Global warming scepticism

... you skipped "leaded gas is bad for you" in the 80s.




​

 

Incredibly, leaded gas was brought to the market by the same guy who thought that chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) would be great in referigerators!

Midgely I think...

 

He knew what worked. He didn't know what would (*)(*)(*)(*) off environmentalists.

 

So, what in your opinion are humans doing that is most detrimental regarding global warming? How do we take measures to fix it?

 

Actually that 97% figure has been refuted...


Science & Education
April 2015, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 299-318
Date: 30 Aug 2013

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

David R. Legates,
Willie Soon,
William M. Briggs,
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Abstract


Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

Too put it in layman's terms:

The definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak, the climatologists said. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/w...ing-consensus-figure-come-from/#ixzz3ftiAVmvL

 

Webpage worth reading;

http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

 

Q. Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years?

No. Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the United States, the impacts of the warming are clear and present. For example, lake and river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting. Coastal temperatures are rising. A multitude of species of birds, fish, mammals and plants are extending their ranges northward and, in mountainous areas, uphill toward cooler areas.


Someone's definition of rising rapidly is confusing to me...Over the past 50 years the average temperature has risen .7 degrees Celsius, so .7 divided by 50 equals .014 degrees Celsius per year on average. Wow, now that is rapid...I'd like the cost of living average to only go up that amount every year, you'd still be able to buy homes for $50k.
Also, there is a new report that the Western Ice Shelf in Antartica is melting due to volcanic activity...But I guess those readings the scientist took are from some super secret base under the Ice Shelf... http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/another_global_warming_canard_exposed.html follow the article down to where it has a hyperlink "published" and read the paper.
Here is why people don't buy this...I live in Austin TX area and so far this year the high temperature has been 97 degrees...The Midwest and Northeast have had two of the coldest winters on record in the last two years...Oh I forgot, it's not global warming...It's climate change. 2 summers ago Austin TX area hit 100 degrees in mid may, it is now July 15 and we have still not broken 100 degrees.

 

Thats a fricking lie. The number of weather stations has shrunk because after the fall of the soviet union most of the eastern block weather stations, both geographically in the eastern block and those operated world wide by the eastern block, were mothballed.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/stationhistory_v10.wmv

NOAA is the worst of the worst. These (*)(*)(*)(*) heads are totally corrupt and will tell any lie to serve the cause.

 

People who pay attention to the changes in our environments know that climate is not static. It changes all the time, more greatly in localized areas, but we can still see the trends regarding drought, rainfall, storm strength, ice melt, snow pack, ocean currents, etc.

IMO it makes no difference why climate is changing. If it is changing or trending in a direction that can cause social and economic concern, then we should pay attention and be proactive where we can. Regarding drought and water for example, if we took steps to have too much potable water how could this be a problem to anyone?

After all, humans are just along for the ride and Earth is going to present some challenges from time to time...if we're smart humans we will pay attention to minimize human activities which are negative and take steps to solve some problems before the (*)(*)(*)(*) does hit the fan...

 

Regarding climate change, and peer-reviewed studies...had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science. However, one does not exist.

Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree. And we're talking about tens of thousands of scientists from all over the world...there is no conspiracy!

Regarding NOAA...I suspect they do the best they can do and try to upgrade the collection and reporting of data as applicable. NOAA must evolve exactly as all science evolves...peer reviews, challenges, updating, improved data collection, improved data reporting, data correction, etc. It's a constantly changing science so instead of focusing on small hiccups, focus instead on consensus and long-term trends...

 

My post was about the cause of the station die out 1991-1992.

At no time in your fricking boiler plate list of stupid memes did you even address my (*)(*)(*)(*)ing post.

If you cant address the post then shut up.

 

You also said "NOAA is the worst of the worst. These (*)(*)(*)(*) heads are totally corrupt and will tell any lie to serve the cause." To which I responded whether you like my response or not.

