how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[Foxfyre]

To me the most incriminating evidence of dishonesty in the whole AGW schtick is that they rumble along just fine as long as the current climate conditions fit it dogma they are dishing out. But when the current climate conditions start screwing up their theories and predictions, THEN. . . .and every damn time. . . we get revised numbers from their prior data so the current data doesn't contradict them.

That has now happened so many times now, everybody other than the most brainwashed and/or well paid AGW religionists have to know that smells funny.

 

[IanC]

To me the most incriminating evidence of dishonesty in the whole AGW schtick is that they rumble along just fine as long as the current climate conditions fit it dogma they are dishing out. But when the current climate conditions start screwing up their theories and predictions, THEN. . . .and every damn time. . . we get revised numbers from their prior data so the current data doesn't contradict them.

That has now happened so many times now, everybody other than the most brainwashed and/or well paid AGW religionists have to know that smells funny.

I feel sorry for the scientists who have a lot invested in AGW theory, and are understandably reticent to just chuck it out. understandable but it is no excuse.

the ones who piss me off are the media who went totally overboard and demanded ever increasing tales of doom, and got them. and the other characters who made their living off of turning alarm into money and power.

 

[westwall]

And, in the real world, the latest ever recorded below zero temp in the Arctic has occurred. After WEEKS of 24 hour sunlight the temp STILL hasn't cracked 0. Your mantra is proving false....

Your link didn't support your claim. You know that, right?

Your link just showed a temps a little behind the mean, which everyone already knew, because of the persistent arctic cyclone. Nothing about your link said or implied "latest ever".

So, did you have any evidence that actually supports the claim you made?

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Don't know how to use a web site I see. Not surprising. Tell me admiral..or is it General now? Or maybe it's admiral general? Ah heck who cares, how exactly does a persistant arctic cyclone keep the temps low? The lower temps will certainly CREATE the arctic cyclone...that's for sure....but how do always manage to reverse the natural order of things?


Your system of thought is quite remarkable in its poor quality...

 

[itfitzme]

The temp record is clearly inadequate, and therefor useless, because the thermometer measures only a tiny sample of air out of an enormous volume. *Clearly, just a few miles away, the temperature cam vary. *It is hotter over asphalt and cooler under in the forest. The difference in temperature near fountains than out in the open. *It is colder at night and warmer during the day. *There is just no way that the NOAA can accurately estimate the global temperature. *

 

[itfitzme]

To me the most incriminating evidence of dishonesty in the whole AGW schtick is that they rumble along just fine as long as the current climate conditions fit it dogma they are dishing out. *But when the current climate conditions start screwing up their theories and predictions, THEN. . . .and every damn time. . . we get revised numbers from their prior data so the current data doesn't contradict them.

That has now happened so many times now, everybody other than the most brainwashed and/or well paid AGW religionists have to know that smells funny.

I feel sorry for the scientists who have a lot invested in AGW theory, and are understandably reticent to just chuck it out. understandable but it is no excuse.

the ones who piss me off are the media who went totally overboard and demanded ever increasing tales of doom, and got them. and the other characters who made their living off of turning alarm into money and power.

Well, that doesn't make sense. *Even if you were right about no AWG, it is as sensical as feeling sorry for AIG execs because the stock market crashed.

Hansen has retired, from the IPCC. *The hundreds of individual researchers, and their studies, that contribute to the IPCC level reports, are mostly independent. Their research generally stands on it's own, regardless of whether IPCC climate models fail. *

Regardless of whether the temp remains flat, or what, over the next decade, they have all moved on.

 

[PMZ]

To me the most incriminating evidence of dishonesty in the whole AGW schtick is that they rumble along just fine as long as the current climate conditions fit it dogma they are dishing out. But when the current climate conditions start screwing up their theories and predictions, THEN. . . .and every damn time. . . we get revised numbers from their prior data so the current data doesn't contradict them.

That has now happened so many times now, everybody other than the most brainwashed and/or well paid AGW religionists have to know that smells funny.

