We're Screwed: 11,000 Years' Worth of Climate Data Prove It

[flogger]

Thanks for presenting the science denier perspective for us!

Oh no ! Not the devastating 'denier denier pants on fire' response ..... again ! :lamo

 

[jmotivator]

Oh no ! Not the devastating 'denier denier pants on fire' response ..... again ! :lamo

That's how Catawba rolls. Silence dissent! Don't speak ill of the faith!

It's sad to see the foot soldiers of CAGW bastardize the scientific process in an attempt to protect the one splinter of the science tree that has completely lost it's grip on what science is in favor of what they want the umbrella of science to allow them to do.

 

[Somerville]

Oh well I guess those greenhouse growers must have been getting it wrong for decades now. Ideal levels for growth are three times those of today and this has been known for decades. This agenda has managed to corrupt the simplest of truisms in the minds of the wilfully gullible it seems.

Plants Need CO2 - Carbon Dioxide Emissions - Global Warming Climate Change Facts

Hmmm, interesting . . . who should we believe, scientists who are looking at more than growth rates of plants exposed to elevated CO2 levels, specifically how higher levels are affecting the nutritional value of food plants by changing chemical processes during the growing period or a man (H. Leighton Steward) who "a director at oil and gas company EOG Resources, formerly known as Enron Oil and Gas Company, where he earned $617,151 in 2008. Steward also serves as an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute." A man who posts on a website registered by a minerals company

From GoDaddy WhoIS lookup page

Domain NameLANTSNEEDCO2.ORG
Created On:26-May-2009 20:14:18 UTC
Last Updated On:19-May-2011 14:38:46 UTC
Expiration Date:26-May-2016 20:14:18 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions, LLC (R63-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:44057767-NSI
Registrant Name:Leighton Steward
Registrant Street1:234 W BANDERA RD # 121
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:BOERNE
Registrant State/Province:TX
Registrant Postal Code:78006
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.7137517511
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:it@quintanaminerals.com

from Bloomberg

Quintana Minerals Corporation explores and develops oil and gas. The company also distributes natural gas in the United States. Quintana Minerals Corporation was founded in 1978 and is based in Houston, Texas

If you guys are going to continue your efforts to deny the reality of climate change, you really need to find some funding from groups that won't benefit financially when efforts to mitigate the effects of mankind's work on destroying our planet are shut down.

 

[jmotivator]

If you guys are going to continue your efforts to deny the reality of climate change, you really need to find some funding from groups that won't benefit financially when efforts to mitigate the effects of mankind's work on destroying our planet are shut down.

So who do you think benefits financially from carbon credit markets?

 

[Somerville]

So who do you think benefits financially from carbon credit markets?

Those investors who have put their money into that market.

Are you really making an attempt to equate them with those individuals in the fossil fuel industries who are funding the denialists?



Who benefits financially when public waterways are polluted? Who benefits when pollution laws keep our waterways clean?

Who benefits financially when there are no regulations regarding air pollution? Who benefits when more people can breathe clean air?

 

[flogger]

Hmmm, interesting . . . who should we believe, scientists who are looking at more than growth rates of plants exposed to elevated CO2 levels, specifically how higher levels are affecting the nutritional value of food plants by changing chemical processes during the growing period or a man (H. Leighton Steward) who "a director at oil and gas company EOG Resources, formerly known as Enron Oil and Gas Company, where he earned $617,151 in 2008. Steward also serves as an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute." A man who posts on a website registered by a minerals company

From GoDaddy WhoIS lookup page


from Bloomberg



If you guys are going to continue your efforts to deny the reality of climate change, you really need to find some funding from groups that won't benefit financially when efforts to mitigate the effects of mankind's work on destroying our planet are shut down.

So the oil companies are responsible for the fact that extra CO 2 benefits plants now thus denying climate change and stating this is just some sinister global plot they've hatched to disguise thier evil deeds ? If an oil company said 1 + 1 = 2 it doesnt mean that it automatically doesnt ! Just how far gone are 'you guys' ? :lamo

 

[jmotivator]

Those investors who have put their money into that market.

