I can't believe I am even making this Thread... 

 

But, it seems to have taken over the politics Thread so I figured we can hash this out here (though the way the conversation was heading about AGW, maybe it should have stayed in the Politics thread...

 

 

So here we go, let's have at it!

 

 

I believe there is overwhelming evidence in AGW and it is a vocal, self-serving minority of the scientific community that derail and muddy up the issue so we can not act in a constructive manner to curtail this global thread.

Edited January 2, 20233 yr by Wanna-B-Fanboy

7 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Yup, and soon enough, like all the other threads- he will get this one locked down. it's his M.O.

 

I know you think it's worthwhile to respond, but it is not returned in kind. So why bother.

once again we are no longer discussing the subject of the thread.

Simple solution:   if we all stop responding, the thread will not get locked.

 

Edited March 12, 20196 yr by Mark F

11 minutes ago, Mark F said:

1. Deny or Defend Your Inconsistencies

2. Evade Questions,\Hedge What You Say (do not respond to questions about the article)

3. Ignore the Evidence (The article is completely wrong)

4. Ignore the Main Point 

5. Insist Loudly on a Minor Point (people won't listen to the other side)

6. Make (Sweeping) Glittering Generalization(subject is still open)

7. Shift the Ground (no longer talking about climate)

8. Talk in Vague Generalities

9. Always claim the high ground  (open minded, optimistic.

10. Your job is to prevent the presentation and spread of Liberal viewpoints.

 

This is the conservative playbook- I remember seeing something like this from a conservative think tank... I wanna say... Rove?

 

Anyways- it's funny, because this isn't a liberal viewpoint- it's ******* science. Not sure why this needs to be political. 

 

Hmmm, looks like I was wrong about the Karl Rove penned tactics- it seems it's unknown:

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-karl-rove-write-tactics-conservative-blogging/

 

But it pretty much what you are talking about:

 

Edited March 12, 20196 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

Despite getting side tracked, you inadvertently got to the meat of the issue, it's about politics, Liberals want to save the planet and Conservatives want to burn it down in the name of profits. Until a person can get past their biases, nothing will change.  

47 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Yup, and soon enough, like all the other threads- he will get this one locked down. it's his M.O.

Well folks, the solution is to rise above any name calling and sidetracking arguments designed to derail the topic and move on. KBF and pigseye have an opinion, and they are entitled to it. They even try to offer studies to back up their opinions. So let them. The simple answer to those studies is to challenge their veracity, which actually gets to be kind of fun if you want it to be. Like Jon Stewart said on his final show about sniffing out bull ****. It took a few minutes to determine that the Taylor study was debunked and his slanted peer review process was a sham. KBF conveniently forgot about the actual study and said the counter-argument "didn't prove what it proved". We called out the Heartland Institute he worked at, and again, he shifts the narrative saying we are sheep who follow big brother rather than addressing the issue of a flawed study. Pigseye to his credit points out a flawed study on the other side, one that the authors copped to when their math did not add up. That is what science is supposed to be about - withstanding disprovability. He then posts the hurricane study, which basically does not say anything conclusive one way or another if you take a read at it. It simply says we cannot definitively tie an increase in hurricane intensity to human involvement, It is interesting that the same study does accept as a premise that mankind is responsible for the rising sea temperatures and that some models show a correlation with hurricane intensity (one shows the opposite, and others are non-conclusive). Hopefully he is not holding up this study as "proof" that climate change is a hoax, but rather the idea that this particular hypothesis is not yet proven and further study is needed.

But let's get past the baiting and accusations of "climate deniers" and "chicken littles". Such inflammatory rhetoric serves only to create division - a staple of internet discussion boards. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, just be prepared to back it up with facts, and if called on it, use those facts to bolster your point, or, if your argument falls, have the simple dignity to acknowledge that you were wrong (a real toughy for so many). And if you find yourself proving the other side wrong, spare everyone the gloating - that is no better in terms of keeping peace on the boards.

