How much proof do the global warming deniers need?

[bowerbird]

Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years, Says Ohio State University Researcher

Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years, Says Ohio State University Researcher

For a start that article is nine years old - and there is STILL no evidence that the global warming is decelerating - if anything there is more and more evidence that it is accelerating.

Secondly let us look at this "researchers" credentials

Essenhigh is a professor of mechanical engineering whose main focus is in the area of combustion

Robert H. Essenhigh

That is about as far from climatology as geology is from human physiology

 

[Bodi]

For a start that article is nine years old - and there is STILL no evidence that the global warming is decelerating - if anything there is more and more evidence that it is accelerating.

Secondly let us look at this "researchers" credentials



Robert H. Essenhigh

That is about as far from climatology as geology is from human physiology

Probably a million times more qualified than you though, right?

The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the claim that "the globe is warming" and "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible". Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.

nzclimatescience.net - SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC

"the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment (June 2007), let alone human-caused warming."

High price for load of hot air | Courier Mail

"Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)

Global Warming, climate change facts, articles

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming | Russia | RIA Novosti

Russian scientist issues global cooling warning | Russia | RIA Novosti

"Climate prediction is complex with many uncertainties ... For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such predictions - called "verification" - is simply impossible, since we have to wait a decade or longer to assess the accuracy of the forecasts. ... climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends."

American Association of State Climatologists

Exiting NCDC

global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"

Global warning? - Controversy heats up in the scientific community - Spring 2005 - Carleton University Magazine

"The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."
“It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”

Global Warming Debate : The Denial Machine : the fifth estate : CBC News

 

[zimmer]

Let's not forget this:
Channel Four Television Corporation, GB


ROTFLOL... not Rupert Murdoch owned and operated.
It's British Public TV.

Bowerbird, this will throw a wrench into your whole belief system, if you are open minded. At worst you will have a lot of questions to work through.

.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Not the swindle nonsense again! Here's an appropriate level of critique of Durkin's "steaming heap of a programme". It's a little Britain-centric but the point remains.
Not work safe.

 

[zimmer]

Yeah, all the scientists around the world they had on the program for The Great GW Swindle are nuts... their clear, concise explanations about history of climate, CO2 being impossible as a climate driver but instead is a follower... all nonsense... the sun driving the climate... and proven so... nonsense... and Green Peace Founder explaining why this is all so crazy... nonsense.

OK... their research, explanations, showing where Gore lied/mislead... nonsense.

That's why the climate industry is in hot water... because of their nonsense... can we say self fulfilling prophesy? Which is not science... but political activism.

.

 

[bowerbird]

Probably a million times more qualified than you though, right?

The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the claim that "the globe is warming" and "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible". Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.

nzclimatescience.net - SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC

You obviously THINK this is a valid source or you would not have posted it but would it surprise you to find it is a fraud? Look again - no links to research and no links with any scientific body what so ever.

"the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment (June 2007), let alone human-caused warming."

Which makes this worthless - There are a lot of claims but absolutely no evidence any of them are worth using as toilet paper

High price for load of hot air | Courier Mail

"Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)

Courier mail:doh DRUDGE is more worthwhile - and THAT is saying something

I will let Barry Jones rebut Bob Carter ABC The Drum Unleashed - Bob Carter's attack on reason

Professor Bob Carter of the James Cook University illustrates how easy it is for climate sceptics to obtain media coverage, and those with a science background have no need to go through the tedious process of researching, writing and submitting papers for peer-review.

Publications by climate change denialists/sceptics mostly fall into two categories, knockabout polemic (mostly ad hominem) and objectors to a particular point of detail. The publications are rarely published in refereed journals, which suggests sharply alternative explanations - one, that the material is not credible, testable or evidence-based, or, two, that there is a conspiracy by a scientific Mafia to suppress dissent. (Denialists are strongly drawn to the second alternative).

Prof. Carter's central theme can be summarised as 'Scientists are corrupt but lobbyists are pure'.

