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

[flogger]

There is no scientific controversy. There has not been a challenge of AGW from any of the world's science academies since 2007, and the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed science supports AGW.

Yet you have never been able to produce even one empirically confirming the hypothesis. You are simply too far gone politically on this issue to care if it even exists sadly :roll:

 

[Grant]

There is no scientific controversy. There has not been a challenge of AGW from any of the world's science academies since 2007, and the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed science supports AGW.

No science controversy?

I suppose if you restrict your reading habits then there is no controversy, and you are obviously not too curious in doing a little research yourself.

The Hockey Stick, Broken Again | Power Line

 

[Catawba]

No science controversy?

I suppose if you restrict your reading habits then there is no controversy, and you are obviously not too curious in doing a little research yourself.

The Hockey Stick, Broken Again | Power Line

Only science deniers accept blogs over the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed science.

 

[Grant]

Only science deniers accept blogs over the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed science.

You keep parroting the same line.

You've now been peer reviewed and, sorry to say, did not do very well.

 

[jmotivator]

Only science deniers accept blogs over the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed science.

Here is an easy question, Catawba: Do you think that the peer review process for the papers you agree with include skeptics on the list of peer reviewers?

Second easy question: If the conclusion is as solid as the gravity constant, why are we still studying climate change?

 

[Catawba]

You keep parroting the same line.

You've now been peer reviewed and, sorry to say, did not do very well.

LOL! Peer review by science deniers, what an oxymoron! :lamo

 

[Grant]

LOL! Peer review by science deniers, what an oxymoron! :lamo

So that explains it! You can only be peer reviewed by someone who already shares the same opinion.

 

[Catawba]

Here is an easy question, Catawba: Do you think that the peer review process for the papers you agree with include skeptics on the list of peer reviewers?

Second easy question: If the conclusion is as solid as the gravity constant, why are we still studying climate change?

Yes, many qualified skeptics were involved in the peer review process. Science progresses by continued study and challenge. The thing is there hasn't been any credible scientific challenge since 2007.

 

[Grant]

Yes, many qualified skeptics were involved in the peer review process. Science progresses by continued study and challenge. The thing is there hasn't been any credible scientific challenge since 2007.

Actually there has but you refuse to read it.

 

[Catawba]

Actually there has but you refuse to read it.

Show me where this "evidence" has convinced any of the world's science academies to reject AGW?

Show me where the anti-AGW science is the majority of peer-reviewed science out there?


I'll wait.

 

[jmotivator]

Yes, many qualified skeptics were involved in the peer review process. Science progresses by continued study and challenge. The thing is there hasn't been any credible scientific challenge since 2007.

So you agree that there are many qualified Skeptics? That is a good start. Now, can you name some and what you have read of theirs?

Also, what is the challenge if you say we know the answer already?

 

[Catawba]

So agree that there are many qualified Skeptics? That is a good start. Now, can you name some?

Richard Muller, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists used to be skeptics until the science convinced them otherwise, and I can tell you that none of them deny the scientific consensus or the peer review process. That is the distinction between skeptics and deniers.

Also, what is the challenge if you say we know the answer already?

Scientific theory can be challenged at anytime. When credible challenge ceases to be made, consensus is reached. That is where we have been since 2007. This is what the science deniers refuse to accept.

 

[jmotivator]

Richard Muller, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists used to be skeptics until the science convinced them otherwise, and I can tell you that none of them deny the scientific consensus or the peer review process. That is the distinction between skeptics and deniers.

"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller in 2003

"Muller: Global warming. There is a consensus that global warming is real. There has not been much so far, but it’s going to get much, much worse. The thing I would tell the president is that the global warming, according to the global consensus — that’s the IPCC scientists, who won the Nobel Prize — the global warming of the future is going to come from the developing world. It’s the exploding economies of China and India and Asia that are going to be responsible for the CO2." - Wired interview with Richard Muller in 2008

He's no skeptic. He simply is a believer that was honest enough to admit that Mann's hockey was a load of crap. Muller agreed there was a consensus and that the consensus was correct long before he did his study. Muller WANTS to find the smoking gun for CAGW and that bias led to him finding it. It's called confirmation bias.

