we began agriculture, faced as significant or as rapid a change as is happening now. Why break what is working?
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 There was no other explanation for the bad luck that befell the Salem Massachusetts colonies except that the witches conspired with the devil. Having no explanation except your favorite premise is an old "trick" of scientism.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth You demonstrate the decline of the American intellect in a flurry of posts. Salem witchhunts as science? LOL
When did trespassing become more dangerous than letting authority do as they wish? So much for your "we don't let government prod us" bollocks, instead you are willing to be led by the nose by the corporate world.
You don't even know the difference between astrology and astronomy. Nor racism/ideology and science. Guilt by association.
You're a tired old senile idiot.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 "RE: When did trespassing become more dangerous than letting authority...."
First, private property owners are not "authorities" and had it been my property your "scientist" would at least received a concussion and several broken ribs and limbs if it was my property I had him removed from
This nut job is an unhinged messianic fool.
"corporate word"??? let me guess, another friggin commie. We'll do the cold war all over again - I'll side with the people who won the last one
.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth ""corporate word"??? let me guess, another friggin commie."
Commie? Nope. But I know authority comes in many different forms. Big business is just as dangerous as big government. Since you're more worried about a coal company that uses financial might to dictate how things will be done, I can see you're a corporatist. Freedom comes from democracy, community, and individuality combined not just one or the other.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 How many death camps have "big business" run.
Can they compel me go kill for them or face prison? can they force me to buy their product, to work for them? or to invest in them?
Sorry All of these things government has done and will continue to do. The biggest threat that big business can pose is the same as my neighbor could pose; the duty to perform under the terms of a mutually agreed upon contract.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth As a social studies teacher I can see that your understanding of history and politics is very limited and biased. Big businesses that run death camps? The Nazi's were put into power by big business because they suited their needs. They also happily provided materials and expertise for the job. In Africa today we've got numerous big businesses with their private armies as well as the civil wars they run.
Business does not work as directly as government that's why they buy government.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Ahhh I guessed it "social studies" My understanding of history and politics is limited compared with whom?
I've lived and paid taxes in three different countries and four different states; In addition I've worked in the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Finland, Turkey, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, Venezuela and Brazil.
I read both World and US history as a hobby and would mop up the floor with you; I am and have been active in politics at the state level in two states.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth "My understanding of history and politics is limited compared with whom?"
Compared to anyone with an open mind to different points of view. Your science and politics are selected to support your ideology. Your history is likely similar.
"they have all but ruined the industrial base of the US"
Yeah, sure. Corporations played no role in that. Bwaahahahahaha. And sure, the plutocracy was created by unions. So it's the union members with all the vast wealth. Bwaahahahahaha
That's funny
rugbyguy59 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
RE: "The Nazi's were put into power by big business because they suited their needs. " Hitler's party (The German National Socialist Workers Party - NASDP - later morphed to NAZI) was swept into power by garnering huge plurality (37%) of the popular vote in the 1932 elections in which 15 parties competed for power after economic collapse following WW I. Hitler's Germany was as far from laissez-faire capitalism as Kim Jong Il's North Korea is - you are a fool
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
RE: Business does not work as directly as government that's why they buy government.
The teachers union, public employee unions, and bar associations constitute the largest political lobbies in the county. Look at Wisconsin.
Our government run schools are a complete mess and the fact that teachers like you propagandize our kids rather than teaching them anything useful is appalling. I know, I tutor high school kids trying to master algebra who cant read or write or do arithmetic.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
I'm very curious, my training in science consists of mathematics through differential and integral calculus, statistics, physics (with math) at the collegiate level, inorganic chemistry at the collegiate level as well as many years of work in the applied sciences in electronics and the computer sciences. What qualifications enable you to understand what you "read" in science?
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
Moreover just a simple little test of simple chemistry for you to sour understanding of basics
If you were to completely burn (oxidize) 15 grams of pure methane what would be the mass of a) the water vapor released in the reaction?
b) the carbon dioxide released in the reaction.
