Obama dire climate report more certain than ever

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I didn't, NCDC did. The purpose is to show the warming trend since the industrial age began.

a reply to: Kali74

ok - so you have nothing to compare it to? However will I know that this isn't normal?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

a reply to: Kali74

Now this chart is difficult to read but if I am seeing it correctly - the peaks were very close to 0.4 degrees C - so in the end this chart only proves that global warming peaks today are about the same as global temperatures throughout history

What is your point

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
I'm not a scientist, and I'm not out there publishing 'official' papers and trying to change laws and funneling money through bunk companies selling smoke and snake oil.

People can think for themselves and if data isn't matching up, then why not say so. Nobody needs your permission to disagree and call it as they see it.

Check mate? Where's the chess board? Playing a one-sided game and making up rules as you go along?

Have a beer, because this is gonna be long. You won't use common sense and I won't buy 'paid for' data or research funded by companies who are DEMANDING a certain outcome so they can profit off the ill-educated.

The scientific process doesn't rely on 'official' or 'endorsed' studies. It relies on a consensus and acceptance of experiments. Science progresses through replication of results and inference from these experiments.

The independent, unfunded study I mentioned previously found very similar results to those of the IPCC. This should have been sufficient to quell your claims of funding biasing science. Instead, you claimed that the people involved must have gotten funding somewhere - in fact, that everybody gets funding from somewhere.

I simply took that claim to the logical endpoint. You've made a claim that he must have funding from somewhere. Now, go and prove it - the onus is on you.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
The significance of a 17 years?

www.llnl.gov...

Fair enough. I was alluding to the 'pause' of course, but I'd like to reiterate that the satellites and weather stations seem to disagree at the moment in regards to warming, if you look at the data sources.

It's hard to believe that there are people still claiming the climate isn't warming, but I see there are still some. I had thought the debate had at least moved to the point where it was in question as to why it was warming.

a reply to: Greven

It doesn't surprise me that satellite and weather station data disagrees. there has always been suspecian that the placement of weather stations was influencing the result (ie placed on hot asphalt in an airport)

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Grimpachi

ht

Wallace says up to half of that increase is more likely to be due to complex atmospheric links that originate with rain and wind patterns in the South Pacific -- not warming from greenhouse gases. Unusually heavy rain in a region of the South Pacific sets up turbulence in the atmosphere that affects the whole globe, he said. Read more: www.ctvnews.ca...

tp://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/climate-change-not-fully-to-blame-for-melting-sea-ice-study-1.1810977

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
It doesn't surprise me that satellite and weather station data disagrees. there has always been suspecian that the placement of weather stations was influencing the result (ie placed on hot asphalt in an airport)

Likewise, satellite measurements aren't necessarily very accurate. They rely on microwave and thermal infrared to measure temperatures, both of which are subject to disruption from things such as... clouds, wind, dust... lots of different things.

Since you mentioned it, if you think the heat island effect is perhaps responsible for skewing weather station readings... wouldn't that be due to localized climate change? And if localized climate change is indeed possible - isn't global climate change? Things don't happen in a vacuum.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Well from your article.

His paper doesn't address sea-ice loss or degradation in other parts of the Arctic.


"The ice melt is dramatic," he said. "I would not claim to make any statement about the ice melt."


Read more: www.ctvnews.ca...

a reply to: Greven

But that is the problem isn't it?

Is global warming possible - of course it is! The earth has been warming and cooling for millenia

But, what we have here are a group of people claiming that if action isn't taken NOW NOW NOW (since atleast the late 80s, about 35 years ago) then the earth will experience runaway climate change and end up like Jupitor and man will be extinct and its ALL our own fault. And its going to be EXPENSIVE and will require real sacrifices on the part of the whole planet.

And this theory is based on raw data that needs to be massaged in order to make it "accuarate". Weather stations are not quite accurate (because of siting issues and holes in the data from areas where there are no weather. Satellite data might not be accurate because of the problems you described. And yet, the magnitude of the change is only 0.5 degrees so the accuracy of the raw data and how it was massaged is really really important.

But the scientists in question refuse to release the raw data (micheal mann) because it might get "criticized" which is the whole point, isn't it? And the peer review is all done by a really small group of scientists. And when they say they have a 97 % concensus - what they really mean is that they have the support of the Royal Academy of All Things Important and the Ministry of Silly Walks and not each and every scientist that belong to those particular organizations

And they say they can only be criticized by climatologists but not every scientist that they say supports them is a climatologists and the climatologists that don't support them should be dismissed as quacks!

So they essentially are telling us "Trust me and give me your money" and refusing to submit to scientific review (expect by their own) and are refusing to respond to critizism or to have a true public debate.

They say that "everyone believes them and is on board" so why aren't you but they forget to mention that national cooperation is coerced through the global monetary funds.

And we already have evidence that the people at the very top of the pyrimid (Maurice Strong and Al Gore) have gotten rich because of this theory (Maurice Strong committing out and out theft and then disappearing to Beijing as soon as the investigations starts.

AND AT THE END OF THE DAY

The very people who are predicting the end of the earth as we know it....are also rejecting the very solution that would solve the problem - nuclear power!

