If I had £100 for every time I'd read "it's worse than we thought" from a rent-seeking shill institution, I'd probably be as rich as Al Gore. God, he's an embarrassment isn't he.
I don't believe global warming is mythical. I believe it's happening but that it's only partly man's activity causing it and that on the whole it's beneficial. Droughts, floods, food supplies, refugees, storm surges? I have absolutely no idea where you get that from. These things have happened throughout the ages and there's no evidence whatsoever they're increasing in frequency. It may be that the jepordy has increased alongside the population and increasing urbanisation - with many growing cities on coasts and near flood plains. But that is a mitigation argument related to population pressure. It's an argument for increasing civil engineering budgets not CO2 taxes.
There's no evidence the rate of change is higher (or indeed lower) than it has been in the past. The difficulty here is there's a divergence between what the models say and what the actual data says (notwithstanding the numerous and highly dubious "adjustments" made to the data).
btw with respect to living off bacteria, we do of course (it's busy in your gut right now), but you'll note with interest the increase in agricultural productivity as the planet has warmed and there's more CO2 about. Now you're free to argue that we're going to reach a "tipping point" and the Earth is going to implode but that would be speculation (modelling) and more than likely completely wrong. Or at least open to debate and question (hence not worthy of the term "denial" - just disagreement).
I think you'll find it's the climate shills who aren't showing up to debate "deniers". It's policy. You know, if you show up to debate them you give them legitimacy. So you're probably 99.9% wrong about that (I'll give you 0.1% doubt because you know, there's always a possibility I'm wrong here).
Many of them have clear conflicts of interest
Why do you think energy companies are depressed about "climate change"? They can hoover up huge subsidies from government from their "green" initiatives. Goldman Sachs can trade carbon credits! Yes, the giant vampire squid on the face of Humanity is on your side on this. Muggins like me pay the costs of course, when we get our bills.
If the climate deniers had an actual evidence based case they could easily cut through the BS
Well there are 1,000 scientists here that you would call "deniers" but they don't get the same mountain of publicity and support, mostly because this is a political cause, not a scientific one. I like this comment:
They have no such evidence
Yes you see the problem here don't you. Are there contrarians who're going to survive graduate school and end up with tenure? It must be very hard to argue against the paradigm when the big ticket studies are funded by a government determined on the point. It's called bias. There's a lot of it about.
The U.S. Department of the Navy rather keeps close tabs on the ocean
What, you mean the Northwest Passage is now open just like it was in 1854? Shocking.
Arctic and Antarctic are warming hasn't escaped their notice
Again, so what? Who gives a fuck? Man-made or natural variation. Change is permanent. It's always happening. Why are you getting into a funk about it? There's nothing you can do. Next you'll be telling me man-made climate change will increase volcanism. Which would be, you know, the most fucking retarded conclusion ever published in the history of science.
I'm not trolling. I'm being a contrarian. I'm doing that because the shilling is shockingly bad - and getting worse, as is the publicity seeking from the rent-seeking class.
Maldives, Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands suffer from high surface erosion + sea level rise. But sea level has been rising for hundreds if not thousands of years - pretty much with the same trend throughout. If you're going to blame man for that I'm going to call BS on it because, you know, it's completely ridiculous.
But anyway if you're determined on this you should probably read, for example this.
Not necessarily, according to a growing body of evidence amassed by New Zealand coastal geomorphologist Paul Kench, of the University of Auckland's School of Environment, and colleagues in Australia and Fiji, who have been studying how reef islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans respond to rising sea levels.
They found that reef islands change shape and move around in response to shifting sediments, and that many of them are growing in size, not shrinking, as sea level inches upward. The implication is that many islands—especially less developed ones with few permanent structures—may cope with rising seas well into the next century.
You see the problem here is that these nations are seeking rent, mostly from the west. "climate justice" I think it's called. They may be able to persuade enough gullible twats to give them a few billion $. I mean if you could do that you would, wouldn't you? You'd engage in mind-fumblingly stupid stunts like holding cabinet meetings under water. Sheeeesssssshhh. I'd love break from all the climate bs. It's driving me nuts.
