Slashdot Mirror
Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources Site No Longer Says Humans Cause Climate Change (theverge.com)
The website of Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources has been updated with new language and no longer says that humans and greenhouse emissions cause climate change. Instead, the site says that the causes of global warming "are being debated and researched by academic entities." The problem is that almost all climate scientists agree that human-made greenhouse gases are responsible for climate change, and that global warming is a big issue that needs to be addressed. Prior to the revision, the site said "human activities that increase heat-trapping ("green house") gases are the main cause." The Verge reports: DNR spokesperson Jim Dick told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel in an email that the "updated page reflects our position on this topic that we have communicated for years, that our agency regularly must respond to a variety of environmental and human stressors from drought, flooding, wind events to changing demographics." This does not address the question of why the new language implies that we do not know what causes climate change. This is the latest anti-environment move from Wisconsin's government, which has de-emphasized global warming since Republican Gov. Scott Walker took office in 2011. So far, Wisconsin is the only state that appears to be revising its website, but more states could follow suit now that it's clear climate science will be attacked under President-elect Donald Trump.
We know how to deal with their kind around here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I did not read the article, but the website does not say that the causes of "global warming" are being debated, just unspecified changes, of which global warming is only a portion. I doubt I need to point out also that global warming and climate change are not the same thing, but there you go.
In Florida, governor Rick Scott issued an edict that state employees can't say "climate change" or "global warming".
In Wisconsin, governor Scott Walker scrubs all mention of humanity's role in climate change from state websites.
From here on out, I'm not trusting anyone named Scott.
Good enough for me! Sounds like good, trustworthy science.
If you repeat a lie long enough it becomes fact.
doesn't matter since the scientists have vote. They say it exists.
This is what happens when the news tries to show balanced coverage on a topic where there is so much scientific consensus on a topic. The broadcaster brings in a scientist who is an expert in the field to explain why they believe climate change is happening and they start to go on about probability which sounds like they really aren't that sure about it at all. In reality with the numbers they are reaching the scientists would most likely bet their homes on it. Yet in the "interest of balance" the broadcaster brings on the skeptic who works in a different field and talks in absolutes. So the viewer thinks that the issue is really much more like 50/50 and it's even worse because only the skeptic is convinced in their work.
If the news were to show you what the climate science was really like then you would rarely see a denier debating a scientist. Same thing for the vaccinations.
And if you think the scientists aren't trying to disprove climate change you can think again. They would all love to find out that man-made climate change was wrong because it would be an easy Nobel Prize for showing what it was.
The stupid people are in charge now. It takes a special level of stupitidy to deny teh greenhouse effect.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
People have made up their mind and no amount of evidence could sway them, so why bother?
Reality or facts don't really matter anymore, do they? People won't believe anything that doesn't fit their personal reality bubble anyway, so why bother trying to convince them? Evidence doesn't matter anymore, especially in areas that are hard to understand in the first place and people are quite unwilling to learn.
I stopped trying and caring a long ago. I have no kids. I am old enough that any climate change will only hit big time after I'm long dead. Trash this planet any way you like, I don't give a shit anymore. If you can't be assed to care about your planet, why should I, and why should I try to make you care?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Untrue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
If there's one variable that affects the Earth's climate, it's the output of the Sun. If there's a second variable that affects the Earth's climate, it's the kinematics of the Earth about the Sun. Neither should be considered constant. The real hoax was that climate is constant, predictable, and controllable. The real debate should be whether civilization is prepared for a unpredictable, Climate change alarmists are doubling down on more command and control.
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
his backers just wanted something to change.
they will probably get their wish. sort of.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
... the incidents of brown noses is expected to rise dramatically after January 20, 2017.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Thank you Wisconsin. I do enjoy your cheese.
Five-Step Program to Greatness
1. Trump references the Wisconson website and takes credit for fixing climate change in a 3 am tweet.
2. Kellyanne Conway goes on Sunday talk shows to deny climate change exists.
3. Trump doubles down and claims the Clintons created the problem with all that darned economic growth in the 90s.
4. Putin publicly thanks Trump and Exxon for helping him annex climate change.
5. America is somehow great again.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
before the sea level rise reaches Wisconsin
You attribute way too much power to the president. The banking cartel calls most of the shots, with the rest called by a few other industry cartels.
Things will be fine under Trump. Just chill out. You can't control the world, and life will be easier to cope with if you don't try.
I hear it's pretty cold this time of year in 'Sconsin to be standing in line for unemployment benefits.
There people here and also in the Faculty Senate at the "U" who simply won't be happy until we are all reduced to eating birdseed, pedaling to work in the snow, and having the lights flicker on or off depending on how hard the wind is blowing.
People don't want that. We like our rich diet powered by Wisconsin dairy cows and enjoy driving our SUVs, powered by fuel liberated from the ground by good ol' Wisconsin frack sand that you see trundling off to Williston in railroad hopper cars.
Look, people, this whole "fracking" business is the outcome of the government or government-sponsored research. And the boom in natural gas is replacing coal and achieving significant greenhouse gas emission reductions that way.
But go ahead, speak "truth to power", scold the people who control your tuition rates and ever diminishing state support with "if you repeat a lie long enough it becomes a fact." Yes, call the Governor a liar. Maybe he is, but forget about political compromise (such as fracked natural gas as a less greenhouse gas-emitting solution). Call the Governor a liar, and an ignoramus, and an Enemy of the Environment. Keep true to your principles, don't give an inch, and remind yourself of your righteousness when the whole University falls apart.
http://climatechangedispatch.c...
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
The website has not changed. It has always said that.
We have always been at war with the Mujahideen, and allies of Glorious Comrade Putin.
Climate researchers massaged data with buggy code, then deleted the original data.
Much more worrying was the reaction of the scientific community to the exposure of the undisclosed data and fudged reports. Instead of criticizing their behaviour, they almost universally rallied around them and defended their actions, just like they had earlier defended the wild exaggerations in the first IPCC report. Science needs more integrity and less groupthink.
Apparently some climatologists are convinced that exaggeration and alarmism are justified to push the public into action. But by eroding their own credibility, they are having the opposite effect. Climate Change is an important issue, and needs to be taken seriously by everyone.
