quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

When I start seeing articles like this in National Geographic or Popular Mechanics instead of Fox News and blogs with populist-flavored names like 'notrickszone' and 'wattsupwiththat?' we can talk.

Until then, you should just stop trying because no one who isn't already on board will be convinced by this sort of thing.

That has been my point all along. Show me a climate model that actually works, can be replicated and can show all of its input before you start transferring trillions of dollars of wealth around. I'm happy with that. Unfortunately it's a leftist political thing that's going to be funded for the kool aid drinkers by the politicians who want to keep office and control the money supply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/


Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 - they were wrong

quote:

ORIGINAL: SecondBestBoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: SecondBestBoy

"how about you spell out where you see the direct correlation between Co2 and dt? "

*I* don't need to "spell out" this phenomenon that's been shown by thousands of peer reviewed science papers, to the extent that the National Academy of Science and every other similar body in the world is convinced. It's not *my* conclusion, but theirs.

Oh they are are they? Well Im not convinced, so spell it out. Oh and btw, How many degrees of freedom in this system again?

I did spell it out, in the link directly above that comment, you intentionally dense person. Here it is again:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html

Degrees of freedom is N-2 in a typical Pearson correlation. Since that looks like yearly data, that means about 110. The probability of that correlation happening by chance would be infinitesimally small. Were you hoping to make a cogent point there? You failed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SecondBestBoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

When I start seeing articles like this in National Geographic or Popular Mechanics instead of Fox News and blogs with populist-flavored names like 'notrickszone' and 'wattsupwiththat?' we can talk.

Until then, you should just stop trying because no one who isn't already on board will be convinced by this sort of thing.

That has been my point all along. Show me a climate model that actually works, can be replicated and can show all of its input before you start transferring trillions of dollars of wealth around. I'm happy with that. Unfortunately it's a leftist political thing that's going to be funded for the kool aid drinkers by the politicians who want to keep office and control the money supply.

It's kind of hard to show something to someone so ideologically driven to hide his head in the sand. But people like myself will keep trying (fools for trolls that we are):

https://mobile.twitter.com/hausfath/status/765572586520584193/photo/1

35 years of nailing global average temperature within the model's confidence interval. 35 years of concerted denial by people like yourself. Quite a record there. And not a flattering one for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SecondBestBoy
Ah yes, blog posts by Roy Spencer and Judith Curry, two of the vanishingly few actual scientists who work in the field and have issues with the consensus. Spencer of the evangelical creationist bent, who has signed the Cornwall Alliance statement on global warming, which dictates that his Christian beliefs forbid him from finding that Jehovah is not the Grand Controller of our Climate. Yeah, that's a credible scientist for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
Spencer also denies evolution... which is probably a good thing, because at least he's consistent.

I always find it amusing when the deniers think that denying evolution is any different from denying AGW. The arguments are identical, ie: 'there's not enough proof!', 'look at this single mistake, the whole theory is debunked!', 'look at this one scientist out of 10,000 who found evidence that proves everything we know is wrong!', and of course 'modern science is corrupt and there's a conspiracy against God/Capitalism/oil companies/etc.'

quote:

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling...

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities...

These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural...

This section includes deceased scientists who would otherwise be listed in the prior sections...

quote:

S. Fred Singer said in an interview with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.”

Singer, a leading scientific skeptic of anthropocentric global warming (AGW), is an atmospheric physicist, and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), an organization that began challenging the published findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the 1990s. SEPP established the Leipzig Declaration, a statement of dissent from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that has been signed by over one hundred scientists and meteorologists.

Asked what he would like to see happen in regard to public opinion and policy on climate change, Singer replied,

quote:

I would like to see the public look upon global warming as just another scientific controversy and oppose any public policies until the major issues are settled, such as the cause. If mostly natural, as NIPCC concludes, then the public policies currently discussed are pointless, hugely expensive, and wasteful of resources that could better be applied to real societal problems.

NIPCC is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, another group established by Singer. In 2009 NIPCC published Climate Change Reconsidered,an 880-page report on scientific research that contradicts the models of man-made global warming. Singer believes that global warming exists but that human contributions to it are minimal. In the interview Singer said he believed his efforts in the last twenty years had been successful in disproving the notion that “the science is settled.”

