Global Warming Doomsters' Theories Wrong, Says NASA Study

[BJJ-Blue]

"Global warming proponents can catch up on the sleep they lost worrying about the planet getting hotter with each passing day. A NASA study which analyzes satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011, published in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing, reports that Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than global warming proponents' computer models have predicted.

The data also supports prior studies which suggested that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap is far lesser than what has been claimed by the global warming doomsters.

The discrepancy between the model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming has given rise to heated debates for more than two decades.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Dr. Roy Spencer, study co-author and principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, said in a press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. "At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained," Spencer said.

When applied to long-term climate change, the research suggests that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Numerous decisive factors, including clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and different time lags make it impossible to accurately identify which piece of Earth's changing climate is a feedback from man-made greenhouse gases.

"There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that," Spencer said. "The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations."

The research team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA's Terra satellite. The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

Source:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/189147/20110729/global-warming-nasa-climate-change-ipcc-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-satellite-date.htm

[Taixuquan99]

That study suggests a slower rate of warming, that's all.

[bawang]

why are white people scared of warm weather?

[Syn7]

That study suggests a slower rate of warming, that's all.

yeah thats what i was gonna say... in no way shape or form does any of the study say that warming is not a man made threat to this planet...

and not all prponents of GW say the same things.... some say were dead in a few years, they are fear mongers... other more sensible scientists will be honest and say that its hard to predict at the moment, but one thing is very clear, we are warming...

[Syn7]

why are white people scared of warm weather?

coz white folks have no melanin, the fear of combustion is deep... ;)


besides, chinese and japanese seem to be the only ones willing to wear face visors and dust masks... white skin means sophistication, doncha know... them tanned cats aint nothin but the help...


i didnt know that till about a year ago, that most asian cultures consider whiter skin to be a sign of wealth... makes sense tho, if you can afford to have somebody follow you with a sun umbrella then you must have some cash... and of course the rich are the most sophisticated people, obviously... poor people are just there to build and fix things and carry gear...

[BJJ-Blue]

but one thing is very clear, we are warming...

I agree, you can't argue with data (unless you're a liberal;)).

But the argument is over whether its caused by man or just a natural cycle. I'll go to my grave saying it's a natural cycle. After all, some of the same global warming fearmongers now were screaming about the coming man made ice age in the 70s-early 80s. When someone makes predictions that are dead wrong I choose to not take any of their future predictions seriously.

[JamesC]

I agree, you can't argue with data (unless you're a liberal;)).

But the argument is over whether its caused by man or just a natural cycle. I'll go to my grave saying it's a natural cycle. After all, some of the same global warming fearmongers now were screaming about the coming man made ice age in the 70s-early 80s. When someone makes predictions that are dead wrong I choose to not take any of their future predictions seriously.

QFT.

Obviously dumping all these gasses into the atmosphere isn't helping, but Earth has been going through these cycles forever. Hence the ice ages and floods.

This **** happens on a regular basis(at least in Her years). I think it's funny that people are arrogant enough to think they can do anything about it other than stop helping.

[GoldenBrain]

This whole global warming thing just never set right with me. For millions of years our world has been on a regular schedule of 90,000 years of ice age, and 10,000 years of interglacial. We are at the end of and a little beyond the 10,000 years of the interglacial so it just makes sense that we should be entering the next 90,000 years of ice age any time now.

A few years ago I remember reading about a few hundred emails from climate scientists and UN members being leaked which showed an error in the temperature readings. This study below would seem to corroborate this.

I'm not saying this is the end all beat all nail in the coffin proof against global warming but it sure isn't looking good for those who want to tax your carbon output.

What I will say is that we need to work on our stewardship of this planet and clean up our messes, but what we are currently doing may not be causing any warming at all.

Here's a link to the full report. http://www.principia-scientific.org/breaking-new-climate-data-rigging-scandal-rocks-us-government.html



BREAKING: NEW CLIMATE DATA RIGGING SCANDAL ROCKS US GOVERNMENT

Written by John O'Sullivan

A newly-uncovered and monumental calculating error in official US government climate data shows beyond doubt that climate scientists unjustifiably added on a whopping one degree of phantom warming to the official "raw" temperature record. Skeptics believe the discovery may trigger the biggest of all “climate con” scandals in Congress and sound the death knell on American climate policy.

Independent data analyst, Steven Goddard, today (January 19, 2014) released his telling study of the officially adjusted and “****genized” US temperature records relied upon by NASA, NOAA, USHCN and scientists around the world to “prove” our climate has been warming dangerously.

Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard.

