Yes... denier is the correct word. Just like it says on the back of my car "Global Warming Denier". I also deny that the earth is flat... But i'm strange like that...
The climate will be the climate will be the climate. I haven't got the memo or the phone call from the climate asking what I really think I should be called.
If people unknown to me call me a 'denier' then I care enough to be insulted as to the implied relation to Nazi Germany.
But as far as the climate is concerned? Of course the agenda is transparent for those who want to destroy my capitalistic opportunities.
ACA
...
Chat Moderator
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
It's important because this is indeed a major issue today, and will be for some time to come. Our nation is divided on this issue, like so many, and as is typical of folks on the left, they're using pejoratives like "denier" to demonize those they disagree with.
I want to fight this, for as long as they can cast us in a negative light, it will be more difficult for us to get a contrary view to those either undecided or not firmly committed. Potentially in the years to come, we are going to see legislative proposals concerning this nonsense. As I posted yesterday, California is considering addressing AGW in science classes and texts.
With that in mind, this battle continues. And, our success in thwarting such legislation is dependent on how the public perceives the opposition; what we are called will impact this perception. Make sense? ns
I have for a long time called these people neo-luddites. That sort of sums up my opinion of the pro-anthro warmers.
Of course the model stuff gets out of control real fast.
The media (which I believe you capture nicely below) is allowing the socialist motivated pro-government intervention (can we say taxation boys and girls?) groups to define the terms again.
As I get frustrated with the minutiae of the insanity, I tend to be more critical of debate within the community over these type of things.
If science is as I believe to be quite capable of standing the test of time then the test of time will destroy the AGW crowd.
However, as I started out - I agree that the California mess is only growing more messy. I am of course opposed to this attempt to indoctrinate our kids.
Nobody would argue the need for kids to be taught good conservation skills like John Muir, etc. But I would argue that like Democrat solutions to everything (education) - the corruption of our education system further by including this silliness is more of the same ol' same ol'.
Nice to talk to ya.
ACA
...
Chat Moderator
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
I want to fight this, for as long as they can cast us in a negative
light, it will be more difficult for us to get a contrary view to those
either undecided or not firmly committed. -NS
And fight it we must, Noel. Who controls the language controls the argurment. And that is the first thing liberals do: try to control the language. They seek to marginalize those who disagree by painting them as a "fringe group" or some kind of "extremists." That way they seek to minimize the importance of input from those "aginners" (another example of their attempts at marginalization, that they recently used.)
This whole "manmade" global warming is being pushed worldwide by an inordinate number of politicians and media types particlarly from socialist leaning countries. This is about one thing and one thing only; American money...they want American money spread throughout the world and this duping of the general American public is what they have picked as the best way to go about this. And our own politicians and media have taken the proverbial bite right out of the bait.....I rank this international hoax as nearly as serious as terrorism.
This poll stems from a discussion here last evening that I wanted to open up for a larger debate.
The common term for a number of years has been skeptics. Unfortunately, this doesn't express what "non-believers" feel, for it's way too weak. Scientists all around the world that don't believe man is causing global warming, or that other factors are significantly more important to the equation, aren't merely skeptical. They have voluminous evidence to support their position WAY beyond mere skepticism.
As for "Deniers," this is indeed pejorative and insulting, for "facts" can be denied, while "theories" are merely disputed. As yet, NO ONE has proven that man is warming the globe. NO ONE. As such, "deniers" is an insult at best.
"Dissenters" to me is akin to "skeptics" inasmuch as it is too weak. It implies a minority viewpoint fighting an uphill battle. In the end, despite the media's position and what charlatans like Al Gore claim, the burden of proof is on the climate alarmists, and they have yet to prove anthropogenic global warming to be either real, or largely responsible for the slight increase in average global temperatures the past 150 years.
"Climate Realists" works very well for me, for it accurately defines the position, and does so in a positive fashion. Once again, despite the alarmists' claims, our view is the strong one for it is supported by centuries of research, and millennia of ice core samples.
"Climate Optimists" is what some of the scientists I correspond with on a daily basis prefer. Contrarily, they view believers as "climate pessimists."
Be advised that I have posed this question to several e-mail groups that I'm part of, and am very interested in feedback. ns
ns - If you adopt 'climate realist', you in the media need to act quickly to publicize the definition so that Al Gore, et. al., do not co-opt that term. (They will insist that they are the 'realists', even though they do not have the scientific data to back up their claims.)
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. - George Bernard Shaw, 1944
"Climate Realists" works well to broadly describe those who do not subscribe to the views of "Climate Alarmists" like Al Gore and Jim Hansen.
I think you're absolutely right that the word used in the debate is important, and I think "Climate Realists" also denotes that our side is a big enough tent to include a broad spectrum of people, from those who believe the concept of AGW is the height of hubris to those who believe in AGW but think the developed world's committing economic suicide is the worst possible alternative to addressing it.
I chose "skeptic" because liberals cannot fairly lay exclusive claim to the term. This the way they really want it BTW. "Journalists" in particular really consider that term their baby.
Nope, the sword cuts both ways.
If "skeptic" is good enough for other issues of consensus science, then it's good enough for AGW.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Agree, the word "skeptic" still leaves one with at least an element of plausibility and wiggle room. A skeptic is someone who may not be yet convinced. I, for example, just flatly do not beleive man is the cause of climate changes.
Some people seem to forget that the only thing constant about the climate is that it keeps changing. Why some people think that the climate is a closed, static system that is greatly influenced by mankind is beyond me. Since when has mankind EVER had that much control over our environment? We can't even affect or control LOCAL weather patterns, so just how are we suppose to affect and control GLOBAL weather patterns and change the climate, ether in the long term or the short term? Every attempt to date has failed. Nothing we do has a measurable effect. Nature has this annoying tendency of showing us just how insignifigent we really are.
Very true, I am always amused by the fact that global warmest seem to think they can control the weather. I am however all for cleaning up and keeping our planet clean, but contoling the weather, that is just plain stupid.
BTW, how many other topics is CA teaching their children that either isnt true, or is against the values of the parents? Same idiots making these decisions either don't have kids (or cant/gay) or send them to privets schools that are not obligated to teach this nonsense.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
I recently had a face to face conversation with a young couple that had just moved to my area of NC. The conversation was civil enough but it became clear to me that these people were either from another Galaxy or California. My second choice turned out to be the case.
Set the GOP back on the right course. http://gopteaparty.com/
I live in Louisiana and work for a prominent University in CA, so I work with a lot of folks from CA, most are great people. You are right about some of them though, but one of the joys of my life, is popping all of those little bubbles so many of them carry around.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
My thoughts are that many in the warm-monger side of the debate know what "climate" is about, but could care less. They have alternate hidden agendas at work. Those hidden agendas include one or more of the following:
They are neo-liberals. Austin Chronicle writer Robert Bryce said, "It is the nature of civilization to use energy and it's the nature of liberalism to feel bad about it." In other words, these neo-liberals see anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as a way to fight/punish what they see as the USA's lavish lifestyle based on equality of opportunity, free market economics, capitalism, and entrepreneurism. Blame an alleged coming climate catastrophe on this in an attempt to make the country feel bad about itself and thus accept punishment in the form of carbon emission taxes and sharply reduced energy usage.
They are socialists. Using a similar line of reasoning as the neo-liberals, the socialists seek to gain political control over the USA while at the same time they grow government. They also see the automobile as a symbol of individual spirit and freedom, two things very much counter to the goals of socialism.
They "hate" the automobile. They are either the people who first pushed through pollution control regulations the '50s or '60s or their successors. They are frustrated that technology stepped in and saved the automobile then. Now they see in AGW THE way to kill the car. Declare a naturally occurring gas--one that even we mammals emit--carbon dioxide, a pollutant. It does not matter to them that we cannot even come close to determining such things as what the optimal level of atmospheric CO2 is or how much CO2 is generated by non-human activities and thus unable to be changed by man.
There is an apparent human need for "religion." The people who do not "fit" into any of the above categories may be seeing their religion as the environment, Mother Gaia. They see industrial and post-industrial humans as the scourge of Mother Gaia. As atonement, humans need to give up their lavish, energy-consuming lifestyle and return to a simpler, more envirofriendly way of life.
To me you hit the nail on the head with your analysis.
