http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=646
If Cook’s statement were correct, the implication would be that the climate does not normally change.
Climate scientists can’t forecast the Sun, volcanoes, oceanic cycles, clouds, rain, snow, ice, soil moisture – or anything else which affects the climate long term, but they claim that they can predict the future based on a single variable.
This is witchcraft, not science.
If it always stays the same, why do we need a prediction? Just look out the window, and it will be that way tomorrow and next year! This will save governments lots of money. I think the climatologists should be made to pay back their grant money, like a student loan, since they tacitly admitted that climatology is a scam, since it does not change. This may be debatable, since man is changing it [sarc], but at least paleoclimatology should go out the window, since in the past, weather never changed because humans were absent.
And a lie. A blatant lie. An intentionally deceptive lie. “Their aim was to find out how many of the active researchers in the field agree on man-made climate change. The answer is, 97 out of 100 agree that the climate is changing and that we are causing it.
It wasn’t 97 out of 100. It was Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/012009_Doran_final1.pdf
Wait a minute. Are you saying that only 76 out 79 scientists responded in the positive? Only 79 climate scientists are all that responded in that survey when we hear that same old greenie statement “97% of scientists” blah blah. I can’t believe it, I thought the sample size was over 10,000 not 79. My god, that’s not a representative sample. Besides 76/79 is 96% not 97%. They even got the percentage wrong! Who the hell conducted this bogus skewed survey anyway, I wouldn’t accept something of this caliber unless they were in grade school.
Nor I. But, yes, when you see the 97% number paraded by alarmists, this is what they are referencing. I can probably name over 1/3 of them off the top of my head. It is intentionally misleading and any alarmist spouting this BS is either misled, or is intentionally misleading. Cook is intentionally misleading people. He knows full well the number of people responding to the questions.
A very good analysis of the paper that Suyts references can be found here:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/
Lawrence Solomon is one of the Probe International website contributors.
Sounds like they surveyed the IPPC and found that they had a few to get rid of . 32,000 have already taken that poll and have answered that Co2 is not causing climate change . to say the climate is not changing is to be inside a box a very small one . but man is not the cause . Climate goes through natural cycles and these people know that and are using that to promote what ever it is they are promoting, like unbridled power and authority over people of the world. This surely will fizzle out as it did in the 70’s when we all were going to freeze to death
The only people who are spouting this cultic dogma are the Climategate Deniers. The following is just one of hundreds of professional papers that show the borehole record. It looks like (eyeballing it) that 97% of all borehole record professional papers demonstrate and validate the Holocene Optimum, Roman and Medieval Period and the Medieval and Little Ice Age Cold Period.
[h/t CO2 Science]
“Whereas most boreholes do not exceed a depth of 1 km, which limits the temporal duration of surface temperature reconstructions by this method to only the past few centuries, Demezhko and Shchapov (2001) studied a borehole extending to more than 5 km depth, which allowed them to reconstruct an 80,000-year history of ground surface temperature. This borehole was drilled in the Middle Ural Mountains within the western rim of the Tagil subsidence; and it revealed a number of climatic excursions, among which were the “Holocene Optimum 4000-6000 years ago, Medieval Warm Period with a culmination about 1000 years ago and Little Ice Age 200-500 years ago.” Furthermore, the mean temperature of the Medieval Warm Period was determined to have been more elevated above the mean temperature of the past century than the mean temperature of the Little Ice Age was reduced below it. Once again, therefore, we have evidence for the reality of the Medieval Warm Period, as well as another example of its dominance over the past century in terms of its greater sustained warmth, which flies in the face of the contrary claims of climate alarmists, who strive desperately to make the planet’s current warmth appear “unprecedented” over the past millennium or more.”
There does not appear to be anything going on now that should be cause for alarm, except for climate experts who want to stay on the gravy train
I bet 97% of Divinity students believe in God.
I’ll bet it’s higher than that.
We hope, but I read an article today that makes me wonder.
Can’t find the link now…….
” . . . . It’s witchcraft.
And I’ve got no defense for it.
The heat is too intense for it.