They ARE saying the warming that DID happen was worse than we thought
Duh. Of course they are. That's the standard trope for a climate science paper that gets (a) published and (b) lots of publicity. Why you so gullible bro? Shocking.
There's absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. Indeed the converse is true.
You think the biosphere will benefit from change
Yes. Any evidence it won't? Don't include computer models, which diverge greatly from actual measurements. Oh sorry, if you do that you've got nothing. That's a shame.
because only one of the two options is even POSSIBLE
No, there's another possibility here: (3) the accuracy of the measurement gives us an error that dwarfs the change, therefore comparing the measurements is completely meaningless. That would be my preferred option, mostly because it's the only option that requires you to forgo your grant funding and demonstrate a little scientific integrity.
Knock yourself out with it though.
Btw Steve McIntyre is a mathematician who won the national high school mathematics competition when he was a nipper. He's forgotten more about mathematics than most of the shills working in climate science ever learned. You can have that little factoid for free by the way.
I don't really care about every individual pea hen. They will evolve and change. The ones well suited will survive and succeed. The ones not well suited will die out. We've had, you know, something like 4 billion years of this crap and suddenly we're scared of change. Imagine that. Your ancestors were little shrews. Your cousins are currently schooling in the Pacific. Strange but true.
Oh no, I'm very picky. I have an excellent antenna for bullshit. I can smell it from a long way off. That's why I love Slashdot comments so much. I'm extra happy to not be with the in-crowd on this. I realise I won't get tenure but I don't care.
You've been reading the bollocks on this subject then. They weren't caused by droughts, they were caused by an increase in global commodity prices - mostly food prices. That's what happens when the biggest grain producer in the world is run by credulous fucktard politicians who start mandating a certain percentage of the crop be turned into biofuel rather than bread. People like you probably supported it.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Florida is a massive swamp anyway but regardless, these things vary over time and always have. Sod the channel tunnel, I would have been able to walk to France 12,000 years ago.
I don't know and neither do you. Neither do they. It's quite likely that because they don't know they shouldn't start fucking about with the data to smooth away the "problem". I mean I may be thick as a stick in a bucket of pig-shit but I do at least know these kinds of statistical shenanigans are usually bollocks.
We have many trillions of dollars sunk into infrastructure that depends on the local environment being what it was when the infrastructure was designed and built
Yes we do. So what? Given we like building on flood plains or on the coast it seems to me we don't really care that much. I mean if there's on thing you can guarantee it's that the coast will erode and a flood plain will flood, all else being equal.
The US Department of Defense is getting the same bad advice as everybody else. Just because the US Department of Defense has spoken up about it does not mean the advice is any less shite. But as you seem to think being informed is important, I'm quite fond of the ice core records. Specifically Vostok. This is a magnificent record that really puts today into context.
If you want to talk energy and CO2 please be aware that relatively speaking the amount of CO2 we've put into the atmosphere should affect warming in the same way that lighting a single match in your lounge increases the temperature of your lounge.
No really, stop tickling my sides. Skeptical Science, a shill front organisation for rent-seeking environmentalists.
It does matter though, imho. It matters for reasons of integrity, especially public trust in science. Who's going to believe the next big scare and impress on their politicians to do something about it when the previous 120 scares proved to be shite.
But they're literally saying the pause was caused by a splice between ship based temperature measurements (the very inaccurate ones) and the buoys. I know climate scientists are very happy to splice two data sets together if it fits the narrative but in this case for some reason they've decided it needs adjustment, presumably because there's a pause and pauses are completely unsuitable for grubbing grants.
I get that impression from the fact that plants absorb it and in current times they're starved of it (compared to paleo history). That's why people who run greenhouses artificially increase it to between 1 and 2,000 ppm. I think NASA did a study about biosphere greening didn't they? It concluded the biosphere is... greening. But nobody really discussed it all that much because it doesn't fit the catastrophic global warming narrative. I mean it's a very positive indicator. This is all about narrative isn't it. Narrative = Rent for all those concerned.