I firmly believe, however, that your points mostly are symptoms of their extreme self-loathing and hatred of "MAN" and "MANKIND". If you notice their "propaganda" is heavily laden with concepts of purification and cleansing. If "MAN" wasn't around then the air and water would be pure. Mother Earth would be safe. In it's most extreme manifestations of power they purify and cleanse their own ala Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cambodia etc. Of course, they, the elect would be appointed and annointed in being the caretaker of the remainder. I firmly believe they wish the demise of 90 per cent of us so they can live, like pre discovery "native americans" in peace and harmony with nature. A delusional hallucinatory utopia.
Atmospheric scientists understand this quite well -- the atmosphere and ocean are dynamic systems. "Climatology" is the study of the mean state of the atmosphere/ocean systems, both in terms of space and time. Climatological timescales are decades (as opposed to diurnal, seasonal or interannual) -- changes over decades are of concern to us (mankind) because they can impact societies. A society becomes accustomed to a certain climate, so that when changes occur, the society may be impacted.
It's not a matter of "control" -- indeed, we have no control at all over things. However, humans do have a measureable effect, not only because of our numbers, but also because of our industry.
Again, the following link is to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration (NOAA) website, discussing the measured incease in atmospheric CO2, a predominate greenhouse gas. CO2 is a byproduct of combustion, which is currently going on at a mind-boggling rate, 24/7/365.
NOAA: Longest Continuous Record of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
We humans have been trying to affect the climate for several
generations yet we are unable to even predict what the climate will be
next year, let alone change it. Just how much of an affect do we REALLY
have, as opposed to an assumed affect? Why don’t our scientific
predictions match real world data? Could it be that our basic
assumptions are wrong and that we really don’t have as great an affect
as we, especially the scientists, like to believe?
The NOAA scientists are using assumptions and models that don't match real world observations, so how can anything they say be considered correct? These are the same scientists who predicted an increase in the number and veracity of Hurricanes for the last two years, yet nature refuses to follow their predictions. That reality severely reduces their credibility, in my opinion.
Also, plant life is dependent upon CO2 and the amount of plant growth is directly depended upon atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Since the amount of CO2 plants absorb and covert to mass is proportional to the concentrations of atmospheric CO2, it is obvious to anyone that the system is self-correcting and that short term increases in CO2 will be contradicted by short-term increases in plant growth and mass.
Life, especially plant life, likes a warm environment. Most of the coal and oil deposits we use for fuel were deposited when the global temperature was several degrees higher then it is today. The large animals, the massive forests, and the explosion of live that followed were all preceded by an increase in global temperature. So, how can a similar increase in global temperatures today be considered bad?
As far as societies becoming dependent upon certain environmental factors and society in general will be destroyed if these conditions change; that’s a false assumption as we, by our very nature, are very adaptable creatures. Those who do not adapt to a changing environment will die, while those who do will live and produce descendents. That’s called evolution and it is the natural state of life on earth.
As a matter of fact, history has shown us again and again that environmental change was the catalyst that produced the greatest advancements in human society. So, if environmental change was good for humanity in the past, why shouldn't a similar change be just as good for us today? Has human nature changed to the extent that we are completely dependent upon a changeless environment? If, so, then we really are a doomed species.
The basic truth is that we have no idea what the future will bring to us concerning the environment and its affect on humanity. It's foolish to insist that we do and that we can actually predict and affect environmental conditions. We're not gods and we need to stop acting like we are. A false belief in our superiority over nature is the true danger, not the environment. Just ask the Romans about that.
First off, note that there is a fundamental difference between predicting, say, whether or not a tornado will hit in a certain location, or whether or not this winter will be warmer/colder/drier/moister, and that predicting what the mean equilibrium temperature of Earth will be given known forcings. Of course, that doesn't mean climate models aren't without errors/limitations/flaws. But to my knowledge, all models, based upon known classical physics, predict a warming, and the warming is pretty darn consistent with what we are currently observing. While there are some scientists (whom I know) who are skeptics, these are falling more and more into a minority.
Secondly, while we (humans) are "puny" no doubt, the fact is our industry is not without a "footprint." In the case of fossil fuel combustion, the footprint is mindboggling quantities of CO2. The increase in atmospheric CO2, a measured trend spanning 5 decades, is a direct consequence. CO2, unlike H2O, has a long residence time (as in centuries).
Thirdly, I can't say that I would strongly disagree with anything you said about increased CO2, warmer climates, etc. not necessarily being bad things. That's where I think the policy debate should lie -- does any of this warrant draconian measures on our part? Right now I say no, it does not. You are right that we don't know for absolute sure yet whether trends will continue (although we have good reason to believe that they will) -- does this mean we need to commit to reductions in emissions when that may deeply impact our standard of living? Again, I would argue against that. I, like probably everyone here, enjoys our standard of living, and I believe that people (the world over) come first, not the "Earth Mother." Note these are conservative principles, ones that I would say the majority of Americans would still be in agreement with.
I would agree with the Roman analogy, except I would say it is more about our neo-paganism, materialism, hedonism, etc., not our climate science.
LOTR, I always read your stuff and try to keep an open mind, but I can't let the following quote pass without comment:
But to my knowledge, all models, based upon known classical physics, predict a warming, and the warming is pretty darn consistent with what we are currently observing.
The models you refer to were tweaked to roughly match recent observations, so of course they're "consistent." They haven't been successful at predicting anything. They are PlayStation Climatology and are not based purely on "known classical physics" - unless you care to provide us with the "earth equation."
For chrissakes, even the modelers admit they don't treat clouds properly. It occurs to me that clouds - you know, the kind made of water vapor, the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by several orders of magnitude - might ought to be handled properly by climate models before we take their output seriously enough to commit economic suicide.
As Douglass, Christy, Pearson and Singer recently highlighted, climate models may correctly align with the macro warming trend, but they get there by showing a pronounced warming of the tropical troposphere which is not present in real-world observations.
Saying that the models are consistent with observed warming is at best a half-truth.
Sorry for the rant. Please don't take it personally. I just believe we're placing way too much faith in garbage-in, garbage-out climate models run by weenies in air-conditioned rooms who don't spend enough time out in the sun observing the real world (yes, Jim and Gavin, I'm thinking of you).
It is not good enough for a model to get close, they must be exact. If anything is off at all then the model is flawed period. And I mean anything. That is the way computers work. But it is not just exact by answer but by process and you CANNOT PROVE THE PROCESS IS CORRECT ON THE MODELS! Even if they match the real climate that does not prove they are reaching the results based on what happens in the real world. I will give a simple example as to why.
Say the model is programmed so increased CO2 gives an increased warming of 1 degree over one hundred years. How you get to that number can be calculated in an infinite amount of incorrect ways but get the same result. A very basic example:
Say +100-99 = +1, or +1000-999 = +1 or +10000-9999 = +1, all equal +1 and you can do this forever but which PROCESS is correct? You cannot prove this on a model.
Here is some of the problems with computer models.
"Professor", you really should read past the first page.
"Chapter 5: Recommendations
1. Separate the uncertainties in climate forcings from uncertainties in the climate
response to forcings.
The simulations of 20th century (20CEN) climate analyzed here show climate responses
that differ because of differences in:
• Model physics and resolution;
• The forcings incorporated in the 20CEN experiment;
• The chosen forcing history, and the manner in which a specific forcing was applied.
• Model initial conditions.
We consider it a priority to partition the uncertainties in climate forcings and model
responses, and thus improve our ability to interpret differences between models and
observations. This could be achieved by better coordination of experimental design,
particularly for the 20CEN simulations that are most relevant for direct comparison
with observations.
2. Quantify the contributions of changes in black carbon aerosols and land use/land cover
to recent large-scale temperature changes.
We currently lack experiments in which the effects of black carbon aerosols and LULC
are varied individually (while holding other forcings constant). Such “single forcing” runs
will help to quantify the contributions of these forcings to global-scale changes in lapse
rates.
3. Explicitly consider model and observational uncertainty.
Efforts to evaluate model performance or identify human-induced climate change
should always account for uncertainties in both observations and in model simulations
of historical and future climate. This is particularly important for comparisons involving
long-term changes in upper-air temperatures. It is here that current observational
uncertainties are largest and require better quantification.
