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

[marywollstonecraft]

See, you have now changed your argument from actual scientists agreeing to scientific organizations agreeing with CAGW. It's a completes different argument, and decidedly political.





That wikipedia article is controlled by William Connolley who has a long history of CAGW advocacy, an active Green Party member in the UK and has the dubious distinction of being banned by Wikipedia in all climate topics at one point:

View attachment 67144466

Also from Wiki history of Connolley's transgressions: "User:William M. Connolley has shown an unreasonable degree of Ownership over climate-related articles and unwillingness to work in a consensus environment."

Oh, irony.

But setting that aside, it is a very different, as I said before, to argue that that majority of scientists agree with CAGW (they don't, as I have shown earlier), and that political science organizations agree. There is a reason why William Connolley and other CAGW advocates have migrated from raw scientist head counts to scientific organizations. It is precisely because the actual scientists are no longer accepting of the CAGW theory.

soooo ... why don't they all resign their membership then?

Regardless of what the author says, most organisations (eg the AAAS) have a statement on climate change.

never mind .... Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sawyerloggingon]

so again you are including me in the "you guys" with no knowledge of my lifestyle.

TBH, most of the "warmers" I know seem to be less impressed by conspicuous consumption than denialists and those in the "don't care either way" category. They are virtually ALL more likely to make choices that will reduce their carbon footprint, and many, like me, have virtually always done this for a variety of reasons. I was brought up by parents who had been young during the depression. Waste not want not was instilled into me as a child and has probably been one of the major contributors to my financial security, and contributed to me researching and thinking through some decisions more than many others (eg benefitting from "passive solar radiation" years before I even heard of such a thing).

Waste not want not is smart when it comes to environmental choices on many levels, but in my experience, even if sometimes you may have more expensive initial outlays, it is usually smart for your finances as well.

People who cry about how carbon taxes are going to impact on them would in most cases save more than they would lose with a carbon tax simply by auditing their own energy use and making smarter choices.

The problem with carbon taxes is they will hurt an already fragile economy, they hit middle class working people the hardest and they are an unfair burden to those of us who have no other choice than to drive large powerful vehicles. Those are only the economic problems though, the social engineering is an even bigger issue.

 

[Muhammed]

I read or heard recently that we should already be cooling, as we move toward another ice age---that's it! I heard it on a documentary about the Himalaya. They said that the glaciers up there should be expanding not receding, as they are doing now.

And what was the logical reasoning that "they" (BTW who is "they"?) used to come to that conclusion?

Or was there no logical reasoning?

Or what?

 

[marywollstonecraft]

The problem with carbon taxes is they will hurt an already fragile economy, they hit middle class working people the hardest and they are an unfair burden to those of us who have no other choice than to drive large powerful vehicles. Those are only the economic problems though, the social engineering is an even bigger issue.

the conservative ideology suggests that life is full of tough choices.

adversity helps you to find new solutions.

why doesn't the same apply in this case?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

the conservative ideology suggests that life is full of tough choices.

adversity helps you to find new solutions.

why doesn't the same apply in this case?

Taxes are artificial adversity and fighting against them is the solution.

 

[calamity]

And what was the logical reasoning that "they" (BTW who is "they"?) used to come to that conclusion?

Or was there no logical reasoning?

Or what?

They were going by the cycles. According to the historical record, they (the people presenting the documentary) stated that earth should be in a cooling phase, and the glaciers in our highest peaks ought to be expanding. Instead they are shrinking.

I know the glaciers are shrinking. I've seen that. I've not checked into this cooling cycle thing, but its also not the first time I heard of it. Feel free to check into it and report back to us what you find.

 

[Muhammed]

They were going by the cycles. According to the historical record, they (the people presenting the documentary) stated that earth should be in a cooling phase, and the glaciers in our highest peaks ought to be expanding. Instead they are shrinking.

I know the glaciers are shrinking. I've seen that. I've not checked into this cooling cycle thing, but its also not the first time I heard of it. Feel free to check into it and report back to us what you find.

What do you suppose global cooling would do to the Earth's granary crops?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

They were going by the cycles. According to the historical record, they (the people presenting the documentary) stated that earth should be in a cooling phase, and the glaciers in our highest peaks ought to be expanding. Instead they are shrinking.

I know the glaciers are shrinking. I've seen that. I've not checked into this cooling cycle thing, but its also not the first time I heard of it. Feel free to check into it and report back to us what you find.

If only the climate were that simple. Can't you understand that climate is caused by a mixture of factors not any single one? Would you point to the pinch of sugar in a rub for smoked fish and say the fish "should" be sweet?

 

[marywollstonecraft]

Taxes are artificial adversity and fighting against them is the solution.

the reason you have developed the dependence is due to subsidies in the first place.

effectively, welfare to fossil fuel companies.

a carbon tax would basically just be more realistic pricing - at least initially ... and this might help wean the society off its FF addiction

 

[marywollstonecraft]

If only the climate were that simple. Can't you understand that climate is caused by a mixture of factors not any single one? Would you point to the pinch of sugar in a rub for smoked fish and say the fish "should" be sweet?

this is well known. but it doesn't change the fact that human activity IS influencing the climate.

 

[calamity]

If only the climate were that simple. Can't you understand that climate is caused by a mixture of factors not any single one? Would you point to the pinch of sugar in a rub for smoked fish and say the fish "should" be sweet?

Maybe. But the Earth was in a cooling trend up until the 19th century, and over the past 1000 years the sudden spike seen since the Industrial Age began is unprecedented. The numbers and the graphs don't lie.

According to all major temperature reconstructions published in peer-reviewed journals (see graph), the increase in temperature in the 20th century and the temperature in the late 20th century is the highest in the record. Attention has tended to focus on the early work of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes (1998, 1999) whose "hockey stick" graph was featured in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. The methodology and data sets used in creating the qversion of the hockey stick graph were disputed by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, but the graph is overall acknowledged by the scientific community.

