2013 was the 4th warmest year based on noaa data

[Old Rocks]

Pity dumb asses like you that think that Hockey Schtick and Watts are scientifically credible sites.

2013 continued the string of warmest years since the 1880's all being since 2000, excepting 1998.

UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for Dec. 2013: +0.27 Deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

Most everything he posts is peer reviewed studies....actual science as opposed to your pal reviewed crap and hysterical media headlines.

Don't you know? Peer reviewed material is only relevant if it supports their position. Everything else is nonsense. Like this.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

Science or Science Fiction? Professionals? Discursive Construction of Climate Change

Abstract

This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures. Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.

 

[SSDD]

Most everything he posts is peer reviewed studies....actual science as opposed to your pal reviewed crap and hysterical media headlines.

Don't you know? Peer reviewed material is only relevant if it supports their position. Everything else is nonsense. Like this.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

Science or Science Fiction? Professionals? Discursive Construction of Climate Change

Abstract

This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures. Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.

Business school? Guess you must leave climate science these days to find someone who agrees with you. The rats are jumping ship...soon you will be the last one left on that sinking pile of sludge.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A 125 year period is insignificant on the geological scale.

Global warming is not a geological process.

I stared at this post for a couple minutes, like one of those magic eye pictures, and I all I get back is WTF?

You have to stand on your head and squint too

 

[SwimExpert]

Most everything he posts is peer reviewed studies....actual science as opposed to your pal reviewed crap and hysterical media headlines.

Don't you know? Peer reviewed material is only relevant if it supports their position. Everything else is nonsense. Like this.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

Science or Science Fiction? Professionals? Discursive Construction of Climate Change

Abstract

This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures. Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.

Everybody knows that the abstract is the only part of a paper that contains any useful information, and is the only part of a paper from which any conclusions can be drawn, or which can be quoted.

Wait...Uh-huh. I....I see. Oka-This just in: Reading the entire damn thing does provide additional information relevant to the subject matter. AGW cronies around the world are stunned and are decrying what they are calling a global conspiracy to insert science into science.

The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) draws on a frame that we label ‘comply with Kyoto’. In their diagnostic framing, they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.

The second largest group (24%) express a ‘nature is overwhelming’ frame. In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.

Ten percent of respondents draw on an ‘economic responsibility’ frame. They diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life.

‘Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17%), diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling: ‘The number of variables and their interrelationships are almost unlimited – if anyone thinks they have all the answers, they have failed to ask all of the questions.’

The last group (5%) expresses a frame we call ‘regulation activists’. This frame has the smallest number of adherents, expresses the most paradoxical framing, and yet is more agentic than ‘comply with Kyoto’. Advocates of this frame diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life. Advocates do not significantly vary from the mean in how they consider the magnitude, extent, or time scale of climate change. They are also sceptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate: ‘the largest challenge is to find out what the real truth is… I don’t know what the impact really is. I suspect it is not good.’ Despite their seemingly ambivalent stance, they are most likely to believe that nature is our responsibility.

 

[mamooth]

I see you're dodging the fact that The Hockey Schtick was repeatedly caught lying about the papers. But then, this is how the denialist cult works. Any lie for the cause is a good and justifiable thing, hence the liars must be defended.

Science, OTOH, works the opposite way of denialism. Get caught lying, and you're finished. It's probably the #1 thing that distinguishes the two sides. Denialists embrace dishonesty in the name of their political cult, while the rational people despise dishonesty.

 

[mamooth]

Pity the poor warmer wackos. They are all over the board

3 different data sets, shit-for-brains.

This is basic stuff, yet you fail hard at it. Why do you keep bothering the grownups with your stupidity?

 

[SwimExpert]

I see you're dodging the fact that The Hockey Schtick was repeatedly caught lying about the papers. But then, this is how the denialist cult works. Any lie for the cause is a good and justifiable thing, hence the liars must be defended.

Science, OTOH, works the opposite way of denialism. Get caught lying, and you're finished. It's probably the #1 thing that distinguishes the two sides. Denialists embrace dishonesty in the name of their political cult, while the rational people despise dishonesty.

HARD TO PORT!!

Deploy the straw men!

Fire all weapons!

 

[SSDD]

I see you're dodging the fact that The Hockey Schtick was repeatedly caught lying about the papers. But then, this is how the denialist cult works. Any lie for the cause is a good and justifiable thing, hence the liars must be defended.