Goddard’s plain-as-day evidence not only proves the officially-claimed one-degree increase in temperatures is entirely fictitious, it also discredits the reliability of any assertion by such agencies to possess a reliable and robust temperature record.

Goddard continues: "I discovered a huge error in their adjustments between V1 and V2. This is their current US graph. Note that there is a discontinuity at 1998, which doesn’t look right. Globally, temperatures plummeted in 1999, but they didn’t in the US graph."

[Syn7]

I used up all my GW debating energy with SJ the other day. Lately I have a very low tolerance for this whole topic.

I'll just throw out one quick statement. I didn't fact check the article. Honestly, I didn't even finish it. But let's just remember who John O'Sullivan is, who he works for and what his goals are. He's a talking head. Professional spin doctor. These aren't the people we need to be listening to when it comes to this kind of stuff. Same goes for the left counterpart. Between the left and right propaganda professionals, it's no wonder so many people don't know what to think.

[GoldenBrain]

I used up all my GW debating energy with SJ the other day. Lately I have a very low tolerance for this whole topic.

I'll just throw out one quick statement. I didn't fact check the article. Honestly, I didn't even finish it. But let's just remember who John O'Sullivan is, who he works for and what his goals are. He's a talking head. Professional spin doctor. These aren't the people we need to be listening to when it comes to this kind of stuff. Same goes for the left counterpart. Between the left and right propaganda professionals, it's no wonder so many people don't know what to think.


No worries! I didn't post this to debate anything. I'm right, everybody else is wrong. Ha! :p

Seriously, I totally understand. It's getting kind of old, but this was current news and I thought it was interesting so I threw it out there.

[SoCo KungFu]

Denialists complain that the raw data is wrong and that scientists aren't accounting for urban heating. Scientists show they accounted for urban heating and reveal the pooled data sets accounting for urban heating. Now denialists are *****ing because pooled data doesn't match raw data? No f'n ****.... These people are ridiculous.

When you have to start trying to destroy a finding by nitpicking into which data set to use (while cherry picking yourself along the way), that's the sure sign of a bunk argument.

People need to learn how models are made and how they are used. No data set is perfect. It doesn't matter how appropriate your sampling may be, there will always be some bias in the results because sampling methods all favor certain observations. That's why you utilize multiple sources (in this case multiple methods of temperature recording) and synthesize those findings. Pooled data reduces overall variance, basic stats.

Here's the problem, and what people need to realize. The model isn't a prediction. The model isn't even meant to fit nature. Nature isn't the experiment. The model is the experiment. From that experiment, you find out what parameters do what. Models aren't meant to predict temp change. Models induce a change (temp, survival, predator/prey, baseball outcomes, you name it) and then reduce to find what limiting random variable most causes that change.

Only after the fact, after a natural temperature phenomenon occurs, do they get the opportunity to see which of the thousands of models came closest. And if the parameters of that model approximated the current state of predictor variables (CO2 emissions, solar input, etc.).

The only argument that is valid now (valid in the sense that true premises do not result in false conclusions; though this doesn't mean its sound), is the argument that when scientists do make climate predictions, their evidence is all correlation (because while you can run regression on the parameters, you can't causally link a simulation to reality; though you can then go into reality and see what's going on based on modeled clues). And people that don't understand experimental design like to throw that out the window because it doesn't equal causation. But that's ignorant. The greatest biological discovery in human existence, evolution, is evidenced by multiple points of converging correlation.

[Kellen Bassette]

Denialists complain that the raw data is wrong and that scientists aren't accounting for urban heating. Scientists show they accounted for urban heating and reveal the pooled data sets accounting for urban heating. Now denialists are *****ing because pooled data doesn't match raw data? No f'n ****.... These people are ridiculous.

The problem isn't a lack of accounting for urban heat islands. The problem is using 100 to 150 years of data and pretending that it is representative of the "typical" climate. The problem is when you attribute a warming, which is very minor by historical standards, completely to the industrial revolution, you must discount the entire history of climate change. Far more severe climate change. You pretty much have to throw out the entire history of earth, pre 1850. You can't even account for the little ice age if you follow the narrative...it's absurd.

[GoldenBrain]

Denialists complain that the raw data is wrong and that scientists aren't accounting for urban heating.

I could be wrong here, but I thought this article was about the raw data being correct but was altered to account for whatever. When whatever was found to be wrong they went back and instead of correcting the whatever, they corrected the raw data again but lower, which created a total of 1 degree of warmth. The original raw temperature data is what is showing 90 years of cooling yes?

