Scientists discover that climate-change skeptics are bozos

[Sonny Limatina]

New climate study deals blow to skeptics
By Matthew Knight, CNN

London (CNN) -- An independent study of global temperature records has reaffirmed previous conclusions by climate scientists that global warming is real.

The new analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project examined 1.6 billion temperature reports from 15 data archives stretching back over 200 years in an effort to address scientific concerns raised by climate skeptics about the data used to inform reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Dummies to "Berkeley!" in 5...4...

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/americas/climate-study-warming-real/

 

[Peregrinator]

This has been up for 16 minutes now and not one rw talking point posted. The dittohead echochamber must be hungover today.

 

[Spacefender]

Is it a right wing talking point to note that other planets in the solar system have gotten warmer as well?

 

[Peregrinator]

Yes.


.

 

[Spacefender]

Excellent. Thanks for the clarification. I guess we're all fucked then.

 

[phrodeau]

Is it a right wing talking point to note that other planets in the solar system have gotten warmer as well?

The Moon isn't getting any warmer, so there.

 

[Peregrinator]

There are three fundamental flaws in the 'other planets are warming' argument. Not all planets in the solar system are warming. The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950 and in fact has shown a slight cooling trend in recent decades. There are explanations for why other planets are warming.

Further explanation and links to primary literature here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system-intermediate.htm

And here (Jupiter): http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-jupiter-intermediate.htm

And here (Neptune): http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-neptune-intermediate.htm

And here (Pluto): http://www.skepticalscience.com/pluto-global-warming-intermediate.htm

And here (Mars): http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm

 

[Karen Kraft]

Is it a right wing talking point to note that other planets in the solar system have gotten warmer as well?

They wouldn't have if evil Earthlings hadn't sent all that hydrocarbon based substances their way -- on the satellites and stuff -- you know.....

* one eyebrow raised *

 

[thør]

Oh, those Berkeley guys (and gals).

Time to get a pitcher at the Bear's Lair.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

In 1974 scientist were predicting another ice age based on cooling patterns. Anything these clowns say should be taking with a grain of salt. For every 20 reputable warming articles, there are 20 saying the opposite. Giving the amount of politically biased grants going to the pro guys I simply do not know what to believe. I am not a scientist and cannot read two contradicting scientific papers and tell which is the lie. At the end of the day it is no skin off my back to recycle and to try to minimize my "carbon footprint". But when politicians pay scientists for pre determined studies so that they can pass more laws it does worry me.

The only thing I can say for certain is that believing strongly on this one way or the other is asinine giving the amount of contradictorily evidence either side can show.

 

[Peregrinator]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

In 1974 scientist were predicting another ice age based on cooling patterns. Anything these clowns say should be taking with a grain of salt. For every 20 reputable warming articles, there are 20 saying the opposite. Giving the amount of politically biased grants going to the pro guys I simply do not know what to believe. I am not a scientist and cannot read two contradicting scientific papers and tell which is the lie. At the end of the day it is no skin off my back to recycle and to try to minimize my "carbon footprint". But when politicians pay scientists for pre determined studies so that they can pass more laws it does worry me.

The only thing I can say for certain is that believing strongly on this one way or the other is asinine giving the amount of contradictorily evidence either side can show.

No, they weren't.

See here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/1970s_papers.gif

The science is relatively easy to understand. It's the propaganda war that's murky. There's not a single molecule of evidence that "politicians pay scientists for pre-determined studies." That's sheer right-wing echo-chamber nonsense.

Here's a list of links to the common "skeptic" arguments and what the science actually says. Each entry has links to the primary supporting literature. It's instructive to the open minded to take a look at this every time you read or see yet another skeptic spouting off about how it's all a scam. It's further instructive to post them here and watch people ignore them, as Karen just did a couple posts above.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

[phrodeau]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

In 1974 scientist were predicting another ice age based on cooling patterns. Anything these clowns say should be taking with a grain of salt. For every 20 reputable warming articles, there are 20 saying the opposite. Giving the amount of politically biased grants going to the pro guys I simply do not know what to believe. I am not a scientist and cannot read two contradicting scientific papers and tell which is the lie. At the end of the day it is no skin off my back to recycle and to try to minimize my "carbon footprint". But when politicians pay scientists for pre determined studies so that they can pass more laws it does worry me.

