Climate change: A cooling consensus

You deny, then, that AGW proponents have used the "unprecendented" adjective? And if global temperature rise isn't "unprecedented" as a result of manmade CO2, then what's all the urgency about reducing emissions and preventing all the climate disruption (floods, droughts, snow, lack of snow, cyclones, hurricanes, mass extinctions, drowning islands, 50 million climate refugees)? Why the call for 50-80% reductions in CO2 emissions by 2040 or whatever date is being used now?

Proponents of AGW very often trot out "unprecendented" or words of equivalent meaning when describing the current or future climate picture. Therefore, my using it is hardly "cherry picking".

 

Libel.

 

You missed out one of the most used catastrophist quotes, "It's happening faster than expected."

 

Either there has been a reading comprehension failure or there is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent me - which one is it?

Again reading comprehension failure

It is when you do not complete the sentence but only use one word from PARAGRAPHS of discussion - and use that word wrongly

- - - Updated - - -

For a given value of that

Again though quoting out of context

 

Your reading comprehension issue, of course.

 

as is the denialist tactic of straw man building by claiming that there is "alarmism" when we are trying to have a rational discussion about a problem

It's a bit difficult to believe that anyone could miss the intent of so many statements of scientists and their media sympathizers. It seems that almost every week someone trots out a headline (or headline grabbing) comment about the unusual nature of what is happening in weather/climate and all of it due to man's burning of fossil fuels.

Arctic methane time bomb keeps ticking… From Scientific American

4-Hiroshima-Bombs-per-second widget…..From SkepticalScience

NBC: Polar Bears Like ‘Passengers on the Titanic’ Because of Global(*)Warming

If All the Ice Melted…From National Geographic
We have irreversibly committed future generations to a hotter world and rising seas.”
“…the big concern for the future is the giant ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.” “If the Thwaites Glacier breaks free from its rocky berth, that would liberate enough ice to raise sea level by three meters—nearly ten feet.”
“by the time we get to the end of the 21st century, we could see sea-level rise of as much as six feet globally instead of two to three feet.
“With seas four feet higher than they are today—a distinct possibility by 2100—about two-thirds of southeastern Florida is inundated. The Florida Keys have almost vanished. Miami is an island.”
“A profoundly altered planet is what our fossil-fuel-driven civilization is creating, a planet where Sandy-scale flooding will become more common and more destructive for the world’s coastal cities.”
by 2070, 150 million people in the world’s large port cities will be at risk from coastal flooding, along with $35 trillion worth of property.”

James Lovelock: The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years ….From The Independent

By 2047, Coldest Years May Be Warmer Than Hottest in Past, Scientists Say…From the NYTimes

“a warming climate has allowed blood-borne tropical diseases to flourish where once they were unheard of”…From ClimateWire

“The Day the North Pole Became a Lake”…From Forecast the Facts

The Alaskan village set to disappear under water in a decade…From the BBC
Which is perhaps just as well, because within a decade Kivalina is likely to be under water. Gone, forever. Remembered - if at all - as the birthplace of America's first climate change refugees.

Claim: 2°C temperature increase will make people(*)angry…from Princeton University and the University of California-Berkeley report in the journal Science
This is how it was reported:
· Scientists say global violence could rise with global warming (upi.com)
· Hot and bothered: Climate warming predicted to increase violent conflicts | [MENTION=2502]bob[/MENTION]OHara & @GrrlScientist (theguardian.com)
· Climate change linked to violent behaviour (talesfromthelou.wordpress.com)

Climate change occurring 10 times faster than at any time in past 65 million years…From Stanford University
Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change over the next century will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years.

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010.

According to NASA and AP’s Seth Borenstein: “…after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

John Cook: “All these heat-trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere mean … our planet has been building up heat at the rate of about four Hiroshima bombs every second – consider that going continuously for several decades.”

James Hansen: the current increase in global warming is: “…equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year. That’s how much extra energy Earth is gaining each day.”
That’s 278 atomic bombs worth of energy every minute – more than four per second — non-stop. To be clear, that is just the extra energy being gained each day on top of the energy heating our planet by 0.8 degree C. It is the rate at which we are increasing global warming.