I think the only thing you can accuse me of here is cherry picking. I think Schmidt's "adjustments" of instrumental records are bollocks but then I'm quite happy to select the greening article for the very same NASA to prove my point.
Slashdot Mirror
If I had £100 for every time I'd read "it's worse than we thought" from a rent-seeking shill institution, I'd probably be as rich as Al Gore. God, he's an embarrassment isn't he.
I don't believe global warming is mythical. I believe it's happening but that it's only partly man's activity causing it and that on the whole it's beneficial. Droughts, floods, food supplies, refugees, storm surges? I have absolutely no idea where you get that from. These things have happened throughout the ages and there's no evidence whatsoever they're increasing in frequency. It may be that the jepordy has increased alongside the population and increasing urbanisation - with many growing cities on coasts and near flood plains. But that is a mitigation argument related to population pressure. It's an argument for increasing civil engineering budgets not CO2 taxes.
There's no evidence the rate of change is higher (or indeed lower) than it has been in the past. The difficulty here is there's a divergence between what the models say and what the actual data says (notwithstanding the numerous and highly dubious "adjustments" made to the data).
btw with respect to living off bacteria, we do of course (it's busy in your gut right now), but you'll note with interest the increase in agricultural productivity as the planet has warmed and there's more CO2 about. Now you're free to argue that we're going to reach a "tipping point" and the Earth is going to implode but that would be speculation (modelling) and more than likely completely wrong. Or at least open to debate and question (hence not worthy of the term "denial" - just disagreement).
I think you'll find it's the climate shills who aren't showing up to debate "deniers". It's policy. You know, if you show up to debate them you give them legitimacy. So you're probably 99.9% wrong about that (I'll give you 0.1% doubt because you know, there's always a possibility I'm wrong here).
Why do you think energy companies are depressed about "climate change"? They can hoover up huge subsidies from government from their "green" initiatives. Goldman Sachs can trade carbon credits! Yes, the giant vampire squid on the face of Humanity is on your side on this. Muggins like me pay the costs of course, when we get our bills.
Well there are 1,000 scientists here that you would call "deniers" but they don't get the same mountain of publicity and support, mostly because this is a political cause, not a scientific one. I like this comment:
Yes you see the problem here don't you. Are there contrarians who're going to survive graduate school and end up with tenure? It must be very hard to argue against the paradigm when the big ticket studies are funded by a government determined on the point. It's called bias. There's a lot of it about.
What, you mean the Northwest Passage is now open just like it was in 1854? Shocking.
Again, so what? Who gives a fuck? Man-made or natural variation. Change is permanent. It's always happening. Why are you getting into a funk about it? There's nothing you can do. Next you'll be telling me man-made climate change will increase volcanism. Which would be, you know, the most fucking retarded conclusion ever published in the history of science.
Maldives, Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands suffer from high surface erosion + sea level rise. But sea level has been rising for hundreds if not thousands of years - pretty much with the same trend throughout. If you're going to blame man for that I'm going to call BS on it because, you know, it's completely ridiculous.
But anyway if you're determined on this you should probably read, for example this.
You see the problem here is that these nations are seeking rent, mostly from the west. "climate justice" I think it's called. They may be able to persuade enough gullible twats to give them a few billion $. I mean if you could do that you would, wouldn't you? You'd engage in mind-fumblingly stupid stunts like holding cabinet meetings under water. Sheeeesssssshhh. I'd love break from all the climate bs. It's driving me nuts.
Just a brief pause here: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Sorry, I'll continue: experimental physics has a 5-sigma standard.
Duh. Of course they are. That's the standard trope for a climate science paper that gets (a) published and (b) lots of publicity. Why you so gullible bro? Shocking.
There's absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. Indeed the converse is true.
Yes. Any evidence it won't? Don't include computer models, which diverge greatly from actual measurements. Oh sorry, if you do that you've got nothing. That's a shame.
I know what rent-seeking is, yes. You don't, clearly.