4. Perform the “next generation” of detection and attribution studies.
Formal detection and attribution studies utilizing the new generation of model and observational
data sets detailed herein should be undertaken as a matter of priority."
"In Chapter 5, we seek to explain and reconcile
the apparently disparate estimates of observed
changes in surface and tropospheric temperatures.
We make extensive use of computer
models of the climate system. In the real world,
multiple “climate forcings” vary simultaneously,
and it is difficult to identify and separate the
climate effects of individual factors. Furthermore,
the experiment that we are performing
with the Earth’s climate system lacks a suitable
control – we do not have a convenient “parallel
Earth” on which there are no human-induced
changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, or other
climate forcings. Climate models can be used
to perform such controlled experiments, or to
simulate the response to changes in a single
forcing or combination of forcings, and thus
have real advantages for studying cause-effect
relationships. However, models also have
systematic errors that can diminish their usefulness
as a tool for interpretation of observations"
"This “noise reduction” aspect of AMIP runs has been exploited in efforts to identify human
effects on year-to-year changes in atmospheric
temperatures (Folland et al., 1998; Sexton et
al., 2001) and volcanic influences on surface air
temperature (Mao and Robock, 1998).
One disadvantage of the AMIP experimental
set-up is that significant errors in one or more
of the applied forcing factors (or omission of
key forcings) are not “felt” by the prescribed
SSTs. Such errors are more obvious in a CGCM
experiment, where the ocean surface is free to
respond to imposed forcings. The lack of an
ocean response, combined with the masking
effects of natural variability, make it difficult
to use an AMIP-style experiment to estimate
the slow response of the climate system to an
imposed forcing change ."
"The CGCM experiments of interest here involve
a model that has been “spun-up” until it reaches
some quasi-steady climate state . The CGCM
is then run with estimates of how a variety of
natural and human-caused climate forcings
have changed over the 20th century. We refer
to these subsequently as “20CEN” experiments.
Since the true state of the climate system is
never fully known, the same forcing changes
are applied n times, each time starting from
a slightly different initial climate state. This
procedure yields n different realizations of climate
change. All of these realizations contain
some underlying “signal” (the climate response
to the imposed forcing changes) upon which
are superimposed n different manifestations
of “noise” (natural internal climate variability).
Taking averages over these n realizations yields
less noisy estimates of the signal (Wigley et
al., 2005a).
In a CGCM, ocean temperatures are fully predicted
rather than prescribed. This means that
even a (hypothetical) CGCM which perfectly
captured all important aspects of ENSO physics
would not have the same timing of El Niño
and La Niña events as the real world (except by
chance). The fact that ENSO variability – and
its effects on surface and atmospheric temperatures
– does not “line up in time” in observations
and CGCM experiments hampers direct
comparisons between the two ."
"This does not diminish the
importance of other climate forcings, whose
global-scale contributions to “differential
warming” have not been reliably quantified
to date. Examples of these “other forcings” include
carbon-containing aerosols produced during
fossil fuel or biomass combustion, human-induced
changes in land surface properties, and
the indirect effects of tropospheric aerosols on
cloud properties."
I appreciate the link to the free online textbook -- I think I will be downloading all the chapters for my own reference. I noticed that you cut and paste some excerpts from one of the chapters. In all this material, I find nothing whatsoever that supports the one sentence conclusion you arrived at.
I did, however, notice the following text at the start of Chapter 3:
Observed Changes - Surface
Globally, as well as in the tropics, the temperature of the air near the Earth’s surface has increased since 1958, with a greater rate of increase since 1979. All three surface temperature data sets are consistent in these conclusions.
• Globally, temperature increased at a rate of about 0.12ºC per decade since 1958, and about 0.16ºC per decade since 1979.
• In the tropics, temperature increased at a rate of about 0.11ºC per decade since 1958, and about 0.13ºC per decade since 1979.
• Most, if not all of the surface temperature increase since 1958 occured starting around the mid-1970s, a time coincident with a previously identified abrupt climate shift. However, there does not appear to be an abrupt rise in temperature at this time, rather the major part of the rise seems to occur in a more gradual fashion.
I'll agree that any physical model is worthless if it churns out results that don't jive with observations. However I have yet to stumble upon any smoking guns showing this about climate models.
I guess what I am getting at, and what the summary attempts to tackle, is that the models are only as good as which forcings are chosen to be use on a particular program, and the values assigned the these forcings. There seems to be some inconsistency between the observational data and the computer models. For example, more "single forcing" runs are needed to better project effects on the climate.
Also, the different systems have strengths and weaknesses within each that cast doubt on certain results. All of these issues need to be addressed, and that is what the summary above is about.
All I am really saying is that I don't see any evidence that the computer models are accurate enough, with enough bugs worked out, to spend millions, billions, or maybe more on drastic proposals to mitigate climate change that may not work anyway. I've seen you post that you are not for spending this kind of capatal as yet also. If the science used to predict temps. is faulty, how can the science be settled. I know you are not saying it is settled, but the post above was from a thread where that was the claim.
I have no major disagreements about anything you just said -- in no way do I suggest that the models are flawless; however I do contend that they represent the best of our ability to understand and predict climate behavior. Even if I knew that the models were perfect, I can still say that I would be against any candidate who proposes draconian measures to curb greenhouse gases without having a plan to mitigate the economic impact (i.e., the impact on people's lives).
The way I figure it, we agree more than we disagree. The science of this stuff probably makes more sense to you. It just stretches credibility in my mind that humans have nearly as big an influence on the climate that the alarmists would suggest.
For what it's worth, I refuse to watch Al Gore's "academy award winning" movie (I'm becoming a bit of a prude as I don't watch much of anything from Hollywood these days), so I'm not sure what sort of alarmist stuff he's proposing. In the grand scheme of things, our industrial combustion doesn't have that big an influence. It's not like carbon is foreign to this planet -- life will continue to thrive, including human life, and the excess CO2 will eventually make its way back into the biosphere. But that doesn't mean there are no short-term impacts whatsoever -- our industry has come to the point where it leaves a "footprint," and it's good to be cognizant of that.
Very glad to hear you have an open mind. I always broach this subject with a certain degree of trepidation here, knowing full well I will likely draw the ire of various individuals.
There is not "earth equation" -- there are, however, a known set of of so-called state equations that do in fact provide an exact (quantitative) description of the dynamics and thermodynamics. Most of it is classical physics (conservation of mass, energy and momentum; ideal gas law; hydrostatics; cloud microphysics; etc.), although not all of it -- radiation obviously draws upon quantum theory. I cannot emphasize enough that these models represent the very best of our capacity to understand the behavior of the real atmosphere. Everything else, to some degree or another, requires various degrees of handwaving.
You are correct that one of the current limitations to these models is their ability to treat clouds. They don't ignore them altogehter, but they do rely on parameterizations. Regarding clouds, however, these have the capacity of acting as positive or negative feedbacks. Lower level water clouds have high albedo and act as negative feedback (cooling mechanism). However, high level ice clouds can act more as a positive feedback (warming) due to their absorption of upwelling infrared radiation. Again, I am not a climate specialist -- this is stuff I learned in graduate level paleoclimate.
Don't worry -- you didn't get personal, so there's nothing to take personal. And one other thing -- I am more of an empiricist -- models are fine and dandy, but they are not the real world. But they do represent our best understanding of the real world, and I know the measurements show a long-term warming trend.
ANY "guess" makes your model irrelevant. Can you not comprehend this? Computers do not fill in the blanks for you, they compute what you put into them which includes who knows how many Fortran compiled errors in addition to the "guesses" and made up computations.
"Feedbacks" are made up processes. If you are scripting made up processes on top of guesses you get more junk. It doesn't matter what you think clouds do, it only matters what they actually do and until you understand that 100% you cannot simulate them.
Models based on crap getting ANY result is MEANINGLESS.
Computer Illiterates frequently make this bogus claim that climate prediction is different than weather. No it is not. They are based on the same incomplete Climate Physics, biased data and worthless models. It is simply a matter of resolution and scale. People like you are dangerous because you keep lying about it and computer illiterates keep believing it.
