Climate continues to change.

[4est_4est_Gump]

One thing has definitely changed. The denialist side has gone from "taint so" to "mebbe so, mebbe not", since they have no evidence to support the "taint so" arguments.

Let's see some proof of that.

You ignore any and all contrary evidence. We could post it all day long and you would a reason to reject it because with you, it's not about the Science, it's about the religion. That's why Christ was so big in his time, he was an end-of-the world preacher.

I've been saying the same damned thing on the topic for almost a decade and a half ON LIT. It is your crowd that keeps changing the story to fit the new data. First it was the Hockey Stick and Glow Ball Warning, then it was anthromorphalized, then it was chaotic weather, then it was cold, now heat is hiding in the oceans and volcanoes are redirecting sunlight back into space, BUT THE STORY OF CO2 IS STILL TRUE!!!

We even caught your side faking the model data...

 

[Sean]

those of us in the Sciences

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[Sean]

Let's see some proof of that.

You ignore any and all contrary evidence. We could post it all day long and you would a reason to reject it because with you, it's not about the Science, it's about the religion. That's why Christ was so big in his time, he was an end-of-the world preacher.

I've been saying the same damned thing on the topic for almost a decade and a half ON LIT. It is your crowd that keeps changing the story to fit the new data. First it was the Hockey Stick and Glow Ball Warning, then it was anthromorphalized, then it was chaotic weather, then it was cold, now heat is hiding in the oceans and volcanoes are redirecting sunlight back into space, BUT THE STORY OF CO2 IS STILL TRUE!!!

We even caught your side faking the model data...

Oh do fuck off, you were claiming two years ago that it was because of sunspots, you lying cunt.

 

[phrodeau]

It is true that I ignore everything that AJ posts. Has he been on topic at all?

 

[warrior queen]

When the scientists themselves can't agree, how is Joe Average supposed to know?
One day it's caused by man and emissions, the next day it's caused by ruminants, the next day it's a natural cycle. One day CO2, the next methane, the next sulphur.
I agree that humans need to clean up their act.... we've been living messy and dirty for too long, especially now that we have the technology to move to cleaner resource and waste management.
I agree that something is happenning to the global climate, but I have no idea of the root cause and I am reluctant to simply accept the currently favourable theory.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Frodo ignores me.

lol

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

When the scientists themselves can't agree, how is Joe Average supposed to know?
One day it's caused by man and emissions, the next day it's caused by ruminants, the next day it's a natural cycle. One day CO2, the next methane, the next sulphur.
I agree that humans need to clean up their act.... we've been living messy and dirty for too long, especially now that we have the technology to move to cleaner resource and waste management.
I agree that something is happening to the global climate, but I have no idea of the root cause and I am reluctant to simply accept the currently favourable theory.

It is a very chaotic (and by this I am using the scientific chaotic) system and to try and identify CO2 as the strange attractor has proven to be such a fallacy as to be laughable. Cleaner, yes we should strive to be with an eye to economics, feasibility and sustainability and the understanding that no matter how harshly we punish ourselves economically in the West, that we are not about to stop China, Russia or India from trying to use industry and fossil fuels to try and create economies that will be able to actually feed their people.

 

[Sean]

When the scientists themselves can't agree, how is Joe Average supposed to know?

The scientists do fucking agree. But certain vested interests have spent billions trying to make it seem as if they don't.

 

[warrior queen]

The scientists do fucking agree. But certain vested interests have spent billions trying to make it seem as if they don't.

No they don't. Not really.
They kinda agree that SOMETHING IS HAPPENNING, but they don't agree on the scale, the cause, or the possible solution.
A quick google search, which is what Joe Average relies on, gives multiple views and opinions.

 

[Sean]

No they don't. Not really.
They kinda agree that SOMETHING IS HAPPENNING, but they don't agree on the scale, the cause, or the possible solution.
A quick google search, which is what Joe Average relies on, gives multiple views and opinions.

Jesus Christ. Retards like you are why they get away with it.

 

[warrior queen]

Jesus Christ. Retards like you are why they get away with it.

And now you want Joe to add you to the list of people he should listen to.
You're obviously not getting my point here..... with so many 'experts' giving so many different opinions, and all sounding so official, how the fiuck is the average person supposed to weed out the crap?

It really doesn't matter who is right. What matters is getting the facts reported in such a way that the majority of Joe Averages are prompted to make a change (or force industry to change!)
And while there's all this conflicting information, that won't happen until there is undeniable evidence........ like the Seychelles being completely underwater.

 

[dolf]

'Do you even science, Bro?'

 

[thør]

'Do you even science, Bro?'

It's like the hokey pokey.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

An MIT professor of meteorology is dismissing global-warming alarmists as a discredited “cult” whose members are becoming more hysterical as emerging evidence continues to contradict their beliefs.

During an appearance on this writer’s radio show Monday, MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen discussed the religious nature of the movement.

“As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,” he said. “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!”

Lindzen, 74, has issued calm dismissals of warmist apocalypse, reducing his critics to sputtering rage.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...te-scientist-global-warming-believers-a-cult/

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It gets better...

Lindzen said he was fortunate to have gained tenure just as the “climate change” movement was beginning, because now non-believers are often ostracized in academia. In his career he has watched the hysteria of the 1970’s over “global cooling” morph into “global warming.”

“They use climate to push an agenda. But what do you have left when global warming falls apart? Global normalcy? We have to do something about ‘normalcy?’”

As for CO2, Lindzen said that until recently, periods of greater warmth were referred to as “climate optimum.” Optimum is derived from a Latin word meaning “best.”