This is my last post on this topic with you because you're a bully. You can read the link below but this won't change your mind...nothing will change your mind...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-are-there-less-weather-stations-and-whats-the-effect.html

 

My question is: How many of you actually do anything about it? I'm no hippy environmentalists, but I do believe in being a caretaker...As I have said before...I am of the nations, my Father grew up on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation SD. I grew up on a farm in Nebraska...I retired from the military in 1996...I have been in over 30 different countries around the world...

So here is some of the things that I do...I bicycle to and from work (my health reasons and exercise), I teach my kids to recycle, I help cull the deer and hogs in the state of
Texas, a lot of that meat is donated to hunters for the hungry to feed the homeless. So what do any of you all do to make the world a better place?

The environmental celebrity Al Gore is why the term "limousine liberal" was coined. It probably costs more to air condition his mansions and yacht than my home costs. Let's not forget Mr. Ted Kennedy who was so for these wind farms until they were going to put one off Martha's Vineyard where his family has a vacation home. Oh we can't have that...Care to ask Mary Jo Kopechne what she thinks of the late Ted Kennedy. In other words. get off your butt, quit whining about the world and do something...organize a beach cleanup or fix up a park where kids have a safe place to play. Help some charity that actually makes a difference here in the US, like Habitat for Humanity.

 

I coined what I call 'the 5%'. It's totally my opinion, but I believe about 5% of the public are involved above and beyond normal duty and the other 95% go about their business not wanting to be bothered by stuff. So for example, 5% of a community will support a local farmer's market, or 5% will support and attend local charitable events, 5% will consider or install solar, 5% have a compost bin, 5% will reduce their carbon footprint, 5% will be as organic as possible, and so on. And, I'm thinking we'll find the same people supporting each of these areas. So if my contention can have some credibility, then the question becomes how can we involve the other 95%?

My wife and I live on acreage in a somewhat rural area and we are in that 5% group. It's a choice of life we make preferring to live the best life now and wanting to leave something decent for those who follow. We prefer clean air to breathe so we are careful about carbon and other emissions. We use well-water, as do all of our neighbors, so we care about pollutants and practices which foul the waterways and aquifers. We care about the use of land, minimizing development, maintaining trees and fauna and wildlife, and preserving this harmony with humans. BUT...it's not free and not always easy or convenient. We spend twice as much to manage our property if we were to use machines and pesticides and herbicides, etc. Supporting the local farmer's market is much more expensive than the average grocery store. And if it's not extra money, there is the extra time involved, and no matter if it's real or perceived, lots of people don't feel they have extra time.

In the US, and other places, personal success and wealth have encouraged large homes, yachts, planes, cars, development, etc. and from an economic perspective this is great! But the downside comes when we start talking about carbon footprints, and in the US, we have the largest carbon footprint in the world! To be fair this is not all caused by Gore or Kennedy but by everyone...

 

You are still not at all going to address NOAA's blatant lie on their website about why station number has decreased. Just some pure catch all fricking boilerplate memes.

The best you can do is scramble for an SS link from those lying bastards. And you are so ignorant you cant even post quotes because you dont fricking understand what you are reading.

You notice that your link to the Skeptical Science Nazi wannabe's winch rests almsot entirely on the lying piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) Tamino actually gives a different fricking a reason than what is given on the NOAA website??? Who what the (*)(*)(*)(*) is it. What can alarmists not keep their *******n stories straight?

 

There is also no paper that proves cAGW either. Papers are ideas and most never are able to stand the test of time. Only a few papers ever have. Currently there are many problems with peer review from the amount of funding that pushes cAGW paying a lot of scientists their salary, to the fact that professors are required to publish, to the human trait that plays to publishing more means more fame, especially if it is cited a lot of times, to the good ole boy network where papers published are reviewed by friends and colleagues.

There are plenty of papers out there showing the correlation of sun to temperature but they are not going to be relayed to the public since cAGW is a lot sexier right now. That is one of the problems now is how media translates a paper to alarmism.

