That is one of 53+ and counting reasons theorized for the warming hiatus or pause of the last 18 years.
I'm not saying its false, though there has been many articles pointing out some flaws in some of the data and conclusions on that.
But it is still only 1 theory of many.
Fact is, we dont have reliable data for ocean heat content before ARGO, so what is to say what we are observing is new or not part of the natural cycle?
El nino years create huge spikes in temperatures, its part of the natural process and transfers much heat into the atmosphere, but it does so in a spike, not for 10, 20 years.
So your statement that Eventually though it stops being able to do that and the atmospheric heating continues...now with a warmer ocean to boot. doesnt explain the whole process or even part of it at all.
It is a complex system, and skeptics study it and one of the main skeptics points is that there is much more to climate than just CO2.
"Nope, no problems" is something you just said, not skeptics with science backgrounds trying to get their studies published, but being rejected because it doesnt jive with the IPCC.
Climate is not weather, weather is not climate. We all know that, its funny how this is brought up by people like you for winter, but you all keep silent everytime there is a scientist or when the media brings it up when there is a hot week or warm spell for a short time.
Seems the bias is strong on the warming side in politics and in the media. But thats ok right? Because it fits with your beliefs.
Polar bar populations are thriving. It is the best conservation success story. From 5000 in the 60's to 25000 in 2013-14.
Read Susan Crockfords article. It shows clearly that the scientists tasked to monitoring polar bear populations are more interested in keeping their jobs than showing the truth.
Its important that we freeze in winter because energy costs are going up, you idiot. Not because it has anything to do with climate.
Your problem and the AGW crowds problem is fighting a "currently" non-issue, due to faked data and faulty science, and that fight is causing REAL WORLD problems right now in the present.
Why hasn't it risen? CO2 has certainly risen. If CO2 went up, than the temperature should have gone up, if that did, Water vapor should be up.
But all of a sudden, your basic laws of 3rd grade physics which is the greenhouse effect, just suddenly don't apply?... they stopped functioning for over a decade. Why?
Hundreds of billions have been spent worldwide over the last 20-30 years on climate research. That numbers go up very high if you included alternative energies (however... that is a place I approve of for spending, but done right).
Koch brothers wouldnt spend that amount on disinformation, its impossible.
I'm not saying there isnt any lobbying from the fossil fuel industry, there certainly is. But everytime someone posts anything in disagrement with the Church of Global Warming of later day carbon credits, all we get is "But Koch Brothers...".
I'm Canadian. I dont givash*t for the Koch brothers, your congress or your senate. I just care that here in Quebec, our government is enacting California style laws and carbon taxes, which no one else in north america has adopted yet. But our supreme leaders feel that regardless of our shrinking economy, enormous job losses in the last 2 years and that we are on the bring of a recession, its still ok to gouge us on energy prices.
WE ARENT CALIFORNIA. People freeze to death in winter.
Take your Koch brothers argument, and find a better one. You can start by showing me a climate model that actually tracks with observed data.
Problem is the NVAP program hasnt shown an increase in water vapour.
The slight warming we are experiencing seems to be only from climate sensitivity to CO2 and that sensitivity is on the low side of the models, very very low.
I got that from your post, because you posted it about "denialism" and did not make a comment about it being equally true for the AGW side.
Thats the problem, now, you use a more moderate tone and say there are extremist on both sides, but If I had not called you on it, would you have come back to make those statements?
So someone who has a leaning towards believing AGW dogma, because he's a lefty, because he's a greeny, because he just has no idea but figures "I have children, and CO2 must be a pollutant, they all say so, oh and look those who speak against AGW science are Koch brother shils and religious nutjobs".
When you categorise one side into 1 box, and you speak forcefully, you help make up the minds of those who dont really know anything on the subject and then they believe you and Greenpeace and Leonardo DiCaprio."
You also try to reduce it down to basic physics. As if we are all just too dumb to understand grade 3 science. As if it was that simple, when you have PHD Dr. in Science actively disagreeing on so many of the nuances. Its not black and white, its a whole lot of grey and there is still a mountain of information we just dont have.