There are no close enough guesses with computers, this is something computer illiterates will never understand. If everything is not 100% understood with 100% correct data then the results are absolutely worthless, that is the way computers work and that is why weather prediction outside of a 1 day or so is so worthless. This makes climate prediction by a huge factor even more worthless yet because they now have nice looking colored graphics and run on multi-million dollar computers you fools fall for them. This is the biggest scam I have ever seen in my life.
Please leave the computer models to computer scientists and those who actually understand what computers can and cannot do.
There are no known "forcings", forcings is a bogus computer generated term that cannot be measured in the real world. Some natural scientist's script giving a result on a computer does not mean that is how it works in the real world.
I don't know where to start. Ever since the invention of FORTRAN in the late 1950s, scientists and engineers have used computers to quantitatively simulate physical reality. I'll give you one thing: I am not a computer scientist, never claimed to be, don't wanna be one. Thank God for high level languages.
That about sums it up. The same persecutions which have driven Christians across the world from Rome, the Sanhedrin to the globalist ilk all are world governments attempting to dislodge the free peoples and enslave them.
Stoning, burning at the stake used to be the practice, but now they use laws to criminalize a free people who will not be enslaved.
But seriously, there really isn't a term to be used. Anyone with a different interpretation of the same set of data is simply someone with a different interpretation of the same set of data. I don't really think there should be a word for those who don't look at global warming as a human-induced or human-assisted phenomena.
But of course words/phrases are used, and when it's the media or anyone who is of the global warming acceptance group, those who disagree with global warming are implied to be deniers of a forgone conclusion and implied to have an agenda. In summary, implied to be trying to allow the world to be destroyed.
Way to go, NewsBusters - I'm always searching for political shorthand that accurately and memorably labels my principles - "Climate Realist" does it for me.
Apologies if this sounds too glib, but how about sane? Al Gore has always appeared to me to be crazy. And I don't mean just because I don't agree with the Global warming, look at his eyes.....
To me, skeptic has historically been the term applied to those who resist the trendy, pop-culture movement of the moment, and this is what I see the "climate change" farce to be. Climate realist, while accurate, is a bit clumsy and a little to PCish for my taste.
I remember being taught in middle school in the late seventies that scientists were sure we were headed for another ice age (though I do not recall its adherents threatening the livelihoods and even the freedom of those who dissented from what was the "conventional wisdom" of the day). If we didn't wind up freezing and/or starving to death, then the killer bees were going to invade our country and kill us all.
I have long since lost track of the myriad of calamities that we were all told were going to come to pass by the year 2000. The year came and went , and we are still here. I didn't buy any of their predictions then, nor do I buy them now.
I guess that makes me a skeptic, and I am just fine with that.
_____________________________
There is, however, one danger today that didn't exist in the seventies, and that is the type of people who are promoting the idea of "climate change." Unlike most of the "ice-agers" of the seventies, the climate change crowd is essentially made up of frustrated, hard-core socialists who are promoting this irrational fear as a vehicle to advance their Marxist agenda. Notice carefully how they never really complain about the environmental damage going on in places such as China, Russia and Mexico. This makes them a very real threat to our freedoms here in America, as we seem to be the sole target of their angst.
After all, Bill Clinton himself said we have to "slow down" our economy to help the environment. If that statement alone doesn't convince you of their actual motivations in all this, then I don't know what will.
as opposed to the anti capitalist socialist used car salesmen who perpetuate the global warming lie, on the stooopid, ignorant, almost superstitious, suckers who buy this pile of dog squeeze.
Yes. I'll do that either later this evening, or tomorrow. You'll be interested to know that the scientists I communicate with are very interested in that question as well. Although "climate alarmists" says it, many feel that like "deniers," it's too negative.
One scientist -- waiting permission to give his name -- feels "climate pessimists" is the answer. However, I, too, am concerned that this is too negative.
With that in mind, hold your thoughts, and we'll do a follow-up poll later -- especially since I now know how to do these polls! :-) ns
I have no problem with being called a Skeptic which I am of everything not proven.
I have been debating this for over a year not just here and there is one unmistakeable trend. That is the consistent initial launch of personal attacks by calling anyone skeptical a 'denier' followed by large amounts of empty unverified statements and declaring the IPCC and RealClimate.org gods.
I have no problem calling them what they are which is Alarmists or Propagandists.
I've received permission from S. Fred Singer to share his comments on this subject:
I have been using GW alarmists vs GW realists. The trouble with GW skeptics (which I also use) is that we don't doubt GW but only AGW.
This is a key point that folks on the left continually ignore: climate realists don't dispute that average temperatures have risen in the past 150 -- although we believe the amount of the rise is very much up for debate given the faulty nature of the data collection and the equipment. However, what we definitely dispute is man's role in this increase, and what man can do to halt it assuming we want to. ns
Here are ICECAP Joe Daleo's thoughts (with permission):
I had preferred and used Climate Realist but like Roy's "Climate Optimist' better. There is a subliminal tie to the Medieval warm period also known as the climate optimum, a period warmer than today that was beneficial to mankind then and would be again. It is ironic we may be facing very different conditions should the sun go into its normal 100/200 year sleep as it is showing signs of doing and the oceans continue to cool as they have in the last few years. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PDO_AMO.jpgWarmists should be the optimists if they were not ideologically driven and some of us realists who think the AGWers party may be over should be the pessimists because a return to mini ice age conditions would put enormous stress on a society wanting to shun nuclear and coal technologies.
Here's Roy Spencer's (U-Alabama, Huntsville) views (with permission):
The terms I use, which were originally suggested to me by Roy Cordato, are climate optimists" (for the skeptics), and "climate pessimists" (for those who constantly fret over global warming). [...]
It would be ideal if we could stay away from negative terms..that's why I like "climate optimist"...I'm optimistic in my belief that the climate system is largely insensitive to the activities of mankind.
The climate pessimists think that Mother Nature will punish us at every turn for our eco-sins. [...]
[After seeing the early results to this poll] Look's like I'm going to have to start calling myself a climate realist. Maybe we can get Dick Morris to start following this on a daily basis. ;)
Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia added (with permission):
Everyone, of course, will have their own favourite.
Sometime ago I thought long and hard about this. I settled on "climate rationalists" and "warmaholics" as my two preferred descriptors, which I try to use consistently.
[...]
I should add one point...Which is that "warmaholics" is intended to be an ironic put-down; it is therefore not always the most suitable word if one is trying to be tactful. When I decide that warmaholics might be too offensive, I revert to "alarmists" instead - which from my perspective is an entirely descriptive term.
Dr. Walter Starck offered a different idea for us:
Climate realist presents the problem of what is reality. Both sides argue that theirs is the only realistic perspective. Might I suggest climate agnostic. This conveys the implication of a rational evidence based approach and rejection of faith based moralistic belief.
I responded: "I've thought about climate agnostic as well. My concern is the religious overtone."
Dr. Starck countered: "That "climate agnostic" specifically rejects the religious overtone associated with AGW alarmism seems an important positive for it."
Lindzen (who lives in the next town over from me), Singer, Carter, Spencer, et. al. are people whose opinions on this matter I definitely respect. They're in the trenches fighting the alarmists hand-to-hand, and I'll call them whatever they want me to :-)
Mostly, as I see they're following this thread, I'd like to tell them "thanks." It can't be easy swimming against this tide in their profession.
Here's one of my favorite quotes for these guys and the rest of the Climate Realist scientists - "Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." ~ Mohandas Ghandi
"It is ironic we may be facing very different conditions should the sun
go into its normal 100/200 year sleep as it is showing signs of doing
and the oceans continue to cool as they have in the last few years."
Now you know what the rush to enact legislation is all about. In just 5-10 years, it will be so obvious that the long-term anthro-warming claims were false, that no sane person will believe them any longer.
Truth is. Warming periods are usually good period. the viking explored during it. Populations increased. Cold periods are usually the problem. Cases in point, 535/6 and the year without summer.
Warmers can't even enjoy the good period.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
What should people that dont believe in manmade global warming be called?
Climate Neutral; n. Voters who won't be holding the current weather pattern aganist the Republicans in the fall. see also Conservative, Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln.
In a sentence
Since he was Climate Neutral Jane's father was at home cooking dinner instead of vacationing in Bali protesting the facist neo-con polluters. Jane knew better than to politize the weather and recognized that free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity.