New Research Shows Humans Causing More Strong Hurricanes...From Skeptical Science

Chicagoan weather is poisoned by fossil-fuel pollution....from Forecast the Facts

Earth's surface temperature may reach 180 degrees F by 2300 without emission curbs....From The Grist writer David Roberts

"Coal trains are death trains..." James Hansen

By examining the frequency of extreme storm surges in the past, previous research has shown that there was an increasing tendency for storm hurricane surges when the climate was warmer. But how much worse will it get as temperatures rise in the future? How many extreme storm surges like that from Hurricane Katrina, which hit the U.S. coast in 2005, will there be as a result of global warming? New research from the Niels Bohr Institute show that there will be a tenfold increase in frequency if the climate becomes two degrees Celcius warmer. The results are published in the scientific journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, PNAS.

Story was accompanied with a picture (fake) of waves sweeping over the Statue of Liberty.

Nope, no alarmism or exaggeration here!

BTW - Almost all of the above are from the last 10 months or so.


From Climate Communications and Behavior Change, page 11

And all this from a period when mentions of global warming and climate change are at multi-year lows.

 

Dems Want Networks To Manipulate Climate Coverage Like BBC

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...t-green-propaganda-training.htm#ixzz2qWYjv1Jt

 

For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow
the sane ones, while those who say it is not are now the lunatics.

 

So Jim Jones is in charge now eh? LOL

 

AGW proponents must all believe in homeopathy if they think an extra 116 ppm CO2 above pre industrial level can affect planetary climate.

 

Got anything to explain the chaining IR signature of the planet?

PS you do not need a thick layer of metal to make a mirror

 

Do you have anything to explain the hiatus in warming? Current hypothesis is that it is hiding in the oceans yet...



Manmade greenhouse gases cannot select which ocean basins they decide to warm.

 

Actually - yes and a high school student could see the issue there - see we are talking AVERAGE temperatures and nice cherry pick for only a few years

Meanwhile the author has been caught out before - numerous times - with the same "hide the pea" tactics

 

Ten days later and I'm still waiting for some examples.

 

Awwww Didddums!!! Keep it up and you will be reported for baiting and trolling

There is plenty of evidence if you use the term "debunked"
Note the Wiki entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)
Now since WUWT is a Blog I will use blogs to show the issues

And we will start with a whole blogs worth of points

http://wottsupwiththat.com
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/anthony-watts-most-blessed-and-ethical.html
http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/wuwt-denounces-innumeracy-demonstrates.html
Then there is this

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts

He has been caught out trying to suppress criticisms http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/debunking-another-climate_b_244903.html

And there is this

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...tamino-debunks-anthony-watts-wattsupwiththat/

And there is this

http://www.realsceptic.com/2013/09/16/97-climate-consensus-denial-the-debunkers-again-not-debunked/

You just have to listen to Monkton for more than 2 minutes to know that it would be safe to stand opposite any side he has taken with any issue

and this

http://grist.org/article/2011-03-30-wattsupwiththat-attack-on-berkeley-temperature-findings-was/

 

Here is another blog.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

Hmmmmm - and so is WUWT

If you had asked me to find fault with NOAA I would look to an academic source but here it is blog against blog and I am betting there is less misinformation on SKS than on WUWT - in fact I am willing to put money on it - donation to this site

 

LOL, you want to pit blog against blog I will pick the blogs written by scientists and not cartoonists.

 

Go for it - that would cut out WUWT Oh! and when we are looking at criteria for a scientist

WUWT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)
Climate Depot
Marc Morano

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano

Oh! I admit that Roy Spencer is qualified but I doubt you would like to use his website since he does not deny that global warming is happening

 

This is just an aside here and I'm not sure this is the place to discuss this. I just want to comment on this, and you've made several similar statements across the forums near in time to this post, and please forgive me for not tracking them all down for my post here, so I just want you to realize that I'm combining several comments here without apparent reference to the originals, sorry.