Yes, CO2 IR trapping properties known as a fact. Sensitivity is also pretty well known at around 1C to 1.2C for a doubling of CO2. That is taking into account nothing else but CO2.
When you start adding all other factors, the current theories that CO2 is a forcing for Water Vapor and that increased water vapor can only lead to more heat... that is not established as fact yet. Also, models cant simulate natural processes like ENSO and PDO and those models cannot be relied upon to make policy.
Recent studies showing:
- Thickness of Antarctic Ice his much higher than estimated - Water vapor has not really changed in the last 20-30 years, shown by satellites (if it hasnt, than warming beyond 1.2C for doubling of CO2 just doesnt hold up) - Global mean temps, though higher than 30 years ago, havent really increased in the last 18years and 4 months (the pause or hiatus), all the while CO2 has steadily climbed up. If CO2 has gone up, why have "the basic laws of physics" changed and temps no longer increase? There are 52 reasons and counting, all theories. - Bias in temperature measurements left unchecked (In higher elevations, US western mountains, SNOTEL) University of Montana study.Only after a rigorous audit has this been found.
My point is, if you shut out those who dont believe in the dogma as if it was the word of god, you will only listen to the preachers. (the general you).
And that is what the media is doing now and what the politicians would want as well.
I can take your own phrase : And yes, it would make life a lot easier for alarmists if the asshole scientists would just shut up and learn their place, and stay out of the way of the politicians. But golly gosh, some of these Scientists care and have big mouths.
Its obvious you don't care about the science, you only want to be right and win the debate. You like to categorise everything in black and white, while the world is actually a whole lot of grey.
There is truth on both sides, but you ignore the side that doesn't agree with you.
The difference is, us sceptics (not the religious nut deniers), we read all the papers and as many articles are we can from both sides, we don't ignore anything. But then we point out where things just don't stand up to proper observations or things that just are plain old wrong./s You are obviously on the righteous side.
You know, one thing I find particularly annoying is this Left, right hate, Republican, Democrate and everything that comes with it.
As an outsider (from Canada), its astonishing how easy it is for Americans to reduce everything to left, right. As if there is no middle ground, or nothing in between the 2.
Back to topic, I'm a Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptic. I don't deny science, I research scientific papers, read them, draw conclusions, read others comments about them (when It sometimes goes beyond my understanding) and draw conclusions from that, to eventually make up my own opinion on the subject.
In my opinion, politics have been in climate science from the get go. This is not new, the whole modern field of climate science (late 80's to today) has been shaped around the IPCC and the main driver is how to blame the late 21st century warming on man. That is the whole goal of the IPCC, right in its charter. No other answer is possible, because the cause was pre-determined.
Because the IPCC is a political organisation and it had pre-determined the cause, the scientific community has been split and there is heavy debating. On the one side, you have those that see everything in CO2 colored glasses (and CO2 is a factor, no doubt about it, but not the only one) And on the other side, those whose research tell them, CO2 isnt the only factor, and sometimes might not even be the main driving factor.
Of course, there are nutjobs on both side. Scaremongers, alarmists and outright deniers of real science on the AGW side. And there are religious nuts (the creationist, and anti-vaccene kind), science deniers, and interest based deniers on the anti-AGW side.
Whats dangerous, is only letting the pro AGW scientists speak in the media, because that cuts out other real scientists, with something important to contribute that are looking at the world with CO2 colored glasses.
Sorry for rambling on, but this issue, is just so much more complicated than left or right, denier and alarmist.
Way to make things up, and then take me down for it.
As you just like the sound of your voice, or reading your own words, you have skipped over my last sentence which says, I do look at data. Just wont do statistical analysis and report my findings, because not everyone is a statistician, and I'm not one. So should I just shut up and let lies stand regardless?
Your second sentence is just a pure attack that merits no response.
You have given me one link to data, the others where a NYTIMES article and wikipedia entry. A paper I have read.
