Man Based Global Warming....

When we have scientists from around the world (UN-style, IPCC) telling us that this is a real phenomenon AND likely to be human-caused, why wouldn't we believe them? These people study the global climate for a living. Over 2500 scientists contributed their expertise on this issue from over 130 countries in the last IPCC report in 2007, and their findings are that climate change is occurring and almost positively due to humans' contribution to CO2 levels. Our pollution is changing the planet, whether you think it's arrogant to say that or not.

Why do people think that without any real training, experiments, or studies of their own, they can simply wish this vast wealth of climate change information away? Some of it has to do with party lines, I know. You don't like Al Gore. Al Gore did his part to make everyone aware of the problem, but just because you may not like him or believe in his politics does not mean that the issue close to his heart is made up.

If you can get through it, the link to the IPCC report ishttp://www.ipcc.ch/. It's a bit dry...but worth the time. I'm still working through it.

 

Here is the accompanying relevant graph:



NCDC: Global Surface Temperature Anomalies

 

"By 2050, the International Organization for Migration projects there will be 200 million climate refugees,'' Gunn said.


UCF summit: Climate change threatens world's security -- OrlandoSentinel.com

 

Well, well. Having taken a little vacation from the obdurate ignorance displayed here, I return to find the thread dying of boredom.

But WAIT~

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs

Interesting developments, indeed!

What I've said here all along is coming to light. The leading 'expert' climate scientists have colluded to misinform the world for political purposes.

A whistleblower has let the cat out of the bag by 'hacking' into Hadley CRU's files - they are mindblowing:

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
​

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”
​

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:
Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
​

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
​

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
​

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
​

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
​

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
​

 

Just be glad you're at the right side of this graph and not the left side. And go back billions of years for even more radical climate change. The wildest swings in climate took place long before nasty homo sapiens showed up. To look at a hundred year slice of time (as shown above) to determine a trend is rather myopic and meaningless in the context of billions of years. And to then attribute the changes in climate to mans effect on the planet is simply laughable!

 

We've seen the AGW side of the 'debate' in newspaper after newspaper, magazine after magazine, TV show after TV show, ad nauseum. So-called journalists accept these promulgations without question and pass them on as truth and fact. The gullible are, well, gullible.

If your heads don't burst, look at the other side: (Interested parties can easily find part I - I've probably posted it here somewhere)

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/the_skeptics_handbook_II-sml.pdf

Enjoy! Relax, enjoy the natural warmth while we have it - it surely beats the cold.

 

Don't act so smug ufourya. This is nothing to get excited about as explained here:

RealClimate: The CRU hack

 

How do we know that this link wasn't hacked? Hmmm

 

I see that Tweedledee and Tweedledumb have come together in this thread,,, Oh well.

 

The way I look at it, maybe if I can distract you long enough, you'll forget to write that check to al gore and he won't be able to pay for the fuel for the private jet to fly his groupies to the next "save the planet" rally -- just my way of helping to keep the carbon footprint down -- and you thought I didn't care

 

Yep, a new troll enters periodically. The most recent is docbooks.

 

What have you got against trolls -- you don't practice discrimination do you?

 

Troll = Someone who enters PC with the intent to spew political viewpoints and worldview mantra without contributing anything useful in other areas of the forum. Regardless of political affiliation.

PC Member = Someone who contributes useful knowledge in most areas of the forum.

Since Shawn actually contributes knowledge in other areas of the forum I think that eliminates him from the Troll list but puts many of the other people in this thread in the Troll category.

 

It's ever so hard to determine who's Tdumb, and who's Tdee! In the end they're both pretty dumb.

Icarus

 

Some of these folks do not appear dumb. In fact they can often be quite articulate. I think it is a problem of mental frames getting in the way of new information that just doesn't jive with their worldview. Intelligence has nothing to do with it.


More fun with mental frames...

Paul Buchheit: Whose reality are you living in? Whose reality would you rather live in?

Thom Hartmann on Neuro Linguistic Programming (NPR)

Neuro Linguistic Programming workshop

George Lakoff
[ame=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7433632570981403408&ei=K2AIS-bNLpD-qAOq39jbDQ&q=george+lakoff&hl=en]Politics, Sociology – George Lakoff – “How Liberals & Conservatives thinkâ€[/ame]#[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_CWBjyIERY"][/ame]

 

As usual, the people who are too self-absorbed to even consider a view that threatens to disturb their neatly constructed fantasy world bring nothing to the discussion save peurile insults.

The AGW religion is collapsing around them and they attack ad hominem.

 

THE DEATH BLOW TO CLIMATE SCIENCE:

The Death Blow to Climate Science

...
Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists

Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).

...
Total Control

These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.

CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science...

 

While I think Dr. Ball overstates the case as to the death of the IPCC et al in the above post (if nothing else, they are resilient and have the major funding), the evidence of wrong-doing in the 'climate science' community is massive:

- Bishop Hill blog - Climate cuttings33

Find at the above link some glaring examples. A taste - each linked to the e-mail for your reading pleasure and edification:

Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".(1075403821)
Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)
Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)


And there is A LOT more. And Fibber, I am not being smug about anything, but ponting to a realclimate post at this point is less than convincing. They are, of course, part of the problem. Please educate yourself.

 

Gee, I wonder if Lakoff might be a leftist with a bias?

A review of one of his books from that right-wing standard The New Republic:

TNR Online | Block That Metaphor! (1 of 3) (print)

A smippet:

here is much to admire in Lakoff's work in linguistics, but Whose Freedom?, and more generally his thinking about politics, is a train wreck. Though it contains messianic claims about everything from epistemology to political tactics, the book has no footnotes or references (just a generic reading list), and cites no studies from political science or economics, and barely mentions linguistics. Its use of cognitive neuroscience goes way beyond any consensus within that field, and its analysis of political ideologies is skewed by the author's own politics and limited by his disregard of centuries of prior thinking on the subject. And Lakoff's cartoonish depiction of progressives as saintly sophisticates and conservatives as evil morons fails on both intellectual and tactical grounds.

 

Like it or not, CO2 is a problem, and CO2 emissions are going to be slashed over the next few decades. The ICE is as good as dead by 2020 and coal won't be able to compete with renewables. The world is moving on.

There is nothing in those emails that changes the fact that the Earth is warming drastically, and worldwide there are going to be severe limits put on GG emissions.

If you want to pretend you won some kind of battle here then go ahead. You ain't going to win the war.

I just hope you are around long enough to see the world morph into something you appear to hate. A cooperative and collaborative group of countries, that comes together and sets regulations and restrictions on harmful business-as-usual practices when it's necessary for the greater good.