It is beyond my capacity to grasp that anyone can be such a coward or married to an idiotic philosophy that they simply can not face truth. We are, right now, in huge trouble due to the global warming that has already occurred and we know full well that it is going to get much worse. Our weather is destroying our ability to raise crops and livestock, our oceans are almost lifeless and we are being contaminated with all kinds of poisons that wreck health and rob people of their lives. Many of these nay sayers can accept the fact that termites have a big influence on environment and that algae also is a big player, yet somehow they fail to be able to face off against the fact that humans are having massive impacts on every facet of nature including temperatures in our air and in our waters. People fear that they, or their lifestyle, will be lessened, displaced or eliminated. Somehow that fear causes them to become a mob of brain dead fools. That in turn assures that their lives and lifestyles will fall even faster and deeper.
And who/what's fault is that. There really isn't that much that needs to be known. It's not really that hard to grasp the concept of greenhouse gasses. Of course, they did a lousy job of educating people in the years of their lives they were in K-12. Remedial education is in order. Maybe even medication. Though health and mental health is also something that a poor job has been done on.
Forget Trump. Well not exactly. He't not really that much better or worse than any of our regular crop of office-seekers. They are all actually shrouded in a cloud of mystery, Trump included. In fact, I take exception to the concept of "conflict of interest". I also take exception to the notion that a republic is in any way clearly any better than the results to be had at the hands of a direct democracy. We need to be doing far more studying of the situation we are in than we have been. We are still fearful of shadows, to the extent that we are more fearful of them then actual problems.
Climate change is creating new challenges in our ability to raise crops and livestock. Certain conditions are making areas harder to do agriculture in and there are others in which it may be becoming easier. Our understanding of the world around us is growing and while there are some missteps, we are gaining in technology to overcome those challenges. Some of us argue that the only way forward is to go back in certain areas.
I have yet to hear that the entirety of our oceans are lifeless, merely that there are dead zones. We can study and reverse the situation. More importantly though is that aquaculture is a thing.
I want us to take control of our reality and ourselves. Some people just want to be wild, though.
Your message was better stated in the original script:
"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."
...they've just started that campaign against "Fake News"?
-Styopa
Well, at least NASA's site still says its humans.
see here
and to be honest I think more people would trust NASA than the State of Wisconsin or whatever.
To be honest I'm a little surprised and a lot pleased that the NASA site clearly lays out its humans that are the cause. Yeah, yeah, we'll see what happens with the new administration, but no matter what a lot of Slashdotters think I still have a lot of respect for the individual scientists and engineers at NASA.
"You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
As it has done for decades, our loved one's body is undergoing changes. The reasons for these changes are a matter of discussion.
Whatever the causes, our loved one remained "DNR" to the end.
We will unfortunately be required by law to soon inter the remains thus ending the debate.
"Always be closing" my friend. Always be closing.
Since you refuse to look at the evidence for yourself, the eight major investigations that cleared CRU of any scientific misconduct include:
- House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact"
- Independent Climate Change Review: "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
- International Science Assessment Panel: "We found absolutely no evidence of impropriety whatsoever"
- Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel: "Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community"
- United States Environmental Protection Agency: CRU critics came to "faulty scientific conclusions" and "resorted to hyperbole."
- Department of Commerce: "We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures"
- National Science Foundation: "We found no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence."
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I don't know if you were around in the 1960s, or 1970s, or 1980s, or 1990s, or even the 2000s, but during all of those time periods we saw all sorts of dire predictions from environmentalists.
In the 1960s and the 1970s it was claimed that another ice age was on the way. There were fears of global cooling, and it was going to happen by the 1980s. Then the 1980s hit, there was no ice age, and the global warming claims started to arise.
In the 1980s we'd be told stuff like most major coastal cities would be under water by 2000, and life as we knew it couldn't possibly continue. Well, here we are 20 years after they predicted the world would essentially end, and things actually aren't much different at all.
Seeing as nothing happened by 2000, we've now seen a shift away from the more specific "global warming" terminology to the much vaguer "climate change" terminology. This way they can claim that any sort of natural fluctuation is evidence that they're right.
When these people have been wrong decade after decade, it gets to the point where it's so hard to take them seriously. Given how many of their past doom-and-gloom predictions haven't turned out to be right, I can only believe that their current and future claims are just as likely to not happen.
The only thing I fear is that future generations will have to keep putting up with these nonsense claims about impending disasters that never end up happening.
Thank you, right wing, for your always atrocious spelling, so as to flag your posts and your terrible thinking in a way that allows us to easily ignore them.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Apparently some climatologists are convinced that exaggeration and alarmism are justified to push the public into action. But by eroding their own credibility,
You seem to miss the fact that climate change researchers and the IPCC are downplaying their predictions and concerns since decades to "not sound alarmist".
That is why we get more concerned voices lately because the "scientific community" does not longer want to downplay it.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You seem to miss the fact that climate change researchers and the IPCC are downplaying their predictions and concerns since decades to "not sound alarmist".
The first IPCC report did not downplay anything. Subsequent reports may have, possibly in an attempt to re-establish some credibility. But scientists should not be be downplaying, exaggerating, or anything else to hide or twist the facts. They should be seeking and reporting the unbiased truth.
A bunch of academics found no fault with a bunch of academics. W o W
If you agree with the consensus, it seems really stupid to me to really harp on scientists. Should we be looking at politicians or religious leaders to lead by example here, or?
"Old man yells at systemd"
Stop and think for a moment.
You have already reached your conclusion, and you will only accept a change to that conclusion (if even then) should someone with a vested interest in YOUR OWN CONCLUSION says it isn't so.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/playli...
It's about the best available evidence.
People clearly misunderstand this because they keep saying things like "Scientists used to believe X, but now they believe Y," as proof that scientists don't have the capital-T Truth. And they're right. They're just missing the point. The problem with Truth is that it's inaccessible. Unless you're God, you're missing big parts of it. Mortals don't have the Truth, we only have evidence, and not all the evidence there is.
So you have to decide what is the best basis for making decisions that affect society as a whole, the one that appeals to your gut feelings about the Truth, or the one supported by the best evidence we have so far. Sure evidence based policy means you have to change your mind sometimes; but not knowing everything isn't the moral equivalent of knowing nothing.
As for "consensus", well, that's not what people think it is either. It's not a declaration of truth, it's a general agreement as to where the burden of proof lies. If you want to claim that humans hunted T. Rex you're going to need very strong evidence to back that up. Someone who claims T. Rex was extinct before humans doesn't need to back that up at all. It's discrimiantion, but it's fair and reasonable discrimination. Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence.