BTW, I'm not a denialist or a nialist or any other type of ist. Personally, I can't tell the difference between last year or 25 years ago and when I look at the average temps daily, weekly or monthly they all seem pretty darn consistent. I basically live most of my life outside and in multiple states, so I feel like I have a pretty good read on the weather and what I read is normal.

Please help me understand all this mumbo jismo.

[SoCo KungFu]

I could be wrong here, but I thought this article was about the raw data being correct but was altered to account for whatever. When whatever was found to be wrong they went back and instead of correcting the whatever, they corrected the raw data again but lower, which created a total of 1 degree of warmth. The original raw temperature data is what is showing 90 years of cooling yes?


I don't know where people are getting this, "1 degree" of heating, from this article posted. Even the graphs he's using to argue against climate science, the largest swing is only about 0.4 degrees. The average is relatively constant across both the graphs. And frankly, I don't care what the hell line he wants to draw across his graph. If he can't supply at the very least a slope, its garbage as far as I'm concerned.

One of the big differences in V1 and V2 is how urban heating is accounted for. V1 the data had to be corrected. V2 accounted for it within the model. There's a number of other differences as well, but urban heat islands has been one of the major denialist talking points for years now.

The problem with this particular article in question, his data sets are correct, but his arguments are flawed. Rather than using the totality of the data, "Steve Goddard" cherry picks which sets best make his case. Its rather dishonest, when the scientists are pooling all data (through multiple time scales), and then "he" chooses from all that data, the few points that seek to make his argument.

In this case, he's attacking a US data set. To note, this is only related to US, not the world. The issue is in how this correction was applied. And for that I can't give an answer since I haven't (and frankly don't have the qualifications) to sift through the algorithms. But there was a massive change in the way these models were computed when the V2 hit. New algorithms typically follow new technology. Hence why the math is often updated to include the new instrumentation. As to why corrections weren't made in the same way prior to 2000; your answer would probably be in that arena. Look into any changes in sensory methods. Chances are the differences are due to the inability to apply the new algorithmic correction to the older data, or inability to apply it in the same way, due to differences in sampling and what raw data (or what volume) was available to pump into the simulations. This isn't a problem endemic to climate.

Other than that (and this is a bit of an ad hominem admittedly), "Steve Goddard" is a pseudonym for an anonymous blogger who has been corrected a number of times due to faulty math, is a known Obama birther, and has been so unethical in his postings that "he" has been blocked even from other climate denialist groups. When you're own people think you're a loon, what does that say? "He" has been known to forge trend lines, often "drawing" them into doc rather than actually calculating trends. And since "he" has shown an inability to correctly calculate an area equation, I don't really have much confidence in his recreation of the model's corrections, and even less on his analysis of said corrections. But at least this time, he used the actual raw data, even if only part of it.

Anyways, if you really want to get into the guts of all this, this is a good place to start. It explains the differences in the versions, why there are new versions, etc. It also references all the pubs from which the algorithms are built.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

As to the rest, what is going on here is that now the general public is being brought into a debate that has been going on in science for, well around 80 years. Long before computers, people were "modelling" with pen and paper. There has always been a rift in those that model, and those that think its not scientifically sound. 30 years ago this debate was over optimality models in biology. And the most often used argument is the same that is being applied here. When the model doesn't fit reality, the data being put in is being "corrected" to change the trend. And if the point of the model was to predict the future, they'd be right. But as I said, that's not what models do. They decipher parameters. Its a way of hypothesis testing an input on a time scale that isn't possible to test in the real world (because we don't have 100 years to sit around and measure carbon loads and temp, etc.). The model itself is the experiment. When a climatologist makes a prediction, the prediction is based off those models. But the model itself, is not making the prediction. That's the important part. Because of this notion that "80% of the models are wrong." Well yeah, of course they are. They were not created to be "right." They were created to test an interaction. To do that you have to manipulate the system. And its hard for the general public to get this idea when a large part of the scientific community (mainly older generations to be honest) don't understand this themselves.

To put it another way; you're trying to fabricate a water pump out of scrap you have in your shop. You have a design. But you don't want to waste all your material on a design that might not work. So you take some of the trash metal, and you build small bits of the important parts. Not the housing and mess, but the parts that have functional operation, to see if it does what it needs to do. Does it have the right pressure to get the water up against gravity? Etc. Each of those little experiments were models. You take what you learned and then built the full scale pump. That's your prediction. The little pieces didn't predict the final product, you did based on how those little pieces performed each trial.

[GoldenBrain]

Thank you SoCo!!!