I'll standby to grade your answer "science" guy
I haven't done chemistry is 40 years but this is child's play isn't it?
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth 41.15 g CO2 & 33.69 g H2O
But without question your background makes you more qualified to read the science. So what happened? Instead you go with "we can't measure every molecule" or ludicrous comparisons of ovens to the earth. The science you don't like you denigrate rather than disprove
The answer is you're blinded politically and are unable to assess the science dispassionately. It's all an evil government plot to you. Amazing how we got the birds, flowers, and ice to play along
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Congratulations you got this basic chemistry equation properly balanced and if you did it with only a periodic table and a calculator/spreadsheet as a helper you at least know 99% more than the average AGW groupie and 100% more than any US social studies teacher I have ever run into, although your history is still deplorable. My chair healing time is now about over so Ill cut short this debate.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth Why has the government done so little on climate change? Big answer, because they are protecting the interests of their big business sponsors.
I'm not anti-business nor am I pro-government. I am suspicious of both because both can be as harmful as the other. The problem with America's government in particular is that it represents the plutocracy that owns it. It , both Reps and Dems, created the regulations or lack thereof that created the financial crisis.
Your view is simplistic.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Why have they done so little?
they have all but ruined the industrial base of the US along with other politicians other misguided policies; they have squandered close to 100 billion in total waste and accomplished nothing. AGW is and always has been a wealth and power grab - a fraud. Plutocracy? maybe but it used to be a meritocracy before unions, big government and lawyers.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
RE: "You're a tired old senile idiot."
I'm retired and recovering from an injury; whats your excuse for wasting your time with me? How old are you? What do you do? Who pays you? Are you a bread winner? For whom?
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth My excuse is I'm an idiot who doesn't like to give others the last word, especially when they are talking out their ass. As for me, I'm 52 and a high school teacher of 26 years. The school district I work for pays me and I'm the primary income earner for my family.
Does that somehow make a difference to the science and what science really is?
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Oh god please don't tell me you teach any science classes; Social studies I could believe, I have spent my entire life designing high capacity network hardware and software that enjoy world markets; My products sell in all industrialized counties helping reduce our trade deficit. You; a government union employee of a totally failed primary government school system question my intelligence or understanding of "real" science? Hutzpah!
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth I'm pleased for you and your business. I hope you've enjoyed your career and I'm sure its been valuable, but better me than you in a science class. After all you've demonstrated a profound ignorance of and disgust for science, the scientific method, and those who practice it.
As for who pays me, yes it is the government and yes I am in a union. I'm neither boastful nor ashamed of that. I do a job that helps people and I like that.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth And I'm not American. My school system is one of the tops systems as measured by the OECD. Personally I've taught students to the highest marks in the province on the compulsory exams and several of my classes have had the province's highest class average on those same exams. Where I teach public schools regularly outdo the elite private schools.
Your intelligence and understanding of real science is highly questionable. You seem to conflate business experience with wisdom
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Tell me something that the climate is doing that's "alarming"?
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth The rapid rate of change in the temperature, the rate of ice melt, sea level rise, the early signs of permafrost melt, and not climate but related, the rate at which the ocean is acidifying for starters.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
Which temperature? starting when ending when? How much greater has it been to other changes?
I'm sure that you are aware that the salinity of the ocean always increases, its not static and never has been; ditto for the ph which fluctuates with its temperature, nothing alarming about that. Is the rate of ice melting greater now than it was 8,000 years ago - what was it then and nwo in tons per year
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth "the salinity of the ocean always increases" of course it does, but why is it decreasing in the poles? Because of fresh water coming from melting ice. Why is the ice melting? It's getting warmer.