So explain to me how this ISN'T a hoax?

a reply to: Greven


It's up to me to prove they have funding?

Haha. So the companies and individuals are independently wealthy and rely on no outside person or group with an agenda?

I've nothing to prove in they receive funding, each place gets grants and money under one form or another and they are expected to produce the results paid for, or they don't continue to get funding. Publishing papers isn't free nor cheap.

You just admitted they all get funding from somewhere, and your claims for non-bias have been checked, and mated sir.

a reply to: BlackboxInquiry
What?

No really, I don't understand your train of thought at all.

I cited a particular study that claimed to be unfunded. As in, nobody else is funding it, no grants, nothing. I'm discussing one single study. You claimed that everyone gets funding from somewhere. I then inferred, assuming your claim was true, that you yourself were funded by something to show you where that logic takes you. Unsurprisingly, you bristled at this logic, and me personally. I clarified, that you who have made a claim, need to back it up.

Now, suddenly I agree with your claims and I have to back up your claims? If you think this is how a discussion works, I'm just going to ignore you from this point onwards.

And no, authors of studies don't always need to pay to be published - that's why journals charge money for access. I personally have had a study go through review and to publication (although I'm not certain it's printed yet) and it cost me nothing. Of course, to see the study, I'll have to buy the journal when it's available.

a reply to: Greven

Really, totally unfunded research? Who paid for the study to be done at all or published?

In all my years, I've never heard of being published for free when it comes to research of any kind. I've seen and heard of labs and groups shutting down due to no funding. Free...? *scratches head*

I've gotta find this money tree.

Can't do it free mate.

I'd love to see your study. What's it on?

Ignore me if you must, you won't hurt my feelings.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

then the earth will experience runaway climate change and end up like Jupitor

Well, no. Jupiter is very cold actually. And there is no place to stand on it.

But the scientists in question refuse to release the raw data

They do? Have you actually asked for the data? Looked for it?

So they essentially are telling us "Trust me and give me your money"

Who is telling us that? Give them our money to do what? No one has asked me for any money.

a reply to: Phage

oh? really?

did your government invest in renewable energy sources with money that was NOT your tax money or tacked onto your electricity bill?

did the companies who bought all those carbon credits that made Al Gore wealthier NOT pass the cost to their customers?

Who pays for recycling?

www.forbes.com...

To prevent the worst effects will cost the world about 2% of global GDP per year, or just over a trillion dollars, although that figure also rises the longer we wait. Since our total energy costs are about 2% of global GDP, this is a significant cost to bear, basically doubling our energy costs. By the same token, 2% of GDP is not a horrendous amount to invest in saving the world as we know it.

WOW - these guys are so good at scamming, you didn't even notice the money leaving your wallet!!!

PS - how long did it take for Micheal Mann to finally release his raw data for the infamous hockey stick graph and WHY did the IPCC back away from the graph?


Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I appreciate your passion but there shouldn't be a debate because the climate is changing. The only question is man's role in it.

a reply to: lostbook

Exactly! Climate is changing - always has and always will

Now why is that a problem?

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: lostbook

Exactly! Climate is changing - always has and always will

Now why is that a problem?

Tired of Control Freaks

It's changing at an accelerated pace....don't you see that? You keep saying that the climate scientists are paid by the government to say that climate is changing to push an agenda. Do you honestly believe that every scientist is in on one huge conspiracy to empty your pockets? Honestly? By the way, are you yourself a scientist? Just curious.

a reply to: lostbook

No lostbook. I am not a scientist. But I do have common sense.

Does it take a scientist to spot a scam?

Here is the current situation. We have scientists doing research and developing a theory. Then we have politicians and other people advertising this theory and advising the whole world that drastic action is necessary to save the planet and our children's future. It will cost pretty close to a trillion dollars a year for the next 50 years. The situation is dire. There is no time for debate or thoughtful action. We must act NOW NOW NOW or we will all die.

There is only one solution that would make a difference. Nuclear energy to provide a stable energy source to support civilization.

AND THAT is the solution they reject!

They have us recycling at a cost of billions per year (yet 80 % of recyclables go directly to a landfill), building renewable energy sources that are unstable and must be supported by gas go-generation plants (energy is 4 times the cost of hydro-coal-nuclear energy, rare earths to build the turbines must be mined in China causing huge harm to the planet) and using our farmland to grow bio-fuels (costs a litre and a half of gasoline to produce litre of fuel and raises food prices).

All of their solutions are costing us trillions and not of them actually works and continue to demand more and more sacrifices in the name of "saving the planet".

But they continue to reject nuclear energy (which would be costly but effective)

Yet they still demand trillions in global welfare where the poor of one country would send money to the rich of an underdeveloped country. This would leave the population living in misery and mud huts but would somehow "save the planet"

And they continue to reject nuclear energy.

Lostbook - stop listening to what they are saying. Use your eyes and look at what they are doing.

If the situation were as dire as they pretend, would they not start building nuclear plants as fast as possible?

Don't bother telling me about the difficulties of handling nuclear waste and the risk ----- They say the situation is a DIRE EMERGENCY!!!!

Do I need to be a scientist to see a scam?

Tired of Control Freaks