Towards the end of your reply I was actually grinning. I like the way you cut through the BS. The truth is, as bright as I think I am, I just don't fully grasp all that is involved with the science of climatology. I look outside, I predict the weather. I open an app or tune into a radar loop and I understand a little bit more. Your explanation has furthered my understanding of how data can be manipulated towards one biased viewpoint or another. ***deep bow***

I'm still not sure if we are warming or cooling, or if it even matters, but at least now I know a little bit more about the process.

[SoCo KungFu]

The problem isn't a lack of accounting for urban heat islands. The problem is using 100 to 150 years of data and pretending that it is representative of the "typical" climate. The problem is when you attribute a warming, which is very minor by historical standards, completely to the industrial revolution, you must discount the entire history of climate change. Far more severe climate change. You pretty much have to throw out the entire history of earth, pre 1850. You can't even account for the little ice age if you follow the narrative...it's absurd.

Absolutely false. We have 150 years of instrumental recordings. They have around 10,000 years of analyzed data via proxy, and more waiting to be sifted through to push that scale even further back. If they didn't, you wouldn't even be able to make your statement, particularly your 2nd/3rd sentences. Just because its not in this simulation, doesn't mean the data doesn't exist. Its not included in this model for very obvious reasons. Its not appropriate given the vastly different methods of obtaining the data.

[Kellen Bassette]

Absolutely false. We have 150 years of instrumental recordings. They have around 10,000 years of analyzed data via proxy, and more waiting to be sifted through to push that scale even further back. If they didn't, you wouldn't even be able to make your statement, particularly your 2nd/3rd sentences. Just because its not in this simulation, doesn't mean the data doesn't exist. Its not included in this model for very obvious reasons. Its not appropriate given the vastly different methods of obtaining the data.

We have data that can't be readily compared, because it is no where near as concise, but data nonetheless...you completely missed the point, however.

The data we have pre modern era shows climate change to degrees which are hardly fathomable by today's standards. Yet to follow the normal narrative, i.e. all/most warming since 1850 is man-made, changes of a degree Celsius will be catastrophic, passing tipping points of no return, ect... you must discount all that history prior to the modern age! Not because we don't have any data, but because it contradicts the scare tactics from the same types that brought us the 1970's coming ice age predictions.

For one small example, take New England. Certainly our best location in the New World for long periods of weather records actually observed and recorded by man. The climate change between 1600 and 1850 is so much more severe than 1850 to present day, that the latter is barely worth mention. Yet, why don't we talk about the climate shift from 1600 to 1850? It's irrelevant to political interests and impossible to exploit with propaganda, that's why. When we can't even account for well known facts like this, it turns the whole thing into one big circus and a joke.

Basically, if the end of the little ice age isn't part of the discussion, these alleged scientists lose all credibility.

For the record, I am opposed to letting companies pollute and collect profits at the expense of the environment, I believe all corporations should be responsible for what they are putting into our air and water. That doesn't justify the nonsense though. Printing things like the Arctic will be free of sea ice by 2000, then by 2013, Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2030, ect...totally misrepresenting the calving process of glaciers and ice sheets, and absolute hogwash about losing the Greenland or Antarctic ice caps, these methods are used by the media and allowed by scientists with no scruples whatsoever.

[SoCo KungFu]

We have data that can't be readily compared, because it is no where near as concise, but data nonetheless...you completely missed the point, however.

The data we have pre modern era shows climate change to degrees which are hardly fathomable by today's standards. Yet to follow the normal narrative, i.e. all/most warming since 1850 is man-made, changes of a degree Celsius will be catastrophic, passing tipping points of no return, ect... you must discount all that history prior to the modern age! Not because we don't have any data, but because it contradicts the scare tactics from the same types that brought us the 1970's coming ice age predictions.

For one small example, take New England. Certainly our best location in the New World for long periods of weather records actually observed and recorded by man. The climate change between 1600 and 1850 is so much more severe than 1850 to present day, that the latter is barely worth mention. Yet, why don't we talk about the climate shift from 1600 to 1850? It's irrelevant to political interests and impossible to exploit with propaganda, that's why. When we can't even account for well known facts like this, it turns the whole thing into one big circus and a joke.

Basically, if the end of the little ice age isn't part of the discussion, these alleged scientists lose all credibility.

For the record, I am opposed to letting companies pollute and collect profits at the expense of the environment, I believe all corporations should be responsible for what they are putting into our air and water. That doesn't justify the nonsense though. Printing things like the Arctic will be free of sea ice by 2000, then by 2013, Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2030, ect...totally misrepresenting the calving process of glaciers and ice sheets, and absolute hogwash about losing the Greenland or Antarctic ice caps, these methods are used by the media and allowed by scientists with no scruples whatsoever.