MY OPINION, and it is only mine, is that KBF mentions the "politicization" of climate science because, as he put it himself "It's all about power and nothing about science". Well, that may or may not be true, or is partially true, but wouldn't that apply to both sides of the argument, and not just one? It seems that big oil and big gas have a lot of sway (power) in politics and would like to keep the status quo, and could do so by thwarting efforts to decry their system as one that is destroying the planet. I have a motivation for accepting the 97% who say climate change is real, strongly influenced by mankind, and that significant changes are needed to avoid dire consequences - I am concerned about the future planet I leave for my kids. I am no scientist, but I have noticed an increase in extreme weather, and when I am told the last ten years have all been the hottest ever record (or 9 out of 10, if I have misquoted the result I admit my mistake - it is not meant to deceive). I wonder KBF, what is your motivation, beyond offering a counterpoint? You call it a scam, one designed to take your money and take power. Power from whom? Those who have it now? Would they not be equally motivated to post studies to keep them in power? And is your personal money more important than having an inhabitable planet, when 97% of the consensus says this is the crisis we are facing?

Anyway, we can see where the thread has gone, and I enjoy a healthy debate and don't want to see another thread locked down, so let's get back to tackling the issue and not each other. If someone tries to switch the topic when questioned, and one re-asking of the question does not elicit a desired response, let's all just move on.

 

By the way, here is a counter piece on Karl Zeller. Seems he and his co-researcher used false names when publishing their study, and when outed, pulled the study. They offer an explanation for why they did, which fits KBF's explanation that they had to use false names because of the perceived bias of their work as contrarians. Sadly, their explanation talks about the rejection of their earlier works and manuscripts because of bias, yet we don't have those earlier works to determine if their findings were flawed or not, so we'll never know (from Zeller, anyway) if that rejection was based solely on his stance, or some flaw in his research. One would hope his work would stand on its own with provable scientific merit. The piece offers other examples of where this pseudonym practice was done, and I think it is important to recognize the rationale and not just dismiss it, and the value of double-blind studies. I also note that a NASA researcher also points out the flaw in the study itself, not just the questionable (to them) tactics of hiding behind a different name. THAT is what science should be - ignore the author, challenge the findings. This NASA researcher claims that a too simplistic mathematical model with too few data points is used, and fudged some numbers regarding Mars to make it fit the model. So I can appreciate that the article is not just an attack on the man but points out flaws in his scientific model (at least according to the researcher). Would have preferred a more thorough rebuttal if there were grounds to do so

Here is the entire article, a good read to give some perspective on both sides:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/19/scientists-published-climate-research-under-fake-names-then-they-were-caught/?utm_term=.86d3367f1826

So let's all be vigilant, and challenge the findings and not just each other, and be clear on our motives when asked. Galileo was imprisoned for his belief that the world was round and revolved around the sun, but did not back down from his scientific claims in the face of establishment religious and political pressure. Maybe we can all aspire to the same conviction and back up our beliefs with solid evidence and not derail topics with simple rhetoric.

 Namaste!

Edited March 12, 20196 yr by TrueBlue4ever

1 hour ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

It simply says we cannot definitively tie an increase in hurricane intensity to human involvement,

That's a pretty important statement considering it's contrary to AGW theory and what we hear in the mainstream media. Until the data supports the theory, it's still just a theory. 

I enjoyed your post btw. 

 

2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Anyways- it's funny, because this isn't a liberal viewpoint- it's ******* science. Not sure why this needs to be political. 

Agree, and I deleted the "liberal"   (just change word liberal to "warmist") ....   Science should not be political, but unfortunately, when there are big money involved, it is made political.

yes it is the Rove playbook, Rove was asked about it, (I read) and was non committal.

Whoever came up with it, it's in play on this and other threads.

 

Still not discussion the subject.

2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Yup, and soon enough, like all the other threads- he will get this one locked down. it's his M.O.

oh good grief.  It's YOUR MO!  It's all because you guys can't ever handle anything that enters these threads that might just cause questions to be asked.  It's always just one narrative that is allowed, and anything that remotely challenges it is responded to with extreme prejudice.  It's always the same, no matter what the topic - a big gang up occurs, the thread gets locked, and I get blamed.  Of course.  It's always the same.  Take some responsibility for your own actions WBFB.  That's a start.