It doesn't matter what a scientist believes, it only matters what he can prove. That's why it's a bad idea to go shopping for a scientist who believes what you want to be true: chances are you'll find one. Science used this way has no probative value. Of course you can argue against the scientific consensus as a basis for public policy if you want, but to show that that is rational you'll need to provide justification for why your preferred scientist is right, and that means seriously studying the field so you can mount the same kind of technical critique of evidence that a professional in the field could. Otherwise you're just scientist shopping.
The opinion of the overwhelming majority of experts working in the field may not be God's-own-Truth, but it's the best starting place for policy. It has at least the benefit that it can't tell you whatever you want to hear.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If you're a billionaire you can pretty much do what you want with enough trolls on social media. To quote George Orwell:
He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.
Recent ignorance towards human driven climate change is stupid and money will probably not fix the damage.
Why UNIX?
The models reflect the historical climate accurately.
So there is a very high probability that those same models predictions of future climate are also reasonably accurate.
They use all that data to build and test the models.
You read armchair conspiracy nuts rantings on a field they don't even understand, much less have a decade or more of professional experience in.
Over 90% of the worlds climatologists agree on Global Warming, and that's amazing! If you put 4 scientists from virtually any field together in one room, they'll almost always start arguing. That's part of their jobs! Yes, arguing with each other. They do it more politely and professionally than their neighbors, but they try to tear down everyones ideas. Those ideas only stand if they can withstand the intellectual assault.
Global Warming has been standing for a VERY long time despite so many people, not the least of which is the climatologists themselves, trying to knock it down.
And you're relying on some bozo that hasn't even earned a degree in climatology.
That's just wow. You should really learn how to vet your sources.
You are lying about being a paid shill that is for sure. See I can shout unsubstantiated claims about lying without any evidence just like you. Have a nice day shill.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
This is more of an addendum to the just-above msg, than a reply.
Fact One: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It is more transparent to frequencies of visible light than frequencies of infrared light.
Fact Two: The total content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing as a result of human activities. The two largest sources are the burning of fossil fuels, and the production of concrete.
Fact Three: The exact amount of greenhouse effect of existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is unknown. We only know that it must be some magnitude greater than zero. See Fact One.
Fact Four: Adding still-more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can only increase the existing greenhouse effect. See Fact One.
Question: On what basis could it be called a "good thing" to keep increasing the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
We can deny the reality of, well, reality as much as we like, but it is still reality. Climate change is real, and humans being the cause is real, even if it makes you uncomfortable.
BTW: The subject line is the motto of Galileo Academy of Science and Technology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Academy_of_Science_and_Technology) - according this is what Galileo said on the way out, after having been ordered to deny that Earth moves around the Sun: "And yet it moves".
The lengths we as a species go to uncover new depths to our sleaziness is mind-boggling.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
A bunch of academics found no fault with a bunch of academics.
Yours is the worst kind of tribalistic nihilism.
The idea that "academics" is a singular group that are so dedicated to supporting their tribe that they would brook no dissent is a recipe for denying any and all evidence that you disagree with.
Its also a confession of character — that you will not accept any dissent that goes against the orthodoxy of whatever tribe you believe yourself to be a part of, regardless of the truth. So now that you've admitted to being intellectually dishonest, why should we trust anything you say?
When Muller was going to look into the data, deniers like the OP were going to accept what Muller found, no matter what. And Muller had a vested interest in doing so: fame and getting back at Mann. When Muller said that it was vlid, that he now agreed that the warming is taking place as said, deniers like the OP refused to accept that conclusion and insisted that Muller was NEVER actually a skeptic, and was bought and paid for by the conspiracy all along.
We have no evidence that people like the OP will ever change their conclusion, except when they're told their conclusion is right.
You seem to miss the fact that climate change researchers and the IPCC are downplaying their predictions and concerns since decades to "not sound alarmist".
The first IPCC report did not downplay anything. Subsequent reports may have, possibly in an attempt to re-establish some credibility. But scientists should not be be downplaying, exaggerating, or anything else to hide or twist the facts. They should be seeking and reporting the unbiased truth.
I agree with you, but imagine this situation:
You are in a train speeding up constantly on a circular track, You start researching the situation and realize that if it continues like that, the train will fall over, people will die and be wounded.
You make a nice neutral exposé with facts and start telling people, saying that we show at least stop speeding up, and probably speed down, but most people in the train don't give a fuck, plenty of them actually like speeding up. You try to tell the drivers, but they don't care much either. Worse, that fat rich guy who bought enough airbags and health insurance to survive the crash start paying the drivers to ignore you, and start paying people to spread rumors dicrediting you and your research.
You continue to try conving people, and you actually manage to convince some. Other people do research and reach the same conclusions, yet the rich guy continues his effort to keep the train speeding, the drivers mostly don't give a shit either. Time pass, the train lifted some of its wheels, and some people actually fell off and died.
The train is still speeding up. At that point, it's no surprise if you start sounding alarming and add in big red "WE WILL ALL DIE IF WE DON'T SLOW!" in your exposé.
A bunch of academics found no fault with a bunch of academics. W o W
You know what is the dream of any scientist? Have their name immortalized in History next to Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Euler, Curie, Mendeleev, etc.
You know how to do it? You prove the scientific consensus is wrong. If scientists could prove the current theories on climate change are wrong, they'll be all over it.
You don't have to 'trust' academics. You can read the reports yourself, look at the emails themselves, and determine whether the reports make sense, or whether the misconduct actually seems bad. To me, threatening to 'change peer review' to keep out papers you don't like is prima facie bad.
Blind trust is academics (or anyone) is foolish.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You don't understand that agreeing is losing in science.
Looks to me like somebody is going for a higher-paid job in Trumps brave new administration.
No sig today...
The US is the #2 producer of oil. There is no good reason for a conspiracy of that magnitude when we could just drill more and drive down the price even lower if geopolitics was the objective.
Moreover, science is international, how did the US hoodwink virtually the entire climate science community?