Are you really making an attempt to equate them with those individuals in the fossil fuel industries who are funding the denialists?

Oil companies are heavily investing in carbon offsets markets. Why do you suppose Exxon supports Obama in his drive for a carbon tax? It's not getting any more expensive to extract oil from the ground, so anything to raise the price of oil is good for the oil industry. But then the head of the IPCC runs TERI, and the big names in CAGW are heavily invested in carbon trading (Al Gore made several hundred million dollars), as is the BBC Pension Trust.

In the long game, anything that drives up oil cost while driving down demand simply secures profits for the oil companies while extending viability of existing tapped reserves. Granted, with a booming China the reduction in oil use hasn't really been seen, so all it means at the moment is bigger profits.

Who benefits financially when public waterways are polluted? Who benefits when pollution laws keep our waterways clean?

I am a conservationist. My biggest issue with this global warming boondoggle is that it saps resources from REAL conservation and dumps it into things like Electric cars which, if you have ever seen a nickle mine, are anything BUT environmentally friendly.

Who benefits financially when there are no regulations regarding air pollution? Who benefits when more people can breathe clean air?

Where did I say anything about eliminating pollution regulations? I would argue that enforcing CO2 emissions is idiotic given that it is one of the more important pieces of the Earth life cycle... you might as well ban water since it's vapor form is bar far the greatest GHG in the atmosphere. You regulate the actually hazardous emissions, not the environmentally neutral ones.

 

[Somerville]

So the oil companies are responsible for the fact that extra CO 2 benefits plants now thus denying climate change and stating this is just some sinister global plot they've hatched to disguise thier evil deeds ? If an oil company said 1 + 1 = 2 it doesnt mean that it automatically doesnt ! Just how far gone are 'you guys' ? :lamo

You really don't bother to read any item that contradicts your deeply held beliefs, do you?

Research has shown increased CO2 levels while increasing the size of food plants, at the same time decreases the uptake of nitrogen into the plants, thereby reducing the nutritional value. For the cattle industry, it would mean each cow would have to increase consumption to achieve the same protein level -- more land devoted to feed for cows and less for people. And what was grown for humans would also have less nutritional value.

Why, is everything in your world such an absolute? It truly seems to be one of the major requirements for the 'conservative', black/white, "My way or the highway", binary thought patterns.

 

[flogger]

You really don't bother to read any item that contradicts your deeply held beliefs, do you?

What 'deeply held beliefs' would those be then ? I'm not the one with the faith to defend after all :roll:

Research has shown increased CO2 levels while increasing the size of food plants, at the same time decreases the uptake of nitrogen into the plants, thereby reducing the nutritional value. For the cattle industry, it would mean each cow would have to increase consumption to achieve the same protein level -- more land devoted to feed for cows and less for people. And what was grown for humans would also have less nutritional value. .

And the vast bulk of experience shows the opposite. Unless the greenhouse owners have been getting it wrong for decades now

Why, is everything in your world such an absolute?

It isnt

It truly seems to be one of the major requirements for the 'conservative', black/white, "My way or the highway", binary thought patterns

I'm not conservative so whats your point ?

 

[Deuce]

Argue black is white all you want . The facts are the facts

How do plants respond to increased frequency of drought and heatwave?

CO2 isn't the only variable at play.

 

[flogger]

How do plants respond to increased frequency of drought and heatwave?

CO2 isn't the only variable at play.

At last it looks like we're making progress !

 

[Catawba]

You really don't bother to read any item that contradicts your deeply held beliefs, do you?

Research has shown increased CO2 levels while increasing the size of food plants, at the same time decreases the uptake of nitrogen into the plants, thereby reducing the nutritional value. For the cattle industry, it would mean each cow would have to increase consumption to achieve the same protein level -- more land devoted to feed for cows and less for people. And what was grown for humans would also have less nutritional value.