Global Warming, climate change facts, articles

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming | Russia | RIA Novosti

Russian scientist issues global cooling warning | Russia | RIA Novosti

"Climate prediction is complex with many uncertainties ... For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such predictions - called "verification" - is simply impossible, since we have to wait a decade or longer to assess the accuracy of the forecasts. ... climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends."

American Association of State Climatologists

Exiting NCDC

global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"

Global warning? - Controversy heats up in the scientific community - Spring 2005 - Carleton University Magazine

"The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."
“It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”

Global Warming Debate : The Denial Machine : the fifth estate : CBC News[/QUOTE]

I could go through these one by one but truth is I have a raging temperature myself and am just not up to it

Needless to say there is a common thread

a) it is opinion not science - please learn the difference
b) it is unsupported - facts need referencing
c) the political agenda underpinning all of these is clear - deny deny deny

 

[bowerbird]

Yeah, all the scientists around the world they had on the program for The Great GW Swindle are nuts... their clear, concise explanations about history of climate, CO2 being impossible as a climate driver but instead is a follower... all nonsense... the sun driving the climate... and proven so... nonsense... and Green Peace Founder explaining why this is all so crazy... nonsense.

OK... their research, explanations, showing where Gore lied/mislead... nonsense.

That's why the climate industry is in hot water... because of their nonsense... can we say self fulfilling prophesy? Which is not science... but political activism.

.

You lot made such a fuss over the CRU emails - even though there was sod all in them and yet swallow a crock like this whole.

This was a blatant fraud

The Great Global Warming Swindle

 

[Deuce]

You lot made such a fuss over the CRU emails - even though there was sod all in them and yet swallow a crock like this whole.

This was a blatant fraud

The Great Global Warming Swindle

And when she says fraud, she doesn't mean spins or distortions. She means taking statements out of context to directly reverse their intended meaning, cutting off graphs at 1980 and still labeling the end "NOW," and literal fabrication of data that they attributed to NASA. (easily found by looking at NASA's actual data)

 

[zimmer]

You lot made such a fuss over the CRU emails - even though there was sod all in them and yet swallow a crock like this whole.

This was a blatant fraud

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Well, we know exactly where your head is.
A lock, stock enviromaniac.

The frauds have been the product of the climate cartel, not the journalists, scientists, and activists (Former Green Peace founder) that expose the entire $cam bare in The Great Global Warming Swindle. They hit it all... the science, the reporting, the activism and the money.

I can understand why environmaniacs would be irate. Their house of cards is crumbling when just a little pressure is applied.

But...

...there remain the gullibles.

 

[bowerbird]

Well, we know exactly where your head is.
A lock, stock enviromaniac.

The frauds have been the product of the climate cartel, not the journalists, scientists, and activists (Former Green Peace founder) that expose the entire $cam bare in The Great Global Warming Swindle. They hit it all... the science, the reporting, the activism and the money.

I can understand why environmaniacs would be irate. Their house of cards is crumbling when just a little pressure is applied.

But...

...there remain the gullibles.

It is very very difficult NOT to label something a fraud when they interviewed the scientists who were quoted out of context and found the REAL truth. When they were caught out blatantly "fiddling the graphs"

Actually Martin, the temperature now is higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years.

That 'medieval warm period' and 'little ice age' graphic (below) is pretty convincing all right - anyone can tell that the medieval hump is higher than the temperature marked 'now'.
Temp - 1000 years
Forget about statistics – look what you can do with graphs! "Now" in this graph seems to fall somewhere around the late 80s. Funny, because the 10 hottest years on record have all happened since then.

The only problem is that the "Now" that's shown on the graph isn't now as in 2007, it seems to be pointing at somewhere around the late 80s. Worse still, a thick black line is obscuring whatever happened temperature-wise between then and the mid 70s.