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
Hold on. The "sceptics" are mainly Conservative
And the believers are mainly liberal. Liberals are the ones who think Russia literally hacked our voting machines. What difference does it make whether one side is liberal or conservative? The only thing that matters is the science, not who 'believes' what.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If you'd bothered looking at any of those links, you'd have seen that half of them are to statements by government organizations that are filled with politicians and bureaucrats which are about as far from academics as you can get.
that's right.
its all a conspiracy by the world's academics to make the world a better place by reducing pollution.
thank god we have you to save us from them.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Is it really that simple? Just ignore facts and deny reality and all problems go away? Maybe the ignorant Republicans are on to something...
I think you might bnefit from reading this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Tribalism rarely rears its ugly head in academia to the extent you see it in other disciplines and industries. The colleague and confidant of the academic is knowledge, other humans are a tool to converse with knowledge. Knowledge is their "tribe" more than the people they work with.
Not saying tribalism doesn't show up from time to time, but it's not like finance buddies protecting finance buddies.
The first IPCC report did not downplay anything...
It looks like the projections from the first IPCC report were pretty darn good. Of course, this was published in 2013. A lot has happened since then that may make the projections look a little on the low side.
It will suffer the affects of Climate Change more than the coastal states even with the problem of the oceans rising.
Question: On what basis could it be called a "good thing" to keep increasing the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
I'll take a stab at this. I believe climate change is happening, is man-made, and will cause widespread problems over the next century. I believe we should stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
However, in terms of earth's entire history, we're in a very low-CO2 period. (See the graph here http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...)
If I were to play devil's advocate, I'd express concern that Earth has been slowly sequestering its CO2 stores, and may not stop until it's all gone. The graph certainly seems to imply that, and intuitively it makes sense. It is more likely for organic matter to be permanently buried than for buried matter to be returned to the atmosphere. Meteor strikes and volcanic action are the only ones I can think of.
Potential benefits of higher CO2 and temperatures (benefits for non-human ecosystems, that is) are faster plant growth and further distribution of rainwater as there are more hurricanes and storm-intensity rises in general.
Last post!
Meet the New EPA Fracking Report, Same as the Old EPA Fracking Report.
Science news is of interest to nerds. When politicians start misrepresenting science that is also of interest.
I think it's dangerous that the masses are being told that we should believe climate change is caused by man simply because the "consensus among scientists" is pointing to that direction.
You shouldn't. "Scientific consensus" is misleading because it's the wrong phrase. Scientists didn't get together and agree that green is the best color. That's utter nonsense and shouldn't be accepted by anyone. Rather, climatologists have arrived at a consilience of evidence. Many varied experiments have converged to the same result, over and over and over again.
* Green paint in hospitals correlates to faster healing of patients. .
* Students in classrooms with green chairs achieve better test scores.
* Football teams wearing green jerseys win more games.
* Tax forms filled out in green ink are audited less often by the IRS.
* Moths with green spots on their wings produce more offspring.
* . .
As the evidence from more and more experiments point to the same conclusion, we don't need detailed models of how many points green walls will shave off the recidivism of parolees—and if the model predicts 2.1729 but we measure 2.1726 it's wrong. Rather, it has simply become utterly clear that green is the superior color. Not because painters took a vote but because the evidence is overwhelming.
As an aside, the model for the strength gravity will only be accurate at one specific altitude, and even then will vary across the surface of the Earth due to the thickness of the crust and the density of magma beneath it. Your exacting requirement for proof of climate change would stop you from leaving your house in the morning if applied to gravity for fear of spontaneously flying off into outer space.
Get a grip, literally!
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Keep in mind that there are millions of Americans who believe it doesn't matter because of rapture.
That's quite a large claim to make - which probably explains your down-mod. I did a search for this.
Can you provide a link showing that the reasons millions of Americans don't believe in global warming is due to the rapture?
This. If scientists discovered that [problem X] was no longer a major concern, they would devote their attention to something else.
But oh no, major conspiracy, scientists have vested interests in maintaining a lie for the sake of their careers. BULLSHIT. Scientists are very much interested in the truth. They are trained to seek it, uncover it, present it, and call their colleagues on any attempts to hide it.
The problem is that scientists discover things that are very uncomfortable for certain interests who have lots of money at stake. And those interests spend their money on attempting to discredit what scientists discover.
Scientists are people too, with the same egos, prejudices, fears, and irrational beliefs the rest of us have. Ideally, through honest application of their work, they can filter out these human elements and present to the rest of us objective facts. However, I think any of us who are widely read and have been paying attention know that there is quite a lot of 'standard' human behavior that occurs in scientific circles.
So, perhaps they are trained as you say, but one cannot claim they act as they are trained in a fully consistent manner. So no, scientists aren't some breed of ultra-rational super humans. Stop pretending someone is above suspicion just because they claim the title 'scientist.'
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
What evidence do you have to support your claim? Have you done any studies on climate change? Do you have a model to back up what you say? Please publish it if you do so we won't be so worried about the changing climate.
I've read about the science from reputable sources and I have somewhat of a science background myself but even if I didn't believe in that, my own common sense suggests that it's more than likely that climate change is real. Why would I think that? We're burning millions of tonnes of fossil fuels everyday that nature has locked away in our planet for millions of years. Fossil Fuels in nature isn't remotely being produced at the same rate, our entire human species hasn't even remotely been around that long and somehow out of some miracle releasing that much carbon into the atmosphere by some miracle isn't have some effect? It's like saying oh well I'll just cut down the whole forest, it grows back right, no loss? The amount of energy Fossil Fuels release is incredible, I'm sure you've heard or thought of the expression you can't move mountains. Well the truth is we can and we do, thanks to this "cheap" energy, our mining equipment can actually move mountains. The problem is nothing is truly "cheap", there's always a cost even if we can't directly see it.
I also dislike the folks who panic and say the world is ending. The world isn't going to end with climate change but it's going to get expensive and uncomfortable for us. For my city it already has, they've had to spend millions for upgrading the storm sewer system to deal with a massive increase in nasty downpours in the last few years to hopefully prevent flooding and while yes I'm sure we've had this sort of flash flooding before, I've lived here long enough to notice that it seems to be an increasing trend. No amount of no it's not happening is going to save folks from being flooded. It's ended up putting the city in debt but no one thinks of it that way. All folks argue about is how taxes are going up.
Oh really? Been to Florida lately? Perhaps in the 80s, we were worried about a nuclear winter, when so many nuclear weapons could have been used and the fallout could last for years or decades, causing global cooling. That is a big deal.