[if you want, I can hunt up his email address and you climate fascists can write and correct him? or better yet, maybe work to suppress his studies or publications??]

quote:

S. Fred Singer is a man you should know about. He is a genius in the literal sense and a key figure in one of the biggest policy debates of our day. A pioneer in rocket science, weather satellites, and air traffic control; an expert in oil economics and the Earth’s atmosphere; and the author of numerous scholarly books, Dr. Singer is a distinguished and respected scientist. He is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and he was the founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami (1964-1967) and the Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Maryland (1953-1962).

quote:

NAS: Do you dispute the claims that increases of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere are raising global temperatures? Do you dispute the idea that emissions of CO2 from human activities are a significant cause of global warming?

Singer: The basic answer to both questions is yes. It is based on the evidence that the observations do not show the characteristic “fingerprints” that one would expect from a global warming produced by greenhouse gases. This conclusion derives directly from IPCC data. We have published it in 2004 and in 2007 in peer-reviewed journals; it forms the centerpiece of the 2008 NIPCC summary report (published by the Heartland Institute)...

NAS: In your correspondence with Undersecretary of State Timothy Wirth and IPCC Chairman Bert Bolin, you asserted that conclusions of the IPCC had been deliberately distorted for political and ideological purposes. What purposes were these? Why would policy makers feel the need to misuse scientific data about climate change?

Singer: These distortions led to the 1996 IPCC conclusion that “the balance of evidence” supported anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and provided the scientific basis for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. But both Wirth and Bolin, much earlier, had argued for the need to control emissions of CO2 and reduce the use of fossil fuel energy.

NAS: This year (2010) the IPCC was again confronted by evidence that its signature report presented supposition from non-scientific sources as though it were established science. What is it about the IPCC that makes it so vulnerable to mischief like this?

Singer: I want to make a clear distinction between the revelations of various errors in the IPCC volume-2 (Impacts of Climate Change) and the revelations of Climategate, which likely pertain to the “evidence” of IPCC volume-1 on the cause of climate change. I consider the former to be due to sloppiness and also to eagerness by certain lead authors to paint climate change as a destructive factor—whereas the latter is much more fundamental, but as yet unresolved—until we find out just how the temperature data were mishandled by the principals involved in Climategate.

NAS: What is your take on Climategate?

Singer: Climategate demonstrates the hubris of a small group of climate scientists, mainly British and US, who have managed to control the production of data sets of surface temperatures. We do not know as yet just how they manipulated the raw data to produce a warming trend that supposedly agreed with greenhouse models. But we have enough additional evidence to show that they are incorrect and that the reported warming is largely illusionary.

In addition to the manipulation of the data, we have learned that the same group engaged in unethical behavior by witholding their data-analysis procedures from scrutiny, by destroying culpatory evidence such as e-mails, by keeping dissenters from publishing contrary opinions in scientific journals, by manipulating the refereeing process, and bullying journal editors. These matters are very unpleasant and reflect on science generally; they also implicate the editors of certain prestigious journals who have played along with this group.

NAS: Does the Leipzig Declaration (established by SEPP) represent the main body of dissenters from orthodox global warming theory?

Singer: By no means. There exist now many documents signed by some hundreds of climate scientists expressing disagreement with the IPCC conclusions(see, for example, “More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims). In addition, there is also the Oregon Petition signed by more than 31,000 general scientists and engineers.

NAS: Do you think you’ve been successful in persuading the public that “there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide”? How do you measure success?

Singer: Yes, we have been successful. Twenty years ago, Al Gore claimed existence of only a couple of dissenters. Fifteen years ago, there was general agreement among politicians that the “science is settled.” Just a few years ago, in the 2004 Science magazine, Professor Naomi Oreskes proclaimed loudly that she could not find any dissenting views in nearly 1,000 scientific abstracts. Sloppy scholarship caused her to overlook 11,000 others, forcing her to publish a quiet correction. Even though 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences signed a letter in Science recently, affirming belief in AGW, only a handful of these have any demonstrated expertise in climate science. On the other hand, the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now...