Why, is everything in your world such an absolute? It truly seems to be one of the major requirements for the 'conservative', black/white, "My way or the highway", binary thought patterns.

This also explains why the great majority of science deniers are conservative. It is why Jon Huntsman was worried his party was going to considered the anti-science party.

 

[flogger]

This also explains why the great majority of science deniers are conservative. It is why Jon Huntsman was worried his party was going to considered the anti-science party.

And thankfully I am niether. I'm just someone who doesnt like to be blatantly lied to in order that others might get to help themselves to the contents of my wallet

 

[Somerville]

And thankfully I am niether. I'm just someone who doesnt like to be blatantly lied to in order that others might get to help themselves to the contents of my wallet

How do you KNOW that your being "blatantly lied to"? Where are you getting the 'scientific' data that shows the majority of climatologists are lying to the public, are manipulating the data to 'prove' their statements on AGW? What is your educational background that allows you to interpret the data?


If you don't like "others" helping themselves to the contents of your wallet, you might want to think about what is happening around the world these days. The ones helping themselves to the greatest extent sure as hell ain't Romney's "moochers and takers"

 

[KLATTU]

This also explains why the great majority of science deniers are conservative. It is why Jon Huntsman was worried his party was going to considered the anti-science party.

I'd like to put it more accurately. Rational people question the motives science put out by the AGW crowd. And they do that because a lot of it has been crap. Like the study
in the OP. Where’s the hockey stick? The ‘Marcott 9′ show no warming past 1950 | Watts Up With That?

Liberals tend to belive anything that says what they want hear without much questiioning. ( SEE OP)

 

[flogger]

How do you KNOW that your being "blatantly lied to"?

Thats simple I've checked the facts

Where are you getting the 'scientific' data that shows the majority of climatologists are lying to the public, are manipulating the data to 'prove' their statements on AGW?

How do you know its a majority have you actually checked or are you someone who takes the 97% Doran Zimmermann poll at face value ? Its not so much what climatologists are saying but alarmist misrepresentations of what they are saying thats at issue.

What is your educational background that allows you to interpret the data?

I can do math and I can read

If you don't like "others" helping themselves to the contents of your wallet, you might want to think about what is happening around the world these days. The ones helping themselves to the greatest extent sure as hell ain't Romney's "moochers and takers

I'm not jealous about the contents of thier wallets I care about the diminishing contents of mine :roll:

 

[Catawba]

I'd like to put it more accurately. Rational people question the motives science put out by the AGW crowd. And they do that because a lot of it has been crap. Like the study
in the OP. Where’s the hockey stick? The ‘Marcott 9′ show no warming past 1950 | Watts Up With That?

Liberals tend to belive anything that says what they want hear without much questiioning. ( SEE OP)

Conservatives put greater stock in political blogs, like the one you referenced, then they do the majority of climate experts from all over the world.

 

[KLATTU]

Conservatives put greater stock in political blogs, like the one you referenced, then they do the majority of climate experts from all over the world.

They do when said blogs eviscerate a study with fatcs, like this one did.

The notion of 'climate experts all over the world' being a bunch of objective observers with no poltical agenda who -gee- just happened to come to some the same conclusion , is pure fantasy. That silly notion was emphatically laid to rest by Climategate. But then, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Goshin]

We're Screwed: 11,000 Years' Worth of Climate Data Prove It - Climate Desk - The Atlantic


I think maybe it's time to kiss our asses goodbye.

.

Well, at least this means I can quit worrying about it, and the climate nuts can quit talking about it.


After all, if we're screwed and there's nothing we can do about it, might as well forget it and party like it is 1999. :lamo

 

[Catawba]

They do when said blogs eviscerate a study with fatcs, like this one did.

The notion of 'climate experts all over the world' being a bunch of objective observers with no poltical agenda who -gee- just happened to come to some the same conclusion , is pure fantasy. That silly notion was emphatically laid to rest by Climategate. But then, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

"Peter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. He went on to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change."