Sensible comes to mind, that at least still means something in my world. This is just another in the long line of communistic tendencies certain people have from time to time in this country. They are a people, who like the commissars before them, have to have something to lord over other people.
Trends, fads, what's in style, this is the only reason a majority of these people flock to (non)issues such as this. How great is this country of ours when something such as this is occupying so much of a lot of folks time?
I read somewhere that our military is at war, this country is not at war. This country is at the malls! Al Gore and his ilk, are nothing but spoiled rotten babies. They have ALWAYS gotten what they wanted. Now common sense folks are telling them this global warming crap is, well crap, and they throw a hissy. GD what babies.
Well, when this country really has something to worry about, don't count on these babies for any help or solutions. I certainly don't, ever.
I've locked up on a local politician who was one of the 1st advocates of crying "the sky is falling" and calling for folks locally to admit their sins and go back to the middle ages. Yes sir! I can't fight all these crazies but I can lock up on one and call him on each and every utterance of stupidity and lack of knowledge he shows regarding AGW. I urge each of you to do the same with just one idiot.
The fact that you have to say "believe in" in the first place is the only piece of evidence needed. If you have to "believe in" it in the first place, you have made a statement of faith. No true scientist I know would ever say "I believe in (the hypothesis under discussion)" as a scientific statement. Those who "believe in" global warming are saying they believe the words of those who espouse it (most visibly Al Gore) and have made an issue of it.
All of the so-called "science" supposedly "proving" global warming is based on totally (scientifically) unprovable chains of assumptions, and not on subtantial scientific data coming from repeated and repeatable experiments. That is why the proponents and their knowledgable defenders must literally and figuratively "shout down" their opponents. (Some of the components and variables not adequately accounted for or mentioned in the "advocates" arguments are the earth's mantle (a huge, uncharted force), the global water cycle, the global wind cycles, the global sea currents, the sun's radiant and nuclear energy cycles, to name a few.)
I hardly ever post on a Global Warming threads because I know so little about it. I am actully more afraid of pollution in the air we breath, the water we drink and overfishing in the oceans.
The reason I am posting on this one is because I have a question for you. You do a great job moderating here and I have always found you to be quite fair. I love your Red Sox/Yankee analogy. Anyways when another poster used the word denier a few times, it seemed to really get you angry.
I have heard the past few months name calling not just with libs, but lots of conservatives toward each other as well. I have heard the words moron, idiot, dishonest, accussing each other of their sexuality. You did not seem to mind. When another poster used the word denier a few times, you seemed to really get angry and gave him a warning. When he did it agian, you threatened to ban him. I am just trying to figure out why the word denier robs you wrong way so much?
Couple of reasons. First, it is intricately linked to the term "Holocaust Deniers," and, as such is intended to defame and debase those that don't buy into this nonsense.
Furthermore, it's inaccurate. Facts can be denied. Theories are disputed.
There has yet to be one scientist on this planet that has proven anthropogenic global warming is an indisputable fact. Not one. This is, indeed, still an issue being disputed, regardless of what folks like Gore, Hansen, and the mindless dolts at Real Climate claim.
As such, I'm not denying anything. I'm disputing it. And those suggesting I'm a denier do so exclusively to close the debate while intentionally defaming me.
Yet, hysterically, none of the most highly outspoken folks on the alarmist side are willing to debate this. Why do you think that is?
Does it disturb you at all that the folks who claim the world is coming to an end aren't willing to sit down in a public forum with folks on the other side and actually prove their case? Isn't that the basis of our society -- being willing to stand up for what you hold dear?
What does it say that alarmists refuse to debate, but instead, lob defamatory names like deniers at those willing to?
I understand Noel. I'm not sure I agree that the term is intricately linked to Holocaust Deniers. Yes hypocrites like Al Gore bother me with all the money he spends on private planes. Again I do not have a opinion either way because it is a topic I know little about.
I do not know if it has any to do with greenhouse gases, but it seems like the world has been experiencing some really strange weather he past few yrs. Our summers are getting hotter and hotter. Definately more wildfires not including arson Yes some like where you and I live in the east bay was kind of cool this year, but worldwide it seemed like it was getting hotter, Extremely cold winters, more tornadoe and hurricanes and natural disasters.
Like I said, I don' know what is causing it and it seems unusual. I hope my question did not rub you the wrong way.
Actually, in America, the hottest year in this warming cycle was 1998. Every year since has been cooler than that one.
Is that warming?
How long have you lived in the East Bay? I've been in this Valley since 1985. When I moved here, snow on Mt. Diablo was rather rare.
How many times has there been snow on Mt. Diablo so far this winter? Maybe more times than the past ten winters combined?
I've lived in NorCal since 1979, and there's no question that our hills have had more snow this year than any since I moved here.
You dispute this?
As for our summers getting hotter and hotter, tell me about last summer here. We turned on our air conditioner less days last year than since we bought this place in 1999. NO QUESTION.
It wasn't hot last summer here. It was one of the coldest summers I can remember.
I have lived here for about 9 yrs. Before that it was Vancouver British Columbia Canada. I am not disputing anything, as you can see in my prior post I said the east bay has been kind of cool the past summer.
I know in the summers past that millons of homes not including arsen have went up into flames. The insurance industry has taken a huge hit financially and last summer was the first time they have made money for yrs because of less fires and in the winter it does not matter about all the landslides because earth movement is not covered under a homeowners policy. Remember a few yrs ago in Cali, the rain did not stop and everyone was getting flooded out? The levy in the Delta?
I did not just say it was getting hotter, but it is getting cooler as well. Winters have been scary cold in some parts. Our polar ice caps are melting, we have more days when the rain doe not stop. I am no saying anything about warming, i find the weather very strange period.
I have no idea if this is happenning because of global warming, I am just saying I find the weather worldwide has been very abnorma for a while
It's called weather. It's not more violent, or more extreme. It's just weather.
Our wildfires this year? Caused by Santa Ana winds that have been happening in California for millennia. Nothing new.
Do you remember the Oakland/Berkeley Hills firestorm that occurred in 1991 before you moved here? Caused by Santa Ana winds. Destroyed some of the most expensive homes in the Bay Area. Anyway, at the time, I never heard ONE WORD about this being caused by rising global temperatures. It was caused by several days of Santa Ana winds, and a poor job of monitoring a fire that had been successfully squelched.
This stuff happens.
Want to know what else happens? Ice sheets that are supposedly at their lowest levels in history miraculously coming back months later: http://www.express.c...
But, you haven't heard about this, have you? Why do think that is? Why do you think that when the end of the world was supposedly happening in the Arctic a few months ago, it was headline news? But, now that the ice has come back to normal levels AND THEN SOME, media won't report it?
Isn't it newsworthy that the ice is back? Isn't it good news? Or, do you think these folks have an agenda? ns
Millions of homes? Maybe I'm just too literal, but I'm betting the number is in the thousands, over several years, at worst. And our polar ice caps are not melting - this year the antarctic sea ice extent was the largest ever measured.
You're falling into a trap set by the warmers. Weather is not climate, and the timeframe of your memory is insignificant compared to the timeframe on which geological and climatic processes operate.
What you're doing is essentially equivalent to seeing the Dow Jones Industrial Average drop by 500 points in one day and extrapolating that memory to believing the DJIA will be zero in a few weeks. Would you short the market based on that one day observation, or is it more likely that the next move is a rebound? Same with climate - it's a dynamic system that some of us are humble enough to admit we don't fully understand.
Show me the "before" picture first for some context.
I'm from Georgia and grew up on something called the "fall line," which used to be the seacoast but is now a couple hundred miles inland.
Pictures of the pine trees there today don't prove it wasn't prime beachfront property bajillions of years ago any more that a picture of a tsunami or a polar bear on the beach proves man's destroying the planet.
Off of Destin Florida are a series of small cliffs about 100 feet under water. They're the old shoreline.
And we know the gulf on several occasions was a land locked dried sea bed. We know due to the layes of salt in the strata.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Noel if my memory serves me correct. 1998 is still the warmest of this cycle globally. To just about everyone but Hansen. Hansen first claimed 2005 was the warmest. But even his employee Schmidt claimed 1998 was warmest in his debate with Lindzen (IQ2 debate). I don't think IPCC holds 2005 warmest. I suspect 2007 will not be accepted either. It's hard to do that with so much of South American and Australia so cold.