NAS: Why do promoters of and dissenters from global warming theory tend to divide along political lines? Isn’t it a question of science, not politics?

Singer: This is an interesting question that should really be addressed to a sociologist. Professor Dan Sarewitz has written an important article about this phenomenon and asked my opinion. I ventured that it might have to do with the fact that if global warming were real and dangerous, it would require government intervention of some sort—which is favored by certain politcally oriented people.

NAS: You are the co-author of Climate Change Reconsidered, an 880-page, 5.5 pound book, full of scientific data about climate change, referencing thousands of articles in scientific peer-reviewed journals. How has the book been received?

Singer: Very few have actually read the book completely, I would guess; but it continues to impress people who are looking for something to rival the IPCC report.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
Spencer also denies evolution... which is probably a good thing, because at least he's consistent.

I always find it amusing when the deniers think that denying evolution is any different from denying AGW. The arguments are identical, ie: 'there's not enough proof!', 'look at this single mistake, the whole theory is debunked!', 'look at this one scientist out of 10,000 who found evidence that proves everything we know is wrong!', and of course 'modern science is corrupt and there's a conspiracy against God/Capitalism/oil companies/etc.'

great---please start a thread on evolution that provides ALL the incontrovertible evidence of one species transitioning to another species. how many different species are there? evidence must be in abundance for each transition right?

and also while youre at it; just where are all those transitional creatures today?

as a sub component to this, im curious as to how mutations (presumably your argument for transitions), which are overwhelmingly harmful in the natural world, somehow in the case of evolution confer an advantage to the species such that, for instance, when this particular specimen mated with another specimen, that genetic mutation was inherited in the offspring, and then what---after millions of years an eye appears?

quote:

Last year Sony Pictures Classics released Merchants of Doubt, a documentary alleging that paid hucksters peddle climate denialism. Marc Morano, who founded and runs the website Climate Depot, was featured prominently as huckster-in-chief. This week Morano struck back with Climate Hustle, a 90-minute film released by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and CDR Communications. Climate Hustle exposes the industry of climate alarmism through an impressive sequence of interviews and news clips revealing the politicized narrative pushed onto the public. It’s a film with an important message. Unfortunately, its reach will be limited by its low budget and a few missteps in narrative development. But anyone interested in the politicization of contemporary science must see it. It showed in theaters only on May 2 but is set for release on DVD later this spring.

Climate Hustle unveils seven “hustles” perpetrated by climate con artists. These include the sleight of hand (patching together data sets into misleading temperature records) and the “ol’ switcheroo” (the pivot from global cooling to global warming and then again to “climate change” and “extreme weather”). Damning sequences show original clips of news anchors and scientists changing their tune as doom-predicting climate models fail to match the facts.

More often — and this is the key point of Climate Hustle – the hustlers stick to their talking points long after the facts have left them behind. We see climate scientists fumbling to explain the 18-year pause in global warming. We also see the precarious positions of celebrity global-warming apologists stuck on repeat, unsure which island of pseudo-scientific messaging to leap onto next. The most hilarious of these (filed under “The limited time offer,” one of the seven hustles) is Prince Charles, who in five nicely timed clips declares that nations will be under water in ten years (that was in 1999); then in 100 months (2008), seven years (2009), 86 months (2010). Finally, in 2014, he enunciates the worn-out warning that we are once again “running out of time.”

We hear Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb (1968), tittering in 1995 that rising seas would soon flood the Supreme Court and enable tourists to tie their boats to the Washington Monument. We see a nice montage of James Hansen, the NASA scientist who testified to the U.S. Senate in 1988 that he had detected the greenhouse effect, repeating warnings about “tipping points” and “irreversible” changes. One such “irreversible” change, of course, was to be the end of snow, predicted by scientists and proclaimed boldly by the New York Times in 2014. But then heavy winter snows hit, but, that’s right, they too were the product of global warming.

