Is the Human Race on a Suicide Mission?

@Glennn,

The consensus of 97% is about right . The deniers have been spreading much disinformation via crowd funding

read the article here

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

no you havent. The GW denialist conspiracy is well written about in the literature. Since youre an admitted 9/11 denialist, GW denial is in agreement with your ways of thinking.

I believe that you deny e were on the moon also??

You were asked to produce data from the AGU. Where is it?

And you're also wrong about me denying that man went to the moon. You have a lot of **** floating around inside your head.

0 Replies

Concerns Raised about Ocean Clean Up Project

Quote:

It is clear from their public statements and from my interview with Lonneke Holierhoek that the Ocean Cleanup team is composed of passionate people who are earnestly trying to help. However, trying to help is not the same thing as helping.

The Ocean Cleanup device will be one of the largest, if not the largest, human-made structures ever placed into the oceans. One would hope that a project like this would be based on the best available science and enjoy the enthusiastic support of most relevant experts, but concerns from the experts I spoke to suggest that this is not the case.

The ocean plastic pollution experts that I spoke to are concerned that this unproven technology is based on an incorrect understanding of the problem, is likely to do a lot of harm to marine life, and diverts attention and resources from solutions that we know work. At best, they believe that this project will do little to solve the ocean plastic pollution problem, and at worst it will take resources and attention away from solutions that really can help. Uncritical media coverage of this controversial project has done a real disservice to the oceans.

sfs

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The consensus of 97% is about right .

Uh huh . . .

True science is empirical and replicated--it constantly probes doubts, investigates, examines, and welcomes dissent. Yet the IPCC did not invite one single person who did not agree with its pre-decided outcome for major reports to review or comment on them. IPCC has published five reports since 1990, the latest being No.5 in 2013. For this No.5 report, it was claimed that a 95% consensus–that global warming is both occurring and man-made–exist, in spite of overwhelming evidence of nil, or minimal natural, warming. Of 11,944 papers considered, only 41of them actually claim global warming is caused by man-made CO2 (that's an alarming or 0.3 of 1%). Those that disproved global warming were dismissed.
___________________________________________________

And to that point:

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

For example:

Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . . It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."
__________________________________________________

Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Nope... it is not an accurate representation . . . "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."
___________________________________________________

Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:

"For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes."

Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.

I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works."
___________________________________________________

I could go on . . .

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Please , of the lists of authors youve clipped above, list those who are NOT funded by oil companies??

1 Reply

@farmerman,

If you have some disparaging comments concerning the authors I've listed here, do tell. Not that that will mean much. After all, the IPCC saw fit to use their papers, albeit misrepresenting their opinions.

In the meantime, here's some more disparaging facts about the IPCC that has somehow gained your loyalty:

The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the --- full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report -- the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate -were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism withwhich many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report's lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_June12.pdf

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Seems like "Andrew" was pretty selective who he e-mailed:

Idso — not a climate scientist, ties to petrochemical industry

Scafetta — discredited physicist

Quote:

"The theory of anthropogenic global warming consists of a set of logically interconnected and consistent hypotheses,” Martin Rypdal said. "This means that if a cornerstone hypothesis is proven to be false, the entire theory fails. A corresponding theory of global warming of solar origin does not exist. What does exist is a set of disconnected, mutually inconsistent, ad hoc hypotheses. If one of these is proven to be false, the typical proponent of solar warming will pull another ad hoc hypothesis out of the hat. This has been the strategy of Scafetta and West over the years, and we have no illusion that our paper will put them to silence. However, the only scientifically valid strategy to confront these new hypotheses is to shoot down every new missile as they come in, using the most advanced weapons at hand. We believe that this operation was successfully accomplished with respect to the complexity linking hypothesis, but there will be many more battles to be fought until the issue of the contribution of solar variability to recent global warming is settled."

source

Shaviv — physicist who pushes the discredited argument that climate change is caused by solar effects which is not particularly compelling:

Quote:

As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

source

All three of these scientists are tied to prominent denialist organizations like the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, GWPF, and industry-affiliated groups. Hardly convincing.

2 Replies

@hightor,

Now explain why the IPCC used their papers, and then dishonestly misrepresented their opinions.

Also, explain why this:

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

. . . doesn't raise any red flags with you concerning the legitimacy of the IPCC. I've already posted the bullshit of the 97% consensus on global warming.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

. . . doesn't raise any red flags with you concerning the legitimacy of the IPCC.