How about this graph of Durkins

Hmmmm - wonder why the last 20 years are not included?

or

But as usual instead of addressing the fraud or even acknowledging it (heaven forfend!) and finding another source we descend into an ad hominem attack

 

[bowerbird]

Now to take up where I left off

Global Warming, climate change facts, articles

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

Now Canada free press is notorious as a right wing spin machine - with the known shill for hire Tim Ball. Hardly a peer reviewed research article

Don't believe me? Google them up yourself

Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.[4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.[5]

Tim Ball - SourceWatch

Now before you scream at me "You are only attacking the sources - let us look at the, for want of a better word "science" that Tim Ball is putting forth and to summarise - it is all the sun - well, no just look at the previous post of mine debunking Durkin - the correlation between solar activity and temperature became less and less relevant over the last 30 odd years. (perhaps he got his "facts" from Durkin?)
But in case you do not like graphs - here is a nice video explanation



His second point about the "greenhouse gases giving the heat away" - sorry, but here is where we leave climatology and enter into physics only to hit a resounding WTF!!??? from any physicists and chemists in the room.

Is there science that disproves Ball - well, yes, in fact there is and it is science which is very very hard to "fiddle" because it is direct satellite measurement of long wave radiation.

Now again I am using a your tube presentation but it covers the essential points about CO2 nicely
YouTube - Sense from Deniers on CO2? Don't hold your breath....

But for actual science

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? note the referencing!!

 

[Demon of Light]

I find this all rather annoying. From the very beginning the anthropogenic global warming theory was politicized and as such all rebuts are political. People tend to ignore things challenging their position if it is political and as a result everyone notices the other's errors, only convincing them further that their position is the correct one.

Also, loving the hypocrisy of criticizing the one graph ending at one year and then citing other graphs to support your position that do the same thing.

 

[bowerbird]

I find this all rather annoying. From the very beginning the anthropogenic global warming theory was politicized and as such all rebuts are political. People tend to ignore things challenging their position if it is political and as a result everyone notices the other's errors, only convincing them further that their position is the correct one.

Also, loving the hypocrisy of criticizing the one graph ending at one year and then citing other graphs to support your position that do the same thing.

Sorry - but which graphs stop prematurely?

 

[Demon of Light]

Sorry - but which graphs stop prematurely?

Both of them. One seems to end at 2005 and the other a little earlier.

 

[bowerbird]

Both of them. One seems to end at 2005 and the other a little earlier.

(((((((((shrugs))))))))))))))))))) feel free to google up a contrarian graph - lots of luck with that though especially since the last couple of years have had record low solar minima

 

[bowerbird]

Both of them. One seems to end at 2005 and the other a little earlier.

(((((((((shrugs))))))))))))))))))) feel free to google up a contrarian graph - lots of luck with that though especially since the last couple of years have had record low solar minima

 

[Deuce]

Both of them. One seems to end at 2005 and the other a little earlier.

Some people don't update their graphs very often. You're really comparing that to ending at 1980 and labeling it "NOW?" Conveniently when the data diverges from the point they were trying to make? (they were talking about the link between solar activity and temperature. they cut off the chart when solar activity began to decline and temperature continued to rise, because that would have disproven their own argument)

What would you say about the direct falsification? That's me being political? I can't even challenge data when your side ****ing makes it up and is outright caught doing so?

Watch that "climate denier crock" video. That guy has done a pretty good job debunking many skeptics' myths.

 

[Demon of Light]

Some people don't update their graphs very often. You're really comparing that to ending at 1980 and labeling it "NOW?" Conveniently when the data diverges from the point they were trying to make? (they were talking about the link between solar activity and temperature. they cut off the chart when solar activity began to decline and temperature continued to rise, because that would have disproven their own argument)

I just find it funny:

I found that graph in like five seconds using Google.

What would you say about the direct falsification?

I don't support lying if that's what you mean.

I can't even challenge data when your side ****ing makes it up and is outright caught doing so?

Don't lump me into some sort of group please.

Watch that "climate denier crock" video. That guy has done a pretty good job debunking many skeptics' myths.

I watched that video. Do you want me to watch the others? The video posted here didn't refute anything I said.

 

[bowerbird]

I just find it funny:

I found that graph in like five seconds using Google.



I don't support lying if that's what you mean.



Don't lump me into some sort of group please.



I watched that video. Do you want me to watch the others? The video posted here didn't refute anything I said.

Except that is a graph of CO2 and temperature not a graph of solar output and temperature

by the way - where did you get that graph I cannot find it's source material

 

[Deuce]

I just find it funny:

I found that graph in like five seconds using Google.