- Your statement about the study is what it claims. But that doesn't give any more credibility to the models. - If we have to wait for the future, then look back to see which models fit, will that is not predictability. - Also, since models cannot predict naturally occurring processes, they are not fit for their intended purposes.
The models selected by Risbey et al. are more accurate than the other models at simulating the warming rate, however very little. The fact is, they are still off by a large margin.
After reading it and looking at their claims based on the data, the only thing I can say is, they are grasping at straws.
I clearly stated I will not listen to those who have been shown to be misleading. Who have lied, hidden their data and who have continued using false methodologies (to this day). Mann's 2014 paper suffers from the same flaws as his 1998 one.
Way to completely ignore what I was saying about the science, the political debate and the media being important as a whole. The science is important, however the politics are shaping the science and the media is shaping the public opinion. All those things are very important.
I find you quite arrogant and condescending. You obviously are proud of your own perceived genius. (That is opinion and not a scientific observation:) )
I will not do a statistical analysis of the data, because I do not have the knowledge to do so. And you insinuating that if I do not, I should just go hide in a corner, is shutting down the debate.
What I do have is enough intelligence and knowledge to read as much as I can on both sides and try and make my own mind up on the issue. I will not follow an appeal to authority, when it has been clearly demonstrated that "the authority" has done everything it or he can to mislead.
Is fraud to strong a word? I dont know, I dont care. Mann's research is misleading. And when it was pointed out, by someone who DOES know statistics, he lashed back, viciously. And continues to do so. He has also witheld critical information, which would make it easier to try and determine if the method he used for his findings is sound or not.
Some of the science is sound, not all of it. And you know that. Or do you believe 100% every "peer reviewed" paper that is published? I didint think so. So you are being disingenuous.
My point is the whole. The science, the debate, the fear mongering, the alarmism, those who deny basic science as well as those who lie. Its important to look at it as a whole, because policy is being written based on the whole. Its important, because if it was just about science behind closed doors, it wouldnt affect me or anyone else. But the whole world is in a battle for the truth, and scientists are humans, just like anyone else. Their shit stinks just as much as the next guy. And so one or some of them mislead us, the damages are real.
Stop talking about attacking science like its an entity. Its not.
You can talk about random posts, googled on some blog. I would aggree, if I had only read one. I have been following the subject closely for 7 years. I dont have all the answers, and I cant do the science myself. But I can use my own brain and make reasoned conclusions.
About looking at the data. What data I could look at, had the time and understanding to do, I have.
ABSTRACT The differences between the results of McIntyre and McKitrick [2003] and Mann et al. [1998] can be reconciled by only two series: the Gaspé cedar ring width series and the first principal component (PC1) from the North American tree ring network. We show that in each case MBH98 methodology differed from what was stated in print and the differences resulted in lower early 15th century index values. In the case of the North American PC1, MBH98 modified the PC algorithm so that the calculation was no longer centered, but claimed that the calculation was “conventional”. The modification caused the PC1 to be dominated by a subset of bristlecone pine ring width series which are widely doubted to be reliable temperature proxies. In the case of the Gaspé cedars, MBH98 did not use archived data, but made an extrapolation, unique within the corpus of over 350 series, and misrepresented the start date of the series. The recent Corrigendum by Mann et al. denied that these differences between the stated methods and actual methods have any effect, a claim we show is false. We also refute the various arguments by Mann et al. purporting to salvage their reconstruction, including their claims of robustness and statistical skill. Finally, we comment on several policy issues arising from this controversy: the lack of consistent requirements for disclosure of data and methods in paleoclimate journals, and the need to recognize the limitations of journal peer review as a quality control standard when scientific studies are used for public policy.
I think you made the honest mistake, that I am directly debating you with the statements I made.
The difference between you and I, is that I DO care what the alarmist are saying because they are shaping public opinion, in the media and in politics.
Putting your head in the sand and saying, but science is sound, while ignoring that the most well known scientists, like Mann, Hansen, and others are alarmists and trying to shape public and political opinion that if we dont ask, the end of days will come, is encouraging their lies.