No. It looks as if they are well aware of the politicized nature of the topic. I'd suggest you ask them, not me.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Oh I don't think there would be any point in asking the IPCC why they used, and then deliberately and dishonestly misrepresented, the opinions of those whose papers they used to come up with their 97% consensus bullshit.

Also, you do understand what it means that these passages were included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version, don't you?

-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
____________________________________________________

As reported in Forbes, the following unguarded statement was made by one of the climate crisis industry's loudest drum-beaters, the late Dr. Steven Schneider, lead author of numerous alarming U.N. climate reports and former professor of climatology at Stanford:

We need broad-based support to capture the public's imagination, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

In other words, one of the climate crisis lobby's most loyal sycophants told his like-minded colleagues that they not only must conceal evidence that casts doubt on global warming theory, but also craft their research in dishonest ways designed to create terror in the minds of a trusting public. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that dishonesty and concealment of contrarian views have no place in legitimate science.
____________________________________________________

I'll bet you think that means something about guns, too . . .

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

Also, you do understand what it means that these passages were included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version, don't you?

Yeah, it's obvious that liberals are conspiring to take our gunz.

0 Replies

@hightor,

A lot of this stuff is far too abstractly theoretical for my tastes. The fact is that we can only theorize about the causes of the past climate changes for which we have a geological record, though in many cases the apparent causes are indeed apparent in the geological record itself. The basic drivers for climactic conditions are the occasional asteroid or other major impact; variations in solar intensity; variations in the earth's orbit & axis of rotation; and variations in earth atmospheric conditions & oceanic & atmospheric prevailing currents.

The latter factor is in turn influenced by a number of other, often interconnected, variables and events including volcanism, the effects of green plants in removing CO2 & adding oxygen to the atmosphere, the rate of CO2 extraction by the oceans, and importantly the effects of other gases added to the atmosphere by other factors including mankind ( some such gases have a greenhouse effect, others do the opposite). There are many complex and non-linear feedback loops here in which each of the primary and sub variables listed above affect each other and, as well, the earth's atmosphere and oceans, usually in ways that cannot be accurately predicted because of the highly non linear character of fluid dynamics and the chaos that often results from it.

While we know a lot about the inner workings of the earth, the overall level of volcanism ( a significant factor in some ages) can be detected, but not predicted. Similarly, while we know a lot about the inner workings of the sun, we cannot yet predict future levels of its inner activity, beyond knowing the macro trajectories over time of similarly sized stars and their ultimate fate as red giants.

The net effect is that we cannot calculate the future state of this highly non-linear dynamic system mathematically, or even by numerical integration. We can, however, using assumed limitations and relationships among the above variables create a numerical model to predict a likely future state, and refine the assumptions and assumed limitations as time goes on. However this is done, much is dependent on the assumptions and limitations built into the model, and the quality & completeness of the physical data used to start it. There are many models out there and not all provide the same results and none are yet universally accepted as the answer. This is a simple fact that is usually omitted in these discussions.

Disputes about recent variations or trends are usually resolved by the accumulation of physical evidence and data. Attempting to use a master theory that doesn't exist to argue about different interpretations of such events is a fairly common occurrence in academic circles, where such things are usually fought with remarkable intensity. Henry Kissinger, once when asked why this is so in such academic circles, famously replied , "Because the stakes are so low."

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

What a load of specious old bullsh*t. Do you own energy industry stock in large quantities? Are you employed by the energy industry?

There is a single event of volcanism which can be said to have had a profound effect on climate, and that is the Deccan Traps magma eruption which occurred about 66 million years ago. The amount of sulfur dioxide released into the atmosphere caused the average global temperature to drop about 20 degrees centigrade. This process, however, took place over tens of thousands of years. The Chicxulub meteor impact, which took place tens or even hundreds of thousands of years later, had a far more significant and immediate effect. No other volcanism events have had such an effect. In the period 1812-15, there were five major volcanic eruptions, culminating in and very likely causing the Tambora stratovolano eruption. As a result, global temperatures plunged, temporarily, resulting in what was known as "the year without a summer" in 1816. The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa had a similar, but lesser effect, dropping the global temperature less than one and a half degrees. Neither event had any long term effect on the warming trend in our climate which began in the early 18th century/

Hightor has already addressed the impact of the industrial and agricultural use of nitrogen compounds on the atmosphere. All I see you doing is throwing out vague objections. Because you only have a vague understanding of volcanism, the atmosphere and climate is no reason to allege that no one else understands it.