Scientific theory can be challenged at anytime. When credible challenge ceases to be made, consensus is reached. That is where we have been since 2007. This is what the science deniers refuse to accept.

So you are dancing around the question without answering. Do you think we should keep studying climate change since you assume we know exactly how climate functions now?

 

[Catawba]

"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller in 2003

"Muller: Global warming. There is a consensus that global warming is real. There has not been much so far, but it’s going to get much, much worse. The thing I would tell the president is that the global warming, according to the global consensus — that’s the IPCC scientists, who won the Nobel Prize — the global warming of the future is going to come from the developing world. It’s the exploding economies of China and India and Asia that are going to be responsible for the CO2." - Wired interview with Richard Muller in 2008

He's no skeptic. He simply is a believer that was honest enough to admit that Mann's hockey was a load of crap. Muller agreed there was a consensus and that the consensus was correct long before he did his study. Muller WANTS to find the smoking gun for CAGW and that bias led to him finding it. It's called confirmation bias.

So you are dancing around the question without answering. Do you think we should keep studying climate change since you assume we know exactly how climate functions now?

Your source is a political blog written in 2003. As noted there has not been any credible scientific challenge since 2007. There is much still to study since we have never experienced this kind of climate change in man's history. Perhaps scientists will come up with some other explanation for the climate change.

 

[flogger]

LOL! Peer review by science deniers, what an oxymoron! :lamo

So (again) perhaps you can cite just one that empirically confirms the hypothesis ? Whilst you are at it you might also like to cite any poll conducted by those scientific organisations of thier memberships (before or after 2007) in order to come to thier respective position regarding AGW. Dont bother wasting my time with the oft debunked 2009 Doran Zimmermann poll either

 

[jmotivator]

Your source is a political blog written in 2003. As noted there has not been any credible scientific challenge since 2007. There is much still to study since we have never experienced this kind of climate change in man's history. Perhaps scientists will come up with some other explanation for the climate change.

What? My sources are an article written by Muller (linked) and an interview with Muller for Wired magazine (linked). Both are his own words. Are you denying this?

 

[Catawba]

So (again) perhaps you can cite just one that empirically confirms the hypothesis ? Whilst you are at it you might also like to cite any poll conducted by those scientific organisations of thier memberships (before or after 2007) in order to come to thier respective position regarding AGW. Dont bother wasting my time with the oft debunked 2009 Doran Zimmermann poll either

Just review this thread and all the others where proof of the consensus has been provided. Although I already know that the very thing that defines a science denier is their denial of scientific consensus. If it wasn't, they would provide proof of scientific consensus debunking AGW. Funny thing, none of them, including you, ever have!

 

[Catawba]

What? My sources are an article written by Muller (linked) and an interview with Muller for Wired magazine (linked). Both are his own words. Are you denying this?

You are aware that Muller now supports AGW, are you not?

 

[flogger]

Just review this thread and all the others where proof of the consensus has been provided. Although I already know that the very thing that defines a science denier is their denial of scientific consensus. If it wasn't, they would provide proof of scientific consensus debunking AGW. Funny thing, none of them, including you, ever have!

A simple. 'No I can't answer your questions' would have sufficed :roll:

 

[jmotivator]

You are aware that Muller now supports AGW, are you not?

 

[joko104]

Contamination of the oceans is 1000 times a more concerning issue than climate change - but governments can find a way to take money and control addressing ocean pollution. The climate and atmosphere can change and be altered and reversed. Anything put into the ocean essentially stays there forever. Oceans, unlike air, has very little self correcting or cleaning ability.

More should be done to eliminate plastics and styrofoam to be replaced with degradables - as simple as returning to paper cups and bags. There are now thousands of square miles of the Atlantic that is a trash heap. Plastic in the water does not vanish, it changes to particles that remain.

Drift nets needs to be outlawed as they are massive kill-everything machines.

