Global Warming Doomsters' Theories Wrong, Says NASA Study

[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/worl...est-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.

Your serve Kellen!

[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.

[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? 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.

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? 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."