What good would common sense for it do?
“Cause it’s witchcraft,
Wicked witchcraft.
And although I know it’s strictly taboo . . . . . ”
spot-on
Somebody alert the ice cores and sea beds that they are deniers and that consensus science no longer believes in historic climate change that occured without man’s help. lol
Of course we control the climate, doesn’t HAARP do it?
Also I spotted a Marian on Mars again
Why don’t more people know about HAARP??????? For some reason we dont care about why we are here or who we are… Recently in my spare time i have been researching EVERYTHING. With a wealth of knowledge at our fingertips (The internet) i think more people should spend some time learning about things like this…
You folks must have missed the latest Memo! Natural Climate is variable throughout history. However only Humans cause the climate to CHANGE!
Even though climate varies from one state to another it has NEVER Changed until Humans got involved.
Repeat after me: Natural climate VARIES but humans cause Climate to CHANGE!
var·i·a·ble
? ?[vair-ee-uh-buhl]
–adjective
1.
apt or liable to vary or change; changeable: variable weather; variable moods.
2.
capable of being varied or changed; alterable: a variable time limit for completion of a book.
3.
inconstant; fickle: a variable lover.
4.
having much variation or diversity.
5.
Biology . deviating from the usual type, as a species or a specific character.
6.
Astronomy . (of a star) changing in brightness.
7.
Meteorology . (of wind) tending to change in direction.
8.
Mathematics . having the nature or characteristics of a variable.
change
? ?[cheynj] Show IPA verb, changed, chang·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.
to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone: to change one’s name; to change one’s opinion; to change the course of history.
2.
to transform or convert (usually followed by into ): The witch changed the prince into a toad.
3.
to substitute another or others for; exchange for something else, usually of the same kind: She changed her shoes when she got home from the office.
4.
to give and take reciprocally; interchange: to change places with someone.
5.
to transfer from one (conveyance) to another: You’ll have to change planes in Chicago.
6.
to give or get smaller money in exchange for: to change a five-dollar bill.
7.
to give or get foreign money in exchange for: to change dollars into francs.
8.
to remove and replace the covering or coverings of: to change a bed; to change a baby.
From Dictionary dot com
That has been my problem all this time because I thought Variable and change meant the same thing until I recently read a claim by a member of the Chicken Little Brigade!
PLEASE Explain this – Why do we persist with this nonsensical argument?
The average global temperature for the last 100 years is about 13 degrees Celsius
The average global temperature for the last 100 million years is about 17 degrees Celsius.
The average global temperature for the last 500 million years is about 20 degrees Celsius.
Those numbers tell me that the temperature of the Earth is decreasing!
Even if we just take the time period that advanced life forms were on the earth, the temperature is decreasing. And if we only take time from the end of the dinosaur period, the temperature is decreasing!
The only time period that you can start with to claim that the global temperature is increasing is if you start with the end of the Little Ice Age! And that is exactly where all of these ludicrous AGW believers start with.
If I was going to pick the “Best” average temperature for the Earth, I would use the average of the last 50 to 65 million years, which is about 20 degrees Celsius. We need to warm up a quite a few degrees to get there, so what is the big problem with CO2?
One more degree will wipe out all life on the planet.
Then How did they survive before??????
They didn’t. Life on Earth has been extinct for at least 600 million years.
Who made us God with the authority to decide that the temperature of the Earth should not go above the present temperature?
I know a hard core warmist who believes that we would be in an ice age if it weren’t for the burning of fossil fuels.
That would be me…………….and I think we’re still in one too
No problem with CO2, but it does not drive climate. If you want it warmer move south. I am about to leave for warmer places and good red wine.
97% of 5 year-olds agree that naps are unfair.
Dear Steven,
I suggest you re-check English grammar, particularly verb tenses.
The verb ending with ‘ing’ is the gerund and here it represents a current, continuous occurrence.
The form not ending in ‘ing’, which you use, is the simple present and implies continuous action in your context.
The two are not equivalent. A google search for ‘present tenses in English’ should give you the reading material to help you not make the same mistake again.