But then GISS is a group that moves a station from a park like neighbiorhood to a parking lot. Doesn't adjust the reading from beside the parking lot. Then adjusts all the old records from the park like environment, down.
How do we get global warming. Adjust the data.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Shawn, I started to hop in and answer your question from my perspective, but it was specifically directed to Noel so I held off until he could reply.
The word "denier" is meant to promote equivalence of Climate Realists (already adopted the new term, Noel) to holocaust deniers. The first instance I know of where this happened was in an op-ed column by Ellen Goodman, who writes for the Boston Globe, a subsidiary of The New York Times Company.
The big difference, as alluded to by Noel, is that the holocaust is an undeniable historical fact, while AGW is an as-yet-unproven scientific theory.
Skepticism is the foundation of true science. As Einstein said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." With this in mind, it is instructive to observe that the Climate Realists are not the ones seeking to close off debate. IMO, the climate alarmists, on the other hand, are deathly afraid that the next experiment will be the one that proves them wrong and will do anything to make sure this doesn't happen.
I have heard many call each other denier. I heard many Dems call Conservatives Deniers when they though Bush robbed the 2000 election, I do not agree this is tied exclusively to the Holocaust.
There is nothing wrong with skeptisim. I mean many of our Christian friends want to base all their hopes and belief in a single book. If people want to question them sometimes they are referred to as Anti Christian.
It is okay to not be believe in Global warming, but at the same time why thumb your nose at those that do?
"It is okay to not be believe in Global warming, but at the same time why thumb your nose at those that do?"
Have that backwards don't you? I assume you have seen the AGW believers come in here level their complaints at our skepticism. They come in here, and I assume other conservative sites, and call us deniers, idiots, uninformed and what have you.
In answer to your question, the amount of wealth redistribution these people have planned for us is reason enough for us to keep our eyes on what they are doing. You know we can't count on the MSM to get the truth out or even entertain the notion of two sides on this. Remember, the debate is over? If that is how they are going about this, then it is incumbent upon us to fight back at every turn. It is a matter of conscience for us as well.
Nowhere have I ever said that the Democrats are not as guilty of being smug about the topic as republicans They are certainly not blameless. I am just saying if a person uses the word denier, it almost seems he said something almost as bad as a racial slur. I certainly do not consider this word offenisive.
This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue. The Republican party's presumptive nominee for President believes in AGW. OTOH, the U.S. Senate voted not to take up ratification of Kyoto by a vote of 95-0.
Sure, most of the AGW alarmists are political liberals, but Climate Realists only need to adhere to the scientific method, which is non-partisan by definition.
The pejorative term "denier" is used by climate alarmists to poison the well.
Just as a follow-up about our area, are you a skier? I used to be. Avid. Serious. Black diamond, if that means anything.
Anyway, my favorite resort was Kirkwood. Here's their snow numbers for the season so far: 343-374".
That's 30 feet, Shawn. That's pretty amazing, don't you think?
Now, last year, when America and most of Europe had a bad snow season, there were all kinds of articles predicting that skiing may be a thing of the past, and that real estate in ski areas was going to plummet.
Let's take a look at some areas outside of California, like Mt. Schweitzer in Sandpoint, Idaho: 255". As their top elevation is 6,400', that's amazing.
You think any of these resorts is having problems?
This whole issue is a lie, Shawn. Potentially one of the worst lies ever perpetrated on the American people. It's a myth with absolutely no facts to support it.
And the real deniers are the folks perpetrating it.
I am not a skier Noel, we are quite fortunate to live somewhere that there is word class skiing just a four hr drive away. I actually prefer Tahoe in the summer, it is quite breathtaking. I heard the best skiing is from where I was before I lived here. Blackcomb/Whistler are world class and the all the skiing events from the next Winter Olympics will be held there.
I will say it again Noel, I am saying the weather world wide has been quite unusual the past few yrs and I do not just mean warming. I mean rain, wind, snow, tsunamis, hurricanes. Is it man made? I have no idea, but it is just weird.
My understanding from reading one of the forums you participate in is that you're religious, or were raised as such? Have read the Bible? New and Old Testament?
Any climate events discussed in the Bible, Shawn? Some much worse than today? Rain, wind, snow, tsunamis, hurricanes? Think these events are new?
You know all that rain that happened in England last year? Wasn't record breaking. There's been worse. Name anything that's happened weatherwise recently, and something worse or close to it has happened before. This includes hurricanes, tsunamis, tornados, you name it.
Want to know what's different? 24-hour a day cable news networks. This stuff wasn't as actively reported even ten years ago.
Think about it, Shawn: are there REALLY more and extreme weather events today, or are they just reported more? ns
My Grandfather was a Christian and mother and father are Buddhist.I spent alot of my time in my youth with my grandfather before he passed and he taught me alot about Christianity.
I would like to learn more about the bible because I feel my faith and opinions have shifted a little and the faith is not a strong as it once was. Yes there have been lots of passages of natural disasters in the Bible.
I do not know if the msm is just reporting it more, but a hurricane that displaces and floods a whole US city bringing it to its knees for over a year is not something that happens every day. A Tsunami that can take 200,000 lives certainly does not happen every day either.
Those things are not happening every day now Shawn. Has NO. been hit by another Katrina and nobody told me? Katrina and the tsumani were terrible, but they are rare occurences. Other things may happen in other parts of the world, but they are not occuring any more frequently. You are just hearing about them more as the media want to alarm you to AGW. Simple as that.
Your right they don't happen every day, the thing is I don't remember something of that severity happen to NO in 30 yrs when it was hurricane Camile and that one did not flood the city. Has NO ever had that bad flooding ever in history?
I don't ever remember in my lifetime a Tsunami taking 200000 lives.
Remember, it was not just the hurricane that flooded NO. The levies failed, thanks to some shenanigans with the federal money that was supposed to go to the upkeep of them. I guess you could say that the flooding of NO was manmade somewhat, but it had nothing to do with climate change.
I don't know offhand if tsunamis in the past have killed that many, but I'm sure either on of us could research that. I am not surprised that you don't remember such a thing in your lifetime. They are rare, and I would bet you'll never see it again.
Btw, wasn't the tsunami caused by an earthquake? What does that have to do with AGW, or is my fuel consumption getting the blame for those now?
I am including earthquakes. The weather all around have been strange along with natural disasters. Read my earlier poster to Noel, I am not saying if any of this has anything to do with fuel consumption or AGW, I just said overall the weather in US and aroud the world has become very unstable.
Do I have to drive over to Dublin and give you a good shaking?
Katrina ended up being reclassified as a Cat-3. It wasn't the biggest hurricane in American history. The flooding was caused by poorly constructed and poorly maintained levees. You really need to do some more research about that area, and what happened. In particular, pay attention to Parishes in the area that didn't have anywhere near as much damage because the citizens paid extra taxes out of their own pockets to install stronger levees.
As for the tsunamis, they were caused by an earthquake in the middle of the ocean that resulted in part of the ocean floor dropping 100 feet. You think this is because of global warming?
Dude, head to your refrigerator, grab a cold one, and guzzle the sucker. Now. If you don't feel more rational, repeat this process until you do. :-) ns
Lol, it might be fun to crack open a few since I don't have to work tomorrow:-) Noel, I don't believe I am getting through. I have tried repeatedly to let you know I don't know enough about global warming to comment on it. I am just saying the weather and natural disasters have definately not been the norm the past few yrs.
And I'm disagreeing. Nothing new here at all. Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes. Just happen. And they're not happening any more frequently than they ever have.
In fact, as it pertains to hurricanes, as I think you know, the last two years were below normal. And, to add to the equation, prior to the early part of this decade, we were in an extended period of below-average hurricane activity, a period that began in the mid-70s.
Actually, if you add it all up, in the past 30 some odd years, as it pertains to hurricanes, there have probably been five that have been above average, and 25 that have been average or below. Honestly.
However, as was predicted at the early part of this decade by many hurricane experts, this cycle changed, and we're now supposed to be in a period of above average activity for several decades.
You know what else? This has been happening for centuries -- decades of above average hurricane activity followed by decades of below average activity.