2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

You are not a sensible realist-

yes, I am.

2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

you just parrot misinformation and spread lies (inadvertently it seems). 

Oh good grief.  You post this garbage, and then blame me for getting threads locked down.  For shame.

For well over two decades now, people who are not scientists and people who are not responsible for public policy have been using the theories of scientists to drive public policy. These people have persisted in using doomsday scenarios and fear mongering to convince the public to pressure policy makers.

It is up to us to decide how much weight to give the information provided by any of the agencies promoting apocalyptic narratives.

Even the IPCC operates from a position of bias. The cadre of volunteers devoting time to the IPCC is unlikely to include scientists who do not believe we are in a position to control the climate. It is not up to them to question the assumption that climate change is disastrous and must be addressed:

Quote

The IPCC is divided into three Working Groups and a Task Force. Working Group I deals with The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, Working Group II with Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and Working Group III with Mitigation of Climate Change. The main objective of the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories is to develop and refine a methodology for the calculation and reporting of national greenhouse gas emissions and removals.

Their fact sheets show they are like any other UN organization. It is important to them that they represent a diversity of gender, countries, cultures, etc. The further they lean in the direction of meeting warm and fuzzy image-driven objectives, the more emphasis the take away from operating from a position of "cold hard facts".

Any organization with a sole focus on determining what we must to to prevent an unfolding disaster will be very slow to change direction when it is becoming apparent the particular disaster they focused on has been dramatically overstated (or may not even be unfolding after all). Apocalyptic global climate change is the sole raison d'etre for the IPCC. Some of us keep this firmly in mind when we are considering their pronouncements, just as we would with the Fraser Institute or the Heartland Institute or any other group with a stated agenda.

That, coupled with the continued insistence of heightening the alarm even though the have predicted disasters that have failed to materialize, has led many of us to believe the resources they have encouraged us to expend could have been put to good use.

We sensible realists would like public policy to shift away from "imminent disaster mode" to a more measured and practical application of our resources.

Instead, our government has chosen to conflate two separate issues, pollution and climate change, to ensure this waste of resources will continue.  Sensible realists the world over would like this waste to stop.

17 minutes ago, pigseye said:

That's a pretty important statement considering it's contrary to AGW theory and what we hear in the mainstream media. Until the data supports the theory, it's still just a theory. 

I enjoyed your post btw. 

 

I enjoyed it too.  Well said.  

2 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

By the way, here is a counter piece on Karl Zeller. Seems he and his co-researcher used false names when publishing their study, and when outed, pulled the study. They offer an explanation for why they did, which fits KBF's explanation that they had to use false names because of the perceived bias of their work as contrarians. Sadly, their explanation talks about the rejection of their earlier works and manuscripts because of bias, yet we don't have those earlier works to determine if their findings were flawed or not, so we'll never know (from Zeller, anyway) i

Your information is wrong. 

Your scientists found that the warming was due to the sun. The sun has been at solar minimum, and yet the planet continues to heat. No wonder he couldn't get published, and used fake identity.

skeptic favourite Watt:

Quote

"There’s a lot of evidence mounting that solar cycle 25 will usher in a new grand solar minimum. Since about October 2005, when the sun’s magnetic activity went into a sharp fall, solar activity has been markedly lower, with solar cycle 24 being the lowest in over 100 years.

Yet the planet is hotter every year, and each year sets new records. (Of course Watt predicted global cooling)

also

Quote

 

"there’s a slim chance that the 2–3% minority is correct and the 97% climate consensus is wrong.

To evaluate that possibility, a new paper published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology examines a selection of contrarian climate science research and attempts to replicate their results. The idea is that accurate scientific research should be replicable, 

This new study was authored by Rasmus Benestad, myself (Dana Nuccitelli), Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, and John Cook. Benestad (who did the lion’s share of the work for this paper) created a tool using the R programming language to replicate the results and methods used in a number of frequently-referenced research papers that reject the expert consensus on human-caused global warming. In using this tool, we discovered some common themes among the contrarian research papers.

