The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

[jimzinsocal]

Hansen is out of his mind. Time to take his video of Alice In Wonderland and throw it away. Life doesnt work well with fairytales.

[tucker]

Hansen proposes taxing the crap out of everyone to stop the warming.

I'd post a non-blog entry for otoc, but the MSM doesn't seem to be "on the story" as fast as the bloggers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...n-barack-obama

[AMDScooter]

Hansen proposes taxing the crap out of everyone to stop the warming.

I'd post a non-blog entry for otoc, but the MSM doesn't seem to be "on the story" as fast as the bloggers.

^^^ Even if MMGW were real... the $$$ they want to sink into stopping CO2 emissions has a pretty bad ROI.

Climate Action Plans Fail to Deliver: Updated 12-20-08



And on the theme of the MSM still ph33r mongering in the face of that pesky temperature which is unwilling to cooperate with the MMGW crowds yearly predictions of a warming earth... they fall back on the same old same old.. they simply lie.

Pielke Sr. takes on the London Times over erroneous climate reporting - says “warming has stopped for at least 4 years”

From the blog of Roger Pielke Sr. http://climatesci.org/

Erroneous News Article In The Times
Filed under: Climate Science Reporting — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 am

Thanks to Andrew Forster of Local Transport Today in the UK for alerting us to the erroneous news article from the Times on December 27 2008 titled

The war on carbon - Arguments of 2009: Can Copenhagen save the planet?

An excerpt reads,

“The stakes at Copenhagen could not be much higher. Global surface temperatures have risen by a tolerable three quarters of a degree celsius over the past century, but the rate of increase is accelerating. The Kyoto Protocol has had negligible impact on greenhouse gas emissions, and projections for the mean global temperature rise in the next century range from 1.1 to 6.4 degrees. Whether fast or very fast, the Earth is heating up.

There will be continued argument about the science of climate change over the next 12 months, but not, except on the conspiratorial fringe, about the threat. Climate change is real and worsening, and there is an overwhelming likelihood that much of it is man-made.”

This is a erroneous report on the climate system! The rate of increase is NOT accelerating. There is absolutely no question that global warming has stopped for at least 4 years (using upper ocean data) ; e.g see

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55.
http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-334.pdf

and over 7 years using lower tropospheric data; e.g. see

Figure 7 TLT in http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html.

With respect to the surface temperature trends [which have a warm bias in any case, as we have documented in our peer review papers; e.g. see], a good set of analyses on this subject has been posted over the last few years at http://rankexploits.com/musings/ [you should scroll back over the last several months to view; it is an excellent comparison with model predictions]. As discussed on that website, even with the warm biased global average surface temperature trends, the models have over-predicted warming. The GISS data itself even shows recent cooling in the ocean sea surface temperatures [see their figure for Monthly-Mean Global Sea Surface Temperature; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ where it has cooled since 2002.

The writers of the Time article, and other journalists who write similar misinformation, damage the liklihood of responsible environmental actions as a result of their overstatement and erroneous communication to the public and policymakers of climate science.

[otoc]

hmm. The problem I find with reading canned interpretations designed to either skew the perception or prove a point by bloggers is that the entire message is missed.

If anyone took the time to read Hansen's site that I had not trouble finding from dutch's link it was an interesting read.

Hansen is suggesting an alternative to the cap and trade industry that "will make millionaires" and also recommends both nuclear and coal power be pushed under Obama's administration.

Funny how this doesn't get mentioned for this makes Hansen right in line with the anti-cap & trade position. I guess the divisive trigger words are far more fun to discuss.

Another good read is a recent presentation he did both recognizing and offering explanations for the latest cooling trends.

On another topic, there's recent activity explaining the cooling that occurred 13,000 years ago. It has created quite a bit of discussion in the scientific community by those who have expertise in those fields.

Have fun pegging complicated scenarios into positions with no wiggle room, I'll continue to both read up on authors and read the papers on both sides of the argument instead of having a reliance on opinions expressed here no matter how much I respect a person's ability to both have and express an opinion.

[otoc]

^^^ Even if MMGW were real... the $$$ they want to sink into stopping CO2 emissions has a pretty bad ROI.

Climate Action Plans Fail to Deliver: Updated 12-20-08



And on the theme of the MSM still ph33r mongering in the face of that pesky temperature which is unwilling to cooperate with the MMGW crowds yearly predictions of a warming earth... they fall back on the same old same old.. they simply lie.

Pielke Sr. takes on the London Times over erroneous climate reporting - says “warming has stopped for at least 4 years”

Be careful when you use Pielke with your pictures designed to influence the minds of those who prefer to have their thoughts interpreted for them.

http://climatesci.org/2007/12/10/cor...-news-article/

First, I am not a “sceptical scientist” as should be clear to anyone who has read Climate Science, or my 2007 book with Bill Cotton
Cotton, W.R. and R.A. Pielke, 2007: Human impacts on weather and climate, Cambridge University Press, 330 pp.
On Climate Science, I state as a fundamental conclusion that
Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur.

[jimzinsocal]

My main issue with Hansen's stuff above? He's a scientist. Yet he feels
comfortable [and shouldnt] getting into Economic policy.
Similar I suppose with the scientists that came up with the corn based ethanol
solution and got into policy.

[otoc]

My main issue with Hansen's stuff above? He's a scientist. Yet he feels
comfortable [and shouldnt] getting into Economic policy.
Similar I suppose with the scientists that came up with the corn based ethanol
solution and got into policy.

You know I agree with that feeling. His scientific papers should entirely be subjected to careful review because of his bias. At least, however, he speaks from the background of being in the field and not, for example, scooters recent ID guy.

That doesn't mean we have to ignore the entirety of his words which was my only point. At least he agrees that cap&trade is going to make millionaires ad is not the answer and that it is in the national interest to use science to shift to both nuclear and clean burning coal technologies.

I find the dividend idea rather novel actually and it was hardly hidden page five as the blogger said. What was hidden were all his points on the blog post.

Too many times ridicule is used to subvert true discussion when that discussion is actually based on sound thinking matched with a background on the topic.

I know I make that comment and expose myself to a possible comment back, but there is also a difference in having expertise in a field, backing it up with studies, having it reviewed by peers / and having an opinion based only on an opinion.

To that note, my friend, I don't put much credence in my opinion here other than to have the same right to express it as someone else. I know you understand that. It was meant for others.

[jimzinsocal]

I hear you. Mainly...it just makes my ears perk up with questionmarks when
scientists get into economics. As you suggest as well.
Sure its a novel concept. [I did read the entire piece][also updated Adobe reader as well].
I guess, setting aside the projected economic benefits, my concern is with the sales pitch that would be necessary to get the consuming "public"
to buy into the notions.
Should it be explored and studied further? Of course.

[otoc]

To your point about politics getting into the our lives, the best example I've read came from a scientist who has come to the conclusion that man has influenced the climate.

His point was that people (the population in general) do not react to slow continual changes and that what we might be left with in 20 years makes harsh descriptions needed to get people to understand the need for a paradigm shift to normal lives.

I'm not defending it, or knocking it. Just saying I understand the viewpoint that politics purposely f's up to get people off the normal course. It's an inertia issue.

It's what the political process comes up with in the end that's the important thing, and that includes the process of compromise between viewpoints.

[jimzinsocal]

Yeah. Agree. Reminds me of a piece I read the other day that Ill find and post at Rolleyes. The politics of the impossible was the subject.
And a good New Year to you and family. I forgot my manners and didnt do a thread for everyone that visits here.

[otoc]

Yeah. Agree. Reminds me of a piece I read the other day that Ill find and post at Rolleyes. The politics of the impossible was the subject.
And a good New Year to you and family. I forgot my manners and didnt do a thread for everyone that visits here.

you too jz

[AMDScooter]

Be careful when you use Pielke

Why would I need to be careful? It's not like you'll ever respond to the contents of the articles I post up that poke holes in your preconceived notions. Instead you'll continue to give this poor guy a workout..

with your pictures designed to influence the minds of those who prefer to have their thoughts interpreted for them.

^^^This the same guy who just recently penned this lil diddy:

Too many times ridicule is used to subvert true discussion when that discussion is actually based on sound thinking matched with a background on the topic.

You never fail to entertain.. as usual a pleasure..

[otoc]

Why would I need to be careful? It's not like you'll ever respond to the contents of the articles I post up that poke holes in your preconceived notions. Instead you'll continue to give this poor guy a workout..







^^^This the same guy who just recently penned this lil diddy:





You never fail to entertain.. as usual a pleasure..

scooter. Serious question for the new year.

wtf are you complaining about? I repeatedly answered to the contents. He expressed an opinion that had agreed with you but since it was not based from expertise in any peer reviewed study, I didn't feel it supported your position of absolute proof of global warming being a sham. I even quoted from your linked OdEd and responded with links to reports that showed Tippler had a superficial understanding of the topic.

Btw, I'm the one who is still waiting for you to answer the question of how can you use the word cult with that link earlier. I still think you using Tipper as proof that warming is a cult was pretty funny considering his views in his chosen profession. What say you?

I know you prefer to dance around the issue by making this about me, but at least I'm responding to the words you write. Try that some time, for the entertainment value you supply is getting thin.

As to why you should be careful, I made that clear. If you think you can dance that one around a response regarding a different exchange, you are wasting your time with me.

Perhaps jz can help you with the other part you cherry picked words from. He seemed to not only understand my point but agreed.

Discussion with you is like dealing with the Borg as far as I'm concerned.

So if you don't have anything new to add that addresses an opinion beyond what you think of me, then I'll simply stop wasting time on these two topical exchanges.

[Enmore]

EU's new figurehead believes climate change is a myth


David Charter, Europe Correspondent


The European Union's new figurehead believes that climate change is a dangerous myth and has compared the union to a Communist state.

The views of President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, 67, have left the government of Mirek Topolanek, his bitter opponent, determined to keep him as far away as possible from the EU presidency, which it took over from France yesterday.

The Czech president, who caused a diplomatic incident by dining with opponents of the EU’s Lisbon treaty on a recent visit to Ireland, has a largely ceremonial role.

But there are already fears that, after the dynamic EU presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy - including his hyper-active attempts at international diplomacy over the credit crisis and Georgia as well as an historic agreement to cut greenhouse gases - the Czech effort will be mired in infighting and overshadowed by the platform it will give to Mr Klaus and his controversial views.

Ha Ha, this guy is going to rock. I predict a fatal car accident in his near future.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5430362.ece

[AMDScooter]

scooter. Serious question for the new year.

wtf are you complaining about? I repeatedly answered to the contents. He expressed an opinion that had agreed with you but since it was not based from expertise in any peer reviewed study, I didn't feel it supported your position of absolute proof of global warming being a sham. I even quoted from your linked OdEd and responded with links to reports that showed Tippler had a superficial understanding of the topic.

As long as we're being serious. I'm seriously still entertained by your lack of acknowledgment of your own hypocrisy.

What you did repeatedly was set up a straw man to respond to a topic more to your liking. Or to be more exact.. a topic you could actually reply to. You must think yourself pretty cleaver if you for one moment think your boilerplate evasions worked any better this time around.

You have to this point yet to address a single point in the article prior to this response. And how have you responded here? By once again getting on your "peer review/expertise in the field" high horse... both positions I already addressed BTW. And trying to up the bar to absolutes.

Btw, I'm the one who is still waiting for you to answer the question of how can you use the word cult with that link earlier. I still think you using Tipper as proof that warming is a cult was pretty funny considering his views in his chosen profession. What say you?

Boo hoo.... scooter won't respond to OTOC's weak attempt at subject change.

I know you prefer to dance around the issue by making this about me, but at least I'm responding to the words you write. Try that some time, for the entertainment value you supply is getting thin.

It must be tiring to have your hypocrisy called out in public. Here's some advise for the new year. The less you do it.. the less I'll have to point it out. As for entertainment value.. I still get a good chuckle out of nearly every post you put up.

As to why you should be careful, I made that clear. If you think you can dance that one around a response regarding a different exchange, you are wasting your time with me.

Ya.. and you clearly did not respond to a single point in the article which was about outright lies put out by the media. Your straw man attempts are so numerous and clumsy in your last few replies I'm beginning to wonder if your "granite IQ" has finally been crushed by the weight of your ego.

Perhaps jz can help you with the other part you cherry picked words from. He seemed to not only understand my point but agreed.

Why would I need help from Jim when your hypocrisy is plain for all to see? Should a guy be making statements like this:

Too many times ridicule is used to subvert true discussion when that discussion is actually based on sound thinking matched with a background on the topic.

Directly after making this comment:

with your pictures designed to influence the minds of those who prefer to have their thoughts interpreted for them.

Obviously it poses no issues for you personally. For me.. it holds a lot of "entertainment" value.

Discussion with you is like dealing with the Borg as far as I'm concerned.

You know.. I once heard some guy whom thinks he's really smart once say something to the effect that "Too many times ridicule is used to subvert true discussion...." but you've probably already heard it.

So if you don't have anything new to add that addresses an opinion beyond what you think of me, then I'll simply stop wasting time on these two topical exchanges.

No.. nothing new here. You continue to respond to everything but the contents of the articles I post. I'll continue to point that fact out.