Been recorded for centuries, Shawn. Honestly. I wouldn't lie to you. Look it up. Or, better yet -- HEAD TO YOUR FRIDGE AND CRACK OPEN A BEER! ns
Actually I think it will be shot of Nyquil. I am fighting a cold and taking care of my daughter while the wife is on a ski trip in Tahoe.
I can't think of a time I have ever participated in one of these global warming threads, but I cannot think of debates that get more personal than global warming ones including religion and the Iraq war.
I do not claim to know much about global warming but I do know all the gas fumes and coal burning effects the air we breath. Over fishing causes a serious imbalance to the oceans food chain. I agree with clear cutting to a point because of all the forest fires. I also believe it is time to start drilling in Anwar.
Shawn, by "...get more personal..." I hope you don't think my comments have been meant as personal attacks. Nothing could be further from the truth, as a fellow 24 fan would never do that :-)
Best wishes for a successful Mr. Mom event. Remember - 220 ... 221 ... whatever it takes.
How right you are! Nothing new at all - just more socialist propaganda, designed to get DEEP into our pocketbooks, and redistributed our earnings to government-dopes to play with - and handed out to their dishonest supporters.
For the youngsters here, I can tell you that the so-called 'record' temperatures bandied about in media recently are plain bunk. First of all, they have very few ‘records’ to go by – and the few they do have are scanty at best. I know that from experience, both from looking at what is available, and from first hand experience.
I’ve been on this earth since 1941 – and I can tell you from experience that the mid 1950’s in remote areas of New Mexico were quite hot – up to 10 degrees hotter than in recent years. Example: In the desert south of Deming, NM I personally saw multiple thermometers registering 120-125 degrees in the summer of 1954 – but couldn’t find that information listed anywhere in NM temperature records – or any other US government records for that matter. Why? Because ‘official records’ from remote areas are not even reported – much less tabulated and kept in record format.
I know too of even hotter temperatures in Arizona, again in remote areas where I was, in the early 1960's that were never reported – and can not be found in any records that exist.
Point is, the propaganda, about 2007 being the ‘hottest on record,’- is absolute bunk. To the contrary (as it pertains to places I personally was in during the summer of 2007 – specifically New Mexico and Arizona) I found weather there cooler than it was the prior year (2006,) and as much as 10 degrees cooler in NM than I have experienced it, and 15 degrees cooler than I have experienced it in AZ (same locations in each state.)
Now, about storms – hurricanes and tornados get an excessive amount of media attention these days, and they go on and on and on about them – for hours at a time. You’d think they’ve never seen or heard of one before…
I lived through and experienced the destruction of several tornadoes, in Oklahoma – and was at sea during two very destructive hurricanes when I was in the Navy in 1960 and 1961 – both of which put the destroyer I was on into dry-dock for 6 months and three months respectively, to repair the damage.
There are hundreds of towns and thousands of people that live through and experience the damage of tornadoes every year… for as long as I can remember in my lifetime.
The difference between then and now is that years ago, there weren’t tens of thousands of ‘reporters’ sitting in front of TV cameras, looking for something to blither incessantly about.
Today the hottest gas being emitted anywhere is within the studios of the leftist dominated MSM. They personify the only real AGW in existence - and represent a far greater threat than anything the weather can ever throw at us.
Shawn, part of the problem with your argument is that you tend to compartmentalize your knowledge of climate change into weather events occurring in your lifetime.
The Galveston hurricane of 1900 is a good example of a really bad weather event that even the shameless Jim Hansen wouldn't blame on manmade CO2.
Shawn. Camile a true cat 5. Didn't flood New Orleans in 69. Camile was a small tightly woven but intense storm. Fast moving. Didn't have as much time for the tide to build. Now Betsy a cat 3 did flood New Orleans. The Labor Day Florida Keys storm 1935 knocked a locomotive off the tracks. The Cheniere Caminada hurricane. 1893. Lets say there are towns that no longer exist because of that storm. And it washed waves over the Chandeleur Island Light House. (50 feet above sea level.) There was also the Galveston Hurricane that killed over 8,000 in 1900. The 1871 storm that hit Galveston flooded New Orleans, "giving it the appereance of a submerged city" (That was before New Orleans grew into the low areas.) And in the old French records there are reports of a hurricane that hit soon after New Orleans was built. Drowning people up river from the city.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
I agree with Shawn, you are exceptionally fair as a moderator. You are not hesitant to call anyone to account, either, and that is great.
You are correct, IMHO, to characterize the issue as "..a lie,...Potentially one of the worst lies ever perpetrated on the American people. It's a myth...". Isn't it time to start asking ourselves to what end/purpose is this myth being perpetrated?
And, after asking that question, isn't time to look at the scenario emerging from all of the global manipulations and desparate evangelism in this country and ask what is the most logical effect of acting on this myth? Isn't there good evidence to conclude that "point man" Al Gore, and his supporters/perpetrators, expect to saddle the American taxpayer with a crushing load of debt (to go with the guilt) to finance the government machinery to implement and enforce regulations to control and eliminate this mythical crisis? And since, globally, almost all other countries couldn't or wouldn't pay their share (a repeat of the UN disaster to American interests, in spite of America paying the bulk of legal UN bills), wouldn't the American taxpayer wind up paying these bills too? Wouldn't the power accruing to someone or a group who instituted such regulations have to be almost total? Would there be enough power centralized to effectively destabilize the American political and economic system as envisioned by the Constitution?
Those would seem to be some of the questions that need to continually be asked.
The two terms that seem most appropriate for those who buy into the manmade climate change myth are 1) Global Warming Believers, 2) Adherants of the Cult of Global Warming..
It has basically become a religion for those who choose not to participate in a traditional religion. It has all the elments right down to not being provable.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Aww where's the racist,
February 17, 2008 - 12:10 ET by wiwfAww where's the racist, bigot, homophobe, greedy, fake Christian, Republicanazi conservative option? :P
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
The word is denier. It is
February 17, 2008 - 12:37 ET by Wildcatter1980The word is denier. It is what goes side by side with racist, bigot, homophobe, etc.
BTW-I 'm a registered Democrat.
Just my $0.02
Yes... denier is the correct
February 17, 2008 - 14:46 ET by River DogYes... denier is the correct word. Just like it says on the back of my car "Global Warming Denier". I also deny that the earth is flat... But i'm strange like that...
Noel
February 17, 2008 - 12:11 ET byyou left out four options
LUDDITES
ZOMBIES
NON-ALARMISTS
REALITY BASED
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Noel - options?
February 17, 2008 - 12:26 ET by acaiguanaWell, my simple take on this is who really cares?
The climate will be the climate will be the climate. I haven't got the memo or the phone call from the climate asking what I really think I should be called.
If people unknown to me call me a 'denier' then I care enough to be insulted as to the implied relation to Nazi Germany.
But as far as the climate is concerned? Of course the agenda is transparent for those who want to destroy my capitalistic opportunities.
ACA
...
Chat Moderator
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
ACA
February 17, 2008 - 12:37 ET by Noel SheppardACA,
It's important because this is indeed a major issue today, and will be for some time to come. Our nation is divided on this issue, like so many, and as is typical of folks on the left, they're using pejoratives like "denier" to demonize those they disagree with.
I want to fight this, for as long as they can cast us in a negative light, it will be more difficult for us to get a contrary view to those either undecided or not firmly committed. Potentially in the years to come, we are going to see legislative proposals concerning this nonsense. As I posted yesterday, California is considering addressing AGW in science classes and texts.
With that in mind, this battle continues. And, our success in thwarting such legislation is dependent on how the public perceives the opposition; what we are called will impact this perception. Make sense? ns
Noel, well at least you have me talking.
February 17, 2008 - 13:13 ET by acaiguanaI agree with you. I was just being grouchy.
I have for a long time called these people neo-luddites. That sort of sums up my opinion of the pro-anthro warmers.
Of course the model stuff gets out of control real fast.
The media (which I believe you capture nicely below) is allowing the socialist motivated pro-government intervention (can we say taxation boys and girls?) groups to define the terms again.
As I get frustrated with the minutiae of the insanity, I tend to be more critical of debate within the community over these type of things.
If science is as I believe to be quite capable of standing the test of time then the test of time will destroy the AGW crowd.