 

Here's what I suggest since you refuse scientific data; Correlate the continued population growth, the continued industrialization, the continued carbon pollution, the finite atmosphere of Earth and in doing this if you believe that mankind is not impacting the global climate system, then I say there's little hope for you in these discussions. When you can believe mankind is effecting climate, then you must also correlate this to global warming, melting ice, sea level change, changing ocean currents, drought, more severe storms, etc. ALL OF WHICH have a direct and negative impact on civilization, economies, and governments. Forget spending a penny to mitigate it...forget being proactive...forget the politics...forget Al Gore and others...it is impossible for anyone with an IQ over 40 to not understand that our current path is not sustainable without horrendous personal and economic pain. Once you can realize this POTENTIAL, then people and governments can decide if there's anything they can do to minimize the pain and suffering. NO ONE, including you, knows where the tipping points are, the point of no return, etc. but thousands of professionals around the world smarter than you and me know for sure that ON OUR CURRENT PATHS, it's not going to be pretty! IMO there is no one solution, not even many solutions but instead mankind will need to take thousands of small solutions in order to slow or reverse our trends. For example, it's preposterous that some believe solar and wind energy can run the world, but, how great it will be if 20% of world energy can be generated by solar and wind. If this can increase to 30-40-50% over the next 50 years then great...IMO it's inexcusable that we don't have solar panels on every new building constructed...even if there is zero climate change I prefer to breathe the emissions from solar over the emissions from coal and this should be common sense...

 

Wood is a material easily processed, machined, and works great to build things and can be utilized by just about anyone with a saw, hammer and fasteners. Figure out how to replace wood with another material of equal cost and use and emissions and you solve the problem of wood. We complain about disappearing forests around the world but how many net new trees do we plant each year in the USA? In my area, where trees grow abundant, they are now fuel for fires, require precious water, and are costly to maintain. No matter cell phones, I'm guessing the number of power/telephone/data poles are increasing each year...

 

Ah, another person that thinks he knows the science but only spouts the political position of global warming.

Never said man does not affect his surroundings, the question is how much. No one even knows if there is a "tipping point", a term made popular by a politician but you have been brainwashed by the hype. Since there is no correlation to individual weather events that rhetorical path is a dead end. Besides, correlation does not mean causation.

 

There was not a single tone of politics in my comments...maybe you can re-read them.

Like I said, it requires an IQ over 40 to understand that "continued population growth, the continued industrialization, the continued carbon pollution, the finite atmosphere of Earth" are not sustainable. Don't really understand why people like you have such biased and political opinions on these types of issues? Do you actually believe Earth can tolerate continued population growth? Do you actually believe Earth can tolerate continued carbon pollution? Do you understand that mankind is effecting the atmosphere? Why are you so frightened to pay attention to the obvious and instead be a contrarian? What can be so horribly wrong with society being informed and being proactive?

Regarding your question about 'how much', and I've offered this suggestion to many others, park your car in your garage, open all the car windows, start your car, select a nice radio channel, recline the seat some and just relax for about 30-40 minutes...it will be interesting to hear your report. Now multiply your garage experience by hundreds of millions or billions of machines around the world spewing carbon emissions 24/7...the answer to your question of 'how much' is we're already spewing too much!

Lastly, I find it to be arrogance and self-serving greed, of those people who refuse to be the best stewards of planet Earth, who refuse to put forth any effort to do better than we are...

 

http://www.newsweek.com/study-confi...-california-drought-disaster-worst-yet-364615

 

Nothing says silly like comparing a parked car in a garage to the non linear chaotic global climate.

 

Sigh, let me know when you find an actual paper that holds up to the test of time. There are not many. Getting your science from a media outlet is like watching Judge Judy to become a lawyer. They should tell us how the 200 year medieval mega-drought in the south west was caused by man.

 

july 2015 was warmest month ever recorded for the globe

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201507

 

Based on a new paper that modified better buoy temperature data up to match more problematic ship engine intake temperatures. Besides, when the alleged warmest year is well within the range of uncertainty what does that really mean? Tell you what it means, media headlines for government which becomes especially important with the upcoming Paris conference and the influence the US government wishes to exert.