No, your point was invalid because your statement was self defeating. As is this one. You first complain that the data cannot be readily compared, and then you go on a diatribe attempting to do just that. I could, at this point, simply ignore the rest since you opened right out the gate with an internal contradiction. But I'll go further. You claim no one is considering the LIA, yet if they hadn't, again you'd not have been able to even make this statement. But its ironic you choose this point to make, as its yet to be shown whether or not it was a global phenomenon. You are jumping the gun on that matter ever as much as you accuse others of jumping on the warming wagon. What was that you were saying about propaganda? FYI, New England is only a good source of data for New England. Don't tell me you are really naive enough to think local climate patterns can adequately reflect patterns on macro scale.

Its also interesting, that in your mention of LIA, you are implying that all this is accounted to internal variance. Yet, this event that you claim is being ignored, has at least 4 major hypotheses explaining the pattern; 2 of which are directly tied to issues pertaining to human activity, 1 causally. The other being evidence of aerosol forcing, and why it was predicted in the late 60's that when/if legislation were to be passed cleaning sulfur emissions, US temps would rise. And it did, and they did (FYI, this was the Clean Air Act). Which is also ironic. Because in another thread by BJJBlue, I had to respond to him for this very same point. And here we are again. Oh and btw, you know what those supposedly incomparable data says about the LIA? Proxy analysis reveals lower levels of CO2. Isn't that interesting...

I also wasn't aware that scientists controlled the media. I really wish you people would make up your mind on that. As I'm not Jewish, I apparently missed the boat that time around. I'd also like to know when I get to cash in on all this gubmint money that we are supposedly hoarding. Because, as much as I have grown accustomed to 15 cent ramen, I'm worried about my supply of sriracha. And I just can't have my ramen without my rooster sauce.

[GoldenBrain]

I also wasn't aware that scientists controlled the media. I really wish you people would make up your mind on that. As I'm not Jewish, I apparently missed the boat that time around. I'd also like to know when I get to cash in on all this gubmint money that we are supposedly hoarding. Because, as much as I have grown accustomed to 15 cent ramen, I'm worried about my supply of sriracha. And I just can't have my ramen without my rooster sauce.

Unfortunately my friend you won't see much of that money. It appears these people aren't sharing… Imagine, 85 people could probably end poverty worldwide.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/worlds-85-richest-have-same-wealth-3-5-billion-poorest-2D11958883


Now, as for this climate debate, it's already over my head, so I'm just going to pull up a chair, crack a beer and enjoy this one. :D

Your serve Kellen! :p

[Kellen Bassette]

No, your point was invalid because your statement was self defeating. As is this one. You first complain that the data cannot be readily compared, and then you go on a diatribe attempting to do just that.

My first statement was a criticism of people not using what we know about the pre Industrial Era, again, you seem to be missing that. When I said the data isn't readily comparable, I was clarifying, that it isn't perfect but we should be taking it into account. You still seem to be insisting I am saying there is no data from this period or it is no good. That's the opposite of what I am saying.

I'll try again. Using only 100 to 150 years of data, does not give us an accurate picture of what a "normal" (whatever that is) climate. This is what we typically get from the people who try to pin all climate change on the I.R. We do have a lot of good, (not great) data from the LIA, if we're honest, we are probably going to have to admit the warming trend is at minimum, a couple centuries older than many would lead you to believe.


FYI, New England is only a good source of data for New England. Don't tell me you are really naive enough to think local climate patterns can adequately reflect patterns on macro scale.

Of course local climate patterns can't be used to explain what's going on everywhere. I never suggested that; and only brought up N.E. because it represents the New World's best data sets. In fact, I think this is a serious problem when talking about climate changes. Historically, it is common for one region to experience a cooling climate, while another experiences warming. So how do we really quantify that? Do we pick a certain percentage of the globe to decide if it is "global warming/cooling?" Or do we just call it by which side of the scales the temperatures tip? Do we rely more on surface temperatures, atmospheric temperatures, ocean temperatures, or just whatever happens to be most convenient at the time?




Its also interesting, that in your mention of LIA, you are implying that all this is accounted to internal variance.

Actually, if you read what I said, I never stated any definitive conclusion, or even endorsed a theory. My gripe is that so much of this stuff is intentionally misleading...when we say things over and over like 2012 had the "lowest amount of Arctic sea ice ever!" and don't add the disclaimer, that "ever" means since 1979...well where is the responsible journalism making sure that foot note gets into the article? Where are the researchers outraged that their work isn't being properly framed? Why has no one breathed a word of the great ice break up of 1815??? All this stuff is out there, but it's not part of the mainstream conversation. So if there is no media bias; and no junk science, what's the problem with giving a more honest, larger picture?




