Why is climate science political?

[Saigon]

Well, it looks like Saigon's yet another intellectual coward on the left. They want to hide behind big names and fancy titles, but don't give a fuck about truth.

Wheras you hide behind small names and lunatic blogs, but don't give a fuck about truth.

It does entertain the hell out of me that skeptics talk so passionately about science and truth - while presenting an argument virtually no scientists accept.

 

[westwall]

How about the 1000+ that refute your 800. What about those? You are conspicuously silent on those.

There are not 1000 peer-reviewed studies which conclude that humans are not playing some part in climate change.

If you take out the ones obviously funded by lobbies, you are proably down to about three studies.

Care to make a wager on that?

 

[westwall]

the vast majority of papers are simply collections of data that can, and have been, used by both sides. until 2000 the paradigm was that the medieval warm period was real and warmer than today. people have noticed, and measured, the glacier and icecap retreat for more than 150 years. sea level rise has been documented for over 100 years and it has remained steady at ~2mm/year. thermometers have have recorded temps for the last 150 years but it has only been the one-sided adjustments of the last 12 years that have made the increase look disproportionate.

the last 30 years has seen the rise of computer models (a good thing), but they have been given far to much credence and claims of accuracy far beyond their capability (a bad thing). the inputs and assumptions for those climate models are incomplete and contrary to the real world. solar is considered insignificant and feedbacks are considered positive contrary to just about every natural system there is.

you have been told one side of the story and it sounded reasonable so you believed it. I have listened to both sides of the story and I dont particularly believe either. I dont know how old you are but I was around for the ice age scare of the 70's. it all made sense and seemed reasonable then too. nature doesnt give a fig about what we believe or how pretty our theories are. the difference between the doomsday forecasts then and now is that this time mankind is being blamed, it is a hook to gain power over our lifestyles that politicians cant resist.

Excellent comments, Ian - I really enjoyed reading that.

I agree with a lot of what you say, and certainly credit you with having given this matter some thought.

The thing I would disagree with is that "you have been told one side of the story".

Much of what I believe about climate is about what I have seen with my own eyes. I've seen the flooding in Bangladesh, the deseritification in Spain and Australia, the glacial melt in New Zealand and Argentina. I've seen rising sea levels in Mozambique and experienced rapidly changing winters here in Finland.

In each case I've talked to locals, and heard their first hand stories on how their community has changed.

I think the problem sceptics have is often based on a very limited perspective - that if I can't see rising sea levels from my window, therefore sea levels are not rising. But actually, they are rising, and you can go and talk to people whose homes are being eroded year after year.

My views of climate change are heavily influenced by scientific opinion, but only because it fits what I see in Spain and Australia.

And if you look at the historical record you see that none of what you witnessed is different from what has happened in the past. In fact 50 or more years ago there was much more damage and death recorded. Look up 1632 and the Great Drowning of men for instance. Feel free to plug in any year from 1900 to 1700 and look at all the weather disasters that happened EVERY YEAR.

We are actually experiencing less damage and death then at almost any other period of mans history.

 

[RollingThunder]

the vast majority of papers are simply collections of data that can, and have been, used by both sides. until 2000 the paradigm was that the medieval warm period was real and warmer than today. people have noticed, and measured, the glacier and icecap retreat for more than 150 years. sea level rise has been documented for over 100 years and it has remained steady at ~2mm/year. thermometers have have recorded temps for the last 150 years but it has only been the one-sided adjustments of the last 12 years that have made the increase look disproportionate.

the last 30 years has seen the rise of computer models (a good thing), but they have been given far to much credence and claims of accuracy far beyond their capability (a bad thing). the inputs and assumptions for those climate models are incomplete and contrary to the real world. solar is considered insignificant and feedbacks are considered positive contrary to just about every natural system there is.

you have been told one side of the story and it sounded reasonable so you believed it. I have listened to both sides of the story and I dont particularly believe either. I dont know how old you are but I was around for the ice age scare of the 70's. it all made sense and seemed reasonable then too. nature doesnt give a fig about what we believe or how pretty our theories are. the difference between the doomsday forecasts then and now is that this time mankind is being blamed, it is a hook to gain power over our lifestyles that politicians cant resist.