I feel sorry for the scientists who have a lot invested in AGW theory, and are understandably reticent to just chuck it out. understandable but it is no excuse.

the ones who piss me off are the media who went totally overboard and demanded ever increasing tales of doom, and got them. and the other characters who made their living off of turning alarm into money and power.

"I feel sorry for the scientists who have a lot invested in AGW theory, and are understandably reticent to just chuck it out. understandable but it is no excuse."

"the ones who piss me off are the media who went totally overboard and demanded ever increasing tales of doom, and got them. and the other characters who made their living off of turning alarm into money and power."

Funny, I feel exactly the same about the deniers.

In addition, you've never provided any evidence as to the veracity of your tag line but anecdotally it is completely out of synch with my world and experience. Deniers have lost all credibility.

In my world the debate is over. The solution people have most of what they need from the researchers. It's an engineering and business game now.

One of us is living in a completely fraudulent world.

 

[PMZ]

To me the most incriminating evidence of dishonesty in the whole AGW schtick is that they rumble along just fine as long as the current climate conditions fit it dogma they are dishing out. But when the current climate conditions start screwing up their theories and predictions, THEN. . . .and every damn time. . . we get revised numbers from their prior data so the current data doesn't contradict them.

That has now happened so many times now, everybody other than the most brainwashed and/or well paid AGW religionists have to know that smells funny.

I feel sorry for the scientists who have a lot invested in AGW theory, and are understandably reticent to just chuck it out. understandable but it is no excuse.

the ones who piss me off are the media who went totally overboard and demanded ever increasing tales of doom, and got them. and the other characters who made their living off of turning alarm into money and power.

Here are as good a set of words as I've found describing the world that I'm exposed to.

Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PMZ]

To me the most incriminating evidence of dishonesty in the whole AGW schtick is that they rumble along just fine as long as the current climate conditions fit it dogma they are dishing out. But when the current climate conditions start screwing up their theories and predictions, THEN. . . .and every damn time. . . we get revised numbers from their prior data so the current data doesn't contradict them.

That has now happened so many times now, everybody other than the most brainwashed and/or well paid AGW religionists have to know that smells funny.

Have you ever considered that you only pay attention to sources that tell/show you only what you want to hear/see?

 

[IanC]

The temp record is clearly inadequate, and therefor useless, because the thermometer measures only a tiny sample of air out of an enormous volume. *Clearly, just a few miles away, the temperature cam vary. *It is hotter over asphalt and cooler under in the forest. The difference in temperature near fountains than out in the open. *It is colder at night and warmer during the day. *There is just no way that the NOAA can accurately estimate the global temperature. *

a little sarcasm?

obviously we can get a pretty reasonable temperature record with land temp readings as long as we treat them as only a guideline. ranking years by 1/100ths of a degree is somewhat beyond the scope I should think. the other problem is the continuous tinkering with the methodology of calculating the numbers. I don't really care how it is done but let's keep it consistent. the method used in 1990 is different than the one used in 2000, and different again in 2010. every change seems to add to the overall temp, and trend. this leaves people thinking things are much worse when in fact all they are is defined differently. there should be parallel datasets for at least five years everytime the methodology is significantly changed.

that would leave less opportunity for conspiracy theorists, and more time for competency theorists to evaluate the changes. after all its just 'raw' data being processed by a computer program, right?

 

[PMZ]

From: Climate research nearly unanimous on human causes, survey finds | Environment | guardian.co.uk

A survey of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals has found 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.

Authors of the survey, published on Thursday in the journal Environmental Research Letters, said the finding of near unanimity provided a powerful rebuttal to climate contrarians who insist the science of climate change remains unsettled.

The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in 11,994 academic papers. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83 of those thousands of academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate change is the result of human activity, with the view of the remaining 2.2% unclear.

The study described the dissent as a "vanishingly small proportion" of published research.

"Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary," said John Cook of the University of Queensland, who led the survey.

Public opinion continues to lag behind the science. Though a majority of Americans accept the climate is changing, just 42% believed human activity was the main driver, in a poll conducted by the Pew Research Centre last October.

"There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception," Cook said in a statement.