I also wasn't aware that scientists controlled the media. I really wish you people would make up your mind on that.

If anything, I would say that media shapes science, as far as helping form mainstream opinion. You can have all kinds of good stuff buried in a study somewhere, but what is continually repeated on the news sites and by the talking heads, day in and day out, goes a whole lot further to mold the public's consensus and idea of what the facts are than any decent research ever could. Since this dictates a good deal of how people perceive the world; and in turn the policies and political games and deals; in a lot of ways the two paragraph paraphrasings are more important than the actual studies.

Also, who are these people I'm being grouped with? If you assume I am just a right wing contrarian then your wrong. I'm just pointing out there is so much information that calls the whole premise into question, that is, for the most part, being ignored.

[David Jamieson]

I live in Canada.
Our PM has gagged climate change scientists and is busily destroying their research all in an effort to continue raping the earth with an oil sands project that is doing immense damage to the surrounding ecosystem etc.

Bottom line, global warming is climate change. Don't believe it if you don't want to. But that is a reflection of high certainty ignorance on your part.

We can't eat money.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The issue is NOT whether there IS climate change (outside of those that have very little understanding of the subject, you will not find people denying climate change).
The issue is to what DEGREE it is and who much we are responsible.

[MightyB]

personally I don't understand the argument because it's essentially about sustainability and pollution control vs immense wealth.

I for one don't want to sleep in garbage and breathe polluted air. I guess I'm strange that way. I think there's enough wealth and technology in this world to tackle this problem (pollution and needless environmental destruction) and not be a burden on society.

[sanjuro_ronin]

personally I don't understand the argument because it's essentially about sustainability and pollution control vs immense wealth.

I for one don't want to sleep in garbage and breathe polluted air. I guess I'm strange that way. I think there's enough wealth and technology in this world to tackle this problem (pollution and needless environmental destruction) and not be a burden on society.

I don't think it is as simple as that.

[Vash]

Pollution bad.

Big Booty Judy told me so.

But she may have a hidden agenda.

[MightyB]

I don't think it is as simple as that.

No - it's pretty much that simple.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

[MightyB]

Regardless of the theory being correct, what is the essential argument?

The premise...
Man is creating global climate change through massive consumption of fossil fuels (pollution, CO2 emissions, etc).
(doesn't matter if it's correct)

Are there alternatives to fossil fuels? Yes. Why aren't we using them? They cost too much. Who's cost? (http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2013/08/consumers_energys_residential.html) The cost would go to the most profitable, most subsidized, and most powerful corporations in the world who in turn would pass those costs to consumers.

Ohhhh - so the fight is really about who should pay for it (pollution control, investment into future technologies, etc).

[sanjuro_ronin]

No - it's pretty much that simple.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

You are being naive.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Regardless of the theory being correct, what is the essential argument?

The premise...
Man is creating global climate change through massive consumption of fossil fuels (pollution, CO2 emissions, etc).
(doesn't matter if it's correct)

Are there alternatives to fossil fuels? Yes. Why aren't we using them? They cost too much. Who's cost? (http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2013/08/consumers_energys_residential.html) The cost would go to the most profitable, most subsidized, and most powerful corporations in the world who in turn would pass those costs to consumers.

Ohhhh - so the fight is really about who should pay for it (pollution control, investment into future technologies, etc).

It really isn't that simple.
First off, the big corporations are the ones that would end up making money on alternative sources anyways since they are the ones with money to provide them.
That is not really the issue.
The issue is that people will NOT do B unless they have no other option and right now, they do have another option that is easier and cheaper and that every consumer can afford.
Of course the big companies already have the alternatives in their "back pocket", I know that for a fact in regards to a couple in Dubai and a at least two here in Canada.
The issue is that while "scare tactics" can get it going, you need more than that to sustain a movement.
That people are pointing out issues with climate change and the climate change models that were used to back up those "scare tactics" is an example of how they lose steam.

Look, the fact is that we do NOT have conclusive INDISPUTABLE evidence that we are the MAIN factor in climate change and for every evidence there is, there is a counter-interpretation of the data.
Right or wrong is irrelevant, it just have to convince enough of those that WANT it to be true, from BOTH sides.

No one is in favor of pollution but too many feel it is a "tolerable evil" to get what they need and that is the mentality that must be dealt with.