Excellent comments, Ian - I really enjoyed reading that.

I agree with a lot of what you say, and certainly credit you with having given this matter some thought.

The thing I would disagree with is that "you have been told one side of the story".

Much of what I believe about climate is about what I have seen with my own eyes. I've seen the flooding in Bangladesh, the deseritification in Spain and Australia, the glacial melt in New Zealand and Argentina. I've seen rising sea levels in Mozambique and experienced rapidly changing winters here in Finland.

In each case I've talked to locals, and heard their first hand stories on how their community has changed.

I think the problem sceptics have is often based on a very limited perspective - that if I can't see rising sea levels from my window, therefore sea levels are not rising. But actually, they are rising, and you can go and talk to people whose homes are being eroded year after year.

My views of climate change are heavily influenced by scientific opinion, but only because it fits what I see in Spain and Australia.

And if you look at the historical record you see that none of what you witnessed is different from what has happened in the past. In fact 50 or more years ago there was much more damage and death recorded. Look up 1632 and the Great Drowning of men for instance. Feel free to plug in any year from 1900 to 1700 and look at all the weather disasters that happened EVERY YEAR. We are actually experiencing less damage and death then at almost any other period of mans history.

Still trying to blow smoke up everyone's butt, eh walleyed? How much do they pay you to spread their lies? Or are you really that stupid and clueless?

Climate Change Influences Disaster Trends
(excerpt)

According to Munich Re data (9.5MB PDF), the frequency of weather-related catastrophes such as windstorms and floods has increased six-fold since the 1950s

 

[tjvh]

Climate change happens every moment, blaming it on human intervention is laughable.

 

[RollingThunder]

Climate change happens every moment, blaming it on human intervention is laughable.

You are exceptionally clueless and obviously don't even know the meaning of the word 'climate' or how it differs from 'weather', so your moronic and very ignorant comments are what is really laughable.

 

[tjvh]

Climate change happens every moment, blaming it on human intervention is laughable.

You are exceptionally clueless and obviously don't even know the meaning of the word 'climate' or how it differs from 'weather', so your moronic and very ignorant comments are what is really laughable.

I accomplished EXACTLY what I wanted to do. Get a Liberal's panties in a knot... Thanks for playing.

 

[Saigon]

And if you look at the historical record you see that none of what you witnessed is different from what has happened in the past. In fact 50 or more years ago there was much more damage and death recorded. Look up 1632 and the Great Drowning of men for instance. Feel free to plug in any year from 1900 to 1700 and look at all the weather disasters that happened EVERY YEAR.

Less people are killed by storms today because we have better construction standards, we have better abilities to predict and track major storms and floods, and we are now more able to avoid building on land prone to subsidance or flood.

This has little to do with climate.

This image shows the number of weather systems record per year in the US. Note the trend is slightly upwards from around 1945. Note how many of the peak years fall within the past decade.

Tropical Cyclone Climatology

 

[Big Fitz]

Well, it looks like Saigon's yet another intellectual coward on the left. They want to hide behind big names and fancy titles, but don't give a fuck about truth.

Wheras you hide behind small names and lunatic blogs, but don't give a fuck about truth.

It does entertain the hell out of me that skeptics talk so passionately about science and truth - while presenting an argument virtually no scientists accept.

Hide? I showcase basic logic and ignore appeals to authority when it disagrees with logic or common sense without merit as to why.

You gonna man up and answer an elementary question?

How does man's contribution to 0.0024% of atmospheric composition control climate when there are so many other stronger contributing factors?

Or are you gonna keep running like a pussy?

 

[Saigon]

How does man's contribution to 0.0024% of atmospheric composition control climate when there are so many other stronger contributing factors?

The reason I haven't answered this before is because I can not believe any even vaguely interested in this topic can't answer it for themselves.

'Human activities result in emissions of four principal greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and the halocarbons (a group of gases containing fluorine, chlorine and bromine). These gases accumulate in the atmosphere, causing concentrations to increase with time. Significant increases in all of these gases have occurred in the industrial era (see Figure 1). All of these increases are attributable to human activities.'