"ditto for the ph which fluctuates with its temperature" absolutely, but that happens largely due to CO2 levels changing with temperature. So why is it getting more acidic now? Because we're creating so much CO2
8000 yrs ago 100s of millions of people didn't live within metres of sea level
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Error4 "climatologists" know the ideal climate and have the means available to regulate it by regulating human behavior: Pure nuttiness boardering on criminal insanity.
Error5 Thinking that know-nothing government bureaucrats have discerned what "nature/god" purpose truly is and can label "Paleozoic extinctions" as "catastrophic" How so? How do they know what nature wants?
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth Fact 4: No one says we can maintain an ideal climate. We do have the ability to reduce the impact and magnitude of the change we are forcing.
Fact 5: Nature doesn't want anything. It is what it is. If I was a Paleozoic animal I might have thought the extinction of my species or myself was catastrophic. I know intentionally driving my own species to an avoidable destruction or knowingly collapsing this nice thing we've got going here would be, to me, catastrophic. Apparently not you.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Just what can "we" do to improve the climate, how can we tell when its better? Will it be generally warmer or cooler than it is today?
"We" can reduce the "impact" that man has on all sorts of things; we could outlaw farming so we don't impact native prairie grasslands; hows that?
I really hate individuals who prate on about saving humanity - most of them are childless.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 The preponderance of readings suggest that they are increasingly warmed by mans works
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth Really? The Urban Heat Island myth? A few scientists have looked at this
Hansen 2001 found most differences fell within uncertainty ranges. 42% were cooler: parks
Peterson 2003 "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures"
Parker 2006 "temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development"
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 RE: "A few scientists have looked at this"
Why would they it discredits their agenda.
RE: "Hansen 2001"
Hansen is a nutjob who belongs in an asylum:
Mutliple arrests?? Only government would pay a delusional schizophrenic in charge of "climate studies" instead of scheduling him for the lobotomy he needs - get a sane protagonist for your fanciful claims next time.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth "Hansen is a nutjob who belongs in an asylum"
Typical ad hominem. When you have no facts, and apparently you have only made up shit, you punt.
Stick those fingers in your ears buckko. With the amount of evidence coming in every month you must be closing your eyes tighter and yelling "I can't hear you, I can't hear you" at the top of your lungs.
Hanson's a lot saner than you. And he isn't criminally ignorant like you.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 "Ad hominum" this Hansen guy has unhinged from reality long ago; twice arrested for trespassing on private property he is your arch-typical pseudo-scientist equipped with only a messianic complex that he is here to "save us" from ourselves - this your "dispassionate" search for truth??? Roll up you pants its to late to save your shoes. Give this guy a match and he'll be burning witches in heartbeat.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth Have you been to see a doctor lately? Early Onset Alzheimer's isn't out of the range of possibilities. More likely just a raging case of delusional paranoia. This is often found amongst those who attend one too many Tea Bagger rallies.
Key symptoms: Subject thinks their own random observations equals a scientific study. Subject thinks they know as much as everybody else no matter who. Subject is convinced everyone is after their wallet's contents.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Homosexuality is adored by the left; I don't know anyone who knew what tea bagging was until informed so by a Marxist.
Random observations? So the laws of motion were not valid until tested at 10,000 locations over 100 years?
After the contents of my wallet? err why yes - I paid $58,000 in federal taxes last year. Don't tell me let me guess, you don't pay taxes.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth "So the laws of motion were not valid until tested at 10,000 locations over 100 years?"
You want the temperature of every molecule on the planet taken before we can establish a basic temperature so why not. How do we really know there isn't a few corners of the world where they don't apply? Scientism?
However the real point is your random observations are not a scientific study. The hypothesis of motion had to be properly tested before they became the consensus position.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth Good for you on the amount of taxes you pay. I don't pay as much because I obviously don't make as much, something I'm fine with by the way. However I do pay about $25,000 in income taxes. I do so quite happily. They are the membership dues for belonging to such a successful society.
I also have to kids.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 RE: "Peterson 2003 "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom.....
That settles it; the pope having shat, shits on...nothing more to see here folks the pope has shat....
RE: Parker 2006 "temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights.....
This is in direct contradiction to my own observations - he loses
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth What a lame response. Another punt.
If you really want I can give you the link to the studies. Then maybe you could make a real argument. You might begin by providing some evidence that the preponderance of evidence shows a problem.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Oh I guess replacing native forest and grasslands with hundreds of square miles of concrete, asphalt, chimneys, millions of furnaces, and factories has no effect on local ambient temperature but the few wisps of CO2 that escape the factories and homes dominate the entire global temperature?
Is that your case?
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrSirGareth "Is that your case?"
Nope, it isn't. It's about the trends and the trends are not different. The 42% of overall sites, the ones in urban parks and such, also have cooler absolute values than the concrete jungle ones but the trends are the same. Climate is about trends.
29 billion tonnes of CO2 is a few wisps? Raising the concentration of a key GHG by 40% is a little more than minor.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth Jones et al 2008, "Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China," found urban trends were not different than trends in rural area. That was particularly interesting in China where so much area has recently become urbanized.
Does that mean absolute values aren't different? Not at all, but climatologists aren't interested those they look at the long term trends.
You find the wrong answers because you're looking at the wrong things.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 So what you are saying is that when I apply an extra blanket of insulation to my oven that overall if I keep the energy input constant that some areas inside the oven will actually get colder?
Odd
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth Hey congratulations. You actually addressed something with a based science approach.
So you want to compare a small, simple oven to a global climactic system with all it's natural variation and all that implies. You need to study up and learn to make relevant comparisons.
In the end the earth is warming. Some areas are a little cooler but overall the warming is pronounced, especially in the arctic as predicted by AGW.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 So AGW is only "fundamental thermodynamics" which has been well understood for about 150 years. Why are we spending nearly 100 billion bucks attempting to prove it?
I can take thousands of measurements in my backyard pond too
What percentage of the entire globe is sufficient to take its temperature and can you just site these places by accident of history or would there need to be some more rigorous method of sampling all of the earth molecules.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth We aren't spending money trying to prove AGW. That's a done deal. Money is now being spent, amongst other things, on better understanding climate itself (past and present), how much change we'll see, the effects of change, mitigation. Spending more money on if it's warming or does CO2 warm the planet would be a waste.
"What percentage of the entire globe is sufficient to take its temperature"
Satellites give us 100%. The results from them confirm our previous coverage was sufficient
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 You just recently told us that the average earth temperature includes all of its molecules Now you say satellites give "us" 100% of them; First who is is "us" are you on the payroll or just a groupie?
Second you are pretty gullible if you think orbiting satellites can measure the thermal energy of every molecule on earth.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth Us is humanity. I include myself in that. You, I'm not so sure about.
Your "we need to measure every molecule in the atmosphere to get an average temp" argument is really rather pathetic. LOL.
Try a real argument.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Again a non-answer, you simply don't know so you punt. Just how do satellites "average" the thermal energy of all of earth molecules; that['s a bold assertion? - prove it!
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
Anthony Watts has now published a peer reviewed article on the questionable siting of weather stations.His conclusion is that he was wrong in saying the trends were corrupted: "The opposite-signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications."
So while daily data is questioned there are no differences between well and poorly sited station trends. Watts wrong again.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Re weather stations and "global warming"
Here is a little experiment you can try to see how important weather stations are to the climate.
1) Place a two gallon kettle of water in your oven
2) turn the temperature in the oven to 212 degrees F
3) Leave oven at 212 F for 2 hours
4) Turn oven off, with fan blow hot air out of oven; making it ambiant room temp.
5) with oven now rapidly cooled, plunge hand into 2 gallon kettle.
6) report importance of air vs sea temperature.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth "6) report importance of air vs sea temperature."
