Climate Change Politics

The point I have made is, it is significant, something you find strangely confusing. I tried to tell you, if your house is on fire you dont ask how much.

For the majority of us the fact that it is seriously disappearing and may not be here for much longer, is sufficient. When im told the permafrost is in danger of melting, it scares the hell out of me.

These stupid skirmishes on misunderstood emails and the insignificance of them in global terms is stupid when compared with the blatant truths that we see before us. For me it is highly dangerous that these truths are not treated with the utmost urgency.

The point I have made is, it is significant, something you find strangely confusing. I tried to tell you, if your house is on fire you dont ask how much. For the majority of us the fact that it is seriously disappearing and may not be here for much longer, is sufficient. When im told the permafrost is in danger of melting, it scares the hell out of me. These stupid skirmishes on misunderstood emails and the insignificance of them in global terms is stupid when compared with the blatant truths that we see before us. For me it is highly dangerous that these truths are not treated with the utmost urgency.

The summer ice has reduced by 35% over the last two decades

Of course not. But if a known liar tells me that, I don't sell him my house for ten bucks on the spot. In fact, if you personally told me that, I would not believe you, because you're hysterical, perpetually, and have not demonstrated what it takes for me to trust you in any way. If my neighbour told me that, I'd know it was very likely true. I'd assume it was true. But you ? You'd need to work on your "believability "

We have people known to be lying, like Pachauri, on board. So we need to think about who it is that is making the claim that the house is on fire. someone who will gain enormously by telling me that ? Or a neutral, truthful person. You're only doing screaming, and accusing.
of course, it is a scary thought that we don't know what will happen or how bad it could be. Scary thoughts are like that....but don't , xris, equate your fearful thoughts with scientific facts -and push them as if facts, and squeal and snort and throw insults if people do not bow down before your "fear thought".

We need to know factually what is going on. And , as we know, IPPC reports have been in error, non transparent, not disclosing methods, hiding, and so on.

It's now been commented on repeatedly, that all this has to be made public, scientific methodolgy and data cannot be hidden for private reasons any longer.

Im sorry if I became abusive but you can be very evasive in your replies and very frustrating. I do hope I am led by scientific evidence and not spin. I am also aware that actual visible evidence is more convincing than any self interested findings. I am fearful of the future not my future but my grandchildren's. I cant be so circumspect and hope it is all fearful political scaremongering, we cant take that chance.

right. we don't need to insult each other. it's a very serious issue. Which paper says 35 %, lets get down to business and see what the science says, shall we ? I googled 35 % sea ice loss, summer ice 35 %, and others, but i did not find your source of info.

Hey - if anyone else admits to being interested I'll bother to look it up.

You?

Not so much.

Hey - if anyone else admits to being interested I'll bother to look it up.

You?

Not so much.

| Permalink | Reply I can solve ALL of these adjustment problems. It's right there, in the second and fourth graphs on this page:
GHCN Global Gridded Data
All the corrections cross, at zero, in 1906. All we have to do is collect data exactly as it was done then. Since NOAA has determined that 1906 was the high point of temperature collection methodology, and requires no adjustments, all the adjustments we use today must be simply an attempt to reproduce the accuracy our great-grandparents knew. That technology isn't lost. We can still build equipment like they used in that golden age, before our 100 year long technological slide. Then, we can just measure the temperature, and immediately post the undisputed data. No TOB, no UHI, no MMTS. No spending a decade debating whether or not 1998 was REALLY warmer than 1934. Just actual measurements.
Does anyone know Hansen's phone number? This idea should save him a lot of trouble. I'm sure he'll jump on it.

Try reading this .Rapid Climate Change what I would say is look at the results and how long it took. From fully glacier to today's temperatures, took more than a century. Nature has never ever observed such rapid rises.

Nature has never ever observed such rapid rises

rises in temperature: From your view, what this century ? 1 degree or less.

how does that compare with other changes ?

All other rises and the most dramatic, if you read this extensive link, took one degree every thousand years. Their dramatic rises are nothing like we see now.

but the article depends on information such as "varves" if you dig deeper, you find out the problems with each of their methodologies or with sampling or stats or with interpretation.

Treemometers, ice cores, all have problems, as can be seen when you check for chironomid larvae in lakes...if it does not fit what they look for, they do not show it to you. when the larvae study does show what they want to see, they trumpet it. Same with varves, same with just about all of their stuffs.

looking at the graphs may not tell you what happened in a hundred years, all these graphs by necessity are very highly worked over. may not contain the actual variance information on the shorter spans, or longer spans, and you can get anything you want from data by working it over, deleting what you don't like, and by setting start and end points...

Well you have not proven it does occur with such rapidity either. We must assume the worst and believe only catastrophic events cause rapid changes in climate. Can we see these rapid temperature changes occurring without a major event, in recent history, no we cant. Every rapid change has been the result of a natural disaster, as we have had no natural disaster, we must assume its mans activity.

"Peck, you have to consider that since the TAR , there has been a lot of argument re "hockey stick" and the real independence of the inputs to most subsequent analyses is minimal."

Last week, in the wake of the BP fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico, I wondered whether David Eyton, BP Group Vice President, Research and Technology, and former Vice President of BP's Gulf of Mexico Deepwater, didn't or shouldn't have something more important to do than wade through CRU emails - like, say, R&D into blow out preventers.
(And why climate scientists had been silent on the BP presence in this inquiry.)

There was another small puzzle in the Eyton appointment. Unlike most of the other appointees, he didn't seem to be connected to Geoffrey Boulton's Royal Society of Edinburgh or University of Edinburgh.

CNN has been carrying wall-to-wall coverage of the oil spill, with James Carville calling every day for criminal proceedings to be instituted against BP executives, saying that the notorious Louisiana prisons (seen in many American movies) would have a special place for BP CEO Anthony Hayward - who otherwise looks like Mr Bean Visits the Beach. (The situation is very difficult, but Hayward has sure done about as bad a job of dealing with the public as it seems possible to do.)

The answer to the David Eyton mystery lay not in his CV, but in Hayward's CV.
BP appears to be a generous contributor to the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the University of Edinburgh (and Hayward himself personally.) Hayward has a PhD in geology from U of Edinburgh.
On March 2, 2009, Hayward was appointed a Fellow of Boulton's Royal Society of Edinburgh.
On June 29, 2009, Hayward was awarded the Honorary Degree of Doctor of Science from Boulton's University of Edinburgh.

...

What was the claim ? That deniers are funded by Big Oil, right ?