Guardian partners Climate Desk interview John Cook on his new paper
The study blamed strenuous lobbying efforts by industry to undermine the science behind climate change for the gap in perception. The resulting confusion has blocked efforts to act on climate change.

The survey was the most ambitious effort to date to demonstrate the broad agreement on the causes of climate change, covering 20 years of academic publications from 1991-2011.

In 2004, Naomi Oreskes, an historian at the University of California, San Diego,surveyed published literature, releasing her results in the journal Science. She too came up with a similar finding that 97% of climate scientists agreed on the causes of climate change.

She wrote of the new survey in an email: "It is a nice, independent confirmation, using a somewhat different methodology than I used, that comes to the same result. It also refutes the claim, sometimes made by contrarians, that the consensus has broken down, much less 'shattered'."

The Cook survey was broader in its scope, deploying volunteers from the SkepticalScience.com website to review scientific abstracts. The volunteers also asked authors to rate their own views on the causes of climate change, in another departure from Oreskes's methods.

The authors said the findings could help close the gap between scientific opinion and the public on the causes of climate change, or anthropogenic global warming, and so create favourable conditions for political action on climate.

"The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW [anthropogenic, ie man-made, global warming] is a necessary element in public support for climate policy," the study said.

 

[IanC]

To me the most incriminating evidence of dishonesty in the whole AGW schtick is that they rumble along just fine as long as the current climate conditions fit it dogma they are dishing out. *But when the current climate conditions start screwing up their theories and predictions, THEN. . . .and every damn time. . . we get revised numbers from their prior data so the current data doesn't contradict them.

That has now happened so many times now, everybody other than the most brainwashed and/or well paid AGW religionists have to know that smells funny.

I feel sorry for the scientists who have a lot invested in AGW theory, and are understandably reticent to just chuck it out. understandable but it is no excuse.

the ones who piss me off are the media who went totally overboard and demanded ever increasing tales of doom, and got them. and the other characters who made their living off of turning alarm into money and power.

Well, that doesn't make sense. *Even if you were right about no AWG, it is as sensical as feeling sorry for AIG execs because the stock market crashed.

Hansen has retired, from the IPCC. *The hundreds of individual researchers, and their studies, that contribute to the IPCC level reports, are mostly independent. Their research generally stands on it's own, regardless of whether IPCC climate models fail. *

Regardless of whether the temp remains flat, or what, over the next decade, they have all moved on.

Hansen headed up the GISS temperature dataset division of NASA. I don't recall him ever being involved with the IPCC.

you also seem to be confused about the IPCC doing its own research, they don't. But the head and lead authors do! look for the last rush of papers being cited to be published just after AR5 is released. its easier that way, with no pesky critics to get in the way. remember AR4 and the rebuttal of McIntyre's critique of the Hockey Stick? it never even got published!!! I think the rules have tightened up somewhat but I bet there will still be a scandal or two. (like the inclusion of the Gergis hockey stick graph perhaps?)

you say climate scientists are independent. I say most of them are affiliated with Universities, and they fund pro AGW projects at a much higher rate than the reverse. I can find professors that have been let go, seemingly because of their position on AGW, others that have been publicly criticized, and still others that should have been let go but kept their jobs because it was in the interest of AGW. oh, and peer review isn't independent either, or haven't you read the climategate emails

 

[itfitzme]

I feel sorry for the scientists who have a lot invested in AGW theory, and are understandably reticent to just chuck it out. understandable but it is no excuse.

the ones who piss me off are the media who went totally overboard and demanded ever increasing tales of doom, and got them. and the other characters who made their living off of turning alarm into money and power.

Well, that doesn't make sense. *Even if you were right about no AWG, it is as sensical as feeling sorry for AIG execs because the stock market crashed.

Hansen has retired, from the IPCC. *The hundreds of individual researchers, and their studies, that contribute to the IPCC level reports, are mostly independent. Their research generally stands on it's own, regardless of whether IPCC climate models fail. *

Regardless of whether the temp remains flat, or what, over the next decade, they have all moved on.