All the best.
Whats the matter, you got a googled English course just so you can post this here. Do you feel better now that in your own mind you feel smarter than the average bear.
All the best.
It seems like you are playing a rhetorical game here:
“97% Of Scientists Believe That Climate Change Does Not Happen Naturally”
Come can anyone produce a paper where scientists claimed Climate Change is unnatural. I would be interested in seeing it.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I’ll admit I don’t know if this list is 97% of the world’s recognized scientific organizations, but I’d be interested if any one can point out a legitimate scientific organize that has come out denying AGW?
~ ~ ~
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that “most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”:
* American Association for the Advancement of Science
* American Astronomical Society
* American Chemical Society
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* American Meteorological Society
* American Physical Society
* Australian Coral Reef Society
* Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
* British Antarctic Survey
* Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* Environmental Protection Agency
* European Federation of Geologists
* European Geosciences Union
* European Physical Society
* Federation of American Scientists
* Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
* Geological Society of America
* Geological Society of Australia
* International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
* International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* Royal Meteorological Society
* Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academie des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Also why not refer to SkepticalScience.com informative article, it gives more details.
“What does Naomi Oreskes’ study on consensus show?”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/naomi-oreskes-consensus-on-global-warming.htm
Wow. Organizations funded by global warming money support continued funding for themselves. What a revelation.
Is why welfare recipients believe welfare is good social program.
So, if we all agreed we should receive money for scaring people with wild tales of world ruin, would our consensus be posted at Mr. Cook’s site?
Because we’re not interested in Mr. Cook’s wordsmithing. And, while you produce a compelling list of organizations, you’re presenting as each member of each organization holds the same view. This is yet another blatant attempt at intentionally misleading a reader. You know, I know, and now every reader here knows it.
In fact, (if you know 1/2 as much as what you seem to be asserting) know full well there have been several serious challenges to these organizations statements by their own membership.
The 97% figure comes from the paper I referenced. And it doesn’t matter how many times it is referenced, it doesn’t change the actual numbers. A consensus of 76.
They just harm them selves and their credibility
“The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:”
That it has to be presented as a “consensus position” rather than a scientifically proven fact, is very convincing that the entire thing is politics and not science.
Science has to work and does not depend on a consensus.
SG: “Wow. Organizations funded by global warming money support continued funding for themselves. What a revelation.”
~ ~ ~
Yup the whole scientific world is in on the conspiracy but we can trust the legacy of Seitz and Singer and right-wing corporate funded think-tanks to bring us to the real truth all those pesky researching scientists are trying to trick us about. {Inhofe and Barton would never lie to anyone for political gain.}
Incidentally, when is the denialist community going to clean up the many disproven assertions that keep getting resurrected and reconstituted?
Show me one paper claiming there is no natural climate change?
Show me one paper that disproves CO2 as the current driving force behind the epochal transition our climate is being observed entering?
Show me one paper that explain another mechanism for today’s observed changes?
Quite a conspiracy that people look out for their own interests.
suyts says:
March 25, 2011 at 8:47 pm: “Because we’re not interested in Mr. Cook’s wordsmithing.”
OK, what about all the authoritative links SkepticalScience links too?
Not interested in any of that either?
lol, authorative…….like the 97% consensus he references?
BTW, you asked the question improperly, let me help you, “Show me one paper that proves CO2 as the current driving force behind the epochal transition our climate is being observed entering?
Did anyone mention anything about a conspiracy? Feeding at the public trough is a time honored tradition by people that can’t do anything productive.
“Show me one paper that explain another mechanism for today’s observed changes?”
What changes? Specifically. Are you asserting there was or should be a point in time when climate was/should be static? I would assert a static climate is what would be catastrophic.
I also notice Cook references that loon at Deltoid. You know he’s fabricated things, right? As far as peer-reviewed works having any credibility in the cli-sci world, that’s a joke. All of us skeptics knew that for years. Steve McIntyre has displayed it for the rest of the world. What lesson did you take away from the Steig/O’Donnell debacle?