I don't disagree there has been warming over the last 150 years. I dont disagree that some of it is due to man, the degree of which I might debate on though. What I do disagree is that its a problem, as that has not been demonstrated yet. I disagree that we can actually change it. I disagree that we should tax the population. (Taxing companies is a tax on people, as costs are always carried on to the customer).
I think people do not realize the harm, this climate debate is causing on a global scale. The money allocated to could be used so many other priorities which need immediate attention. Technology is well on its way to solving the fossil energy problem. In 20-30 years, it wont even matter.
I made no claim other than the last 18 years has seen no warming. The models, which we are supposed to base policy on, have been completely wrong. The reason they are wrong is, they cannot predict some of the most important drivers of long term climate, i.e. ENSO. We will see what it looks like in 32 years.I am not arrogant enough to make a prediction.
The thing is, where do you start and stop your (or mine) cherry picked data? That will always determine the slope.
All I am saying is, the 21st has seen no global warming. How does that track with blaming every single weather event on global warming. How does that track with the doomsday scenarios, the scare and fear mongering, the alarmism, etc... It does not track.
- There are no more tornadoes or hurricanes than before, and they are not stronger either. - There is no more or less precipitation. - Ice coverage varies, and this year its at a 30 year high, recovering from lows about 5 to 7 years ago. - There aren't more droughts,. nor are they more severe than in the recent past. - Polar bears have been on the rise for the last 50 years. - Penguins stopped declining when they stopped banding them. - There is no proof of warming caused ocean acidification. First oceans are alkaline, second the variation in one area per month is wide and doesn't track with areas only a few miles away. As we both know the oceans cover most of the planets surface. If the variations don't track within a few miles, that means there are local factors affecting ocean pH levels. There currently is not enough data or it hasn't been studied enough to make a general claim that the worlds oceans have changed globally by a few fractions (yet still remain largely above neutral).
I can go on and on and on about all the false claims made that are attributed to the slight warming trend that we have seen over the last 150 years.
But the thing is, if it hasn't warmed in 18 years, you CANNOT SAY anything that is going on now is worse then 10-18 years ago because of global warming , because there has been none in that period.
Your data, plus satellite data over the same period. I followed your lead for 17 years instead of 18. Land data, which is not very reliable, shows very slight increase over 17 years. And satellite shows no increase.
Now your implications that I was TRYING to site anything other than what I did, is a strawman argument. Look up strawman, read your post. Definition of.
I'm not sure what you think you've just established in this post.
They say they should be neutral vis a vis policy, but they have a report for policy makers. So we know that is bullshit right there.
Your statement that inter-government is not political because its more than 1 government is complete and utter nonsense. Go in front of a mirror and repeat that ten times with a straight face. In any case, your definition would make the UN completely UNpolitical.
Lastely, they cannot form realistic predictions, so why should we listen to their strategies? Their observations are wrong. Their predictions are wrong.
So if they cannot predict the future, as we have SCIENTIFICALLY observed by comparing them (after the fact) to observed data, why would you rely on those models to form policy?
I dont care what you observe in hindsight after plugging new data into the model.
We are being told, look at the models, the planet will melt and burn up. But we know those models dont track with observed data. So why believe them? Why form policy based on faulty models?
Slashdot Mirror
That is one of 53+ and counting reasons theorized for the warming hiatus or pause of the last 18 years.
I'm not saying its false, though there has been many articles pointing out some flaws in some of the data and conclusions on that.
But it is still only 1 theory of many.
Fact is, we dont have reliable data for ocean heat content before ARGO, so what is to say what we are observing is new or not part of the natural cycle?
El nino years create huge spikes in temperatures, its part of the natural process and transfers much heat into the atmosphere, but it does so in a spike, not for 10, 20 years.
So your statement that Eventually though it stops being able to do that and the atmospheric heating continues...now with a warmer ocean to boot. doesnt explain the whole process or even part of it at all.
It is a complex system, and skeptics study it and one of the main skeptics points is that there is much more to climate than just CO2.
"Nope, no problems" is something you just said, not skeptics with science backgrounds trying to get their studies published, but being rejected because it doesnt jive with the IPCC.