Scaring people into change may work in the short term, but it rarely can sustain change.

[MarathonTmatt]

... And isn't it interesting that the phrase "global warming" was switched to the buzz-word "climate change." ? If anyone such as Al Gore is involved, then it has to be a farce. I think these people are playing a game of "problem, reaction, solution." They've created the so-called problem (industry, smog, pollution, etc. etc.- and remember, industry is very closely tied with politics such as lobbying, heck- even look at ex- vice president D. Cheney he was the CEO of Halliburton Corp.) then they come out with bogus documentaries, news articles, etc. to elicit a reaction from the public, and now they will try to be pitching their solution to the public at large (carbon taxes, restricted zones, etc.) I agree that big industry should embrace alternative energy, such as windmills and solar power, and we should ween ourselves off of nuclear energy.
But a carbon tax for the average man, driving their car down the street, is just absurd. I think these corrupt politicians and special interests can take the issue of "climate change" and can work it into their agenda, which is more control of resources and more control of wealth, and more control of people's rights and how we live our lives.
I agree with GoldenBrain that we must be good stewards of the Earth, any person with morals can see that. But I would warn against trusting these politicians and special interests when they talk about climate change- I am convinced this is part of their hidden agenda, and many people who do not research who these people really are and what they stand for, are going to unknowingly play into their hands, and will unknowingly give up their rights and "liberties."

[David Jamieson]

Holy sh1t.

If you don't know what the f*&k you're talking about, because you know, you're not meteorologists, then STFU.
Opinions are like a55holes in that respect.
Everyone has one.

here's the data that you can find and read. Virtually all meteoroligists and climate scientists state that climate change is happening. Global warming is part of climate change.

Politicians and news anchors that you like because they strike and emotional chord with you know NOTHING about the topic.

Don't make us all stupider for reading some dumb ass opinion based on emotional drivel.
Crikey.

[Kellen Bassette]

Look, the fact is that we do NOT have conclusive INDISPUTABLE evidence that we are the MAIN factor in climate change and for every evidence there is, there is a counter-interpretation of the data.
Right or wrong is irrelevant, it just have to convince enough of those that WANT it to be true, from BOTH sides.

No one is in favor of pollution but too many feel it is a "tolerable evil" to get what they need and that is the mentality that must be dealt with.

Scaring people into change may work in the short term, but it rarely can sustain change.

Well said.

[Syn7]

We don't have indisputable evidence about a lot of things we all believe to be true. And sure, any asshat can make a counter argument to any other asshats point, but the asshat with the most evidence to support their point wins the day. Unfortunately for those concerned with the win, there is always another day with new information. And unfortunately for science, winning isn't the goal, and that right there is a HUGE disconnect with pretty much everything else. Even worse, some people pervert the scientific method because they are trying to win. Some people find it hard to reconcile with the fact that it is a process that goes forever. There will be no closure, people need to get over that. Every answer begs more questions.

[MarathonTmatt]

Global warming is part of climate change.


And brushing my teeth is part of my dental hygiene!

[David Jamieson]

And brushing my teeth is part of my dental hygiene!

It sure is, though flossing is far more important and ultimately, your dental hygiene and health is directly related to your whole body health.
Systems thinking is pretty important here.

[MightyB]

Look, the fact is that we do NOT have conclusive INDISPUTABLE evidence that we are the MAIN factor in climate change and for every evidence there is, there is a counter-interpretation of the data.
Right or wrong is irrelevant, it just have to convince enough of those that WANT it to be true, from BOTH sides.

No one is in favor of pollution but too many feel it is a "tolerable evil" to get what they need and that is the mentality that must be dealt with.


If a group of well respected scientists came together stating that there's a lot of data stating that a product that's pretty much in everything gives kids cancer, and another group of well respected scientists came out stating that the data isn't indisputable evidence that said product causes cancer... would you change your behavior in regards to what products you give your children?

How interested would you be in finding an alternative to the base product that was possibly causing the cancer?

[sanjuro_ronin]

It sure is, though flossing is far more important and ultimately, your dental hygiene and health is directly related to your whole body health.
Systems thinking is pretty important here.

Dental conspiracy...

[sanjuro_ronin]

If a group of well respected scientists came together stating that there's a lot of data stating that a product that's pretty much in everything gives kids cancer, and another group of well respected scientists came out stating that the data isn't indisputable evidence that said product causes cancer... would you change your behavior in regards to what products you give your children?

How interested would you be in finding an alternative to the base product that was possibly causing the cancer?