The fact is, in cli-sci, it is simply like-minded people agreeing with each other. That isn’t a big trick. The liberated e-mails clearly show attempts(posterity shows that some were successful) at blocking skeptical papers. And, of course, a study of papers written from 1993-2003 doesn’t really mean much today, does it?
You know what’s funny? I’ve been watching this little game ever since Hansen did his A/C trick on congress. I knew then it wasn’t credible. (If you have to resort to parlor tricks to make people believe you, it puts you on par with a tarot card reader.) After 25 years of typical climate events, people still persist in thinking something is happening. Personally, I’m pro-warming. I don’t think there is any credible evidence that warming is harmful to the human condition. There is plenty of bi-annual evidence that cold is harmful.
Citizen, take a look around this blog. Notice all of the historical references to past climatic events. Now tell me how you know now is different than then.
It is nice to meet you, though, and I’d invite you to stick around. It may prove illuminating for you.
James
suyts says: “Did anyone mention anything about a conspiracy?”
~ ~ ~
Now there’s a nice spin. How else could the world wide establishment climatology community reach the same consensus? Either they are reflecting the evidence. . . or they are lying to us. Only a world wide coordinated conspiracy could achieve the consistency of evidence denialist folks are so good at ignoring.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
suyts says: “Feeding at the public trough is a time honored tradition by people that can’t do anything productive.”
~ ~ ~
So are you implying that climate scientists who receive fed money fudge their data because that would guarantee more funding? But then why would they imply there is a developing consensus based on evidence? – Wouldn’t they guarantee more money for themselves if they could inject more questions needing resolution.
I know it is impossible for some people to believe that scientists are dedicated to learning and understanding and that research dollars are spent on research to achieve the best understanding possible. It is also a competitive enterprise – the goal being learning, and cross checking other’s results and hoping to find that breakthrough that will have impact. Why the blind eye to all that?
Also you overlook the fact that brainy folks with money grubbing in their greedy little hearts are weeded out of the scientific research fields and go into the business fields. And that’s a proof you can take to the bank. 😉
I do realize that’s a notion those right-wing think-tankers can’t seem to fathom.
lol, I notice you didn’t directly respond to anything other than your “conspiracy” inference.
Well, if you want to characterize like-minded ideologues agreeing with each other as a conspiracy, go for it.
“Wouldn’t they guarantee more money for themselves if they could inject more questions needing resolution.”
I don’t recall seeing an alarmist statement without the caveat of “more study is needed” attached to the end of the statements or papers.
“It is also a competitive enterprise …”……..
lmao! Yah, you can tell that by the way they communicate in their e-mails. Kevin, Mike, Keith, Phil…….. Sorry, like so many alarmist statements, that one doesn’t square with reality. They even share their methodologies with each other……..Mike’s trick for example. Although, perhaps slightly flawed, the Wegman report does an outstanding job in displaying the interaction of alarmist climatologists worldwide. If you’ve got a copy, start on page 38.
“Also you overlook the fact that brainy folks with money grubbing in their greedy little hearts are weeded out of the scientific research fields and go into the business fields. And that’s a proof you can take to the bank.”
Uhmm, errr…..sorry to bust your bubble on that one too, but, …..
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127628/Federal-Government-Outpaces-Private-Sector-Job-Creation.aspx
Education being expected to have the 3rd largest job sector growth in the coming decade. I’d provide a link, but if you put 2 links in a comments, it goes to moderation hell and Steve isn’t always watching, so it may sit there for some time.
So, let’s review, I directly address the issues you brought up. You create more issues for me to address other than respond to my assertions. In spite of the misdirection attempts, I oblige. And, directly respond to your silly assertions……. now, that isn’t to say there isn’t quite a bit of money a scientist can make from the private sector, but they don’t even have to be employed by the private sector to enjoy the $millions from the private sector……….link to follow.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/02/01_ebi.shtml
$500,000,000 doesn’t go as far as it used to. How did BP ever pass those inspections of their oil drilling process?
And 50 trillion flies eat shit.
Steve, I have a serious question for you.
Are you a “right-wing think-tanker?”