Climate is not weather, weather is not climate. We all know that, its funny how this is brought up by people like you for winter, but you all keep silent everytime there is a scientist or when the media brings it up when there is a hot week or warm spell for a short time.
Seems the bias is strong on the warming side in politics and in the media. But thats ok right? Because it fits with your beliefs.
Why would I listen to someone who just believes?
http://business.financialpost....
Polar bar populations are thriving. It is the best conservation success story.
From 5000 in the 60's to 25000 in 2013-14.
Read Susan Crockfords article. It shows clearly that the scientists tasked to monitoring polar bear populations are more interested in keeping their jobs than showing the truth.
Its important that we freeze in winter because energy costs are going up, you idiot. Not because it has anything to do with climate.
Your problem and the AGW crowds problem is fighting a "currently" non-issue, due to faked data and faulty science, and that fight is causing REAL WORLD problems right now in the present.
Indeed. Sweep that under the carpet.
Why hasn't it risen? CO2 has certainly risen. If CO2 went up, than the temperature should have gone up, if that did, Water vapor should be up.
But all of a sudden, your basic laws of 3rd grade physics which is the greenhouse effect, just suddenly don't apply?... they stopped functioning for over a decade. Why?
Are you serious?
Hundreds of billions have been spent worldwide over the last 20-30 years on climate research. That numbers go up very high if you included alternative energies (however... that is a place I approve of for spending, but done right).
Koch brothers wouldnt spend that amount on disinformation, its impossible.
I'm not saying there isnt any lobbying from the fossil fuel industry, there certainly is. But everytime someone posts anything in disagrement with the Church of Global Warming of later day carbon credits, all we get is "But Koch Brothers...".
I'm Canadian. I dont givash*t for the Koch brothers, your congress or your senate. I just care that here in Quebec, our government is enacting California style laws and carbon taxes, which no one else in north america has adopted yet. But our supreme leaders feel that regardless of our shrinking economy, enormous job losses in the last 2 years and that we are on the bring of a recession, its still ok to gouge us on energy prices.
WE ARENT CALIFORNIA. People freeze to death in winter.
Take your Koch brothers argument, and find a better one.
You can start by showing me a climate model that actually tracks with observed data.
Umm, actually, the combined grant money of all nations currently investing in global warming research has more money than the Koch Brothers.
Problem is the NVAP program hasnt shown an increase in water vapour.
The slight warming we are experiencing seems to be only from climate sensitivity to CO2 and that sensitivity is on the low side of the models, very very low.
I got that from your post, because you posted it about "denialism" and did not make a comment about it being equally true for the AGW side.
Thats the problem, now, you use a more moderate tone and say there are extremist on both sides, but If I had not called you on it, would you have come back to make those statements?
So someone who has a leaning towards believing AGW dogma, because he's a lefty, because he's a greeny, because he just has no idea but figures "I have children, and CO2 must be a pollutant, they all say so, oh and look those who speak against AGW science are Koch brother shils and religious nutjobs".
When you categorise one side into 1 box, and you speak forcefully, you help make up the minds of those who dont really know anything on the subject and then they believe you and Greenpeace and Leonardo DiCaprio."
You also try to reduce it down to basic physics. As if we are all just too dumb to understand grade 3 science. As if it was that simple, when you have PHD Dr. in Science actively disagreeing on so many of the nuances. Its not black and white, its a whole lot of grey and there is still a mountain of information we just dont have.
Yes, CO2 IR trapping properties known as a fact. Sensitivity is also pretty well known at around 1C to 1.2C for a doubling of CO2.
That is taking into account nothing else but CO2.
When you start adding all other factors, the current theories that CO2 is a forcing for Water Vapor and that increased water vapor can only lead to more heat... that is not established as fact yet. Also, models cant simulate natural processes like ENSO and PDO and those models cannot be relied upon to make policy.