You say that different Presidents have different Security Clearances... Does it mean that not all Presidents are equal? Does the difference depend on world events? Or, is there some kind of aptitude test that Presidents have to take to see if they can "handle it," first before they become in the know? Are there Presidential policies that are "wrong" or "right" ones to have? Does it depend on how likeable they are, whether they rub against or towards the grain, in the opinion of the top brass?

Oh, one more thing...

You do realize the irony of your statements to a plain, average, everyday citizen of the USA, like myself? That there is an over level to the US Government governing itself? Care to comment on that?

You see, it seems like you're saying that the, shall we say, "over level" of the US Government, the same one that causes fear and paranoia in many US citizens, that this very apex of human civilization is run by a military junta? That perhaps this junta is representing the interests of all of us on Earth, being the very face of humanity, planning our future in the long term, perhaps even to ET itself?

Now, here's the thing... I guess it's just ironic if, at the end of the day, even the so called champion of democracy, the USA, is just a lower rung to the OWG, like state or local government is a lower level of government than Federal level government. Now, I'm a big supporter of the One World Government concept... (not the biblical 1000 year peace in exchange for HELL, mind you)... I just find it ironic that the final destiny of Humanity is being directed towards a Military Dictatorship, after all?

It's an interesting commentary on the true identity of human nature and where we're going. I guess Democracy really IS the cousin of Anarchy after all. The Dictators, and Megalomaniacs were right... The people can't be trusted to govern their own affairs.

If this is so, North Korea will laugh at us for 300 years from the history books. Never forget the down side of such an arrangement when the crazies take over the supreme power...

 

You say that different Presidents have different Security Clearances... Does it mean that not all Presidents are equal? Does the difference depend on world events? Or, is there some kind of aptitude test that Presidents have to take to see if they can "handle it," first before they become in the know? Are there Presidential policies that are "wrong" or "right" ones to have? Does it depend on how likeable they are, whether they rub against or towards the grain, in the opinion of the top brass?

I believe that AA is referring to the fact that Bush Sr had to have, presumably, the highest possible security clearance as the Director of CIA, which he was prior to being President. I cannot speak to his assertion that Presidents do not have to have the highest clearances, but I would not bet against it. Presidents don't have a "need to know" everything and in many cases I think they are happy NOT knowing some things. In the security/intelligence world, having a clearance by itself is insufficient. One must also have a "need to know". Which means that if you want access to the information you must have the proper clearance AND access to the information must be required for you to do your job ("need to know").

As far as the There are about 7 Clearance levels above the clearance level of a standing U.S. President. statement goes, I believe that statement assumes that the President has only a Top Secret clearance.

 

Security clearances expire. For instance, I used to have the highest security clearance in the military that you could get, but now that I am not in the military, I no longer have it.

 

How very strange, because upon opening the Wiki link, I found this:

Something smells fishy, there is no such thing as a "bachelor's degree - in pseudo science."

It was only when I found that the [1] linked to DeSmogBlog that it became clear, so I opened that page and found:

So much for Wikipedia, too easy to edit by anyone.

 

Oh, Bush Sr. was CIA? I was too young at the time of his Presidency to know about his ex-job. I guess he inherited his security clearance than. I guess it pays to go in as a President after having a Defense job.

Of course, there are perfectly legal procedures that could allow this unequal clearance arrangement between Presidents to be in place. I won't detail it all here.

I also wanted to know if AboveAlpha noticed the irony of his statements and I wanted to read his reaction. But, actually the strict contrast of only Military Junta OR Democracy is somewhat of a false dilemma (suggesting there are only two choices, when in fact that's wrong)... because who knows where the future is heading.

What? Security clearances expire?! That's not what the last few years of Snowden and Manning seems to say. Snowden just downloaded everything and Manning, until he went public, continued to have access to the system using supposedly expired war clearances that weren't cleared for the data he accessed...

I don't know, did you ever go down to the old military base and place your hand on a biometric device and see if it signs you in? They got lax in security for years and they have a massive bureaucratic boondoggle... I wouldn't be surprised if the computer welcomes you back, because someone "forgot" to remove you.

 

Closed ~ Post Capacity