Cherry picking was the most common characteristic they shared. We found that many contrarian research papers omitted important contextual information or ignored key data that did not fit the research conclusions"

 

also..... NASA research has shown that Hurricanes are increasing in intensity and developing more rapidly as predicted through climate change. The hurricane that hit the Florida panhandle went from a one to a five in something like 24 hours, at a location close to shore. The entire area of Panama beach was levelled.

We corrected this earlier last year, when it was wrongly posted by pigeye.

So we spend all our time correcting things posted by the people who never respond to anything, and arguing about "what's fair and reasonable" when they have no intention of being either.

You should have noticed that these people NEVER respond directly to a question put to them about their sources. Or maybe you are new to this thread.

anyway, carry on.  I'm out here for a while.

 

 

Edited March 12, 20196 yr by Mark F

Tuvalu - 11 years ago:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/environment-tuvalu-dc/tuvalu-about-to-disappear-into-the-ocean-idUKSEO11194920070913

Doom!  Gloom!!!  Certain death!!! Imminent catastrophe!!  Man-made climate change!! AHHHHH!!!!

Tuvalu - present day:
 

Quote

 

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html

But it argues the study should prompt a rethink on how such countries respond to the problem.

Rather than accepting their homes are doomed and looking to migrate to countries such as Australia and New Zealand, the researchers say they should start planning for a long-term future.

"On the basis of this research we project a markedly different trajectory for Tuvalu's islands over the next century than is commonly envisaged," Kench said.

"While we recognise that habitability rests on a number of factors, loss of land is unlikely to be a factor in forcing depopulation of Tuvalu."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html#jCp

 

But hey, it's always more fun to say that the sky is falling.  And much more profitable too.

3 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

 I wonder KBF, what is your motivation, beyond offering a counterpoint? You call it a scam, one designed to take your money and take power. Power from whom? Those who have it now? Would they not be equally motivated to post studies to keep them in power? And is your personal money more important than having an inhabitable planet, when 97% of the consensus says this is the crisis we are facing?

 

Valid questions that deserve a response.  My motivation is that I don't like it when we are told that an apocalypse is coming.  I have seen this scam far too many times, and it always has the same motivation behind it.  This is about grabbing your wallet, and make you do their bidding.  That's it.  The people behind this man-made climate change movement are for the most part one-world globalists (which is why they are using an unelected body like the UN to do their dirty work) - they want to initiate giant wealth transfers from the western world.  That's what this is really about.  In another century, these people were also known as communists, but they don't call themselves that anymore.  Whenever fear is used as a motivator, there's someone behind it, either on the far right or far left, who is using it to control people.  That's what is going on here.

And that 97% thing you've been fed...it's a completely manufactured lie.  Look it up.  It was created by a guy named Cook, who cherry-picked stats from a survey he sent out.  That 97% number has been debunked repeatedly, but unfortunately its now entered the human lexicon as a "truth", even though it's not.  Just like DDT, or tax and spend.  You are being played my good sir.

Also, I saw someone mention solar minimums.  I've been doing some reading. Fascinating stuff.  And from what I have read, much more of a threat to our way of life than any CO2 issues.  The problem?  Democrats and Liberals haven't figured out a way to tax cold air yet.  Or sunshine.  Just wait for it though, I am sure they are thinking about it.

https://abruptearthchanges.com/2018/01/14/climate-change-grand-solar-minimum-and-cosmic-rays/

Quote

 

A solar maximum is the period within the 11-year solar cycle of high solar magnetic field and high sunspot count. Sunspots are highly magnetic and visually dark spots or ‘holes’ in the photosphere of the sun, where solar flares can erupt.