Recent studies showing:
- Thickness of Antarctic Ice his much higher than estimated
- Water vapor has not really changed in the last 20-30 years, shown by satellites (if it hasnt, than warming beyond 1.2C for doubling of CO2 just doesnt hold up)
- Global mean temps, though higher than 30 years ago, havent really increased in the last 18years and 4 months (the pause or hiatus), all the while CO2 has steadily climbed up. If CO2 has gone up, why have "the basic laws of physics" changed and temps no longer increase? There are 52 reasons and counting, all theories.
- Bias in temperature measurements left unchecked (In higher elevations, US western mountains, SNOTEL) University of Montana study.Only after a rigorous audit has this been found.
My point is, if you shut out those who dont believe in the dogma as if it was the word of god, you will only listen to the preachers. (the general you).
And that is what the media is doing now and what the politicians would want as well.
I can take your own phrase : And yes, it would make life a lot easier for alarmists if the asshole scientists would just shut up and learn their place, and stay out of the way of the politicians. But golly gosh, some of these Scientists care and have big mouths.
Have a nice day.
Its obvious you don't care about the science, you only want to be right and win the debate.
You like to categorise everything in black and white, while the world is actually a whole lot of grey.
There is truth on both sides, but you ignore the side that doesn't agree with you.
The difference is, us sceptics (not the religious nut deniers), we read all the papers and as many articles are we can from both sides, we don't ignore anything. But then we point out where things just don't stand up to proper observations or things that just are plain old wrong. /s You are obviously on the righteous side.
Its allot more complicated than that.
You know, one thing I find particularly annoying is this Left, right hate, Republican, Democrate and everything that comes with it.
As an outsider (from Canada), its astonishing how easy it is for Americans to reduce everything to left, right. As if there is no middle ground, or nothing in between the 2.
Back to topic, I'm a Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptic. I don't deny science, I research scientific papers, read them, draw conclusions, read others comments about them (when It sometimes goes beyond my understanding) and draw conclusions from that, to eventually make up my own opinion on the subject.
In my opinion, politics have been in climate science from the get go. This is not new, the whole modern field of climate science (late 80's to today) has been shaped around the IPCC and the main driver is how to blame the late 21st century warming on man. That is the whole goal of the IPCC, right in its charter. No other answer is possible, because the cause was pre-determined.
Because the IPCC is a political organisation and it had pre-determined the cause, the scientific community has been split and there is heavy debating.
On the one side, you have those that see everything in CO2 colored glasses (and CO2 is a factor, no doubt about it, but not the only one)
And on the other side, those whose research tell them, CO2 isnt the only factor, and sometimes might not even be the main driving factor.
Of course, there are nutjobs on both side. Scaremongers, alarmists and outright deniers of real science on the AGW side.
And there are religious nuts (the creationist, and anti-vaccene kind), science deniers, and interest based deniers on the anti-AGW side.
Whats dangerous, is only letting the pro AGW scientists speak in the media, because that cuts out other real scientists, with something important to contribute that are looking at the world with CO2 colored glasses.
Sorry for rambling on, but this issue, is just so much more complicated than left or right, denier and alarmist.
You think you are being a smart ass, but you seem to have blurred the lines between fact and conjecture.
Your mistake is thinking AGW alarmism is not heavily politically based.
Thanks.
Contribute or move along.
Drive by statements are useless.
Ok, you are on the ignore list.
You obviously dont care about the truth, data, the science and the consequences to our society.
And then people call us deniers, ignorant and anti-science.
I cant believe people like you are allowed to even breed.
Very nice strawman.
Way to make things up, and then take me down for it.
As you just like the sound of your voice, or reading your own words, you have skipped over my last sentence which says, I do look at data. Just wont do statistical analysis and report my findings, because not everyone is a statistician, and I'm not one. So should I just shut up and let lies stand regardless?
Your second sentence is just a pure attack that merits no response.
You have given me one link to data, the others where a NYTIMES article and wikipedia entry. A paper I have read.
- Your statement about the study is what it claims. But that doesn't give any more credibility to the models.
- If we have to wait for the future, then look back to see which models fit, will that is not predictability.
- Also, since models cannot predict naturally occurring processes, they are not fit for their intended purposes.