Hansen headed up the GISS temperature dataset division of NASA. I don't recall him ever being involved with the IPCC.

you also seem to be confused about the IPCC doing its own research, they don't. But the head and lead authors do! look for the last rush of papers being cited to be published just after AR5 is released. its easier that way, with no pesky critics to get in the way. remember AR4 and the rebuttal of McIntyre's critique of the Hockey Stick? it never even got published!!! I think the rules have tightened up somewhat but I bet there will still be a scandal or two. (like the inclusion of the Gergis hockey stick graph perhaps?)

you say climate scientists are independent. I say most of them are affiliated with Universities, and they fund pro AGW projects at a much higher rate than the reverse. I can find professors that have been let go, seemingly because of their position on AGW, others that have been publicly criticized, and still others that should have been let go but kept their jobs because it was in the interest of AGW. oh, and peer review isn't independent either, or haven't you read the climategate emails

Take for instance, the team running flights along the Alaska Tundra, sniffing for CO2 and methane. *It doesn't matter if AWG is right or wrong. *The technique is the technique. *The data is the data. They find what they find. And frankly, that their resume says "NASA" is way more significant than the results of their study.

 

[Foxfyre]

I feel sorry for the scientists who have a lot invested in AGW theory, and are understandably reticent to just chuck it out. understandable but it is no excuse.

the ones who piss me off are the media who went totally overboard and demanded ever increasing tales of doom, and got them. and the other characters who made their living off of turning alarm into money and power.

Well, that doesn't make sense. *Even if you were right about no AWG, it is as sensical as feeling sorry for AIG execs because the stock market crashed.

Hansen has retired, from the IPCC. *The hundreds of individual researchers, and their studies, that contribute to the IPCC level reports, are mostly independent. Their research generally stands on it's own, regardless of whether IPCC climate models fail. *

Regardless of whether the temp remains flat, or what, over the next decade, they have all moved on.

Hansen headed up the GISS temperature dataset division of NASA. I don't recall him ever being involved with the IPCC.

you also seem to be confused about the IPCC doing its own research, they don't. But the head and lead authors do! look for the last rush of papers being cited to be published just after AR5 is released. its easier that way, with no pesky critics to get in the way. remember AR4 and the rebuttal of McIntyre's critique of the Hockey Stick? it never even got published!!! I think the rules have tightened up somewhat but I bet there will still be a scandal or two. (like the inclusion of the Gergis hockey stick graph perhaps?)

you say climate scientists are independent. I say most of them are affiliated with Universities, and they fund pro AGW projects at a much higher rate than the reverse. I can find professors that have been let go, seemingly because of their position on AGW, others that have been publicly criticized, and still others that should have been let go but kept their jobs because it was in the interest of AGW. oh, and peer review isn't independent either, or haven't you read the climategate emails

Yes that is true, as well as the fact that the universities are conducting their studies mostly with federal grant monies and/or pro-AGW lobby groups. And good luck getting one of those grants or having one renewed if your study doesn't fit the AGW doctrine. One particularly highly publicized case last summer was Nicolas Drapela who was summarily fired from Oregon State University despite a shortage of chemistry professors--they were advertising for four more chemistry teachers when they fired him--and despite stellar evaluations from his students. His offense? As nearly as anybody can figure out, they found out that he was a skeptic re AGW.

I have a friend, another skeptic, who was applying for a research job and was advised privately by another friend to pretend he was a strong AGW advocate; otherwise he would not be hired.

Anecdotal evidence for sure, but the more I read and watch and listen, the more I believe these two individuals are representative of a much larger systemic organized bias in the process, one that is certain to insure that honest science will be hard to come by.

 

[IanC]

Well, that doesn't make sense. *Even if you were right about no AWG, it is as sensical as feeling sorry for AIG execs because the stock market crashed.

Hansen has retired, from the IPCC. *The hundreds of individual researchers, and their studies, that contribute to the IPCC level reports, are mostly independent. Their research generally stands on it's own, regardless of whether IPCC climate models fail. *

Regardless of whether the temp remains flat, or what, over the next decade, they have all moved on.