A solar minimum is the low activity trough of the 11-year solar cycle (Schwabe Cycle). A Grand Solar Minimum is a period of several successive very low Schwabe Cycles, usually coinciding with phases of climate disruption and – in the long run -cooling. An example is the Maunder Minimum (c. 1645 and 1715) that coincided with the coldest phase of the Little Ice Age. The Little Ice Age, from which we have been emerging since c. 1850, was the coldest period of at least the last 8,000 years, possibly the entire Holocene. Grand Solar Minima recur in clusters roughly every 200-400 years. 27 Grand Minima have been identified during the Holocene (Usoskin et al. 2007). Thus, we were in Grand Solar Minimum about 1/6 of the total time.

 

Winnipeg is going to get a lot colder in the coming years, look out!

Edited March 13, 20196 yr by kelownabomberfan

https://www.theblaze.com/climate-skeptic-app-removed-by-apple

https://www.popsci.com/ARkStorm-megastorm-california

 

4 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

https://www.theblaze.com/climate-skeptic-app-removed-by-apple

Good for Apple, now if only Google play would follow suit. 

No need to help the app author profit off of ignorance and spread lies. 

3 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Good for Apple, now if only Google play would follow suit. 

No need to help the app author profit off of ignorance and spread lies. 

LOL

And now you see the problem, on a silver platter.  This app is based in actual science, it's just science that doesn't support the apocalyptic storyline, so therefore it is useless to pressing the panic-induced narrative.  Must shut down any information, even if it is science-based, that conflicts with the narrative.  Shame on Apple.  Shame on Al Gore.  He is so afraid that his golden goose will be cut off.

44 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

LOL

And now you see the problem, on a silver platter.  This app is based in actual science, it's just science that doesn't support the apocalyptic storyline, so therefore it is useless to pressing the panic-induced narrative.  Must shut down any information, even if it is science-based, that conflicts with the narrative.  Shame on Apple.  Shame on Al Gore.  He is so afraid that his golden goose will be cut off.

LOL

the app is all junk science. Here is an excerpt:

Kevin Mooney shared some of the facts presented in the Inconvenient Facts app, noting they run counter to much of what was presented in Gore's documentary films:

● Inconvenient Fact No. 10: "Cites 'Recent Inconvenient Pause of 18 years in warming, despite rise in CO2.'"

● Inconvenient Fact No. 12: "Modern warming began long before SUVs or coal-fired plants."

● Inconvenient Fact No. 21: "The current warming trend is neither unusual nor unprecedented."

● Inconvenient Fact No. 53: "There are more polar bears now than we've had for 50 years."

 

Each one of those "points" have been disproved. "Actual science" my aunt Fanny. A simple google search and it's easy to see how silly and transparent these lies are (if one were so inclined to learn the facts). I could literally post multiple links disproving each one of these junk pseudo-science "points" but from your history, you won't read any of them so I am not going to bother. I will simply implore you to stop spreading lies. 

The information you provided here is bunk- it's not science-based- it doesn't conflict with "the narrative" it conflicts with facts. they are disingenuous lies. Good on Apple and Good on Al Gore. I don't think he's too worried about his "golden goose" being cut off- his expertise is based in actual facts and science, so he's golden. 

Shame on Gregory Wrightstone for spreading lies and misinformation and shame on those promoting his lies. Shame on the heartland institute for promoting these lies- very reminiscent of their trying to sow doubt about the correlation between tobacco and cancer.  

 

Edited March 15, 20196 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

12 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

 

Each one of those "points" have been disproved. 

 

Disproved by whom?  Those with a vested interest in trying to push an apocalyptic agenda.  Both sides have "science" to back up their claims, and both lob the term "junk science" at each other like tennis balls.  Both sides make good points, and both sides also have holes in their arguments that you could drive trucks through. That's a result of the "science" surrounding this hypothesis still being far from settled, despite what Michael "Hide the Decline" Mann wants to say to his followers. Lots more work required. As for polar bears, are you saying that there aren't more polar bears now?  It seems this was pretty irrefutable.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/healthy-polar-bear-count-confounds-doomsayers/article4099460/

It looks like there's stability in much of Canada. That's good news but I think it's reasonable to assert the future remains uncertain. And the lack of data for the rest of the Arctic only muddies the waters further.