The models selected by Risbey et al. are more accurate than the other models at simulating the warming rate, however very little.
The fact is, they are still off by a large margin.
After reading it and looking at their claims based on the data, the only thing I can say is, they are grasping at straws.
I clearly stated I will not listen to those who have been shown to be misleading. Who have lied, hidden their data and who have continued using false methodologies (to this day). Mann's 2014 paper suffers from the same flaws as his 1998 one.
Way to completely ignore what I was saying about the science, the political debate and the media being important as a whole. The science is important, however the politics are shaping the science and the media is shaping the public opinion. All those things are very important.
I find you quite arrogant and condescending. You obviously are proud of your own perceived genius. (That is opinion and not a scientific observation :) )
First off, stop putting words in my mouth.
I am very capable of speaking for myself.
I will not do a statistical analysis of the data, because I do not have the knowledge to do so. And you insinuating that if I do not, I should just go hide in a corner, is shutting down the debate.
What I do have is enough intelligence and knowledge to read as much as I can on both sides and try and make my own mind up on the issue.
I will not follow an appeal to authority, when it has been clearly demonstrated that "the authority" has done everything it or he can to mislead.
Is fraud to strong a word? I dont know, I dont care. Mann's research is misleading. And when it was pointed out, by someone who DOES know statistics, he lashed back, viciously. And continues to do so. He has also witheld critical information, which would make it easier to try and determine if the method he used for his findings is sound or not.
Some of the science is sound, not all of it. And you know that. Or do you believe 100% every "peer reviewed" paper that is published? I didint think so. So you are being disingenuous.
My point is the whole. The science, the debate, the fear mongering, the alarmism, those who deny basic science as well as those who lie.
Its important to look at it as a whole, because policy is being written based on the whole. Its important, because if it was just about science behind closed doors, it wouldnt affect me or anyone else. But the whole world is in a battle for the truth, and scientists are humans, just like anyone else. Their shit stinks just as much as the next guy. And so one or some of them mislead us, the damages are real.
Stop talking about attacking science like its an entity. Its not.
You can talk about random posts, googled on some blog. I would aggree, if I had only read one. I have been following the subject closely for 7 years. I dont have all the answers, and I cant do the science myself. But I can use my own brain and make reasoned conclusions.
About looking at the data. What data I could look at, had the time and understanding to do, I have.
I'll whittle it down to one paper, though the others are relevant as well.
http://climateaudit.files.word...
ABSTRACT
The differences between the results of McIntyre and McKitrick [2003] and Mann
et al. [1998] can be reconciled by only two series: the Gaspé cedar ring width
series and the first principal component (PC1) from the North American tree ring
network. We show that in each case MBH98 methodology differed from what was
stated in print and the differences resulted in lower early 15th century index values.
In the case of the North American PC1, MBH98 modified the PC algorithm so
that the calculation was no longer centered, but claimed that the calculation was
“conventional”. The modification caused the PC1 to be dominated by a subset of
bristlecone pine ring width series which are widely doubted to be reliable
temperature proxies. In the case of the Gaspé cedars, MBH98 did not use archived
data, but made an extrapolation, unique within the corpus of over 350 series, and
misrepresented the start date of the series. The recent Corrigendum by Mann et al.
denied that these differences between the stated methods and actual methods have
any effect, a claim we show is false. We also refute the various arguments by Mann
et al. purporting to salvage their reconstruction, including their claims of
robustness and statistical skill. Finally, we comment on several policy issues
arising from this controversy: the lack of consistent requirements for disclosure of
data and methods in paleoclimate journals, and the need to recognize the
limitations of journal peer review as a quality control standard when scientific
studies are used for public policy.
I think you made the honest mistake, that I am directly debating you with the statements I made.
The difference between you and I, is that I DO care what the alarmist are saying because they are shaping public opinion, in the media and in politics.
Putting your head in the sand and saying, but science is sound, while ignoring that the most well known scientists, like Mann, Hansen, and others are alarmists and trying to shape public and political opinion that if we dont ask, the end of days will come, is encouraging their lies.