The IPCC explains... Human & Natural Causes of Climate Change | Climate System | Cause and Effect

Note the word 'accumulate'.

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere is approximately 392 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of 2011[1] and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009. [1][2] The concentration increase with respect to pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm has grown roughly exponentially.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I really hope you will step back from the politics and actual try and consider this with an open mind.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ummm........since many on this thread appear to have some pronounced ADHD, thought I'd bring the thread back to topic................after 13 or 14 pages of utter crap, thought it'd be a good idea.


Green energy jobs far short of Obama goal | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner


The title of the article should say, "Far......far.........far..........far.........far short.............."




16,000 instead of 5 million.



Let me tell you something............we have alot of fucking morons on this thread.

 

[skookerasbil]

OK.......now Im really laughing my balls off................

A study from Yale............just the title blows this thread up with a nuclear bomb. Wont matter to the k00ks though................


Yale Study Concludes Public Apathy over Climate Change Unrelated to Science Literacy | Yale Law School












more winning.....................

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate change happens every moment, blaming it on human intervention is laughable.

You are exceptionally clueless and obviously don't even know the meaning of the word 'climate' or how it differs from 'weather', so your moronic and very ignorant comments are what is really laughable.

I accomplished EXACTLY what I wanted to do. Get a Liberal's panties in a knot... Thanks for playing.

You simply demonstrated that you are another willfully ignorant fool.

 

[Big Fitz]

How does man's contribution to 0.0024% of atmospheric composition control climate when there are so many other stronger contributing factors?

The reason I haven't answered this before is because I can not believe any even vaguely interested in this topic can't answer it for themselves.

'Human activities result in emissions of four principal greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and the halocarbons (a group of gases containing fluorine, chlorine and bromine). These gases accumulate in the atmosphere, causing concentrations to increase with time. Significant increases in all of these gases have occurred in the industrial era (see Figure 1). All of these increases are attributable to human activities.'

The IPCC explains... Human & Natural Causes of Climate Change | Climate System | Cause and Effect

Note the word 'accumulate'.

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere is approximately 392 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of 2011[1] and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009. [1][2] The concentration increase with respect to pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm has grown roughly exponentially.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I really hope you will step back from the politics and actual try and consider this with an open mind.

The IPCC has already admitted to not checking data handed to them by activists who got their from anecdotal evidence based on Ice Climbing guides OPINIONS in the Himelayas.

Your authority has failed you.

And not to mention even THEY can't show why a 0.0024% increase in atmospheric composition from a MINOR greenhouse gas controls the entire world climate. It's less than a rounding error when you run the numbers based on tons present in the atmosphere versus man's yearly input.

IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie | The Beacon

Love this sentence:

Such a deception could only have gone on as long and far as it has because of the cultural cover provided by contemporary Western elites who have embraced environmentalism as the new secular religion.

You prove it absolutely true that this is your religion.

Then you dig into why this blog has merit:

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider | Full Comment | National Post

Which is evidenced by this found on page 10-11.

http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG[1].pdf

Damning excerpt:

Since its origins, the IPCC has been open and explicit about seeking to generate a ‘scientific consensus’ around climate change and especially about the role of humans in climate change. Yet this has been a source of both strength and vulnerability for the IPCC. Understanding consensus as a process of ‘truth creation’ (or the more nuanced ‘knowledge production&#8217 which marginalises dissenting voices – as has frequently been portrayed by some of the IPCC’s critics (see Edwards & Schneider, 2001; Petersen, 2010) – does not do justice to the process.

More fun to kill off your hero worship of authorative figures who do not deserve it. From the same report:

The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved. Solving climate change should not be the focus of our efforts any more than we should be ‘solving’the idea of human rights or liberal democracy. It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come."

Glacier scientists says he knew data had not been verified | Mail Online

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action

Follow the money and the power. What power? To change government policy to how they feel the world SHOULD work. If you think this is a manufactured statement, here's the screen shot of the original report.

BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers | Watts Up With That?

