97% of world Climate Scientists are 75 people

Are the other 3% people, too?

 

Exactly, this is a question of potential loss of survivability. It's neither left, right or wrong.

 

LOL - ignorance is no bliss.

 

what tony is saying boils down to this: "if you are not sure, what is the downside of using condom?" But you have bring Jesus in all this.. come on! it is not a religious war.. it is a condom.

what is a downside of curbing anthropogenic GHG output and improving efficiency? fewer oil wars? we will actually get some work to do and reduce unemployment?

 

^^ That is one of the truly remarkable pieces of nonsense tea-baggers have swallowed, that is is better economically for the country to spend petrodollars outside the country rather than wind and solar dollars inside the country. Or that destruction from resource wars is preferable to building a new domestic infrastructure.

 

h

Let's see - alarmist attacks on scientists, fraudulent data, all in the name of protecting us from the denyers. The bad and misleading things are defended because our fate is so bad. People on this thread seem to have quite a bit of AGW religion. Apologies to Tony, but his post did have god in it, and this whole excuse for lack of peer review seemed highly religious. To be fair in the high priests last paper, they actually made the data available, and aren't hiding it or deleting it as has happened.

Well, you don't really have to call people names, or exaggerate the science to do any of these things. Now do you? I don't think anything like cap and tax really reduces unemployment though, and doesn't really reduce ghg. Reduction in oil use seems to have support from many areas, and wrapping it in AGW makes it less likely to pass. The oil wars have not been necessary even though we use oil. They have not gotten us one drop more, we need to say no to those. Subsidizing wind and sun and reducing coal seem good priorities.

But there is a downside to some of the name calling and exaggeration. It gets people to a spot of weak mindedness. When things are shown to be wrong or misleading it breads a lack of trust, and the real things about climate change get lost.

Blaming the melting of Kilimanjaro on global warming seems to ignore the elephant of deforestation in the area, a hypothesis with more scientific support, but requiring the government to actually solve the problem instead of blaming other countries.


I think its a question like why is it bad that politicians lie to us? There are some many things wrong, but it hard to convince someone that likes that politician. Did global warming cause the Miami Heat to loose the championship Well one politician ranted it was caused by illegal immigration. I'm sure some of those blaming most of our problems on illegal immigration believed that statement too.

 

The next "war" will be over water. I live one mile from Green Bay (the actual bay). When water gets short in Los Angeles do I get to make the rules? Maybe LA should be forced to desalinate by the Great Lakes States or import from Brazil.
Or, Gee, maybe I, like you should conserve. (Yes, I know that's a bad sentence)

 

So let me ask you this if you were to find out that STD data are somewhat falsified, and you can't really get HIV from oral, would you reject a motion of using condom whilst rendering services of 20$ street walker?

and also you don't have to believe in taxes and gravity, you just live with them. YMMV

 

I like the dualling Physicists. We have Joe Romm and Amory Lovins on the green side, Richard Mueller purports to be a realist, and he has some merit there. But not without the above attacks from Joe Romm. The other Physicist in the debate more recently is Michio Kaku of CCNY re: Japan nuclear incident.

 

hmm...we also seem to be the only country pushing electrification so hard.

 

It is hard to say.. we don't really know well what is going on in other countries. Perhaps b/c we are behind?

Japan has a big push for EVs, also the electrification of US railroads is non-existent when comparing to the rest of the world.

 

OK I guess you mean trains not electric outside of NE corridor (my point of reference).

 

I would think that I would continue my current policy of not getting serviced by $20 street walkers.

Falsified data is wrong, no matter the motivation. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Will we increase the dead zone in the gulf because politicians want to falsely claim heavily watered fertilized and pesticides corn are good for the environment and somehow they will help save the planet. Or should we say stop lying! I don't want to pay money to wreck the environment? When you start saying its ok that the priest is pedophile because he is helping the faith you have gone simply too far. Its time we say no more.


To be clear just because people have faked some science does not mean all the science is fake. It is not. But when you make excuses you do help fraudulent politicians and dishonest scientists. The excuse that they are on the right side is just wrong.

 

So do you think you should look to europe or africa because they don't come up with as many patents or nobel prizes.

The US is last at being behind every country in sciences. OH yeah. Which subpar coutry do you think we should fallow.

 

Meanwhile, back on non-Bizarro Earth, 2010 was the 2nd hottest year on record:

Green Car Congress: NOAA report finds 2010 one of the two warmest years on record; El Niño-Southern Oscillation and other climate patterns played major roles in weather events

None Dare Call It Global Warming.

 

Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer

Did global warming stop in 1998?

Any other common arguments that are easily debunked?

 

Don't feed the trolls.

Studies published in peer reviewed journals is how science is done. The science has concluded, with a very large weight of evidence from a wide array of fields, that man is contributing to global warming. A single study that slightly altered its numbers by throwing out some outliers, but still would come to the same conclusion otherwise, does not disprove the theory, no matter how sensational of a news story it is.

Most people are too stupid to understand science, and prefer to believe in superstitious nonsense. Don't waste your time arguing with them.

 

Drees there are peer reviewed papers showing that it was warmer in greenland much of the last10,000 years ago. That site is giving some confusing information. I would even say misinformation. I do not know how much. The counter to this is it was colder most of the last 10,000 years in Antarctica. Reconstructions only use a few proxies. The science is much better in the last 600 years, where there is broad agreement of the validity of these proxies, and it has been warming. Getting older than 2000 years should be shown with high degrees of uncertainty. It is likely we are in the hottest decade in the last 2 millennium, but there is room for doubt. Trying to find individual resolution for global temperature in years that long ago is beyond current scientific understanding. For 2010, its in a statistical dead heat with a number of years as being the hottest.

This is a reason why using individual years is unscientific to prove or disprove warming. It really doesn't matter how hot 2010 was. We should be averaging out some seasonal variability, especially if we are trying to compare to years more than 150 years ago, where individual years are hard to come by. Even the temperature record is suspect as cru only covered 20% of the regions when they started. It is however much better than before temperature records. IMHO one should use moving averages of at least 11 years, so any graph that shows an average moving to actual years is misleading. This is one thing cru changed recently as their graphs mislead people to look temperatures after 1998 as cooling.

+1

Yes this is very important. It is also important that we don't give political factions the power to squelch scientific debate and criticism.

Here is the head of the IPCC calling criticism of hideously wrong prediction in the 2nd working groups work voodoo science. Look at the video around minute 4.

Criticism must be taken if the science is to be looked at. Where did the working group get the bad information that was being defended as the wholy truth? A fundraising pamphlet from an environmental group, who got it from a pop science article based on a phone interview with a scientist that says he never mentioned the bad date. Nothing was peer reviewed. Critisism and review was ignored, because the alarmist figure that is off by at least an order of magnitude went along with the story we need to do something at the next climate conference. Science be damned.