Science, OTOH, works the opposite way of denialism. Get caught lying, and you're finished. It's probably the #1 thing that distinguishes the two sides. Denialists embrace dishonesty in the name of their political cult, while the rational people despise dishonesty.

The only one caught lying was you warmer crazies misrepresenting the findings of the papers themselves.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What happened to "the Pacific ocean ate the global warming" narrative

 

[SSDD]

What happened to "the Pacific ocean ate the global warming" narrative

I think maybe trenberth realized that if the sort of heat he was talking about had in fact been sequestered in the ocean, the warming would have caused the water to expand and the result would be obvious in the tidal gages. Enough research has been done on sea level at this point that they would have just looked stupid trying to claim rising sea level.

 

[Abraham3]

Whose data do you believe show no increase in sea level?

THIS GRAPHIC CAME FROM WIKIPEDIA

 

[Abraham3]

From AR5 with projections

THIS GRAPHIC CAME FROM REALCLIMATE.ORG

 

[Abraham3]

THIS GRAPHIC CAME FROM REALCLIMATE.ORG

 

[Abraham3]

So... who or what tells you sea level is not rising?

 

[itfitzme]

A 125 year period is insignificant on the geological scale.

We don't live on a geological scale.

 

[flacaltenn]

I see you're dodging the fact that The Hockey Schtick was repeatedly caught lying about the papers. But then, this is how the denialist cult works. Any lie for the cause is a good and justifiable thing, hence the liars must be defended.

Science, OTOH, works the opposite way of denialism. Get caught lying, and you're finished. It's probably the #1 thing that distinguishes the two sides. Denialists embrace dishonesty in the name of their political cult, while the rational people despise dishonesty.

Nope.. No lying.. Just poor interpretation by your side.. Show me a lie THAT HASN"T been discussed and debunked. Don't waste my time...

 

[Abraham3]

That CO2 does not drive climate.

That the Greenhouse Effect is a sham.

That the world's climate scientists falsify their data and their conclusions to get rich from research grants.

 

[flacaltenn]

So... who or what tells you sea level is not rising?

You just wasted 1/2 a page of USMB space for nothing other than your inability to intelligiently follow the convo.. NOBODY said sea levels are not rising.. The argument was about thermal expansion and seeing the effect on tide gauges..

Just for grins --- how much of that rise you shat all over our screens is due to something other than REAL NEW WATER being adding to the ocean basins???

Ever HEAR anything about that?

 

[Abraham3]

What happened to "the Pacific ocean ate the global warming" narrative

I think maybe trenberth realized that if the sort of heat he was talking about had in fact been sequestered in the ocean, the warming would have caused the water to expand and the result would be obvious in the tidal gages. Enough research has been done on sea level at this point that they would have just looked stupid trying to claim rising sea level.

Was this the point I missed?

 

[Abraham3]

Don't you know? Peer reviewed material is only relevant if it supports their position. Everything else is nonsense. Like this.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

Science or Science Fiction? Professionals? Discursive Construction of Climate Change

Abstract

This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures. Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.

Everybody knows that the abstract is the only part of a paper that contains any useful information, and is the only part of a paper from which any conclusions can be drawn, or which can be quoted.

Wait...Uh-huh. I....I see. Oka-This just in: Reading the entire damn thing does provide additional information relevant to the subject matter. AGW cronies around the world are stunned and are decrying what they are calling a global conspiracy to insert science into science.

‘Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17%), diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling: ‘The number of variables and their interrelationships are almost unlimited – if anyone thinks they have all the answers, they have failed to ask all of the questions.’

The last group (5%) expresses a frame we call ‘regulation activists’. This frame has the smallest number of adherents, expresses the most paradoxical framing, and yet is more agentic than ‘comply with Kyoto’. Advocates of this frame diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life. Advocates do not significantly vary from the mean in how they consider the magnitude, extent, or time scale of climate change. They are also sceptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate: ‘the largest challenge is to find out what the real truth is… I don’t know what the impact really is. I suspect it is not good.’ Despite their seemingly ambivalent stance, they are most likely to believe that nature is our responsibility.

While you were reading the whole thing, did you happen to read the professional description of the people they actually surveyed in that study - that is, what they all actually did for a living?