Why is climate science political?

[skookerasbil]

still not seeing anything remotely resembling how the science is changing the politics.

Can we please stay out of the Twilight Zone?

 

[Old Rocks]

RealClimate: Convenient Untruths

Hurricane Katrina and global warming Katrina is used in the film as a legitimate illustration of the destructive power of hurricanes, our inability to cope with natural disaster, and the kind of thing that could well get worse in a warmer world. Nowhere does Gore state that Katrina was caused by global warming. We discussed this attribution issue back in 2005, and what we said then still holds. Individual hurricanes cannot be attributed to global warming, but the statistics of hurricanes, in particular the maximum intensities attained by storms, may indeed be.

 

[Old Rocks]

RealClimate: Convenient Untruths

Overall, our verdict is that the 9 points are not “errors” at all (with possibly one unwise choice of tense on the island evacuation point). But behind each of these issues lies some fascinating, and in some cases worrying, scientific findings and we can only applaud the prospect that more classroom discussions of these subjects may occur because of this court case.

So the upshot of these claimed "errors" is that the judge recommended that there be further discussion of them after the film was shown. Interesting in that this would lead to more real research into the issue. And that is all to the good, for when anyone examines the science, they realize that we have a major problem on our hands, one that endangers all of humanity.

 

[skookerasbil]

The future of clean energy: Grey with tints of green | The Economist






>>Note the skooks sources compared to hyperpartisan links posted up by the environmentalists<<

 

[skookerasbil]

Natural gas: Shale of the century | The Economist

 

[skookerasbil]

more bonafide stuff....................not stuff from hyper-green websites!!!

Obama's Green Energy Investment Continues to Deliver Lousy Results - Investors.com

 

[skookerasbil]

This goofball lefty president spent 90 billion on green energy sincce 2009............90 fucking billion............and how many jobs has it netted?????


16,100


Put a liberal in charge of anything and you get lots of wasted money ( LOTS)!!!!


Meanwhile, from Cananda to Mexico, 75,000 jobs gained in oil and gas despite the knucklehead blocking Keystone!!!


Whos losing?>??



real link says................... Green energy jobs far short of Obama goal | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

 

[Old Rocks]

Your version of feedback only works if water vapor is a positive forcer.

I see your understandings of feedback is as poor as the rest of your scientific understandings.



not just blog science, journal rejected drool spatters in which you seem to find images of puppies and butterflies.



So you feel that the fact (according to this paper's findings) that water vapor amounts to a small fraction of the warming forced by anthropogenic ghgs and that the authors of the paper don't draw any conclusions in their stating that it's not clear whether the water vapor changes are caused by a climate feedback or decadal variability:

...Our analysis focuses only on estimating the contributions of stratospheric water vapor changes to recent decadal rates of warming; additional contributions such as from solar variations (33), aerosols, natural variability, or other processes are not ruled out by this study.

...It is therefore not clear whether the stratospheric water vapor changes represent a feedback to global average climate change or a source of decadal variability. Current global climate models suggest that the stratospheric water vapor feedback to global warming due to carbon dioxide increases is weak...

No mainstream climate researcher that I am aware of ignores nor misattributes water vapor in their consideration of climate change issues

Show me a single computer model that addresses water vapor.

Got your ass handed to you on that peice of idiocy, Walleyes.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

By the way..........tune in tonight at 9pm to take a gander at the Wisconsin election results.


All this goofball lefty nonsense is on its way to getting mothballed in 5 months. Tonight is the watershed........an appetizer for guys like me, West, Ian, Frank and Wirebender.


And you can bet your ass that I'll be hard on MSNBC at 9 to watch the epic display of misery by the panel of nutty asses.


90 billion on green energy.............those days are ending real, real soon.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well Code, I will give you credit for at least having the balls to make your prediction. Most of the deniars here will not do that.

My prediction? Continued increase, with a real bump at the next El Nino. By 2030, once again exceeding any one's expections, with the consequences far greater than the predictions.

I stick by my original prediction (which I gave last year) cooling for the next 20 years with occasional blips of warmth.

0.30 for April, 0.29 for May. Both numbers above any high point prior to the 1998 El Nino. That's some cooling, Walleyes.

UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2012: +0.29°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[Big Fitz]

By the way..........tune in tonight at 9pm to take a gander at the Wisconsin election results.


All this goofball lefty nonsense is on its way to getting mothballed in 5 months. Tonight is the watershed........an appetizer for guys like me, West, Ian, Frank and Wirebender.