Climate Hustle is at its best when juxtaposing contradictory claims. And they are everywhere: Global warming causes heavy rain but also drought; carbon dioxide and temperature are closely correlated, yet rises in temperature tend to precede, not lag, CO2 increases; icecaps are supposedly melting, yet the Arctic sea ice is growing; the polar bear is supposed to be dying, yet its population has quintupled since the 1960s.

Can this dizzying array of contradiction and illogic be scientific? Morano shows scientists walking back some of their bizarre predictions, and he also shows mainstream climate scientists admitting they’re not on board with the headline-grabbing acts. We meet Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. After he realized the evidence simply wasn’t there, Moore abandoned the alarmist trend he helped start.

The alarmist Left likes to paint global-warming skeptics as right-wing deniers. [noooo, we've never heard that before!] Morano shows climatologists who voted for President Obama but privately deplore alarm-mongering. The phony “97 percent” statistic that is constantly paraded as evidence of scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming gets a thorough debunking. Climate Hustle shows innumerable climate scientists — including U.N. and NASA scientists, Nobel laureates, and chaired professors at elite universities — reject the so-called settled science. According to the hustlers, carbon dioxide is a “poison” responsible for cooking our planet. Morano shows scientist after scientist affirming the life-giving importance of CO2 and testifying that Earth is actually in a “CO2 famine.” Hustlers in the media claim that only recently has the climate so dangerously yo-yoed. In old letters that Climate Hustle digs up, Thomas Jefferson and the first president of the British Royal Society worried about infrequent winter snow and shrinking Greenland ice in the early 19th century.

At times Morano tries too hard for “gotcha” moments. In one of several acted sketches, we see the Energy Police banging down the door to confiscate microwaves and table lamps from a private residence. It’s reminiscent of an Audi commercial from the 2010 Super Bowl, in which Green Police arrest the owner of an incandescent light bulb and accost teenagers drinking the banned beverage of bottled water. Meanwhile, the owner of an Audi A3 TDI, named “green car of the year” by Green Car Journal, gets to skip a highway eco-checkpoint and leave the Green Police behind. Too much? Perhaps, though there are real Green Police units in Israel, the U.K., and New York State...

Climate Hustle ends with previews. Morano has in mind a film zeroing in on the wealthy solar- and wind-energy investors who stand to profit from the alarmist activism they fund. He also signals a future project on the privacy invasions that climate alarmism prompts, including population control and the terrifying proposal by a New York University scientist to biologically engineer a shorter, smaller human who needs fewer resources. These are topics ripe for exploring in film — and worthy of support. Here’s hoping that Morano and CFACT can raise the production budget to do them justice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
Spencer also denies evolution... which is probably a good thing, because at least he's consistent.

I always find it amusing when the deniers think that denying evolution is any different from denying AGW. The arguments are identical, ie: 'there's not enough proof!', 'look at this single mistake, the whole theory is debunked!', 'look at this one scientist out of 10,000 who found evidence that proves everything we know is wrong!', and of course 'modern science is corrupt and there's a conspiracy against God/Capitalism/oil companies/etc.'

great---please start a thread on evolution that provides ALL the incontrovertible evidence of one species transitioning to another species. how many different species are there? evidence must be in abundance for each transition right?

and also while youre at it; just where are all those transitional creatures today?

as a sub component to this, im curious as to how mutations (presumably your argument for transitions), which are overwhelmingly harmful in the natural world, somehow in the case of evolution confer an advantage to the species such that, for instance, when this particular specimen mated with another specimen, that genetic mutation was inherited in the offspring, and then what---after millions of years an eye appears?

I really don't want to start that thread.

I already know how it's going to go, and it's definitely not going to involve either of us agreeing on anything. The point will be to watch for each other's mistakes and try to find opportunities to make each other look stupid. If you manage to do that (which I don't think you will), then in your mind will mean that you must be right, even though neither of us are experts and it doesn't really matter what we think.

So yeah, mutation is harmful and species turn into each other. In fact, there is only a single linear progression from amoeba (the bottom) to humans (the top)... probably because the liberals want it that way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
i'll just take that as a default admission that you cannot provide the necessary evidence to show that evolution is the "fact" you claim it to be as opposed to a theory heavily reliant on faith, despite its lack of evidence.