The only thing I can say for certain is that believing strongly on this one way or the other is asinine giving the amount of contradictorily evidence either side can show.

You could rely on your own observations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60jof35WuAo

 

[trysail]

Sceptical Berkeley Scientists Say, “Human Component Of Global Warming May Be Somewhat Overstated”
Dr. David Whitehouse
http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/...lobal-warming-may-be-somewhat-overstated.html




Are you aware that all the surface temperature records come from one source, NCDC ?

Ever heard of UAH ?
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/from:1998/normalise:12​

...the Berkeley researchers themselves say they cannot determine why the world has warmed...

...The 39,000 or so weather stations cover 29% of the planet and a third of them showed no warming over the 60-year period under consideration, indeed they showed cooling...

-Dr. David Whitehouse​

 

[thør]

This study is brought to you partially by the Koch brothers.......(partial funding from the Charles G. Koch Foundation)

Haven't these guys been crucified on the GB already?

 

[phrodeau]

Sceptical Berkeley Scientists Say, “Human Component Of Global Warming May Be Somewhat Overstated”
Dr. David Whitehouse
http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/...lobal-warming-may-be-somewhat-overstated.html




Are you aware that all the surface temperature records come from one source, NCDC ?

Ever heard of UAH ?
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/from:1998/normalise:12​

But isn't it amazing to see what a "normal" y-axis shows?:

http://butnowyouknow.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/globa-mean-temp.gif?w=469&h=427​

 

[trysail]

From an eyewitness:

...Climate science got caught up in a highly charged political debate: the consequences predicted by the models were dire, and many of the climate scientists were persuaded by the predictions of the models. Climate science is a relatively young field, and one that was ill prepared for participation in such a highly charged political debate. The traditions of science in disclosing all of the weaknesses of their work were at odds with this adversarial political process.

The actual shift within the community seems to have occurred in the context of the IPCC process. The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human-induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets in the context of the UNFCCC. National and international science programs were funded to support the IPCC objectives. Scientists involved in the IPCC advanced their careers, obtained personal publicity, and some gained a seat at the big policy tables. This career advancement of IPCC scientists was done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science. Eager for the publicity, high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative. Especially in subfields such as ecology and public health, these publications and the media attention help steer money in the direction of these scientists, which buys them loyalty from their institutions, who appreciate the publicity and the dollars. Further, the institutions that support science use the publicity to argue for more funding to support climate research and its impacts. And the broader scientific community inadvertently becomes complicit in all this. When the IPCC consensus is attacked by deniers and the forces of “anti-science,” scientists all join in bemoaning these dark forces fighting a war against science, and support the IPCC against its critics. The media also bought into this, by eliminating balance in favor of the IPCC consensus.

The bottom line is that scientists worked within the system to maximize their professional reputations, influence, and funding. Rather than blame the scientists for optimizing their rewards within the system, we need to take a careful look at the system, most particularly the climate science-policy interface and the federal funding of climate science...

-Judith A. Curry, Ph.D.
Professor & Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 1982
NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee
Fellow, American Meteorologic Society
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American Geophysical Union.​

"However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise."

-Judith A. Curry, Ph.D.
Professor & Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 1982
NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee
Fellow, American Meteorologic Society
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American Geophysical Union.​

 

[trysail]

It's amazing to see what a "normal" y-axis shows:

http://butnowyouknow.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/globa-mean-temp.gif?w=469&h=427​

 

[richard_daily]

It's amazing to see what a "normal" y-axis shows:

http://butnowyouknow.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/globa-mean-temp.gif?w=469&h=427​

Indeed; a steady increase in temperatures...

 

[where]

what I don't get with the anthropogenic climate change skeptics is what they think is in it for scientists saying we are experiencing global warming. and the funding thing doesn't cut it because scientific funding gets cut all the time and these guys would still have jobs.