I guess you only accept MSNBC, Huffington Post, CNN, NPR, and/or PBS as credible sources? Lord forbid you look at anything outside your bubble
"Don't you think it is time to fix your corrupt politics to look after the voters instead of donor corporations?"
It is naïve to think this is driven by "donor corporations." The donor corporations are on board with making the compromises you speak of. And what do you mean fracking is not regulated in America? It is indeed regulated -- under the Federal system, there are states that allow it and states that outlaw it outright -- there does not seem to be any political middle ground that you speak of.
This is driven by voter pushback against what is perceived to be the agenda of the crunchies (USian term-of-art meaning "granola-eating" for knitted yogurt uneducated environmentalist activists, only they are far from uneducated as they hold college degrees, but they are resentful that their degrees do not merit them more highly paying occupations) on Mifflin and Williamson streets (place names in Madison, the capital city of the State of Wisconsin, United States of America). People who don't want nuclear power or fracking in any form and a whole bunch of other things. People who associate all of that with the "U", which has slashed our budget in very legislative term.
Politics is not about "truth", it is about voters "feelings." If you want to advance the agenda of reducing CO2 emissions, you are going to have to do a much better job "triangulating" than "Kill millions of brown people through seal level rise in places like Bangladesh."
The people in Wisconsin outside Madison aren't motivated by being scolded that they are callous to the projected deaths of millions of people, that is, according to a worst-case scenario that the U.K. had fact-checked from "An Inconvenient Truth", deciding on showing it in their schools with a disclaimer. Adding "brown people" is also indirectly claiming that the callousness stems from the affected persons being of a different race. The sum total of such criticisms is 1) not helping fund the University of Wisconsin-Madison in educating and conducting research benefiting our state, and 2) helping the vulnerable people in low-lying Bangladesh.
Is "knitted yogurt uneducated environmentalist activists" a U.K. term?
Wisconsin outside the major cities? Think of rural Austria. The politics are not driven by corporations.
Maybe I'm just bored to death, but I just wanted to do simple ballpark estimation on CO2.
The current world oil consumption is 90 billion barrels a day. Burning the processed products of a barrel of crude oil releases about 300kg of CO2. Which means we release about 1e13kg of CO2 each year (10 billion tons).
Now the mass of the total atmosphere is about 5e18kg, which puts our production of CO2 (for oil alone!) at about 2e-6 of the total mass or 2ppm. In comparison the concentration of CO2 is currently of 400ppm. So if every CO2 kg we produce from oil were to go into the atmosphere, we would be inducing a 0.5% change per year. That definitely at significant man made change.
Now, not all of the CO2 stays into the atmosphere (some dissolve into the ocean causing acidification) which should lower our figure. But we didn't take into account gas and coal. All in all, in this ballpark estimate, we can say that man made CO2 should be in the order of 1ppm (probably less than 5, probably more than 0.5).
Now guess what, CO2 level in the atmosphere have been rising by about 2ppm per year in the last few years, which means that all of it is probably due to us burning things. It's frightening to see we are changing the atmosphere of our planet so quickly.
now, a second calculation. If we were to try to trap this CO2 in plants, how much area would be needed? Well corn or oat have a pretty good biomass per square meter, around 1 kg per m^2. If we were able to perform direct conversion of CO2 mass into corn, we would need 1e13 m^2 or equivalently 10 million square kilometers. To put into perspective, that's about the size of Canada entirely covered with corn, no city, no road, no tree. And that's without taking into account the other elements needed to make a plant, only the CO2. So yeah, we're not going to trap these anywhere.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
Can you provide a link showing that the reasons millions of Americans don't believe in global warming is due to the rapture?
He didn't say that those Americans didn't believe in global warming - He said that they believed it didn't matter. I suppose that if you believe that we're on the cusp of being teleported off this rock, you don't care what happens to it. I don't know how many people feel that way strongly enough to ignore the environment, but it's an important difference.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
God said in the first book of Genesis to take care of the earth, period! ..Pollution kills people so where is the "thou shall not kill"?? Guess they were sleeping in bible class when that was said. Has the rapture happened yet? NO? The get back to fixing the problems of this world! And quit goofing off!!
When people write a statement such as this subject, it is not surprising that there is so much confusion and misunderstanding, leading to heat with no light. Any logical person considering that climate change has always occurred, since long before there were humans, should be able to construct a sentence that expresses the thought that s/he is trying to convey, in a more nuance manner which would contain at least a modicum of truth.
If their God does exist, a lot of them are going to be very disappointed.
This is not remarkable considering only 42% of Americans believe APG is real.
The remarkable thing is slashdot gets all deranged about things like this.
One, commonly used map projections make things look larger near the poles.
Two, rock which is bare or has only a few inches of crappy soil is not great for farming.
Three, there is (as the name implies) another hemisphere.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The most correct distinction to make about climate change vs global warming is to distinguish between the overturning of the theory that the climate was cyclical and self-moderating, and the subsequent understanding that not only could it be changed, that it is being changed, and that human activity is the primary cause. The idea that the climate was (somehow) static persisted through the 1950s. I found a textbook the other day printed in that year which explicitly dismissed CO2 as a source of warming, and Callendar 1949 ("CAN CARBON DIOXIDE INFLUENCE CLIMATE?") paints an equally explicit picture of the theory's "chequered history". Evidence for ice ages of course had been known since the early 19th century, and were widely accepted by the latter half of that century, so there were many theories of climate change which did not discuss warming, and indeed Arrhenius' foundational 1896 paper presents the warming scenario merely for comparison.
There is absolutely a difference between "climate change" and "global warming", and both concepts did have to establish themselves separately. One imagines that it is still possible to research paleoclimate without necessarily taking explicit note of ongoing climatic changes. However, the study of the current climate is synonymous with the study of global warming.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
That chart shows that CO2 levels have not been elevated for some fifty million years. Very few species currently on Earth evolved under high-CO2 conditions, and that can especially be considered true for modern farming varietals, which tend to be genetically distinct from wild plants. Modern experiments with high-CO2 farming show decreases in growth above 1200ppm for most species,
And to the sibling poster, do any amount of research into the results of melting permafrost. It would be easier to farm the Sahara than the tundra under any climactic conditions.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Disproving AGW would at this point require new physics, so there's not a lot of research towards it.There's a similarly distressing lack of research into over-unity devices and anti-gravity boots. It seems that after 150+ years the physics of CO2 are pretty well established. Did you know that AGW was completely discredited up until the mid 50s? Somehow the entire field completely changed over to thinking a different way, and scientists weren't fired en masse because there wasn't any sort of political controversy tied up in what the science said.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Climate change is happening, and that is of course a fact nobody is denying at this day and age.