‘Cause if you are , Imma be pissed at you for even thinking about tanking right wings! When I eat wings, I like mine to be balanced with both left and right! How would you expect me to have a balanced meal if you’re think-tanking right wings? I mean WTF? Here I am, thinking I can have my wings and eat them too, but nooo-o-ooo, you’re all think-tankin’ stuff! I really hope this is just another vicious rumor ………
I’m a right-wing environmentalist vegan bicyclist former forest ranger who would like to see 90% of automobile traffic off the road.
Well, yes, I can see it all too clearly now…………… Vegan bicyclists former forest rangers who would like to see 90% of automobile traffic off the road are famously right-wing think-tankers. A perfect fit for stereotyping.
I guess I could have addressed one of your posits in a different fashion,
“Wouldn’t they guarantee more money for themselves if they could inject more questions needing resolution.
I guess you’re under the mistaken impression that they don’t inject more questions. For instance, you can see several contradictory statements made by alarmists in the list. Its a bit dated, but still very relevant. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
My personal favorite is the Atlantic simultaneously being more salty and less salty. Obviously, more funding is necessary to study this great question. Here at the real GISS, we’ve additionally identified other seemingly contradictory dynamics, called warmcold and its climatic companion wetdry!
Yips, can’t keep up, excuse me, I’ll try to catch up tomorrow
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
suyts says: “You know what’s funny? I’ve been watching this little game ever since Hansen did his A/C trick on congress.”
~ ~ ~
You know what’s sad? I’ve been watching this little game ever since high school science (class ‘73) then I got scared when Reagan took over with his Hollywood siren song of a world having no limits. {Along with his faith in maximizing the growth of the military-industrial complex and seemingly limitless consumption and that maximizing profits was America’s job one… remember the birth of the Wall Street mantra “Greed Is Good”?}
You know what’s tragic? Is that after all these decades and all of the Earth Observation evidence, people still believe economic desires can dictate nature.
How can I be impressed with the denial echo-chamber when they refuse to look at the Earthbound evidence?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
suyts says: “Citizen, take a look around this blog. Notice all of the historical references to past climatic events. Now tell me how you know now is different than then.”
~ ~ ~
Past climate events, you mean the small fluctuations these past 8,000ish years, or the local European MWP, or the interglacials 10,000/400,000, or the CO2 levels 700,000/800,000 years ago with that snow ball earth stuff. So why should we care about climate fluctuations, fluctuations are natural?
We should care for a couple reasons. It took a long time for Earth to attain that cornucopia state humanity was born into. Anthropogenic CO2 concentration is doing nothing but going up, there’s no down slope in sight for a long time.
However, society lives on time scales of decades (10s), toss in a century or two (100s), and we are near infinity. So lets keep a little perspective on that historical silliness.
What’s different now.
Basically what’s different* is that we are supercharging our atmosphere with anthropogenic GHGs to levels unseen in many millions (1,000,000s) of years. Those levels will continue increasing thus keep increasing Earth’s insulating blanket. Either you ignore science and think greenhouse gases and the known physics mean nothing. Or this should induce prudent caution {search YouTube for “Admiral Titley” Navy’s chief Oceanographer, listen to what this no nonsense man has to say.}
Or you appreciate humanity’s biosphere is encountering an epochal course change. Atmospheric CO2 levels will never be close to the steady state that enabled a fleeting Goldilock moment for humanity to flourish in. But then one must take Earth’s biosphere seriously before any of the above makes much sense.
{*of course that doesn’t touch on all the other degradation our Planet’s biosphere has suffered these past couple centuries}
=======================
suyts says:“I don’t recall seeing an alarmist statement without the caveat of “more study is needed” attached to the end of the statements or papers.”
~ ~ ~
Right and I have never heard the term Last Nail in the AGW Coffin.
Nor have I ever heard of a denier sit down and talk about the serious observations either, without slipping off into distractions with outdated graphs, digging up wannabe scandals, or getting personal.
Although, my compliments the conversation at this particular site has been refreshingly civil.
cheers
Internet traffic is the highest in billions of years, as are cricket scores
Dang citizen, it didn’t take you long……..then I got scared when Reagan took over with his Hollywood siren song of a world having no limits.