I don't disagree there has been warming over the last 150 years. I dont disagree that some of it is due to man, the degree of which I might debate on though.
What I do disagree is that its a problem, as that has not been demonstrated yet.
I disagree that we can actually change it.
I disagree that we should tax the population. (Taxing companies is a tax on people, as costs are always carried on to the customer).
I think people do not realize the harm, this climate debate is causing on a global scale.
The money allocated to could be used so many other priorities which need immediate attention.
Technology is well on its way to solving the fossil energy problem. In 20-30 years, it wont even matter.
No, a scientists should be judged on the method used for his findings.
Anyone can publish work and make findings. The findings are meaningless without the method.
Ad hominem.
Isnt that what this article is about?
Ironic isnt it?
Stop moving the goalpost.
I made no claim other than the last 18 years has seen no warming.
The models, which we are supposed to base policy on, have been completely wrong.
The reason they are wrong is, they cannot predict some of the most important drivers of long term climate, i.e. ENSO.
We will see what it looks like in 32 years.I am not arrogant enough to make a prediction.
The thing is, where do you start and stop your (or mine) cherry picked data? That will always determine the slope.
All I am saying is, the 21st has seen no global warming.
How does that track with blaming every single weather event on global warming.
How does that track with the doomsday scenarios, the scare and fear mongering, the alarmism, etc...
It does not track.
- There are no more tornadoes or hurricanes than before, and they are not stronger either.
- There is no more or less precipitation.
- Ice coverage varies, and this year its at a 30 year high, recovering from lows about 5 to 7 years ago.
- There aren't more droughts,. nor are they more severe than in the recent past.
- Polar bears have been on the rise for the last 50 years.
- Penguins stopped declining when they stopped banding them.
- There is no proof of warming caused ocean acidification. First oceans are alkaline, second the variation in one area per month is wide and doesn't track with areas only a few miles away. As we both know the oceans cover most of the planets surface. If the variations don't track within a few miles, that means there are local factors affecting ocean pH levels. There currently is not enough data or it hasn't been studied enough to make a general claim that the worlds oceans have changed globally by a few fractions (yet still remain largely above neutral).
I can go on and on and on about all the false claims made that are attributed to the slight warming trend that we have seen over the last 150 years.
But the thing is, if it hasn't warmed in 18 years, you CANNOT SAY anything that is going on now is worse then 10-18 years ago because of global warming , because there has been none in that period.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...
Your data, plus satellite data over the same period. I followed your lead for 17 years instead of 18.
Land data, which is not very reliable, shows very slight increase over 17 years. And satellite shows no increase.
Now your implications that I was TRYING to site anything other than what I did, is a strawman argument. Look up strawman, read your post. Definition of.
I see you have gone to your blogs for a talking point.
How are the folks at SKS doing?
Seriously, yes, climate is not chaotic like weather is. Of course, and especially in hingsight, when we look back at observations.
However for predicting the future, chaos theory pretty much applies.
Very small errors or variations will create dramatically different predictions over longer and longer periods.
Again Barsteward, you can repeat that nonsense till you're blue in the face but it doesnt make it true.
Please find me a definition of inter-governmental that says "When more than 1 government is involved, there is no politics!"
I'm not sure what you think you've just established in this post.
They say they should be neutral vis a vis policy, but they have a report for policy makers. So we know that is bullshit right there.
Your statement that inter-government is not political because its more than 1 government is complete and utter nonsense. Go in front of a mirror and repeat that ten times with a straight face. In any case, your definition would make the UN completely UNpolitical.
Lastely, they cannot form realistic predictions, so why should we listen to their strategies? Their observations are wrong. Their predictions are wrong.
So if they cannot predict the future, as we have SCIENTIFICALLY observed by comparing them (after the fact) to observed data, why would you rely on those models to form policy?
I dont care what you observe in hindsight after plugging new data into the model.
We are being told, look at the models, the planet will melt and burn up.
But we know those models dont track with observed data. So why believe them? Why form policy based on faulty models?