Serious regulations need be added in regards to radioactive and mercury releases into the water and the sources of the same.

Yet those topics lack money-making for the government as does climate change. Sadly, there is not much that can be done about climate change, but reducing poisoning and contaminating the oceans is very realistically possible with little to no costs at all. It wouldn't dent industry or the economy to require a return to paper cups over plastic and styrofoam as an example and other degradables (paper/wood/steel0 being returned instead of plastics.

 

[jmotivator]

You are aware that Muller now supports AGW, are you not?

It occurred to me that you might not be able to understand that joke, but suffice it to say that I have been arguing that Muller was never a skeptic, or at least not since 2003, so the characterization by the CAGW faithful as a skeptic who turned around his view based on his own temperature reconstruction is absurdly bogus. As Muller has said himself, he'd WANTED TO BELIEVE in CAGW for years before he conducted his own study. The closest he came to skepticism was to accept Steve McIntyre's dismantling of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick as valid... which, it should be noted, he had accepted as Gospel until McIntyre's criticism. So no, you still haven't named a skeptic.

Also, on the peer reviewed literature front, you may want to read this paper that is sending shock waves of doubt through the CAGW clingers:

A Pacific Centennial Oscillation Predicted by Coupled GCMs


In this study Kristopher Karnauskas finds a centennial oscillation present in the global SST reconstructions of the last 3000 years that would account for most of the warming signal of the last 100-150 years. This would severely cut into the current CAGW CO2 sensitivity models as the total warming that could be attributed to CO2 would drop to about 0.3C with the rest of the warming being indistinguishable from the predicted centennial oscillation. It would also explain why the GC leveled off in the last 17 years. By this paper's reconstruction the GC centennial oscillation has peaked.

 

[jmotivator]

What I also find interesting in that paper is that if this centennial oscillation stands, and we are heading into another centennial climate valley, any AGW that is actually present will be a boon to survival as cold cycles are distinctly less pleasant than warm cycles.

 

[Somerville]

Contamination of the oceans is 1000 times a more concerning issue than climate change - but governments can find a way to take money and control addressing ocean pollution. The climate and atmosphere can change and be altered and reversed. Anything put into the ocean essentially stays there forever. Oceans, unlike air, has very little self correcting or cleaning ability.

More should be done to eliminate plastics and styrofoam to be replaced with degradables - as simple as returning to paper cups and bags. There are now thousands of square miles of the Atlantic that is a trash heap. Plastic in the water does not vanish, it changes to particles that remain.

Drift nets needs to be outlawed as they are massive kill-everything machines.

Serious regulations need be added in regards to radioactive and mercury releases into the water and the sources of the same.

Yet those topics lack money-making for the government as does climate change. Sadly, there is not much that can be done about climate change, but reducing poisoning and contaminating the oceans is very realistically possible with little to no costs at all. It wouldn't dent industry or the economy to require a return to paper cups over plastic and styrofoam as an example and other degradables (paper/wood/steel0 being returned instead of plastics.

As a long-time sailor, I can agree with what you have to say here about plastics in the oceans. I agree with outlawing drift nets - there's a story behind that for me, on an Atlantic crossing with a race boat one year, we ran into one of those drift nets, it took us several hours diving under the boat to cut the net loose - I agree with, and I think most governments agree that eliminating the release of toxic substances into the waters of the world is necessary.

I disagree on one point that eliminating "radioactive and mercury releases into the water" lacks money-making for governments. As most developed nations and some of the third world provide medical care for their citizens, the financial benefit of healthier citizens could be quite large.

Then there is the matter of unintended consequences; how many additional trees would be cut down on an annual basis to provide the paper and cardboard needed to replace all of the plastic and stryofoam presently produced?

 

[longview]

Considering that our planet spends about 80% of it's time in an ICE AGE,
the likelihood we will return to one is very high.
It is not really an IF, but a WHEN.
I have always thought that even if the AGW theory is correct,
it should not be a first or even second concern.
#1 Water
#2 Fuel for agriculture
#3 Toxin buildup/pollution