Please see e.g. James Inhofe, the Senator with the snowball, and sadly, Chair of the US Senate Environment Committee.
Stephan
This is what pisses me off
Years ago it came out that the climate change scientists were almost ALL lying to get federal funding.
Although this is america and people forget history seemingly overnight. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
Heres a little food for thought, i know some of you dont like to think "it hurts" and the such. but dont be a fucking fool
The idea that "academics" is a singular group that are so dedicated to supporting their tribe that they would brook no dissent is a recipe for denying any and all evidence that you disagree with.
I've seen what happens to reasonable, scientific people who disagree with the IGCC and consensus. I've seen the flames spouting from climate scientists when they talk to regular folk who dare ask questions. We had one person on faculty here who you could count on to have a vitriolic letter to the editor of the city paper every time someone else had a letter questioning the science. As predictable as ... gravity.
It is hyperbole to say "would brook no dissent" in regard to the entire community, but for a significant part of it that is exactly and horrifyingly true.
So please, don't discount the good old boys network when considering what is happening in this branch of science. Faculty meetings get rather tense when one of the attendees does not accept the consensus in the field, no matter what field that is. It's human nature. Scientists are humans. It happens.
I don't know how many people feel that way strongly enough to ignore the environment, but it's an important difference.
I don't think it makes any difference at all.
What does make a difference is that science has been very bad at explaining what the normal person sees outside their kitchen window. Everyone sees the temperature vary by a large amount every day. They can't detect a 0.1C increase on average over a year or a month. They look out the window and see snow and ice on the ground in a place where ten years ago that never happened. But temperatures are going up? They read in the news that the local mountains are already over their normal snowpack levels for the winter, but snow melts when it gets warm and if the temperatures are higher ...?
It's the old tale of how you boil a frog. You can't throw him into a pot of boiling water, he'll jump out. You put him in cold water and bring it to a boil slowly. The frogs don't see a problem.
People have gotten tired of asking how global climate change can be true based on what they see, and getting the answers "it's the climate, not the weather STUPID", or "the science is settled, there is no debate on this issue." Or being brushed off with "almost all scientists agree, so it must be right". The "scientists" who have chosen this method of communicating with the public need to sit down and shut up and let trained communicators take the lead.
I believe that it's safe to say that consensus is how we evaluate all competing models of reality.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The models reflect the historical climate accurately. So there is a very high probability that those same models predictions of future climate are also reasonably accurate.
It is almost trivial to write a model that matches historical data. It is even easier when you are allowed to massage that historical data to remove "outliers" that don't match your model output, or filter or adjust it to remove biases, etc. It is MUCH harder to write a model that can then accurately predict climate, given the number of variables and how they effect the outcome.
I remember getting a happy email from the folks at NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) who were creating models that produced the "hockey stick". They were tickled pink that they had just modified the model parameters so that it still followed the historical data ("hindcast") but had a much more significant up-bend in the predictions. In other words, they changed a few numbers used in the model and it showed a much worse problem. Both sets of parameters "correctly" predicted the same past data, but they differed for the future. What was the difference? They picked the numbers to get the result they wanted to show.
Most people don't realize the simplifications that have to be written into any model just to get the thing to run in a reasonable amount of time. That's true for small scale models; it's VERY true for global scales. You can make a model produce just about any output you want if you choose the right approximations and empirical parameters. Would you like good surfing waves next week on your favorite beach? Give me a few hours and I can predict whatever surf conditions you want...
Yes, EVERY SINGLE liberal person believes that Russian hackers LITERALLY infiltrated the election votes.
No, 50% of Clinton voters, actually say they believe that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yeah. That delusional religiosity in America about the rapture is the mirror image of the jihadi 72 virgins delusion. They are both, functionally, insane.
Only boring people are ever bored.
Voting to reinforce a bias implies all commentary is biased. I say that isn't true. A comment confident with veritably correct scientific findings isn't biased. A reader voting down comments they are ignorant or delusional isn't "reinforcing a bias" it's downgrading ignorance and delusion. The problem becomes acute when to many people are ignorant and / or delusional. We have founded our modern civilisation on rationality and intellectual integrity. Opposing that are all the forces claiming a lie is true and / or your don't need evidence to back up what your believe. If those forces (essentially ignorance and blind faith) win, we are ALL screwed. This is why climate change deniers and their fellow travelers truly are the enemy of our entire civilisation. The science now could not be more clear about climate change. The world is now heating rapidly in real time year on year. In the face of this emergency they still deny all the evidence. This is a fight to death against stupid and blind faith....
Only boring people are ever bored.
Listen to this for a little while. Learn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
In fact, the evidence is only getting stronger. The first IPCC report suggested that observed warming could be largely due to natural variability:
"Our judgement is that: global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3 to 0.6 oC over the last 100 years; The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability; alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect is not likely for a decade or more."
The warming observed since then makes the statement in the latest report all but unequivocal: "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report."
So the mountains of scientific evidence and the confirmation by every major climate institution on the planet, and every major scientific organisation are all meaningless to you - but the science-free claims in a youtube video by a TV personality with no experience or credentials in climatology convinced you completely?
Sorry, I can't help anyone so doggedly determined to ignore all the inconvenient parts of reality.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I have a feeling you didn't listen to the presentation. He IS a scientist. He explains his credentials in the beginning if you listened, or maybe you don't recognize them? He founded the weather channel. He explains how we've all been lied to. There is no mountain of evidence. There is no scientific consensus. He explains how they came up with the 97% of scientist claim - they are anonymous "scientists" by the way and there weren't even 100 of them. So we have no idea if it was just a number pulled out of someone's mind or not. Probably is just a made up number.
Here's a reporter that looked into this as well. He shows you the game they're playing so no matter what happens, they "predicted" it. - http://vernalutah.org/EnergySu...
Here is a site where a guy has methodically documented the fraud - http://realclimatescience.com/...