One of the many things that has always been obvious to me, is that this is a political question, not a scientific one. You’ve reinforced this self-evident thought.
“Is that after all these decades and all of the Earth Observation evidence, people still believe economic desires can dictate nature.”
I’m not sure as to your meaning about observation evidence, or what we’ve supposedly observed that would cause concern about our climate, perhaps you can elucidate in the near future. Economics, isn’t a contrivance of man, it is descriptive of man’s nature. Many have expressed various forms of it, and various desires about how it should be used, (Marx is a great example) but it will always be with us. You might as well rage against the tide.
“How can I be impressed with the denial echo-chamber when they refuse to look at the Earthbound evidence?”
Sigh, it was pretty quick on that one, too. First, I enjoy civil conversations, but not if the civility is one sided. What is it that I was supposedly to have denied? It is a pejorative in which I take umbrage. Secondly, who refuses to look at evidence, earthbound or otherwise? I mean, other than an alarmist.
“It took a long time for Earth to attain that cornucopia state humanity was born into.”
I take it you don’t buy into all that adaptive stuff. I disagree. If you look, mankind exists in all parts of the globe except………. the Antarctic. There isn’t a scientifically contrived extreme we can’t overcome.
“…there’s no down slope in sight for a long time.[for atmospheric CO2]”
Again, I disagree. One of the wonderful things about humanity, is that he continually progresses. History shows us the advancements of mankind and his use of technology and his sources of fuel. You’re stuck in your own perspective. The life cycle of our mode of transportation, source of energy, and heat will all change and soon. Perhaps, not in your or my lifetime, but certainly in our children’s or their children’s. What we must do, is ensure that we don’t stunt the technological growth by forcing alternate technologies that have been considered and rejected already. Ethanol is a great example. Any NASCAR fan could have already told us that corn squeezin’s don’t go into the gas tank for efficiency. The world, its inhabitants, its climate, its biosphere is never in a static state. If we just stay out of the way, the internal combustion engine would join the steam engine as a relic. But the fact is, even then people, goods and foods still have to be transported.
I’d address your words “historical silliness”, but the length would extend and the civility would be lost. It is history that gives us perspective.
“Either you ignore science and think greenhouse gases and the known physics mean nothing……”
No skeptic ignores nor denies the basic science of GHGs, nor the basic physics. But, what isn’t lost upon me, or anyone else that looks at the empirical data, is that we don’t know what we don’t know. It is clearly evident that we don’t know nearly enough to make sweeping statements about if we emit x amount of CO2 the temps will move up y amount and it would most certainly be bad. That’s clearly nothing but presumptive scaremongering based in nothing but hyperbole. I give you this last decade as evidence. Show me the model that predicted this. http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/image.png And, before you object to the one sat. data site, know that HadCrut shows more of a decline than RSS. Also, after this month, UAH will show a flat line decadal trend. It wasn’t projected. An entire decade. Further, explain the last 2 winters. Please don’t use the “Warm arctic/cold continents” explanation because that would fail to explain the several successive previous winters. If you aren’t familiar, Dr. Overland of NOAA was the latest to express such lunacy.
So, it comes down to cautionary principles. I’m all for it. Unless it comes at the expense of lives and progress. Oh, wait, those are exactly the prescribed solutions to the imagined problem. The number one killer throughout the world is poverty. Only through economic progression can poverty be addressed. That goes for Central Africa as well as the U.S. and all of the nations and peoples in between. The suggested solutions are in direct conflict with economic progression.
“Or you appreciate humanity’s biosphere is encountering an epochal course change.”
One, the biosphere has always been in a state of change, and two, it is flourishing. I know it may be distasteful for you, but go to WUWT and search for “biosphere”. Be sure to click on the links.
“Nor have I ever heard of a denier sit down and talk about the serious observations either, without slipping off into distractions with outdated graphs, digging up wannabe scandals, or getting personal.”