In March 2000, 'Scientists' (obviously part of the consensus) claimed this.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

Why should I trust your petty failed gawds of political science instead of basic mathematics and observation any CHILD can do accurately?

Also, I expect you to not even bother to read these, and will probably discredit it out of hand just like every other bit of information that disrupts your nice pre-conclusions.

 

[Saigon]

Fitz -

So you apparently have no problems with the actual science presented, then?

 

[Big Fitz]

Fitz -

So you apparently have no problems with the actual science presented, then?

Answer the question.

How is it that an additional 0.0024% of the atmospheric composition by man controls it all? Is this CO2 the one true ring or something? Magic CO2?

 

[Saigon]

Fitz -

It has been answered, and in considerable detail. I'm not answering it again.

If you aren't interested in looking into the info provided because it was produced by the evil IIPC, that's fine with me.

 

[IanC]

"I understand the evidence for AGW" - no, you poor deluded retard, you have made it very, very obvious that you don't even begin to understand the evidence for AGW....your delusion that you do is just the Dunning-Kruger Effect biting you in the butt again.
"and find it very thin" - it is your mental powers that are pretty "thin"....the mountains of evidence supporting AGW have been more than sufficient to convince every scientific organization, society, institute and university in the world as well as virtually all of the climate scientists of the reality and seriousness of AGW.
"the small amount of warming caused by CO2 is not catastrophic" - it hasn't been too catastrophic so far, you short sighted fool, but it will get increasingly catastrophic as this century goes on and the warming, climate changes and sea level rising will continue for centuries. The world still has some choice about how bad it will eventually get, but it is indeed going to be quite catastrophic, as the world scientific community is affirming.
"feedbacks are not positive" - that's one of your idiotic and fraudulent denier cult myths but it has nothing to do with reality. In reality, there are a number of positive feedbacks such as the loss of Arctic ice cover caused by AGW that is itself causing more warming as the ice that reflects 90% of the sun's energy back out into space is replaced by dark ocean or land that absorbs about 90% of the sun's energy. The release of locked up methane from under the fast melting 'perma-frost' or from the methane hydrates on the ocean floor is one of the most dangerous positive feedbacks.
"they are most likely negative just like every other natural earth system" - your suppositions are based only on your own ignorance and the propaganda you've absorbed, you clueless retard. Anthropogenic global warming is not a "natural" part of the Earth's climate processes.
"the predictions of doom" - are the scientifically based warnings of the top experts in many fields of science connected to the Earth's climate. Your willingness to ignore and discount these warnings for the sake of politics or your own wallet is a good indication of just what a blind, deluded idiot you are.

I think it is funny that you keep bringing up the D-K effect, never dreaming that it is you that is talking about.

you did bring up an interesting topic though. ice has a much higher albedo than open water. it sounds very reasonable that less ice would mean more warming. is it true and to what extent?

the arctic goes from long days to long nights. the ice melts during daylight, reforms in the darkness. when the melt season starts the sun is high but there is also the most ice. by the end of the melt season the sun is low and even what little sunshine is left tends to be reflected off the surface of the water. all in all, more warming, but not as much as implied because the difference in ice area is very little when the sun is high and the effect is very small when there is less ice.

but is there anything else to consider? ice is a good insulator. there is little heat transfer from ocean to air when there is ice in between. but open water happily gives off heat. the arctic quickly cools down once the sun is gone but the liquid ocean keeps giving off heat until it is insulated by ice.

so the question is this. is the extra sunlight absorbed during the weak sunset fully or only partially offset by the extra heat loss from the extra open water? as usual nature has a negative feedback for disturbances to the system.

a coupla years back the climate models showed that even starting from an input of a totally ice free arctic that the ice would soon build back up again.

 

[Big Fitz]

Fitz -

It has been answered, and in considerable detail. I'm not answering it again.

If you aren't interested in looking into the info provided because it was produced by the evil IIPC, that's fine with me.

Your post where you answered is where? I haven't found it in this thread.

 

[Saigon]

Your post where you answered is where? I haven't found it in this thread.

Oh, I'm sure you haven't.

I dare say anyone genuinely interested will have found it fairly easily though - I only posted it a few hours ago. It's #490.