To quote you - "Sorry, I can't help anyone so doggedly determined to ignore all the inconvenient parts of reality." - such as the models not working time and time and time again. Einstein put it well - you don't need hundreds of scientists to prove him wrong, you just need one. It only takes one counter example to prove your theory wrong. We've proven Man made GW is wrong, many times and you know it if you've been paying attention. Do I need to send you links to Al Gore's hurricane/weater predictions of 10 years ago? Pull up the laughable predictions from the 1990s? We've had fewer and weaker hurricanes.
You need to know when you're being lied to. That guy lying to you is Al Gore. He's made about 500 million off this lie so far. Not bad for a guy that got this idea from a science class at Harvard that he only earned a D in the class.
The website of Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources has been updated with new language and no longer says that humans and greenhouse emissions cause climate change. Instead, the site says that the causes of global warming "are being debated and researched by academic entities." The problem is that almost all climate scientists agree that human-made greenhouse gases are responsible for climate change, and that global warming is a big issue that needs to be addressed. Prior to the revision, the site said "human activities that increase heat-trapping ("green house") gases are the main cause."
Just deny climate change exists at all. That's what you all want to fucking hear. Then you can forget about it, at least until the water starts lapping around your fucking ankles.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Again, if you want to unconditionally accept the word of a guy in a YouTube video, while ignoring the thousands of peer-reviewed studies cited and summarised in the reports I linked to, there's nothing I can say you'll listen to.
But if you want to know who's lying to who, ask for proof. And proof isn't people saying or writing whatever they feel like on blogs or videos, it's peer-reviewed evidence. The climatologists have produced the evidence cited above, while deniers have only produced rhetoric. Evidence like rising global temperatures and hurricanes getting stronger for the last 40 years, despite what you've been told.
If you just want to follow the money instead, look at the $33 trillion dollars of fossil fuel revenue at stake. Who do you think has the biggest incentive to mislead you - scientists on an $80k salary with their reputations on the line, or oil execs earning hundreds of millions from stock options?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I listened and looked. Trouble is, I don't think you do. The second one with the news reporter is just damning if you bothered to watch it. So I'm disappointed, however not surprised.
Let's look at your link to hurricanes. To preface it, have you ever read the book "how to lie with statistics." I still own the copy I bought when I was in college in the 1980s. Lend it out from time to time, however I see it's online as a PDF now. You should read it. You really should read it so you know when you're being lied to. So what does the article say? Really not a whole lot, it also begins in the 1970s. Ok, this is your first major indication you're being lied to. Why just the 1970s? If they go further back, it disproves what they're trying to indoctrinate you with. They'd have you believe that bad storms never happened before. Hogg wash. In fact HOGG Island, NYC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... 1890. Yes, 1890. I can cite plenty of other storms past that. So no, they are not stronger and they are not more frequent, and they know it. If they really were, oh boy - you'd really hear about it I'm sure. They would be in our face.
Your first citation about rising global temperatures. Here's a spot that I think you don't realize or understand. Things are warming up. We're not denying that. In fact, if you go back to Venice, you'll see water was rising up in the 1300s when they were trying to keep the Adriatic out way back then. Then we hit a little ice age - which we're coming out of right now. We are in fact going back to where we used to be before the little ice age. Please consider this article - http://www.livescience.com/143... . So this is showing you that Greenland was MUCH warmer than it is right now, and not that long ago (geologically speaking). At this point you should understand that this Man Man GW is almost certainly just a scam.
As for the fuel companies, do you really think that? You think that they won't adapt? Those guys will make a bunch of money either way. It's a red herring argument to fool people. What I can show you is Al Gore makes a boatload http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... . I think it's been well documented on /. that in "science" you want to show MMGW - lots of funds. Want to show MMGW is a scam - you'd get tarred and feathered. You won't get a dime. It clearly isn't what a Democratic administration wants. It's all about control and money.
However plenty of real scientists throughout the world are speaking up. That's why they are having such a hard time. There just is no legitimate science behind it. Again, my citations and you can look up what they're saying like I did.
So just because I showed you in an easy to understand video you don't believe it? ok.
1) Algore was a D student in science at Harvard - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...
2) Teacher was Roger Reville, who told him he was wrong - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Yea, I know, a youtube video, it's actually a transcript from a chemical film based motion picture back in 1980. The citation also goes into Mr. Armstrong, and so on.
There are plenty of other citations about the same thing if for some reason you don't like cnsnews or the youtube transcript.
Could go on. However one thing is very clear to me - if Prof Reville where here today, he's say it's not a factor. That's what the real numbers show. The numbers before they are "adjusted". That other citation I gave you shows that graphically.
So where am I wrong? Algore didn't really have Reville for a professor at Harvard? He didn't really get a D? He hasn't systematically set up condi
Oh, I looked at your "damning" links - and not one of them cited a relevant or useful study. What I saw instead was a lot of "here's a graph, here's another graph - they're different in a way I don't like - therefore, it must be deliberately faked". No attempt was made to find out why the data was adjusted, no evidence that the adjustments made readings less accurate instead of more, and no challenge to the peer-reviewed methodology of the corrections. Instead they leaped immediately to the conclusion that it was a hoax and a conspiracy - just as you are. No contrary evidence of your own, no studies, no science, just "I don't like the results so that science must have been faked". That's the very soul of denial.
Why just the 1970s? If they go further back, it disproves what they're trying to indoctrinate you with. They'd have you believe that bad storms never happened before. Hogg wash. In fact HOGG Island, NYC.
If you bothered to read the paper you'd see the data they present goes back to 1930, and only the recent increase in intensity starts in the 70s. And maybe you'd care to explain how a single storm from 1893 somehow disproves a peer-reviewed statistical analysis about storms getting stronger a hundred years later?
Likewise, please explain where the original "cold snap" study claims that Greenland before 1300 was "MUCH warmer" than today. Please explain how ice cores from two lakes in Greenland somehow mean that the average temperatures for the entire globe were warmer at that time, when no reconstruction places them anywhere close to modern levels. You think the Medieval Warm and Little Ice Age periods are unknown to climatologists? But you're already convinced it's all a scam, despite the evidence directly contradicting your claims.
As for the fuel companies, do you really think that? You think that they won't adapt?
You really think they'll happily wave goodbye to trillions of dollars without a care in the world? You're quite wrong. They'll adapt if they're forced to, but you can be certain they'll do whatever they can to exploit the reserves they have first - there's plenty of evidence of them spending hundreds of millions to confuse and delay the issue as long as they can - just like the tobacco companies did.