Hansen headed up the GISS temperature dataset division of NASA. I don't recall him ever being involved with the IPCC.

you also seem to be confused about the IPCC doing its own research, they don't. But the head and lead authors do! look for the last rush of papers being cited to be published just after AR5 is released. its easier that way, with no pesky critics to get in the way. remember AR4 and the rebuttal of McIntyre's critique of the Hockey Stick? it never even got published!!! I think the rules have tightened up somewhat but I bet there will still be a scandal or two. (like the inclusion of the Gergis hockey stick graph perhaps?)

you say climate scientists are independent. I say most of them are affiliated with Universities, and they fund pro AGW projects at a much higher rate than the reverse. I can find professors that have been let go, seemingly because of their position on AGW, others that have been publicly criticized, and still others that should have been let go but kept their jobs because it was in the interest of AGW. oh, and peer review isn't independent either, or haven't you read the climategate emails

Yes that is true, as well as the fact that the universities are conducting their studies mostly with federal grant monies and/or pro-AGW lobby groups. And good luck getting one of those grants or having one renewed if your study doesn't fit the AGW doctrine. One particularly highly publicized case last summer was Nicolas Drapela who was summarily fired from Oregon State University despite a shortage of chemistry professors--they were advertising for four more chemistry teachers when they fired him--and despite stellar evaluations from his students. His offense? As nearly as anybody can figure out, they found out that he was a skeptic re AGW.

I have a friend, another skeptic, who was applying for a research job and was advised privately by another friend to pretend he was a strong AGW advocate; otherwise he would not be hired.

Anecdotal evidence for sure, but the more I read and watch and listen, the more I believe these two individuals are representative of a much larger systemic organized bias in the process, one that is certain to insure that honest science will be hard to come by.

yup, its no coincidence that most of the AGW skeptics in academia are tenured professors that have little to lose. or should I say the ones who are willing to speak publicly.

 

[IanC]

To me the most incriminating evidence of dishonesty in the whole AGW schtick is that they rumble along just fine as long as the current climate conditions fit it dogma they are dishing out. But when the current climate conditions start screwing up their theories and predictions, THEN. . . .and every damn time. . . we get revised numbers from their prior data so the current data doesn't contradict them.

That has now happened so many times now, everybody other than the most brainwashed and/or well paid AGW religionists have to know that smells funny.

I feel sorry for the scientists who have a lot invested in AGW theory, and are understandably reticent to just chuck it out. understandable but it is no excuse.

the ones who piss me off are the media who went totally overboard and demanded ever increasing tales of doom, and got them. and the other characters who made their living off of turning alarm into money and power.

"I feel sorry for the scientists who have a lot invested in AGW theory, and are understandably reticent to just chuck it out. understandable but it is no excuse."

"the ones who piss me off are the media who went totally overboard and demanded ever increasing tales of doom, and got them. and the other characters who made their living off of turning alarm into money and power."

Funny, I feel exactly the same about the deniers.

In addition, you've never provided any evidence as to the veracity of your tag line but anecdotally it is completely out of synch with my world and experience. Deniers have lost all credibility.

In my world the debate is over. The solution people have most of what they need from the researchers. It's an engineering and business game now.

One of us is living in a completely fraudulent world.

do you think I am a 'denier'?



as far as my sig- I will give an example that is widely known, even amongst people who don't follow the climate wars. for the past couple of years skeptics have been saying that warming has stopped. initially the warmers went ballistic and reported that not only was the warming still happening but it was happening at an ever increasing rate. Phil Jones got sandbagged with the question "is it significant", and to his credit he answered "no". but the pitbulls at SkS, Tamino, etc went to ever increasing lengths to torture the data to fit the warming dogma. bit-by-bit they have all started to admit that there is a problem, at least with the models. you would think most reasonable people would be happy that imminent disaster is not tomorrow anyways.

people notice when someone is assuring them that their position is the truth, then get hysterical and defensive when it doesn't work out, then meekly admit that they were wrong. if you are still in the defensive mode that is your right. but you better start planning on how to back down without losing too much face.

 

[mamooth]

THEN. . . .and every damn time. . . we get revised numbers from their prior data so the current data doesn't contradict them.

Wow. You almost told that giant whopper of a lie with a straight face. Almost.