And you can bet your ass that I'll be hard on MSNBC at 9 to watch the epic display of misery by the panel of nutty asses.


90 billion on green energy.............those days are ending real, real soon.

Live coverage of it starts here from local Green Bay hosts. Jerry Bader's pretty darn good.

Listen Live - WTAQ News Talk 97.5FM and 1360AM

 

[Trakar]

By the way..........tune in tonight at 9pm to take a gander at the Wisconsin election results.


All this goofball lefty nonsense is on its way to getting mothballed in 5 months. Tonight is the watershed........an appetizer for guys like me, West, Ian, Frank and Wirebender.


And you can bet your ass that I'll be hard on MSNBC at 9 to watch the epic display of misery by the panel of nutty asses.


90 billion on green energy.............those days are ending real, real soon.

Why is this of interest to a climate change board?

 

[code1211]

RealClimate: Convenient Untruths

Last week, a UK High Court judge rejected a call to restrict the showing of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) in British schools. The judge, Justice Burton found that “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate” (which accords with our original assessment). There has been a lot of comment and controversy over this decision because of the judges commentary on 9 alleged “errors” (note the quotation marks!) in the movie’s description of the science. The judge referred to these as ‘errors’ in quotations precisely to emphasize that, while these were points that could be contested, it was not clear that they were actually errors (see Deltoid for more on that).


There are a number of points to be brought out here. First of all, “An Inconvenient Truth” was a movie and people expecting the same depth from a movie as from a scientific paper are setting an impossible standard. Secondly, the judge’s characterisation of the 9 points is substantially flawed. He appears to have put words in Gore’s mouth that would indeed have been wrong had they been said (but they weren’t). Finally, the judge was really ruling on how “Guidance Notes” for teachers should be provided to allow for more in depth discussion of these points in the classroom. This is something we wholehearted support – AIT is probably best used as a jumping off point for informed discussion, but it is not the final word. Indeed, the fourth IPCC report has come out in the meantime, and that has much more up-to-date and comprehensive discussions on all these points.

A number of discussions of the 9 points have already been posted (particularly at New Scientist and Michael Tobis’s wiki), and it is clear that the purported ‘errors’ are nothing of the sort. The (unofficial) transcript of the movie should be referred to if you have any doubts about this. It is however unsurprising that the usual climate change contrarians and critics would want to exploit this confusion for perhaps non-scientific reasons.

The comments from the judge are a better representation on the thoughts of the judge than are the comments from another on the comments from the judge.

 

[Old Rocks]

Because it is far easier to twist numbers on matter like that, than argue climate change, which involves understanding and posting real science.

 

[Old Rocks]

RealClimate: Convenient Untruths

Last week, a UK High Court judge rejected a call to restrict the showing of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) in British schools. The judge, Justice Burton found that “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate” (which accords with our original assessment). There has been a lot of comment and controversy over this decision because of the judges commentary on 9 alleged “errors” (note the quotation marks!) in the movie’s description of the science. The judge referred to these as ‘errors’ in quotations precisely to emphasize that, while these were points that could be contested, it was not clear that they were actually errors (see Deltoid for more on that).


There are a number of points to be brought out here. First of all, “An Inconvenient Truth” was a movie and people expecting the same depth from a movie as from a scientific paper are setting an impossible standard. Secondly, the judge’s characterisation of the 9 points is substantially flawed. He appears to have put words in Gore’s mouth that would indeed have been wrong had they been said (but they weren’t). Finally, the judge was really ruling on how “Guidance Notes” for teachers should be provided to allow for more in depth discussion of these points in the classroom. This is something we wholehearted support – AIT is probably best used as a jumping off point for informed discussion, but it is not the final word. Indeed, the fourth IPCC report has come out in the meantime, and that has much more up-to-date and comprehensive discussions on all these points.

A number of discussions of the 9 points have already been posted (particularly at New Scientist and Michael Tobis’s wiki), and it is clear that the purported ‘errors’ are nothing of the sort. The (unofficial) transcript of the movie should be referred to if you have any doubts about this. It is however unsurprising that the usual climate change contrarians and critics would want to exploit this confusion for perhaps non-scientific reasons.

The comments from the judge are a better representation on the thoughts of the judge than are the comments from another on the comments from the judge.

The judge stated that the film was broadly accurate and cleared for showing in schools.

 

[code1211]

RealClimate: Convenient Untruths

Hurricane Katrina and global warming Katrina is used in the film as a legitimate illustration of the destructive power of hurricanes, our inability to cope with natural disaster, and the kind of thing that could well get worse in a warmer world. Nowhere does Gore state that Katrina was caused by global warming. We discussed this attribution issue back in 2005, and what we said then still holds. Individual hurricanes cannot be attributed to global warming, but the statistics of hurricanes, in particular the maximum intensities attained by storms, may indeed be.