"There is scientific consensus among Climatologists and other scientists that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity.[17] However, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and the economics of possible responses. Numerous authors, including several scholars, say that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s."

"Mark Hoofnagle defines denialism as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists."

Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[flogger]

"Peter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. He went on to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change."

I guess ole Pete must have missed these Nobel Laureate kinda guys then.

Popular Technology.net: Eminent Physicists Skeptical of AGW Alarm

He also missed these leading climatologist kinda guys too it seems

Popular Technology.net: Prominent Climatologists Skeptical of AGW Alarm

And all of whom are rather better qualified and a whole lot more 'credible' than political climate activist Peter Christoff to determine whether the 'debate is over' or not

A/PROF PETER CHRISTOFF - The University of Melbourne

"Mark Hoofnagle defines denialism as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists."

And this guy isnt even involved in climate science at all ! He's an activist medical doctor running a political blogsite ! :lamo

 

[jmotivator]

So, quietly this weekend Marcott, the originator of the study referenced in the original post, released an FAQ for the study. Among the Q&A was this gem:

Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189-193; Welcome to AGU Online Services).

Huh, that must be awkward for the alarmists out there. If that uptick is not statistically significant then all the graph shows is cooling.

Even more awkward, in an effort to make the alarmists seem to be on top of their game, Tamino (Grant Foster) of Real Climate released a thorough critique of the Marcott paper explaining exactly where Marcott went wrong. Unfortunately he plagiarized it from Steve McIntyre's blog. Foster shot back on the accusation with the following excuse:

“Grant, I find it just plain bizarre that you wrote all this and never even mentioned Steve McIntyre, who first figured out what Marcott had done wrong, and whose excellent work is the whole reason you wrote this.”

For your information, Davy boy, McIntyre’s contribution to this was limited to his every effort to discredit the entire reconstruction, to discredit Marcott and his collaborators, and of course his usual knee-jerk spasms at the sight of anything remotely resembling a hockey stick, sprinkled literally with thinly veiled sneering.

Also for your information, the original version of this post mentioned McIntyre (and linked to his posts) extensively. But prior to posting I decided to remove that, since McIntyre had already fully explored the “low road.”

So he properly cited McIntyre before he deleted the citations... so no plagiarism? Hah, what an idiot. And then he has the nerve to claim McIntyre is the one taking the low road? Seriously, true believers, get out now... this cult is coming apart at the seams and your most trusted voices are all idiots. Nobody judges you for listening to people you feel are smarter than you, but believing they are smarter than you as they continue to show themselves to be idiots is not good for your self image.

 

[Catawba]

So, quietly this weekend Marcott, the originator of the study referenced in the original post, released an FAQ for the study. Among the Q&A was this gem:

"Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189-193;"

Indeed!

 

[Threegoofs]

So, quietly this weekend Marcott, the originator of the study referenced in the original post, released an FAQ for the study. Among the Q&A was this gem:

Fascinating. I've seen this come up on three boards so far. It must have been some sort of email blast to deniers or something.

Each one of them has seemed to miss the main point,too.

 

[Catawba]

I guess ole Pete must have missed these Nobel Laureate kinda guys then.

Popular Technology.net: Eminent Physicists Skeptical of AGW Alarm

He also missed these leading climatologist kinda guys too it seems

Popular Technology.net: Prominent Climatologists Skeptical of AGW Alarm

And all of whom are rather better qualified and a whole lot more 'credible' than political climate activist Peter Christoff to determine whether the 'debate is over' or not

A/PROF PETER CHRISTOFF - The University of Melbourne



And this guy isnt even involved in climate science at all ! He's an activist medical doctor running a political blogsite ! :lamo

Dear Desperately seeking Flogger,

When anyone of the world's science academies comes out with the position that AGW is not happening, you be sure to let us know.

Until then, you have as much credibility as those that maintained the earth was flat after the scientific consensus for years was that it was round.

:2wave: