• Reply 2761 of 3043
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

    It's sort of silly to counter claims with some narrative and a slang word personifying the narrative.

    I hereby refudiate your nontroversy.

    Maine?s Climate Future: Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise


    Modern-day measurements at a tide gauge in Portland show that sea level has risen at a rate of about two millimeters per year (mm/yr or 0.07 inches/year or 0.6 feet over a century). Although this doesn?t seem like much, it is the highest rate in the last 5,000 years.

  • Reply 2762 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    The real holes in climate science


    Like any other field, research on climate change has some fundamental gaps, although not the ones typically claimed by sceptics. Quirin Schiermeier takes a hard look at some of the biggest problem areas.

    The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November presented an early Christmas present to climate-change denialists. Amid the more than 1,000 messages were several controversial comments that ? taken out of context ? seemingly indicate that climate scientists have been hiding a mound of dirty laundry from the public.....

    Even with ongoing questions about the proxy data, the IPCC's key statement ? that most of the warming since the mid-twentieth century is "very likely" to be due to human-caused increases in greenhouse-gas concentration ? remains solid because it rests on multiple lines of evidence from different teams examining many aspects of the climate system, says Susan Solomon, the former co-chair of the IPCC team that produced the 2007 physical science report and a climate researcher with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado.


    "The IPCC's team of scientists," she says, "would not have said that warming is unequivocal based on a single line of evidence ? even if came from Moses himself."

  • Reply 2763 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen's 48-page Congressional Testimony: 'Increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming' -- 'Data is being analyzed with aim of supporting, rather than testing models'


    Incontrovertibility' belongs to religion where it is referred to as dogma...Cicerone [of NAS] is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If gov't wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide...We should stop accepting term, 'skeptic.' Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition.

  • Reply 2764 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    German Scientist: CO2 Not The Cause of Climate Change – Cold Period Is Anticipated


    It was found that the South Pacific Oscillation (SO) is influenced by solar activity, similar to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Especially during the warming period from 1980 to 2009 the oscillation of solar wind – Index “aa“ – was in good resonance with the delayed South Pacific Oscillation. The same observation was found between the oscillation of cosmic radiation, which is controlled by Forbush– reduction by the magnetic fields of the sun protons of the solar wind and the delayed SO (K=0.8). The consequence of these observations is the postulation that the increase of global temperature in the Southern Hemisphere was caused by solar activity with strong emissions of proton-rays in the Earth ‘s direction during the 22nd and 23rd sunspot-periods, reducing cosmic rays. This led to a reduction of cloudiness, increased solar rays and warming up the lower atmosphere (Svensmark –Effect). As a consequence, dissolved CO2 was continuously emitted by the slowly warming ocean, providing fertilizer for the flora of the world. A relevance of CO2 concerning climate change could not be found. With the end of solar activity in 2006, a cold weather period has also started in the Southern Hemisphere.

  • Reply 2765 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    BREAKING: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'



    (NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

    (OTTMAR EDENHOFFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

    (NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

    (EDENHOFFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

    (NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

    (EDENHOFFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

    For the record, Edenhoffer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

    As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.

  • Reply 2766 of 3043
  • Reply 2767 of 3043

    "And I would also suggest to my Free Enterprise colleagues -- especially conservatives here -- whether you think it's all a bunch of hooey, what we've talked about in this committee, the Chinese don't. And they plan on eating our lunch in this next century. They plan on innovating around these problems, and selling to us, and the rest of the world, the technology that'll lead the 21st century," Inglis told his colleagues. "So we may just press the pause button here for several years, but China is pressing the fast-forward button. And as a result, if we wake up in several years and we say, 'geez, this didn't work very well for us.'"

    And who said this ....??

    He gets it, he must read some of my posts here... how the deniers are costing us our future.
  • Reply 2768 of 3043
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

    A New Consensus


    Not every reader of Scientific American magazine is a scientist. But the responses of the 7,000 readers (6,767 as of Friday morning) who've taken the magazine's online poll strongly suggest that claims of a consensus are, at best, an exaggeration.

    More than three-fourths (77.7%) say natural processes are causing climate change and almost a third (31.9%) blame solar variation. Only 26.6% believe man is the cause. (The percentages exceed 100 because respondents were allowed to choose more than one cause on this question.)

    Scientific American editors slam science deniers Patrick Michaels and George Gilder for misusing their unscientific online poll

    SciAm "horrified" by "the co-opting of the poll" by users of "the well-known climate denier site, Watts Up With That"


    Just how weak is the case of the anti-science disinformers? In his written testimony for the recent House hearing on climate science, leading science denier Patrick Michaels of the pro-pollution Cato Institute, devoted two pages to the most unscientific ?evidence? possible ? an online poll.

    Michaels, who recently said Big Oil funds some 40% of his work, based a key part of his testimony on the ?results? of an online poll by Scientific American that was gamed by the deniers themselves, as SciAm has documented.

  • Reply 2769 of 3043

    Republican Rep. Bob Inglis blasts GOP, right-wing pundits for denying global warming science


    Yesterday morning, at a House hearing on climate change, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) mocked his Republican colleagues for refusing to acknowledge the truth and danger of global warming. ThinkProgress has the story and video.

    In June, Inglis became one of the first incumbent Republicans to be knocked off by a far-right insurgent Tea Party candidate. Since then, Inglis ? who has maintained a very high 93 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union ? has blasted the GOP for using ?racism? to whip voters into a frenzy, for ?following those personalities [such as Fox News host Glenn Beck] and not leading,? and for deceiving voters with conspiracy theories about death panels and ?preying on their fears.?

    Yesterday morning, at a House subcommittee hearing, Inglis mocked his Republican colleagues who deny science, saying, ?They slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and they?re experts on climate change.? He also warned that while they posture to score political points, China will surpass the U.S. in clean technology:

  • Reply 2770 of 3043
    Must-read letter to Science: Time to Take Action on Climate Communication


    According to broad international agreement, a global warming increase beyond 2°C is unacceptable (1). Because of the physics of the climate system, we must ensure that global emissions of greenhouse gases peak and start to decline rapidly within a decade in order to have a reasonable chance of meeting the 2°C goal (2). Humankind has waffled and delayed for decades; further delay risks serious consequences for people and the ecosystems on which we rely.

    Because the potential consequences of climate change are so high, the science community has an obligation to help people, organizations, and governments make informed decisions. Yet existing institutions are not well suited to this task. Therefore, we call for the science community to develop, implement, and sustain an independent initiative with a singular mandate: to actively and effectively share information about climate change risks and potential solutions with the public, particularly decision-makers in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors......

  • Reply 2771 of 3043
    Climategate scientist insists sceptics will accept global warming when Arctic ice melts


    Professor Phil Jones, the scientist at the centre of the Climategate row, has insisted that global warming sceptics will be won over once the negative effects become obvious.

    Last year Prof Jones was accused of manipulating climate change data after leaked emails showed he resisted Freedom of Information requests to the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit from climate change s[k]eptics.

    An independent review in July found that staff at the unit were "unhelpful" and not sufficiently open about research, but cleared them of dishonesty.

    Recently reinstated to his post, Prof Jones said he had been the victim of a deliberate sabotage of the Copenhagen talks......

  • Reply 2772 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

    I hereby refudiate your nontroversy.

    Sarah Palin?s ?refudiate? wins Oxford dictionary?s Word of the Year


    the New Oxford American Dictionary named ?refudiate,? a word first made famous by Palin this past summer, its 2010 Word of the Year.

    Expect next year to see the dictionary include the following entry:

    ?Refudiate ?verb ? used loosely to mean ?reject?: She called on them to refudiate the proposal to build a mosque. [origin ? blend of refute and repudiate]?

    In a statement Monday, editors from the dictionary said that based on ?the different contexts in which Palin has used ?refudiate,? we have concluded that neither ?refute? nor ?repudiate? seems consistently precise, and that ?refudiate? more or less stands on its own, suggesting a general sense of ?reject.? ?

    Bacterial 'Conversations' Have Impact on Climate


    It?s wondrous how the vast and the infinitesimal combine to make our planet work. Scientists at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) have found that bacteria in the ocean, gathering in sort of ?microbial block parties,? communicate and cooperate with each other to have a significant impact on how carbon dioxide is transferred from the atmosphere to the deep sea.

    In this newly discovered mechanism, bacteria coalesce on tiny particles of carbon-rich detritus sinking in the ocean. They send out chemical signals to discern if other bacteria are in the neighborhood. If enough of their compadres are nearby, the bacteria en masse commence sending out enzymes that break up the particles into more digestible bits (see interactive below).

    As a result, a substantial amount of carbon does not sink to the depths, which affects both the marine food web and the planet?s climate. The re-released carbon can be reused by marine plants, and less carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, is drawn out of the air into the ocean. In addition, less carbon is effectively transferred to the bottom of the ocean, from where it cannot easily return to the atmosphere.

    The finding represents the first evidence that bacterial communication plays a crucial role in Earth?s carbon cycle. It was reported Feb. 22 at the American Geophysical Union?s Ocean Sciences meeting in Portland, Ore., by WHOI marine biogeochemists Laura Hmelo, Benjamin Van Mooy, and Tracy Mincer.

    You do remember the carbon cycle?
  • Reply 2773 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member

    No I don't advocate this. Certain extinctions are inevitable, however our activities have accelerated the rate of extinctions and the loss of biodiversity.
  • Reply 2774 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    A Failed Climate Prediction Twofer: Global Warming Alarmists Get Both Droughts and Floods Wrong


    Because skeptics possess objective analysis characteristics, combined with rational common sense traits that favor actual empirical science, the predictions of simultaneous drought and flood conditions seemed to be obviously bogus scare-predictions.

    And, as so commonly happens, a new peer-reviewed study determines the skeptics' hard-wired bogus B.S. detectors were correct, and the 'crooks & liars' alarmists were wrong, again.


    "One of the major tenets of Climate Alarmism is that global warming will lead to the occurrence of both more floods and more droughts. Hence, it is important to check for trends in river flows that may indicate a growing propensity for such to occur; and that is what Zhang et al. did within the Susquehanna River Basin.....Based on long-term continuous daily streamflow records ending in 2006 for eight unregulated streams with record-lengths ranging from 68 to 93 years that yielded an average length of 82.5 years.....The four researchers report there was "a considerable increase in annual minimum flow for most of the examined watersheds and a noticeable increase in annual median flow for about half of the examined watersheds." However, they found that annual maximum streamflow "does not show significant long-term change.".....In the case of the Susquehanna River Basin, however, there is no support for this contention, since increases in minimum streamflow suggest a propensity for less severe and/or less frequent drought. And the fact that annual maximum streamflow shows no significant long-term change suggests there has likely been no significant long-term change at the opposite end of the spectrum, where floods might be expected." [Zhang, Z., Dehoff, A.D., Pody, R.D. and Balay, J.W. 2010]

  • Reply 2775 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Let's Deal in Science and Facts


    Bjorn Lomborg ("Can Anything Serious Happen in Cancun?", op-ed, Nov. 12) claims that government spending on global warming policies is wasted, but he assumes that global warming caused by carbon dioxide is a fact. It is not. We base this statement not on the opinions of 31,000 American scientists who signed a public statement rejecting this warming hypothesis (the "Oregon Petition"), but rather because the forecasts of global warming were derived from faulty procedures.

    We published a peer-reviewed paper showing that the forecasting procedures used by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change violated 72 of 89 relevant principles (e.g., "provide full disclosure of methods"). The IPCC has been unable to explain why it violated such principles. In response, we developed a model that follows the principles. Because the climate is complex and poorly understood, our model predicts that global average temperatures will not change.

    In testing the models on global temperature data since 1850, we found that the long-range (91-to-100-years ahead) forecast errors from the IPCC's projection were 12 times larger than the errors from our simple model.

    Mr. Lomborg concludes there are better ways for governments to spend the funds devoted to global warming. We suggest this money should instead be returned to taxpayers.

    J. Scott Armstrong

    The Wharton School

    University of Pennsylvania


  • Reply 2776 of 3043
    The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'


    A year ago, the climate debate was rocked by 'Climategate'. Email servers at the University of East Anglia were hacked, emails were stolen and distributed on the Internet. Out-of-context quotes were cited as evidence that the entire scientific case for global warming was all just a conspiracy.

    Even now, 12 months later, 'Climategate' is the most popular skeptic argument. But there is one question that skeptics seem to avoid:

    Has 'Climategate' changed our scientific understanding of global warming?

    Has the science changed? Is there any change to the many independent lines of evidence for human-caused global warming? This question is never asked because of the answer:

    The evidence for human caused global warming is as solid as ever.

    There are many lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming. Independent measurements of different aspects of the climate using a range of techniques by scientists all over the world all point to the same answer.* When we consider the full body of evidence, we see a distinct, discernable human fingerprint on climate change.....

  • Reply 2777 of 3043

    French climategate ends with sceptic?s humiliation by Tim Edwards


    A prominent French climate change sceptic has been forced to eat his words in emphatic fashion after the Academie des Sciences, of which he is a member, published a report contradicting his claims.

    Putting a lid on what has become its own version of the UK's 'climategate' row, France's most august scientific body yesterday declared that global warming exists and has unquestionably been caused by the activities of mankind.....

  • Reply 2778 of 3043
    Nye Delighted About ClimateGate Exoneration 'Sham'; Calls Skeptics 'Irrational'


    Surprise - a British panel ruled that the scandal known as ClimateGate that supposedly revealed the manipulation of certain data strengthen the case of manmade global warming was much ado about nothing. But, The New York Times in a July 7 story called these findings of an inquiry led by Muir Russell, a retired British civil servant and educator, "a sweeping exoneration" of the ClimateGate scientists in question.

  • Reply 2779 of 3043
    Closing the Climategate


    This week marks the first anniversary of the worldwide scandal over the release of e-mails stolen from a computer server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, UK. The server was in the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), most of the correspondents involved were climate scientists and the affair will be forever known as Climategate. The scientist at the centre of the storm, Phil Jones, the head of CRU, tells Nature on page 362 that he feels the worst is behind him.

    It would be naive for Jones and other scientists to assume that the fuss has passed into history. Never mind that almost all of the accusations thrown at the researchers involved have been proven baseless. Never mind that much of the media has retreated from the aggressive stance it adopted during its 'comment first, ask questions later' approach to the content of the e-mails. And never mind that the scientific basis for the global-warming problem remains as solid as it was a year ago. Huge damage has been done to the reputation of climate science, and arguably to science as a whole. That impact deserves to be assessed and the necessary lessons need to be learned.......

    Just as scientists cannot choose the name of future scandals, they cannot choose where allegations will appear. The UEA has taken some justified heavy fire for its handling of the crisis, which was crippled by the enforced absence on medical grounds of Jones, its chief defence witness. Had Jones been strong enough to face the media at the beginning, and say many of the things he says now, the crisis may have blown itself out. The UEA hierarchy misjudged the need to respond and the role that Internet blogs now play in seeding stories for the mainstream media. ?I won't worry about it until I hear it on the [BBC Radio] Today programme,? one university official said when pointed to early online coverage at the time. He got his wish a few days later. By then, the Climategate was already swinging off its hinges.

  • Reply 2780 of 3043

    Measuring the meltdown


    With global warming hitting the Tibetan plateau hard, scientists gather to plan an international research campaign to understand and mitigate changes at the 'third pole'.

    Cold, remote and threatened by global warming: the description applies not only to the North and South Poles, but also to a region of more than five million square kilometres, centred on the Tibetan plateau and the Himalayas, that researchers call the third pole (see Nature 454, 393?396, 2008). After the Arctic and the Antarctic, the region has Earth's largest store of ice, in more than 46,000 glaciers and vast expanses of permafrost. Yet it is much less studied than its high-latitude counterparts, even though many more lives depend on it.....

    The evidence that is available is telling. Using a combination of satellite and ground measurements, a team led by Liu Shiyin, a glaciologist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences' Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute in Lanzhou, has just completed the second Chinese national glacier inventory, documenting some 24,300 glaciers and recording characteristics such as their locations, lengths and surface areas. It shows that the total surface area of glaciers has decreased by 17% and that many have disappeared since the last inventory began, roughly 30 years ago.....

Sign In or Register to comment.