“Nobody ever questioned that those were the good periods. All of a sudden you were able to inculcate people with the notion that you have to be afraid of warmth.”

The warmists’ ultimate solution is to reduce the standard of living for most of mankind. That proposition is being resisted most vigorously by nations with developing economies such as China and India, both of which have refused to sign on to any restrictive, Obama-backed climate treaties. Lindzen understands their reluctance.

“Anything you do to impoverish people, and certainly all the planned policies will impoverish people, is actually costing lives. But the environmental movement has never cared about that.”

 

[RobDownSouth]

And now you want Joe to add you to the list of people he should listen to.
You're obviously not getting my point here..... with so many 'experts' giving so many different opinions, and all sounding so official, how the fiuck is the average person supposed to weed out the crap?

It really doesn't matter who is right. What matters is getting the facts reported in such a way that the majority of Joe Averages are prompted to make a change (or force industry to change!)
And while there's all this conflicting information, that won't happen until there is undeniable evidence........ like the Seychelles being completely underwater.

It's called "balance equivalency". The right wing in America thrives on it.
Even though the vast majority of scientists agree on global warming, for example, there is a very small but vocal minority (3% ?) that does not. The right wing drives a wedge into the debate by insisting that "both sides need to be heard" since there is not 100% agreement.

They used to do the same thing with the "tobacco is actually good for you" crowd.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

It gets better...

The same guy who doesn't believe smoking is bad for you.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

cite?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

cite?

You wanted a cite? I was just offering my "thoughts".

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You bluntly stated a fact without anyone prompting you for your thoughts.


I know you think you are winning something.


You asked me for my thoughts.


I gave them.


Then you said something incredibly stupid and everyone called you on it and your smacked-down ego is still smarting.

 

[RobDownSouth]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...te-scientist-global-warming-believers-a-cult/

The Top 25 Lies of "Professor" Richard LIndzen

 

[thør]

An interesting link.

I did notice that there was "data" for stations that were not yet established in 1900. On further investigation, it seems that there's a lot of "extrapolated data" out there. This "extrapolated data" would be better presented if it were another color than the actual data.

 

[phrodeau]

The Top 25 Lies of "Professor" Richard LIndzen

I ask if he's posting on topic, and he quotes Lindzen? That's rich.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You bluntly stated a fact without anyone prompting you for your thoughts.


I know you think you are winning something.


You asked me for my thoughts.


I gave them.


Then you said something incredibly stupid and everyone called you on it and your smacked-down ego is still smarting.

I don't think anyone would make the claim that they feel like they are "winning" when responding to you.

Earlier this week you posted what you tried to pass off as a fact about air quality, and I called you on it. After you were called on it you claimed it was your own original thought, so couldn't provide a cite for it.

At no point in the history of Lit have I ever said something stupid and had everyone call me on it. I guess that's another case of something that you think happened versus something that actually happened.

"Lindzen is not a complete skeptic. He acknowledges that the earth is getting warmer, and that human activity might have something to do with it."

"Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette. "

http://www.newsweek.com/truth-about-global-warming-154937

 

[trysail]

An interesting link.

I did notice that there was "data" for stations that were not yet established in 1900. On further investigation, it seems that there's a lot of "extrapolated data" out there. This "extrapolated data" would be better presented if it were another color than the actual data.

In fact, the whole thing is dodgy— which figures since GISS and Hansen were involved.

...and now NASA/NOAA just screamed at the top of their lungs that 2014 was "The warmest EVAH !!!" (by a massive 0.04°C ) all the while failing to publicize that the margin of error was +/- 0.09°C.


Do they really believe anybody is foolish enough to think they're capable of measuring global temperature with any accuracy at that level of precision?


It's a fucking joke.


It's enough to make a sentient person wonder if Hansen/GISS/NASA/NOAA actually think no one is going to check their work.

​

This interactive graphic displays results from a global analysis of surface temperatures from 1880 to the present called GISTEMP, produced by a team at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

The graphs and maps all show changes relative to average temperatures for the three decades from 1951 to 1980, the earliest period for which there was sufficiently good coverage for comparison. This gives a consistent view of climate change across the globe. To put these numbers in context, the NASA team estimates that the global average temperature for the 1951-1980 baseline period was about 14 °C.

The analysis uses land-based temperature measurements from some 6000 monitoring stations in the Global Historical Climatology Network, plus records from Antarctic stations recorded by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. Temperatures at the ocean surface come from a measurements made by ships from 1880 to 1981, plus satellite measurements from 1982 onwards.

Surface temperature measurements are not evenly distributed across the globe. So the NASA team interpolates from the available data to calculate average temperatures for cells in a global grid, with each cell measuring 2 degrees latitude by 2 degrees longitude. The analysis extrapolates up to 1200 kilometres from any one station, which allows for more complete coverage in the Arctic – where monitoring stations are sparsely distributed, but where the warming trend is especially strong.

The NASA team also corrects the data to remove local heating caused by dense human settlements – a phenomenon known as the urban heat island effect. Temperature stations in urban areas are identified by referring to satellite images of the light they give off at night, and their records are adjusted to reflect the average trend of nearby rural stations.

Update, 4 April 2013: In some locations, monitoring stations were very sparsely distributed for parts of the historical record. When the number of stations in a given region is very low, reporting errors from individual stations may distort the temperature data. For example, the West African nation of Cameroon appears to have been unusually warm in the 1920s and 30s, but the records used to estimate the temperature for this area during that period came from just six stations. At such locations, a detailed investigation into the history of the stations involved would be required to draw specific conclusions about the historical temperature record.​