You know, if all the data disagreed with me, as it does with the denialists, maybe I'd start fabricating an endless array of paranoid conspiracy theories too.

Nah. I wouldn't. I don't have that sort of dishonesty in me. When the data disagrees with me, I change my position to agree with the data. That's how ethical scientists differ from denialists.

 

[mamooth]

Tell me admiral..or is it General now?

Westwall, I don't lie about your credentials or call you a fraud. Please have the decency to return that courtesy.

Ah heck who cares, how exactly does a persistant arctic cyclone keep the temps low?

You're unaware that clouds block sunlight?

Seriously, the fact that clouds block sunlight is actually news to you?

Wow. Just wow.

 

[itfitzme]

I feel sorry for the scientists who have a lot invested in AGW theory, and are understandably reticent to just chuck it out. understandable but it is no excuse.

the ones who piss me off are the media who went totally overboard and demanded ever increasing tales of doom, and got them. and the other characters who made their living off of turning alarm into money and power.

"I feel sorry for the scientists who have a lot invested in AGW theory, and are understandably reticent to just chuck it out. understandable but it is no excuse."

"the ones who piss me off are the media who went totally overboard and demanded ever increasing tales of doom, and got them. and the other characters who made their living off of turning alarm into money and power."

Funny, I feel exactly the same about the deniers.*

In addition, you've never provided any evidence as to the veracity of your tag line but anecdotally it is completely out of synch with my world and experience. Deniers have lost all credibility.*

In my world the debate is over. The solution people have most of what they need from the researchers. It's an engineering and business game now.*

One of us is living in a completely fraudulent world.

do you think I am a 'denier'?



as far as my sig- *I will give an example that is widely known, even amongst people who don't follow the climate wars. for the past couple of years skeptics have been saying that warming has stopped. initially the warmers went ballistic and reported that not only was the warming still happening but it was happening at an ever increasing rate. Phil Jones got sandbagged with the question "is it significant", and to his credit he answered "no". but the pitbulls at SkS, Tamino, etc went to ever increasing lengths to torture the data to fit the warming dogma. bit-by-bit they have all started to admit that there is a problem, at least with the models. you would think most reasonable people would be happy that imminent disaster is not tomorrow anyways.

people notice when someone is assuring them that their position is the truth, then get hysterical and defensive when it doesn't work out, then meekly admit that they were wrong. if you are still in the defensive mode that is your right. but you better start planning on how to back down without losing too much face.

Which is wierd. Because I've looked back intomit from time to time and this;

looks pretty much the same. *Oddly, if it was some grand conspiracy, it would still be going up, not pausing.

And the deniists still say the same old thing, that the numbers keep being revised. *It's the same story with the CPI, UE, and every abstract measure.

I'd be worried if they weren't making adjustments. *It is cutting edge, current science stuff. *If you want a confidence level of 99.9999999%, you need to be in physics, not messy stuff like climate or economics.

Oh, I know, they inserted a pause to let the real temps catch up. *Soon they will start trending it down so that it matches the real, non-warming world. *That'll be about 30 yeaes out, long enough for them to collect retirement.

Yeah, that's it. *Yeah.

 

[itfitzme]

Tell me admiral..or is it General now?

Westwall, I don't lie about your credentials or call you a fraud. Please have the decency to return that courtesy.

Ah heck who cares, how exactly does a persistant arctic cyclone keep the temps low?

You're unaware that clouds block sunlight?

Seriously, the fact that clouds block sunlight is actually news to you?

Wow. Just wow.

Not so much now.

Recent ISS photo of Alaska.

Where I live, it's usually warmer when it rains. Something about this area, the clouds come in at the right time to trap the heat in.

 

[gslack]

Tell me admiral..or is it General now?

Westwall, I don't lie about your credentials or call you a fraud. Please have the decency to return that courtesy.

Ah heck who cares, how exactly does a persistant arctic cyclone keep the temps low?

You're unaware that clouds block sunlight?

Seriously, the fact that clouds block sunlight is actually news to you?

Wow. Just wow.

He didn't make up his credentials admiral, you did that...