I try very hard not to do personal. It isn’t. As far as I know, you’re a very nice guy or gal. (I assume guy by the writing style.) And I’ll hold that assumption unless shown otherwise. Any serious observations are welcomed. As far as “outdated”, historical perspective is important in my estimation. Scandals don’t mean much unless we’re discussing predisposition and patterns of behavior.
Citizen, be sure to come back. I’ve enjoyed.
James
“Atmospheric CO2 levels will never be close to the steady state that enabled a fleeting Goldilock moment for humanity to flourish in.”
That is insane thinking.
CO2 is 390ppm. It cannot form a layer in the atmosphere. You are afraid of molecules.
“s just silly .
There is not nor has there ever been a steady state.
But I am sure that Tony will absolve you from having to defend the concept.
suyts says:“I don’t recall seeing an alarmist statement without the caveat of “more study is needed” attached to the end of the statements or papers.”
Than why attack the funding for studies?
If you bothered to look at the list provided, you’d see some of the inanities that we’ve already funded and will continue to fund.
suyts your above post conflates two issues.
On the one hand we have learning about and understanding the incoming science and what it is telling us about our biosphere.
On the other hand we have the increasingly monstrous task of how to confront that situation.
Way too often lectures begin with the economic pep talk and then goes on to attacking the establishment climatology, as though the science is supposed to make itself subservient to our economic desires.
As for attacking stupid green solutions from the left.
I’ll admit, given our gross state of labeling, no doubt I need to step off into left field. That said, I agree there has been much silliness, and counter-productive efforts thrust on us from the left… though few as damaging as some of the things the right has foisted on this nation, (such as that tremendously self destructive Iraq adventure of choice… but, I digress.).
The point I’m struggling with is we’ve set up two different bubbles; the right hates the left – the left hates the right. Any environmental solution lefties work on is treated with derision and often downright attacked by the right. So the left is left within a bubble surrounded by hostility… resulting in no other serious good-faith influences or input to help them develop projects.
I’ve often imagined that if we could actually focus on the science and what it is telling us, reach honest conclusions. Then, put Mr./Ms. leftie and Mr./Ms. rightie brainiacks together on developing strategies… ah can’t help but feel something honestly productive and helpful could come out of that. But, instead we are dithering away precious time keep the controversy alive, damn any preponderance of evidence.
My personal favorite is the Atlantic simultaneously being more salty and less salty. Obviously, more funding is necessary to study this great question. Here at the real GISS, we’ve additionally identified other seemingly contradictory dynamics, called warmcold and its climatic companion wetdry!
~ ~ ~
What are you implying? That thermohaline circulation doesn’t exist and that the oceans have uniform salinity?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
“BTW, you asked the question improperly, let me help you, “Show me one paper that proves CO2 as the current driving force behind the epochal transition our climate is being observed entering?”
~ ~ ~
Actually you are asking the question inappropriately – show me one natural science that can “prove” anything, preponderance of evidence would be more honest. In your above context proofs are for mathematicians.
Natl. Sec. Implications of Global Climate Change Pt. 2 (search YouTube)
(5:50) “Our military advising board really look at this as risk. . . They talk about these huge ramifications that could occur to our nation down the road. And as prudent military planners they say that throughout our careers we’ve never dealt with 100% certainty. . .
“(A sound bit) from General Sullivan: “As military guys know that if we wait for 100% certainty on the battlefield, something bad has happened.”
When military guys, and national security planners know there’s a risk that maybe all these bird brain scientists could be right, we as a nation better be ready.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
“What changes? Specifically. Are you asserting there was or should be a point in time when climate was/should be static? I would assert a static climate is what would be catastrophic.”
~ ~ ~
That’s a perversion of what climatologists say or know about climate. Right up there with:
“Climate scientists can’t forecast the Sun, volcanoes, oceanic cycles, clouds, rain, snow, ice, soil moisture – or anything else which affects the climate long term, but they claim that they can predict the future based on a single variable.
This is witchcraft, not science.”
~ ~ ~
This is quite a mischaracterization of what climatologists know or are saying.