Of course there are more bears now when compared to the previous 50 years. Populations were decimated by hunting/trapping prior to 1973 when regulations were put in place (http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/agreements/agreement1973.html) to ensure conservation of the species. The population has stabilized thanks to those regulations. However, that doesn't mean they're not a vulnerable species* or that a changing climate in the Arctic isn't a real thing. The coverage area and density of sea ice has declined over the last few decades, so animals in the region will be affected as those changes persist. That is particularly important for a species like the polar bear that relies heavily on sea ice for hunting/feeding. (https://arcticwwf.org/places/last-ice-area/)

It seems awfully disingenuous to use stabilized polar bear populations to refute climate change. Populations have stabilized because they're no longer being recklessly hunted on a large scale.

You wouldn't look at bison populations today and apply such similarly shaky logic. Like the polar bear, they've recovered impressively thanks to conservation efforts after being nearly hunted to extinction.

* the polar bear's conservation status remains vulnerable (https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22823/14871490)

2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Disproved by whom? 

Almost all reputable scientists and researchers. Not the hacks and corporate shills- those people are propping up the junk science. 

2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Both sides have "science" to back up their claims, and both lob the term "junk science" at each other like tennis balls.

No. No they don't. one side has science and uses it responsibly and keeps working at the problems to refine the data, the other side cherry picks data- spreads lies and supports the misinformation. 

2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Both sides make good points, and both sides also have holes in their arguments that you could drive trucks through.

No, no they don't- one side makes good points, supported by sound science with a very robust conclusion backed by the scientific community. The other... well is just **** , that can not be supported and is easily disproved with a cursory glance. Sorry KBF, but you are wrong about this point too. 

 

2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

That's a result of the "science" surrounding this hypothesis still being far from settled, despite what Michael "Hide the Decline" Mann wants to say to his followers. Lots more work required.

Well- it's pretty much settled, it's now the nuances that they are trying to figure out and continue to refine their findings. Yes there is much work that needs to be done, but the conclusion that the IPCC have reached with a HIGH DEGREE of confidence is not not wrong. 

 

2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

As for polar bears, are you saying that there aren't more polar bears now?  It seems this was pretty irrefutable.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/healthy-polar-bear-count-confounds-doomsayers/article4099460/

No. no it doesn't seem irrefutable. 

Refuted:

56 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

It looks like there's stability in much of Canada. That's good news but I think it's reasonable to assert the future remains uncertain. And the lack of data for the rest of the Arctic only muddies the waters further.

Of course there are more bears now when compared to the previous 50 years. Populations were decimated by hunting/trapping prior to 1973 when regulations were put in place (http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/agreements/agreement1973.html) to ensure conservation of the species. The population has stabilized thanks to those regulations. However, that doesn't mean they're not a vulnerable species* or that a changing climate in the Arctic isn't a real thing. The coverage area and density of sea ice has declined over the last few decades, so animals in the region will be affected as those changes persist. That is particularly important for a species like the polar bear that relies heavily on sea ice for hunting/feeding. (https://arcticwwf.org/places/last-ice-area/)

It seems awfully disingenuous to use stabilized polar bear populations to refute climate change. Populations have stabilized because they're no longer being recklessly hunted on a large scale.

You wouldn't look at bison populations today and apply such similarly shaky logic. Like the polar bear, they've recovered impressively thanks to conservation efforts after being nearly hunted to extinction.

* the polar bear's conservation status remains vulnerable (https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22823/14871490)

 

Edited March 15, 20196 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

15 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

● Inconvenient Fact No. 10: "Cites 'Recent Inconvenient Pause of 18 years in warming, despite rise in CO2.'"

This is actually true for land surface temperatures, nobody disputes that. The oceans continued to warm which kept global temperatures creeping up. 

 

15 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

● Inconvenient Fact No. 12: "Modern warming began long before SUVs or coal-fired plants."