And this explains why the "batting average for NOAA in predicting the hurricanes and storms for any season from 2000 forward has been about .500.

Seriously, they could do as well guessing with no equipment, cost, experience or training whatsoever.

 

[Old Rocks]

RealClimate: Convenient Untruths

Hurricane Katrina and global warming Katrina is used in the film as a legitimate illustration of the destructive power of hurricanes, our inability to cope with natural disaster, and the kind of thing that could well get worse in a warmer world. Nowhere does Gore state that Katrina was caused by global warming. We discussed this attribution issue back in 2005, and what we said then still holds. Individual hurricanes cannot be attributed to global warming, but the statistics of hurricanes, in particular the maximum intensities attained by storms, may indeed be.

And this explains why the "batting average for NOAA in predicting the hurricanes and storms for any season from 2000 forward has been about .500.

Seriously, they could do as well guessing with no equipment, cost, experience or training whatsoever.

Both Swiss Re, and Munich Re state that there has been an increase of extreme weather events by a factor of 3 to 5 in the last 40 years.

 

[code1211]

RealClimate: Convenient Untruths

Last week, a UK High Court judge rejected a call to restrict the showing of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) in British schools. The judge, Justice Burton found that “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate” (which accords with our original assessment). There has been a lot of comment and controversy over this decision because of the judges commentary on 9 alleged “errors” (note the quotation marks!) in the movie’s description of the science. The judge referred to these as ‘errors’ in quotations precisely to emphasize that, while these were points that could be contested, it was not clear that they were actually errors (see Deltoid for more on that).


There are a number of points to be brought out here. First of all, “An Inconvenient Truth” was a movie and people expecting the same depth from a movie as from a scientific paper are setting an impossible standard. Secondly, the judge’s characterisation of the 9 points is substantially flawed. He appears to have put words in Gore’s mouth that would indeed have been wrong had they been said (but they weren’t). Finally, the judge was really ruling on how “Guidance Notes” for teachers should be provided to allow for more in depth discussion of these points in the classroom. This is something we wholehearted support – AIT is probably best used as a jumping off point for informed discussion, but it is not the final word. Indeed, the fourth IPCC report has come out in the meantime, and that has much more up-to-date and comprehensive discussions on all these points.

A number of discussions of the 9 points have already been posted (particularly at New Scientist and Michael Tobis’s wiki), and it is clear that the purported ‘errors’ are nothing of the sort. The (unofficial) transcript of the movie should be referred to if you have any doubts about this. It is however unsurprising that the usual climate change contrarians and critics would want to exploit this confusion for perhaps non-scientific reasons.

The comments from the judge are a better representation on the thoughts of the judge than are the comments from another on the comments from the judge.

The judge stated that the film was broadly accurate and cleared for showing in schools.

The judge said that it was broadly accurate and that it was propaganda. He demanded that this be made clear to the kids as it is biased and not entirely supported by science.

<snip>
The judge ruled that the film can still be shown in schools, as part of a climate change resources pack, but only if it is accompanied by fresh guidance notes to balance Mr Gore's "one-sided" views. The "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change, he said.

The judge also said it might be necessary for the Department of Children, Schools and Families to make clear to teachers some of Mr Gore's views were not supported or promoted by the government, and there was "a view to the contrary".
<snip>

 

[code1211]

RealClimate: Convenient Untruths

Hurricane Katrina and global warming Katrina is used in the film as a legitimate illustration of the destructive power of hurricanes, our inability to cope with natural disaster, and the kind of thing that could well get worse in a warmer world. Nowhere does Gore state that Katrina was caused by global warming. We discussed this attribution issue back in 2005, and what we said then still holds. Individual hurricanes cannot be attributed to global warming, but the statistics of hurricanes, in particular the maximum intensities attained by storms, may indeed be.

And this explains why the "batting average for NOAA in predicting the hurricanes and storms for any season from 2000 forward has been about .500.

Seriously, they could do as well guessing with no equipment, cost, experience or training whatsoever.

Both Swiss Re, and Munich Re state that there has been an increase of extreme weather events by a factor of 3 to 5 in the last 40 years.

We're not talking about reviewing history. we are talking about using science to predict what has not happened yet.

NOAA knows more about doing this than any other organization on earth and they aren't any better than a kid throwing darts at a board.