Temperature record of the past 1000 years - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[calamity]

What do you suppose global cooling would do to the Earth's granary crops?

What's the point of this post? Are you saying its good that we've initiated man made global warming to counteract the natural cooling? If so, I suggest you look at the graph in the link i provided in the post above. Our "solution" to halting Earth's cooling certainly doesn't look like we're making things better.

We've solved a small cooling issue by setting the house on fire. Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Maybe. But the Earth was in a cooling trend up until the 19th century, and over the past 1000 years the sudden spike seen since the Industrial Age began is unprecedented. The numbers and the graphs don't lie.

It always comes back to correlation is causation doesn't it.:lol:

 

[calamity]

It always comes back to correlation is causation doesn't it.:lol:

I think in this case, causation is pretty obvious.

 

[Muhammed]

What's the point of this post?

Simply an off chance that it may make GWNJ dupes think.

 

[jmotivator]

I would suggest that your sources are doing what they do best.

deliberately misquoting out of context, or misattributing statements to present this scientist as a denialist.

I would be interested to see a reliable source that shows James Annan doubts the theory of AGW.

And you are doing what true believers do best in refusing to read what my challenge your world view. Both the Dot Earth (Andrew Revkin's CAGW NYT Blog) statement and the "A Sensative Matter" blog post are by Annan himself. So if you want Annan's opinion how about you read what I posted? Another expert:

"But the point stands, that the IPCC's sensitivity estimate cannot readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle comes up with similar answers, including the papers I mentioned above. By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle. I expect them to brazen it out, on the grounds that they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be. But in doing so, they risk being seen as not so much summarising scientific progress, but obstructing it."

But feel free to read the whole thing.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I think in this case, causation is pretty obvious.

Interesting that you chose China to justify US citizens paying a carbon tax.

 

[jmotivator]

soooo ... why don't they all resign their membership then?

Because organizational membership and more to it than a disagreement with one official position?

Regardless of what the author says, most organisations (eg the AAAS) have a statement on climate change.

never mind .... Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Funny that that Wikipedia page leaves off the more in depth surveys that ask more probing questions.

For instance, that Licther study sooften quoted by Al Gore and folks like you had two parts of the conclusion:

1) "Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century." - NOBODY IS DENYING THIS

2) "Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring." - In scientific terms this isn't saying what you want it to say. Statistical significance isn't what you think it is. If a scientist believes that humans contributed just 4% of the current warming and the temperature has a +/- 3% then they would conclude that humans have a significant contribution. So of course the majority of scientists will agree. By the wording of that question I agree with the 84%.

Reality agrees with the argument that anthropogenic CO2 is not a primary contributor, however, since IF CO2 was the majority contributor to warming then the warming would not have slowed or stopped as it has in the last 17 years while CO2 is still rising. Obviously negative forcings exist that exceed CO2's ability to warm. CO2 driven climate models has increasingly diverged from instrumental record on the high side for the better part of 20 years, but the faithful will argue that we need to ignore reality in favor of CAGW doctrine.

For example, this CAGW page on NASA is rather telling. From that page we get this official IPCC graph on warming from CO2 after 2000:



Temperature in REALITY has matched closest to the constant even while CO2 has continued to rise at a rate used in the high growth model run.

How long will you continue to believe a theory that fails to match reality?

 

[calamity]

Simply an off chance that it may make GWNJ dupes think.

I think it's the deniers who need to think.

 

[calamity]

Interesting that you chose China to justify US citizens paying a carbon tax.

When did I ever propose a carbon tax???

 

[sawyerloggingon]

When did I ever propose a carbon tax???

Sorry I was thinking of the other chick.:lol:

 

[calamity]

Sorry I was thinking of the other chick.:lol:

You're forgiven, Big Boy.

 

[longknife]

New Report: Global Temperature Standstill Is Real

(GWPF) London, 15 March: A new report written by Dr David Whitehouse and published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation concludes that there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997.

After reviewing the scientific literature the report concludes that the standstill is an empirical fact and a reality that challenges current climate models. During the time that the Earth’s global temperature has remained static the atmospheric composition of carbon dioxide has increased from 370 to 390 ppm.

“The standstill is a reality and is not the result of cherry-picking start and end points. Its commencement can be seen clearly in the data, and it continues to this day,” said Dr David Whitehouse, the author of the new report.

Read more @ New Report: Global Temperature Standstill Is Real | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Some Globull Warming believers are gonna instantly rebuff this.

 

[Somerville]

New Report: Global Temperature Standstill Is Real



Read more @ New Report: Global Temperature Standstill Is Real | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Some Globull Warming believers are gonna instantly rebuff this.

and then there are those who bother to check up on the source

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a United Kingdom think tank founded by climate change denialist Nigel Lawson with the purpose of combating what the foundation describes as "extremely damaging and harmful policies" designed to mitigate climate change. The group was established on November 22 2009

Funding not transparent; just 1.6% comes from memberships

The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from. In their first years accounts they say "the soil we till is highly controversial, and anyone who puts their head above the parapet has to be prepared to endure a degree of public vilification. For that reason we offer all our donors the protection of anonymity". The accounts show the extent to which the secretive Foundation is funded by anonymous donors, compared with income from membership fees. Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. The foundation charges a minimum annual membership fee of £100

Global warming skeptic: David Whitehouse
This page lists any peer-reviewed papers by David Whitehouse that take a negative or explicitly doubtful position on human-caused global warming.

There are no peer-reviewed climate papers by David Whitehouse that meet this definition.

 

[Grant]

and then there are those who bother to check up on the source

Is the source always more important than the facts?