Gee do you think no one else ever thought of that? Sea temperatures are both measured separately and combined with air to get global average temperature readings. The sea is warming too. It's thermal inertia explains why, even if we cut CO2 emissions today, it would still warm for decades.
Nice fail. You once again show you ignorance of the actual science.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Gosh the sea is pretty deep and those molecules are always moving in rather unexplainable ways how to they know how to get the right infinitesimally small representation of all of them when they take all of the oceans temperatures?
The average depth is about two miles but the haitian trench is about six miles deep; do they get them too.
I'm sure you know how this is done so you will tell me how all of those moving molecules got their vote registered in the "average"
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth What an image. Little packs of high energy molecules bopping around finding all the little places we can't find them. A world where molecules move vast distances so that our ability to measure a temperature is destroyed. Why did the scientists think of such things?
I know, because they don't live in deluded fantasy worlds where the laws of physics are ignored when convenient
Are there uncertainties? Absolutely we need to know more but nothing that makes you scenario valid
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 That sounds kinda abra-cadabra to me:
Mix in this and add in this 'n that 'n add m all up n divide by this n multiply by that ..... and voila - their you have it - a totally accurate measurement of all of the earth's molecule's thermal energy.
Since you know this is all good stuff tell me more....
Another question how many measurements make up this average and are they spatially distributed evenly?
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth "That sounds kinda abra-cadabra to me"
Well we've always known that the accomplishments of science looks like magic to a stone age mind.
"how many measurements make up this average and are they spatially distributed evenly?"
The various methods use different numbers and distributions. Each method has strengths and weaknesses. However they are largely in agreement and satellites which do measure the whole planet agree with them.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth "Sorry these methods are tuned to agree... "
You're a good troll. No evidence to back up your claims so conspiracy and specious arguments of scientism is all you can muster. Interesting how the latest two measurement methods are administered by contrarians and yet even they have to admit the earth is warming at the rate described by the earlier methods.
Somehow to you basic measurement turns into witch craft but then you do have a primitive mind. Still lost in the middle ages.
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59
No evidence that AGW scientismists massage and tweek data to bring it into some temporary compliance with their ever changing postulations????
Where have you been Rip Van Winkle. The whole issue is the secrecy of their cult has been called into question and people now really want to see how all those numbers popped into being; the frustrations must be enormous - look for a suicide soon and thank you for repeating my term for belief based cult science - It's Websters next.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Ahhh the ecumenical council relegates yet one more "denier" to the Apocrypha - man i love this scientism stuff.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@rugbyguy59 : RE: " His conclusion is that he was wrong in saying the trends were corrupted: "
My conclusion is they these frauds are always wrong. If he was wrong before why should I accept that he is right now? Who threatened his grant?
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
@MrSirGareth "If he was wrong before why should I accept that he is right now?'
Why? You don't have to. You won't because you're closed minded regarding actual analytic thought.
Why it's interesting is Watt's is a major denier like you. Like you he saw pictures of individual temperature sites and decided they must be corrupted and blathered on all over the web about it. When he finally did a peer reviewed paper he found the trends were unaffected.
Like you would, if you looked
rugbyguy59 8 months ago
Ed makes a good point about physics scholars as being authorities regarding global warming but his regard for peer review journals is naive and flawed. Publishing, health care institutions and science academia have all been tainted through endowments by those pushing an agenda. And the light bulbs the anchorman was talking about are now being phased in.
911insidejo8 8 months ago
@911insidejo8 Real science recognized NO authority.
MrSirGareth 8 months ago
RE: "1910 to 1945 - natural reasons for climate change alone can't explain the rise"
1945 to 1965 - natural reasons can't explain the cooling etc etc.
What unmitigated arrogance, simply because an army of ignorant bureaucrats you call "scientists" don't understand something it doesn't mean we need to hire more of them and turn our economy over to these ignoramuses. Let them explain the medieval warming - nature or man's "sin"?
MrSirGareth 8 months ago