No, there's another possibility here: (3) the accuracy of the measurement gives us an error that dwarfs the change, therefore comparing the measurements is completely meaningless. That would be my preferred option, mostly because it's the only option that requires you to forgo your grant funding and demonstrate a little scientific integrity.
Knock yourself out with it though.
Btw Steve McIntyre is a mathematician who won the national high school mathematics competition when he was a nipper. He's forgotten more about mathematics than most of the shills working in climate science ever learned. You can have that little factoid for free by the way.
It could also have said (and would have been equally true), climate science is like economics. Oh no...
I don't really care about every individual pea hen. They will evolve and change. The ones well suited will survive and succeed. The ones not well suited will die out. We've had, you know, something like 4 billion years of this crap and suddenly we're scared of change. Imagine that. Your ancestors were little shrews. Your cousins are currently schooling in the Pacific. Strange but true.
Oh no, I'm very picky. I have an excellent antenna for bullshit. I can smell it from a long way off. That's why I love Slashdot comments so much. I'm extra happy to not be with the in-crowd on this. I realise I won't get tenure but I don't care.
You've been reading the bollocks on this subject then. They weren't caused by droughts, they were caused by an increase in global commodity prices - mostly food prices. That's what happens when the biggest grain producer in the world is run by credulous fucktard politicians who start mandating a certain percentage of the crop be turned into biofuel rather than bread. People like you probably supported it.
Here's a curvball for you: The Sahara Desert has been greening.
Buttfucked. Bend over more sonny.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Florida is a massive swamp anyway but regardless, these things vary over time and always have. Sod the channel tunnel, I would have been able to walk to France 12,000 years ago.
OK smart-arse, please tell me what the replication rate is for studies in medicine?
Oh dear.
I don't know and neither do you. Neither do they. It's quite likely that because they don't know they shouldn't start fucking about with the data to smooth away the "problem". I mean I may be thick as a stick in a bucket of pig-shit but I do at least know these kinds of statistical shenanigans are usually bollocks.
Yes we do. So what? Given we like building on flood plains or on the coast it seems to me we don't really care that much. I mean if there's on thing you can guarantee it's that the coast will erode and a flood plain will flood, all else being equal.
What about integrity? If you want to be taken seriously in future stop being a fucking shill today. Be circumspect. Emphasise uncertainty.
Ahahaha, 330,000 times faster than previous trends. Don't be a fucking retard.
The US Department of Defense is getting the same bad advice as everybody else. Just because the US Department of Defense has spoken up about it does not mean the advice is any less shite. But as you seem to think being informed is important, I'm quite fond of the ice core records. Specifically Vostok. This is a magnificent record that really puts today into context.
If you want to talk energy and CO2 please be aware that relatively speaking the amount of CO2 we've put into the atmosphere should affect warming in the same way that lighting a single match in your lounge increases the temperature of your lounge.
Strange but true. I'm with Freeman Dyson on this.
No really, stop tickling my sides. Skeptical Science, a shill front organisation for rent-seeking environmentalists.
It does matter though, imho. It matters for reasons of integrity, especially public trust in science. Who's going to believe the next big scare and impress on their politicians to do something about it when the previous 120 scares proved to be shite.
But they're literally saying the pause was caused by a splice between ship based temperature measurements (the very inaccurate ones) and the buoys. I know climate scientists are very happy to splice two data sets together if it fits the narrative but in this case for some reason they've decided it needs adjustment, presumably because there's a pause and pauses are completely unsuitable for grubbing grants.
Still see no reason not to call BS on this.
I get that impression from the fact that plants absorb it and in current times they're starved of it (compared to paleo history). That's why people who run greenhouses artificially increase it to between 1 and 2,000 ppm. I think NASA did a study about biosphere greening didn't they? It concluded the biosphere is... greening. But nobody really discussed it all that much because it doesn't fit the catastrophic global warming narrative. I mean it's a very positive indicator. This is all about narrative isn't it. Narrative = Rent for all those concerned.
I think the only thing you can accuse me of here is cherry picking. I think Schmidt's "adjustments" of instrumental records are bollocks but then I'm quite happy to select the greening article for the very same NASA to prove my point.