Bowerbird already touched on this, but this is CO2 v Temp, not Sun v Temp. What is this supposed to prove? It's less than a 20 year timeframe. Looking at this small a scale, you're going to have to correct for El Nino/La Nina cycles and the 11-year solar cycle if you want a good picture of what I assume you're trying to prove. (that CO2 is not related to temperature?) Besides, CO2 isn't a direct, linear forcing of temperature so you're not going to see a direct, linear variation in temperature. (CO2, obviously, does not directly heat things)

Posting graphs with no attempt at discussion doesn't help anything. What are you trying to show?

I don't support lying if that's what you mean.
Don't lump me into some sort of group please.

You did step in to support "The Great Global Warming Swindle," which is chock full of straight up bald-faced lies.

I watched that video. Do you want me to watch the others? The video posted here didn't refute anything I said.

There's quite a few, so I don't expect you to watch them all. You can if you like, there's a lot of interesting stuff in there. He does a good job sourcing his material, also.
Little Green Footballs - Video: 'The Big Swindle Movie'
This one is a good direct debunking of The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The rest of the videos are pretty good. You can poke through the titles, you'll probably see several familiar skeptic talking points in there, such as:
Medieval warm period was warmer than today!
Scientists in the 1970s thought an ice age was coming!
31000 scientists disagree with AGW!
The world stopped getting warmer in 1995!


YouTube - 7. Climate Change - "Those" e-mails and science censorship
This guy (potholer54) is another good one.

 

[Demon of Light]

Except that is a graph of CO2 and temperature not a graph of solar output and temperature

by the way - where did you get that graph I cannot find it's source material

Huh? The point was that your graphs cut off at a certain date and I simply pointed out a graph that showed the remainder. The remainder shows what ultimately appears to be a sudden flattening.

As far as the graph I believe it was made by someone on Wikipedia working off existing data.

Bowerbird already touched on this, but this is CO2 v Temp, not Sun v Temp. What is this supposed to prove? It's less than a 20 year timeframe. Looking at this small a scale, you're going to have to correct for El Nino/La Nina cycles and the 11-year solar cycle if you want a good picture of what I assume you're trying to prove. (that CO2 is not related to temperature?) Besides, CO2 isn't a direct, linear forcing of temperature so you're not going to see a direct, linear variation in temperature. (CO2, obviously, does not directly heat things)

Posting graphs with no attempt at discussion doesn't help anything. What are you trying to show?

Actually, I do not think any of those factors diminish the point that the temperatures were flat.

You did step in to support "The Great Global Warming Swindle," which is chock full of straight up bald-faced lies.

No, I stepped in to point out that the selective use of data goes both ways.

There's quite a few, so I don't expect you to watch them all. You can if you like, there's a lot of interesting stuff in there. He does a good job sourcing his material, also.
Little Green Footballs - Video: 'The Big Swindle Movie'
This one is a good direct debunking of The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The rest of the videos are pretty good. You can poke through the titles, you'll probably see several familiar skeptic talking points in there, such as:
Medieval warm period was warmer than today!
Scientists in the 1970s thought an ice age was coming!
31000 scientists disagree with AGW!
The world stopped getting warmer in 1995!

Looked through the whole thing and amazingly the only thing I got out of it was some interesting information about renewable energy. In other words, nothing even remotely sufficient to show with any degree of real certainty what is causing global warming.

 

[Deuce]

Actually, I do not think any of those factors diminish the point that the temperatures were flat.

They weren't flat. They had a definite rising trend in the 1990's and a shallow rising trend in the 2000s. This is more readily apparent when you look at a running 5-year average rather than 12-month averages. Temperature is a very noisy signal. So noisy, in fact, that your graph leaving out 2009 was enough to change the trend for the 2000's from positive to negative. That's why we look at larger scales.



Here's the most recent data from NASA's GISTemp. (my own spreadsheet, hence the crappy look)

No, I stepped in to point out that the selective use of data goes both ways.

Except you're comparing using out of date graphs that cut off at around 2007 to slicing off 20 or 30 years deliberately to hide a trend.