 

[Peregrinator]

It's amazing to see what a "normal" y-axis shows:

http://butnowyouknow.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/globa-mean-temp.gif?w=469&h=427​

How many times do you need the same point debunked before you stop posting it?

 

[CandiCame]

Wait, there are seriously people who dont know about climate change?

How long have you folk been sitting on this board? Shits going on without you.

and they even have fudged sites about it? Thats hardcore. I would never have even thought about it.

 

[Peregrinator]

Here you go, skeptics. All you have to do is google up the study(ies) cited at the end of each bullet point and debunk it/them. Easy peasy.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm





The evidence for global warming is being meticulously accumulated by scientists all over the world. This evidence includes the following independent observations that paint a consistent picture of global warming:

Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)
The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release)
Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009, see press release).
A shift towards earlier seasons (Stine 2009)
Cooling and contraction of the upper atmosphere consistent with predicted effects of increasing greenhouse gases (Lastovicka 2008)
Lake warming (Schneider & Hook 2010)
Ice Melt
Arctic permafrost is warming at greater depths (Walsh 2009) and degrading (IPCC AR4, section 4.7.2.3)
Global sea level rise is accelerating (Church 2006)
Antarctic ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009), even from East Antarctica which was previously thought to be too stable to lose ice mass (Chen 2009)
Greenland ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009, van den Broeke et al 2009)
Glaciers are shrinking globally at an accelerating rate (WGMS 2008)
Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating with the loss rate exceeding model forecasts by around a factor of 3 (Stroeve 2007).
Lake and river ice cover throughout the Northern Hemisphere are freezing later and breaking up earlier (Magnuson 2000, Hodgkins 2005)

Biological changes
Animal and plant species are responding to earlier springs. Eg - earlier frog breeding, bird nesting, earlier flowering, earlier migration of birds and butterflies (Parmesan 2003)
The distribution of tree lines, plants, birds, mammals, insects, fish, reptiles, marine invertebrates are shifting towards the poles (Parmesan 2003)
Growing season is lengthening (Christidis 2007)
Earlier emergence of Melbourne butterflies (Kearney 2010)
Changes to physical and biological systems across the globe are consistent with warming temperatures (Rosenzweig 2008)
Distribution of plants are shifting to higher elevations (Lenoir 2008)
UK Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years (Amano 2010)
Arctic phytoplankton blooming earlier in the year, affecting the food chain (Kahru 2010)
Earlier emergence of Melbourne butterfly: 1.6 days per decade (Kearney 2010).
Decline in lizard populations (Sinervo 2010)
Drop in primary productivity due to unprecedented warming at Lake Tanganyika (Tierney 2010)
Tropical reef corals are expanding poleward (Yamano 2011)
Species are shrinking (Sheridan 2011)
Last updated on 19 October 2011 by John Coo

 

[Disgustipated]

I would like to congratulate Sonny on his never-ending thread.

 

[Peregrinator]

Wait, there are seriously people who dont know about climate change?

How long have you folk been sitting on this board? Shits going on without you.

and they even have fudged sites about it? Thats hardcore. I would never have even thought about it.

It's something like this:

"I don't want to believe it because Al Gore said it."

"I don't want to believe it because it will cost money to stop spewing greenhouse gases."

"Environmentalists are communists."

"My favorite right-wing dipshit commentator says it's a myth."

"I must find every squirrelly bullshit argument possible to oppose this because it will cost me money."

"I will continue to repeat tired old long-debunked bullshit like a good little useful idiot because that's the conservative thing to do wrt this particular issue."

Etc, etc, etc.

The site I referenced, http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php , cites primary research in contradiction to all of the commonly played skeptic arguments (see "1974" above, for an example). It contains links to the literature, where the data can be accessed. The skeptics here ignore it regularly, or ad hominem it instantly, because they cannot argue with it. This is typical of the reaction one gets.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I would like to congratulate Sonny on his never-ending thread.

Leave my unusually large penis out of this.