A valid point.
Here is the thing, for scientists to say that product A causes ( not gives) Cancer ( and they usually say MAY), what did they do to find that out?
Now, compare with what was/is done with climate change.

Now, don't get me wrong, I personally believe the data that shows climate change and agree that humans have SOME role in it ( how can we not?).
None of that changes that viewed from both sides with as much of an unbiased view as I can, the "deniers" have a point.

[MightyB]

A valid point.
Here is the thing, for scientists to say that product A causes ( not gives) Cancer ( and they usually say MAY), what did they do to find that out?
Now, compare with what was/is done with climate change.

Now, don't get me wrong, I personally believe the data that shows climate change and agree that humans have SOME role in it ( how can we not?).
None of that changes that viewed from both sides with as much of an unbiased view as I can, the "deniers" have a point.

Now I'm coming at you as a big hypocrite because I use a lot of plastic and commute about an hour to work everyday even though I do believe we have a role in climate change.

[wenshu]

If a group of well respected scientists came together stating that there's a lot of data stating that a product that's pretty much in everything gives kids cancer, and another group of well respected scientists came out stating that the data isn't indisputable evidence that said product causes cancer... would you change your behavior in regards to what products you give your children?

Which scientists work for the company the makes the product in question?

Thats one part of the problem.

The other is that people are biased for non related political reasons. Maybe the guy who owns the company gives millions to the Tea Party.

In conclusion: Obama gives kids cancer.

http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/52b08286eab8ea621f9b44ca/thanks%20obama%20.gif

[Kellen Bassette]

http://news.yahoo.com/disappearance-wildflowers-may-doomed-ice-age-giants-231025081.html

Blows my mind that this kind of stuff isn't part of the popular climate change dialogue.

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://news.yahoo.com/disappearance-wildflowers-may-doomed-ice-age-giants-231025081.html

Blows my mind that this kind of stuff isn't part of the popular climate change dialogue.

Maybe because it could insinuate that climate change is simply the normal cycle of this planet.
There is no doubt that the "global warming scare" made many people change their bad habits and, perhaps, that would not have been the case of it was simply passed off as "business as usual for this planet", know what I mean?

[mawali]

I agree, you can't argue with data (unless you're a liberal;)).

But the argument is over whether its caused by man or just a natural cycle. I'll go to my grave saying it's a natural cycle. After all, some of the same global warming fearmongers now were screaming about the coming man made ice age in the 70s-early 80s. When someone makes predictions that are dead wrong I choose to not take any of their future predictions seriously.

Based on the report I see nothing to note "global warming fearmongering" since there is no data to suggest that depsite evidence to the contrary of changes in climate conditions that would wreak havoc on the populations.
The simplest strategy is to suggest planning, budgeting and emergency management procedures. For those people who believe that the earth is only 6000 years old, and that is the 45/55 divide, that is alot of people who worship ignorance as their G*d. Whether it is called cooling or warming, there is a high level of cognitive dissonance in those tea party people (and their main affiliates) and their freinds. What must happen before they believe in truth?

The facts are obvious.
a. No planning or emergency management leads to mass casualties.
b. Then disease, high mortality, etc from lack of above
c. No water, facilities, etc.
d. I wonder what they call California's water woes at the moment. I am looking at persistance over time as opposed to this one event? Will it change.
e. What do they call Polar Warming, which appears to create this extreme Vortex as is happenning.
f. At least the Carlyle Group, the Water Capitalist will sell water cheaply to their brethren. BTW Carlyle Group gave us Snowden and NSA is such a fine specimen of a private organization, the mantra of the tea party Americans,
g. ALEC and Heritage Strategy. Just add the word American to any group name and you have it made.

[Scott R. Brown]

Many, or most, of us intelligent ones, who live in California are not worrying about the drought. We have droughts all the time. We always recover in miraculous ways within one to two years. It has been raining for the past week now and more rain is in the forecast as it is.

They have had these drought scares my whole life and we are fine.

Life happens to everyone, when things get tough, you change behavior to accommodate the new circumstances. Humans do not change until they have to, when they have to, they do, and innovations happen.

Nothing is as big a deal as worriers make them!

[Brule]

Many, or most, of us intelligent ones, who live in California are not worrying about the drought. We have droughts all the time. We always recover in miraculous ways within one to two years. It has been raining for the past week now and more rain is in the forecast as it is.

They have had these drought scares my whole life and we are fine.

Life happens to everyone, when things get tough, you change behavior to accommodate the new circumstances. Humans do not change until they have to, when they have to, they do, and innovations happen.

Nothing is as big a deal as worriers make them!

Well said....