Looked through the whole thing and amazingly the only thing I got out of it was some interesting information about renewable energy. In other words, nothing even remotely sufficient to show with any degree of real certainty what is causing global warming.

The Swindle debunking was just that: debunking a crappy source of misinformation spread by skeptics. The videos are all on that theme: debunking skeptic myths rather than proving AGW. (because that's the job of scientists, not journalists or bloggers)

 

[Demon of Light]

They weren't flat. They had a definite rising trend in the 1990's and a shallow rising trend in the 2000s. This is more readily apparent when you look at a running 5-year average rather than 12-month averages. Temperature is a very noisy signal. So noisy, in fact, that your graph leaving out 2009 was enough to change the trend for the 2000's from positive to negative. That's why we look at larger scales.

Well, it seems there is conflicting data on the matter from major sources.

Except you're comparing using out of date graphs that cut off at around 2007 to slicing off 20 or 30 years deliberately to hide a trend.

Obfuscating even a little is hardly acceptable, especially doing so while attacking others for it. Also, just to point this out, does this mean you all accept the legitimacy of the correlation with solar activity up until 1970? That alone would be enough for me to toss out the CO2 claims as speculative at best.

The Swindle debunking was just that: debunking a crappy source of misinformation spread by skeptics. The videos are all on that theme: debunking skeptic myths rather than proving AGW. (because that's the job of scientists, not journalists or bloggers)

Yeah, I watched every last one and there was definitely a lot of effort put into showing why it is a "fact" and it wasn't very convincing at all. I have looked over a number of articles that "prove" anthropogenic global warming and never once have I felt even remotely satisfied with their explanation. Not because I refuse to believe it, but rather because they give me no compelling reason to assume they are doing anything more than overlaying graphs and going "Aha!"

 

[Deuce]

Well, it seems there is conflicting data on the matter from major sources.

It's not conflicting. It's different data. 12 month averages =/= annual averages =/= 5-year averages.

Obfuscating even a little is hardly acceptable, especially doing so while attacking others for it. Also, just to point this out, does this mean you all accept the legitimacy of the correlation with solar activity up until 1970? That alone would be enough for me to toss out the CO2 claims as speculative at best.

It's not obfuscating. If you look at a chart from 2007, it just isn't going to have 2008's data on it. By the way, you just left out 2009 on your own chart. NASA's data is up to date. Why is the rest important? You, like every other skeptic, seem to not understand that blogs, youtube videos, news articles, and wikipedia are not scientific data. The charts on them are not scientific data. They are not created by scientists, they are created by random people on the internet or journalists who sometimes have very little understanding of what they're writing about.

Yeah, I watched every last one and there was definitely a lot of effort put into showing why it is a "fact" and it wasn't very convincing at all. I have looked over a number of articles that "prove" anthropogenic global warming and never once have I felt even remotely satisfied with their explanation. Not because I refuse to believe it, but rather because they give me no compelling reason to assume they are doing anything more than overlaying graphs and going "Aha!"

Articles.

You looked at articles.

See, that's your problem right there. Along with every other skeptic on the planet. Scientists don't write articles when they want to prove something. You want something definitive? Read peer-reviewed science journals.

http://www.skepticalscience.com

These guys have a lot more links to actual papers, maybe that's what you're looking for. (look under "arguments" at the top. You'll find just about every skeptic's attempt to obfuscate that has ever existed) There just isn't a cliffnotes version of more than a century's worth of work by thousands of scientists in dozens of fields. Journalists and bloggers try to summarize things, but that's not going to be enough for someone like you.

 

[bowerbird]

Huh? The point was that your graphs cut off at a certain date and I simply pointed out a graph that showed the remainder. The remainder shows what ultimately appears to be a sudden flattening.

As far as the graph I believe it was made by someone on Wikipedia working off existing data.

Actually old chap it was part of WIKIMEDIA or WIKI commons - which means someone has submitted it because they think it MIGHT be useful but it is not necessarily linked to any reference or discussion.

Which puts it firmly back into the "drew it meself with an etch-a-sketch" category