Some truth to this statement too, Central England Temperature Record for the 40 years 1694-1733, long before SUVs, during which the temperature in most of England rose at a rate equivalent to 4.33 C°/century, compared with just 1.7 C°/century equivalent in the 40 years 1979-2018. Therefore, the current rate of warming is not unprecedented.

15 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

● Inconvenient Fact No. 21: "The current warming trend is neither unusual nor unprecedented."

See above.

15 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

● Inconvenient Fact No. 53: "There are more polar bears now than we've had for 50 years."

You guy already answered this one.

Not hard evidence by any stretch but enough that further research is warranted imo. 

Now this has absolutely huge implications if what they are theorizing is correct, their paper is in the peer review stage. 

Quote

If we’re right, Charney sensitivity (equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO₂) will be 1.2 [1.1, 1.3] C°, far too little to matter, and not, as the models currently imagine, 3.4 [2.1, 4.7] C°, and that, scientifically speaking, will be the end of the climate scam.

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Edited March 15, 20196 yr by pigseye
r

5 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Now this has absolutely huge implications if what they are theorizing is correct, their paper is in the peer review stage. 

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

I'm going to go out on a limb here and dismiss it outright because of his lengthy history of lying about this:

 

Favourite climate myths by Christopher Monckton

Below are many of the climate myths used by Christopher Monckton plus how often each myth has been used.