This slams into that good faith question.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
“Well, if you want to characterize like-minded ideologues agreeing with each other as a conspiracy, go for it.”
~ ~ ~
Well the documented history shows a much more sordid story than can be caulked up to merely coincidence of ideologues agreeing with each other. What do think of the historical records and documentation that Naomi Oreskes has compiled over the past decade? (search YouTube there are a couple informative hour lectures, also the book “Merchants of Doubt” co-authored with Erik Conway.)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Steve, I have a serious question for you.
Are you a “right-wing think-tanker?”
~ ~ ~
Misdirection, please this is what I wrote:
“legacy of Seitz and Singer and right-wing corporate funded think-tanks to bring us to the real truth all those pesky researching scientists are trying to trick us about.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dang citizen, it didn’t take you long……..then I got scared when Reagan took over with his Hollywood siren song of a world having no limits.”
“One of the many things that has always been obvious to me, is that this is a political question, not a scientific one. You’ve reinforced this self-evident thought.”
~ ~ ~
Well and your last post reaffirmed that you do believe our planet, given human ingenuity, is limitless. You even imply that somehow the history of the past hundred years of growth and progress will continue – seems to me such an attitude ignores the difference between the state of our planet a hundred years ago and today. Some refuse to look at it, but this planet has been seriously degraded, and holds way, way less potential than it did back in grandpa’s day.
~ ~ ~
The denial echo-chamber and corporate media and certain politicians have certainly made sure it became a political issue – heck why else did this turn into a massive publicity campaign bent more on swaying the public with injects of doubt – than any interest in swaying scientist with your superior data.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
“I take it you don’t buy into all that adaptive stuff. I disagree. If you look, mankind exists in all parts of the globe except………. the Antarctic. There isn’t a scientifically contrived extreme we can’t overcome.”
You took umbrage at my use of the term denier, but this statement itself speak to a tragic disconnect with the character of what is happening out there these days. It also makes me think about that old admonishment about driving with your eyes glued to the rear view mirror.
As for that: “A complete list of things caused by global warming”
I don’t understand why folks find that list so funny, it’s actually an acknowledgement of the fact that weather (which is nestled within climate) dominates pretty much every fabric of life on this planet.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What about the 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html
cheers,
Peter
Feel guilty for telling your kids they will die a death by CO2 if they don’t turn the lights out more often? Put your mind at ease because here is proof you don’t have to hold that spear of fear to your children’s backs anymore. Real planet lovers were happy crisis was averted;
-The thousands of consensus scientists were silent when Obama never even mentioned the climate crisis in his Feb./2011 State of the Union Speech.
-The thousands of consensus scientists were silent when American IPCC funding was pulled.
-If the crisis were real, the thousands of scientists would have been marching in the streets after their warnings of crisis were ignored.
-How is it that there were always countless thousands of consensus scientists out numbering protestors?
-Thousands of consensus scientists also produced cruise missiles, cancer causing chemical cocktails, land mine technology, nuclear weapons, germ warfare, cluster bombs, strip mining technology, Y2K, Y2Kyoto, deep sea drilling technology and now climate control.
-It was the thousands of consensus scientists themselves that originally polluted the planet with their pesticides and cancer causing chemicals they created, thus making environmentalism necessary in the first place.
-The effects were predicted by the thousands of consensus scientists to be “negligible to unstoppable warming”. So what’s not to agree with?
Climate change was a 25 year old CO2 death threat to our children, not about pollution, or energy or population control or waste. History will curse us all for the CO2 mistake and it’s criminal exaggerations.
Will the scientists and news editors see their day in court for knowingly leading us to a false war against a non existent enemy of CO2 for 25 years of needless and costly panic? YES, most certainly because meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of climate control instead of needed population control. REAL planet lovers and REAL progressives and REAL civilized and loving people were happy and relieved the science was a mistake.
Dimethyltryptamine = Life… If you dont know what it is, research it HEAVILY! If you think i’m a BS artist, then research it! If you think dont understand this comment, RESEARCH it!
The more people that are aware of this, the better for the World!
The above and research will answer all of your questions…