Instead, you're harping on about Al Gore - who's not even a scientist. Nobody cares what he says - we care what the climatologists say. They saw the problem long before Gore made a movie, and why would they care if he made money from it? Is Gore paying climatologists to falsify evidence? The ones doing that are the oil companies. Frankly, your efforts to claim that Gore somehow orchestrated the whole thing to make a buck are laughable in the face of the evidence - all the more so when you're so keen to ignore the FAR bigger amounts being made by those who benefit from ignoring it.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Wow. Just wow. Where do I start? How about the MIT paper - written in 2005, so before Al Gore and other's claim that GW is causing them. Never the less, we have a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere and we have fewer. You like NOAA's stuff - http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/ . Look towards the bottom for a bar graph. If I were to take 2000-today by year and mix it up the years by that decade with say the 1950s randomized in the 1950s (so it's not obvious which one is which, however with correct data for that decade) and see if you can tell which one is which, I bet you'd lose that one. Unless you really studied the data carefully. I honestly don't understand how you can say there are more and they are worse. The NOAA graph just doesn't show that, at least not yet. Maybe next month it will after they "adjust" it so it's not a problem anymore like they're doing with the other stuff.
(previous stuff I showed you) You looked at the graphs, saw the data was different and that didn't concern you? The "adjustments" are always in favor of GW. If you're a TA or a Professor going over someone's scientific work, that is one of the things you look out for. Faked or wrong data. The fact NASA has been caught red handed changing this stuff REALLY should bother you.
Here are some references, but look below
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
You like the telegraph?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
Here's one for you and you can see it with your own (as the Eagles would say - lying) eyes - Hansen's page (He no longer works for nasa BTW)- http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea... . Not as I remembered it. That's because they keep changing it - http://web.archive.org/web/*/h... Check out the 2007/2/24 version to today. Wow, same page where he admits in 2007 that the 1930s was the hottest decade on record. Now 1930s looks a lot colder. I don't think anyone would say the 1930s was the hottest on record as Hansen had to admit to in the early 2000s looking at the new graph. He claimed 1990s were until he was shown to be wrong. He claimed it was a Y2K bug. I don't think anyone believed that one.
Greenland - what about Venice Italy? It wasn't just Greenland, it was global.
To me this captain obvious moment (shown by the documented change in web page above) really should concern you, and make you mad that you've been lied to all of this time. Could go on and show you page after page or as that other site did, he overlaid them for you. Not that you seem to care, or perhaps you don't understand the material. I'm reminded a lot that other people aren't like me. Things that are painfully obvious to me aren't obvious to others.
Now, about concensus? http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB... Yea, not so much.
Well I've enjoyed going down memory lane a bit here if you're not persuaded by the very definitive evidence I've shown you, you probably never will be. I understand I'm asking a lot because a great deal of money has been spent to make you believe, change data, and so on. MMGW is all about making a bunch of money and control.
The comparison to tobacco is disingenuous BTW. I was a scientist back in those days, in the 1970s. I felt it was clear. Again, I could find where the tobacco industry had faked data and weren't being honest. It wasn't hard even without something like the Internet. This in a time when science wasn't so good, calling a lot of things cancer causing that weren't. Showing other people without something like the Internet was just about impossib
Hate to bother you again, I promised to pass this along to you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... . This is a real scientist, a Nobel Laurete and he talks about this too. I didn't think this would help any, however Lars did...
How about the MIT paper - written in 2005, so before Al Gore and other's claim that GW is causing them
So? What does that have to do with the causes of increasing hurricane intensity? You still think nobody knew about AGW until Gore's movie? The MIT paper is about global hurricane intensity, not the frequency of hurricanes making landfall in the US, so that NOAA page you cite is irrelevant (current research on AGW suggests hurricane frequency is not affected much, only intensity).
You looked at the graphs, saw the data was different and that didn't concern you?
Unlike you - or the deniers at WUWT et al - I took the time to find out why those corrections were made. I didn't leap straight to assuming they must have been faked.
Anyone making judgements about the accuracy of science based purely on the results is guaranteed to introduce bias. Methodology is king. Changes are expected - corrections are of course required if past inaccuracies are discovered, and are absolutely justified if the methodology is peer-reviewed, regardless of whether you like the results.
The "adjustments" are always in favor of GW.
Prove it. You don't even know what adjustments were done, let alone why, so you're making up your own bogus motives instead. Let me enlighten you.
Hansen's page ... where he admits in 2007 that the 1930s was the hottest decade on record.
You mean the paragraph where he says, "Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934"? Bolding mine, because you're apparently unable to spot the difference between the US and the globe. That paragraph is unchanged in both versions BTW, which you could've verified for yourself.
It wasn't just Greenland, it was global.
And this is where you need to cite a peer-reviewed study to back up your claim (presuming you remember what "global" means).
Now, about concensus[sic]? [WSJ commentary snipped] Yea, not so much.
So you're happy to accept as gospel truth a newspaper commentary citing no peer-reviewed studies, yet you reject the conclusions of seven independent scientific studies listed here. Why, because one fits your pre-existing beliefs and the other doesn't? Certainly doesn't seem to be evidence-based.
I understand I'm asking a lot because a great deal of money has been spent to make you believe, change data, and so on. MMGW is all about making a bunch of money and control.
Oh the irony. Did you miss the part where I cited numerous reports of hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by the fossil fuel industry specifically to sway public opinion and protect their revenue? Where's your own evidence? Missing as usual.
How does paying Al Gore (among others) a bunch of money fix that?
Who's suggesting that? What does that have to do with the science? I haven't proposed any solutions here, because they're irrelevant to the science describing the problem. If you're really curious read my post history, but whatever action or inaction we take, AGW isn't going away - we'll have to deal with it one way or another. The science is very clear on that.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Did you know that Al Gore is also a Nobel Laureate? Yet his opinion is much less important than that of any practicing climatologist, because he is not an expert in that field - just like the physicist Ivar Giaever. Appeals to authority are meaningless; only considered conclusions from experts who have seen all the data and have the training and experience to interpret it.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
If you did put stock in the opinions of Nobel laureates, you'd want to look at more than one source to understand their broad consensus. Here's a declaration by 36 of them calling for urgent action on climate change. So 1/36 dissenters means that there's about a 97% consensus among Nobel laureates.