Climate myths by Monckton	What the Science Says	Usage
"Climate sensitivity is low"	Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.	15
"Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated"	Sea level rise is now increasing faster than predicted due to unexpectedly rapid ice melting.	11
"Hockey stick is broken"	Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.	10
"Sea level rise is exaggerated"	A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.	9
"Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer"	This argument uses regional temperature data that ends in 1855, long before modern global warming began.	9
"Medieval Warm Period was warmer"	Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.	9
"It's cooling"	The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.	9
"IPCC overestimate temperature rise"	Monckton used the IPCC equation in an inappropriate manner.	8
"CO2 limits will harm the economy"	The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over.	7
"There's no tropospheric hot spot"	We see a clear "short-term hot spot" - there's various evidence for a "long-term hot spot".	7
"Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain"	Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain.	7
"It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940"	The warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940.	7
"Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity"	Lindzen and Choi’s paper is viewed as unacceptably flawed by other climate scientists.	6
"Models are unreliable"	Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.	6
"Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming"	There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.	6
"IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period"	The IPCC simply updated their temperature history graphs to show the best data available at the time.	6
"Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming"	Extreme weather events are being made more frequent and worse by global warming.	5
"IPCC is alarmist"	Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.	5
"Climate's changed before"	Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.	5
"Greenland is gaining ice"	Greenland on the whole is losing ice, as confirmed by satellite measurement.	5
"It's global brightening"	This is a complex aerosol effect with unclear temperature significance.	5
"CO2 limits will make little difference"	If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale.	5
"Arctic was warmer in 1940"	The actual data show high northern latitudes are warmer today than in 1940.	5
"It hasn't warmed since 1998"	Every part of the Earth's climate system has continued warming since 1998, with 2015 shattering temperature records.	4
"It's not bad"	Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.	4
"Oceans are cooling"	The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming.	4
"An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature"	CO2 levels are rising so fast that unless we decrease emissions, global warming will accelerate this century.	4
"CO2 lags temperature"	CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.	4
"Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy"	A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.	4
"Al Gore got it wrong"	Al Gore's book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.	4
"It's the sun"	In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions	4
"Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle"	Thick Arctic sea ice is undergoing a rapid retreat.	4
"It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low"	Early 20th century warming is due to several causes, including rising CO2.	3
"Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use"	Most glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, notwithstanding a few complicated cases.	3
"There's no empirical evidence"	There are multiple lines of direct observations that humans are causing global warming.	3
"Temp record is unreliable"	The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.	3
"It's Urban Heat Island effect"	Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.	3
"Climate scientists are in it for the money"	Climate scientists could make far more money in other careers - most notably, working for the oil industry.	3
"Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected"	This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia.	3
"There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature"	There is long-term correlation between CO2 and global temperature; other effects are short-term.	3
"Greenland was green"	Other parts of the earth got colder when Greenland got warmer.	3
"Skeptics were kept out of the IPCC?"	Official records, Editors and emails suggest CRU scientists acted in the spirit if not the letter of IPCC rules.	2
"2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells"	A cold day in Chicago in winter has nothing to do with the trend of global warming.	2
"Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong"	Jim Hansen had several possible scenarios; his mid-level scenario B was right.	2
"IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers"	Glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, despite 1 error in 1 paragraph in a 1000 page IPCC report.	2
"CO2 limits will hurt the poor"	Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change.	2
"Antarctica is gaining ice"	Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.	2
"Polar bear numbers are increasing"	Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species.	2
"Greenland ice sheet won't collapse"	When Greenland was 3 to 5 degrees C warmer than today, a large portion of the Ice Sheet melted.	2
"Ocean acidification isn't serious"	Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains.	2
"Arctic sea ice has recovered"	Thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat.	2
"We're coming out of the Little Ice Age"	Scientists have determined that the factors which caused the Little Ice Age cooling are not currently causing global warming.	2
"CO2 was higher in the past"	When CO2 was higher in the past, the sun was cooler.	2
"CO2 is plant food"	The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors	2
"Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995"	Phil Jones was misquoted.	2
"Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????"	Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.	2
"There is no consensus"	97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.	2
"Sea level is not rising"	The claim sea level isn’t rising is based on blatantly doctored graphs contradicted by observations.	2
"Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009"	Winter snow cover in 2008/2009 was average while the long-term trend in spring, summer, and annual snow cover is rapid decline.	1
"Satellites show no warming in the troposphere"	The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.	1
"It's microsite influences"	Microsite influences on temperature changes are minimal; good and bad sites show the same trend.	1
"CO2 has a short residence time"	Excess CO2 from human emissions has a long residence time of over 100 years	1
"Glaciers are growing"	Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.	1
"CO2 is just a trace gas"	Many substances are dangerous even in trace amounts; what really matters is the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.	1
"Ice Sheet losses are overestimated"	A number of independent measurements find extensive ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland.	1
"CO2 is not a pollutant"	Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant	1
"Corals are resilient to bleaching"	Globally about 1% of coral is dying out each year.	1
"Tuvalu sea level isn't rising"	Tuvalu sea level is rising 3 times larger than the global average.	1
"Ice age predicted in the 70s"	The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.	1
"Coral atolls grow as sea levels rise"	Thousands of coral atolls have "drowned" when unable to grow fast enough to survive at sea level.	1
"Peer review process was corrupted"	An Independent Review concluded that CRU's actions were normal and didn't threaten the integrity of peer review.	1
"It's not urgent"	A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.	1
"It's not us"	Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.	1
"Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass"	Greenland's ice loss is accelerating & will add metres of sea level rise in upcoming centuries.	1
"Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted"	Weather is chaotic but climate is driven by Earth's energy imbalance, which is more predictable.	1
"It's freaking cold!"	A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.	1
"Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project"	The 'OISM petition' was signed by only a few climatologists.	1
"It's too hard"	Scientific studies have determined that current technology is sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to avoid dangerous climate change.	1
"Animals and plants can adapt"	Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.	1
"Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature"	The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.	1
"Southern sea ice is increasing"	Antarctic sea ice has grown in recent decades despite the Southern Ocean warming at the same time.	1
"CRU tampered with temperature data"	An independent inquiry went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results.	1
"It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation"	The PDO shows no trend, and therefore the PDO is not responsible for the trend of global warming.	1
"Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming"	Trenberth is talking about the details of energy flow, not whether global warming is happening.	1
"Clouds provide negative feedback"	Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative.	1
"IPCC graph showing accelerating trends is misleading"	All of the statements made in the IPCC report regarding the figure in question are correct and supported.

Edited March 15, 20196 yr by wanna-b-fanboy