The climate is getting warmer. It will continue to get warmer over the next five hundred to eight hundred years. Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere cannot reasonably be said to have caused what is clearly a naturally occurring cycle, but it is stark, staring stupidity to do so, and only greedy capitalists are in favor of continuing to do so. Except of course for politicians who hope to personally profit--hmmm . . . Plump wants us to burn more coal; the Senate majority leader is from a coald producing state. Oh, but surely that's just coincidence.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You are asting your energy on a straw man of your own creation.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

That's just more of your bullsh*t.

You wrote:

A lot of this stuff is far too abstractly theoretical for my tastes. The fact is that we can only theorize about the causes of the past climate changes for which we have a geological record, though in many cases the apparent causes are indeed apparent in the geological record itself. The basic drivers for climactic conditions are the occasional asteroid or other major impact; variations in solar intensity; variations in the earth's orbit & axis of rotation; and variations in earth atmospheric conditions & oceanic & atmospheric prevailing currents.

The latter factor is in turn influenced by a number of other, often interconnected, variables and events including volcanism, the effects of green plants in removing CO2 & adding oxygen to the atmosphere, the rate of CO2 extraction by the oceans, and importantly the effects of other gases added to the atmosphere by other factors including mankind ( some such gases have a greenhouse effect, others do the opposite). There are many complex and non-linear feedback loops here in which each of the primary and sub variables listed above affect each other and, as well, the earth's atmosphere and oceans, usually in ways that cannot be accurately predicted because of the highly non linear character of fluid dynamics and the chaos that often results from it.

While we know a lot about the inner workings of the earth, the overall level of volcanism ( a significant factor in some ages) can be detected, but not predicted. Similarly, while we know a lot about the inner workings of the sun, we cannot yet predict future levels of its inner activity, beyond knowing the macro trajectories over time of similarly sized stars and their ultimate fate as red giants.

That was a U.S. Standard shitload of vague claims on your part. The straw men here have been erected by you. You make a series of claims, for which you provide not a shred of evidence.

1 Reply

Merry Christmass to all the liars and the fools — and to the men and women of good will, if any one is still around.

0 Replies

Nowadays, adaptation to climate change becomes just as critical as mitigation (reducing GHG emissions). A few ideas from the second French national adaptation plan, just published. Baby steps I guess:

- Acquisition of 6 more Canadair water bombers (by 2050, 50% of French natural areas will be subject to fire risk).
- Reinforce weather surveilance with the deployment of 5 new radars by 2021, and extend the alert and information system for overseas populations with 15 new sirens deployed in the West Indies.
- Review all technical standards (eg for housing) to take into account the future climate.
- Identify at-risk territories and environments by publishing a reference book on the expected impacts of climate change in France.
- An adaptation resource center to facilitate the sharing of good practices and measure France's progress in adapting to climate change
- Disseminate prevention messages to medical students (only 4% of older French people think they are at risk during heat waves).
- Integrate the theme of climate change and adaptation in school curricula.
- Conduct a study on the obstacles to the local mobilization of dedicated European funds (2% spent).
- Establish economic forecasts to identify the sectors at risk and accompanying measures (especially tourism).
- Create new decision support tools in the forestry sector (what species to plant today?).

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Nowadays, adaptation to climate change becomes just as critical as mitigation (reducing GHG emissions). A few ideas from the second French national adaptation plan, just published. Baby steps I guess:

- Acquisition of 6 more Canadair water bombers (by 2050, 50% of French natural areas will be subject to fire risk).
- Reinforce weather surveilance with the deployment of 5 new radars by 2021, and extend the alert and information system for overseas populations with 15 new sirens deployed in the West Indies.
- Review all technical standards (eg for housing) to take into account the future climate.
- Identify at-risk territories and environments by publishing a reference book on the expected impacts of climate change in France.
- An adaptation resource center to facilitate the sharing of good practices and measure France's progress in adapting to climate change
- Disseminate prevention messages to medical students (only 4% of older French people think they are at risk during heat waves).
- Integrate the theme of climate change and adaptation in school curricula.
- Conduct a study on the obstacles to the local mobilization of dedicated European funds (2% spent).
- Establish economic forecasts to identify the sectors at risk and accompanying measures (especially tourism).
- Create new decision support tools in the forestry sector (what species to plant today?).

What if adaptation contributes to climate change?

2 Replies

@livinglava,

I would think much of these adaptation strategies are climate-neutral, or with negligeable footprint.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

What if adaptation contributes to climate change?

What gives you the idea that any of these measures would contribute to the current global heating trend? Explain how any one or all of these measures adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

0 Replies

Is the Human Race on a Suicide Mission?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know