However, as I started out - I agree that the California mess is only growing more messy. I am of course opposed to this attempt to indoctrinate our kids.
Nobody would argue the need for kids to be taught good conservation skills like John Muir, etc. But I would argue that like Democrat solutions to everything (education) - the corruption of our education system further by including this silliness is more of the same ol' same ol'.
Nice to talk to ya.
ACA
...
Chat Moderator
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
I want to fight this, for
February 17, 2008 - 14:36 ET by motherbeltI want to fight this, for as long as they can cast us in a negative
light, it will be more difficult for us to get a contrary view to those
either undecided or not firmly committed. -NS
And fight it we must, Noel. Who controls the language controls the argurment. And that is the first thing liberals do: try to control the language. They seek to marginalize those who disagree by painting them as a "fringe group" or some kind of "extremists." That way they seek to minimize the importance of input from those "aginners" (another example of their attempts at marginalization, that they recently used.)
Even more than a political football
February 17, 2008 - 20:12 ET by bbbossThis whole "manmade" global warming is being pushed worldwide by an inordinate number of politicians and media types particlarly from socialist leaning countries. This is about one thing and one thing only; American money...they want American money spread throughout the world and this duping of the general American public is what they have picked as the best way to go about this. And our own politicians and media have taken the proverbial bite right out of the bait.....I rank this international hoax as nearly as serious as terrorism.
Climate Realists
February 17, 2008 - 12:27 ET by Noel SheppardNBers,
This poll stems from a discussion here last evening that I wanted to open up for a larger debate.
The common term for a number of years has been skeptics. Unfortunately, this doesn't express what "non-believers" feel, for it's way too weak. Scientists all around the world that don't believe man is causing global warming, or that other factors are significantly more important to the equation, aren't merely skeptical. They have voluminous evidence to support their position WAY beyond mere skepticism.
As for "Deniers," this is indeed pejorative and insulting, for "facts" can be denied, while "theories" are merely disputed. As yet, NO ONE has proven that man is warming the globe. NO ONE. As such, "deniers" is an insult at best.
"Dissenters" to me is akin to "skeptics" inasmuch as it is too weak. It implies a minority viewpoint fighting an uphill battle. In the end, despite the media's position and what charlatans like Al Gore claim, the burden of proof is on the climate alarmists, and they have yet to prove anthropogenic global warming to be either real, or largely responsible for the slight increase in average global temperatures the past 150 years.
"Climate Realists" works very well for me, for it accurately defines the position, and does so in a positive fashion. Once again, despite the alarmists' claims, our view is the strong one for it is supported by centuries of research, and millennia of ice core samples.
"Climate Optimists" is what some of the scientists I correspond with on a daily basis prefer. Contrarily, they view believers as "climate pessimists."
Be advised that I have posed this question to several e-mail groups that I'm part of, and am very interested in feedback. ns
I'm convinced.
February 17, 2008 - 12:48 ET by dervishChange my vote from "skeptic" to "realist." It does sound a bit wimpy, even if accurate.
Interesting, Noel
February 17, 2008 - 12:51 ET by BlondeAnd in light of your response to ACA, I see exactly why you posed the choices you did.
You'll have to keep us posted as to the results of your e-mail queries as well.
Having said that, I'm going to go back and vote for "Climate Realists".
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
act fast
February 17, 2008 - 13:01 ET by mom_roxns - If you adopt 'climate realist', you in the media need to act quickly to publicize the definition so that Al Gore, et. al., do not co-opt that term. (They will insist that they are the 'realists', even though they do not have the scientific data to back up their claims.)
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944
Realists
February 17, 2008 - 13:05 ET by masslibertarian"Climate Realists" works well to broadly describe those who do not subscribe to the views of "Climate Alarmists" like Al Gore and Jim Hansen.
I think you're absolutely right that the word used in the debate is important, and I think "Climate Realists" also denotes that our side is a big enough tent to include a broad spectrum of people, from those who believe the concept of AGW is the height of hubris to those who believe in AGW but think the developed world's committing economic suicide is the worst possible alternative to addressing it.
masslibertarian; I think U talked me into it.
February 17, 2008 - 19:24 ET by upcountrywaterAt first I felt, that "Climate Realists" was a squishy reaction to agw denier, however you won me over.
Regards,
An "Insurgent" on the Right.
So many words, so little time.
iranian uranium; iranian ICBM's iranian satellites..
Keep the change Bob. h/t Sam Peckinpah
I chose "skeptic" because
February 17, 2008 - 14:47 ET by tracheostomyI chose "skeptic" because liberals cannot fairly lay exclusive claim to the term. This the way they really want it BTW. "Journalists" in particular really consider that term their baby.
Nope, the sword cuts both ways.
If "skeptic" is good enough for other issues of consensus science, then it's good enough for AGW.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Skeptic
February 17, 2008 - 16:05 ET by doug1950Agree, the word "skeptic" still leaves one with at least an element of plausibility and wiggle room. A skeptic is someone who may not be yet convinced. I, for example, just flatly do not beleive man is the cause of climate changes.
Climate Constants
February 17, 2008 - 12:29 ET by CobraManSome people seem to forget that the only thing constant about the climate is that it keeps changing. Why some people think that the climate is a closed, static system that is greatly influenced by mankind is beyond me. Since when has mankind EVER had that much control over our environment? We can't even affect or control LOCAL weather patterns, so just how are we suppose to affect and control GLOBAL weather patterns and change the climate, ether in the long term or the short term? Every attempt to date has failed. Nothing we do has a measurable effect. Nature has this annoying tendency of showing us just how insignifigent we really are.
Very true, I am always
February 17, 2008 - 12:56 ET by general companyVery true, I am always amused by the fact that global warmest seem to think they can control the weather. I am however all for cleaning up and keeping our planet clean, but contoling the weather, that is just plain stupid.
BTW, how many other topics is CA teaching their children that either isnt true, or is against the values of the parents? Same idiots making these decisions either don't have kids (or cant/gay) or send them to privets schools that are not obligated to teach this nonsense.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
general company... I
February 17, 2008 - 13:08 ET by Clear thinkergeneral company...
I recently had a face to face conversation with a young couple that had just moved to my area of NC. The conversation was civil enough but it became clear to me that these people were either from another Galaxy or California. My second choice turned out to be the case.
Set the GOP back on the right course. http://gopteaparty.com/
I kow what you mean
February 17, 2008 - 14:01 ET by general companyI live in Louisiana and work for a prominent University in CA, so I work with a lot of folks from CA, most are great people. You are right about some of them though, but one of the joys of my life, is popping all of those little bubbles so many of them carry around.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
WOW CT
February 17, 2008 - 14:10 ET by DEVILDOCMOMAren't you happy? Now you can be saved...snicker.
My thoughts are that many in
February 17, 2008 - 13:14 ET by Wildcatter1980My thoughts are that many in the warm-monger side of the debate know what "climate" is about, but could care less. They have alternate hidden agendas at work. Those hidden agendas include one or more of the following:
Just my $0.02
Oh! THAT'S a real gem!
February 17, 2008 - 14:49 ET by tracheostomy"Warm-monger." LOL! I freakin' LOVE IT!!!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Wheres Blonde, she collects these " gem things" LMAO
February 17, 2008 - 19:28 ET by upcountrywateriranian uranium; iranian ICBM's iranian satellites..
Keep the change Bob. h/t Sam Peckinpah
the
February 17, 2008 - 19:30 ET byNoel Sheppard turn of phrase award ----IIRC
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Wild
February 18, 2008 - 09:19 ET by ahusserTo me you hit the nail on the head with your analysis.
I firmly believe, however, that your points mostly are symptoms of their extreme self-loathing and hatred of "MAN" and "MANKIND". If you notice their "propaganda" is heavily laden with concepts of purification and cleansing. If "MAN" wasn't around then the air and water would be pure. Mother Earth would be safe. In it's most extreme manifestations of power they purify and cleanse their own ala Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cambodia etc. Of course, they, the elect would be appointed and annointed in being the caretaker of the remainder. I firmly believe they wish the demise of 90 per cent of us so they can live, like pre discovery "native americans" in peace and harmony with nature. A delusional hallucinatory utopia.
CobraMan
February 17, 2008 - 15:19 ET by lotrAtmospheric scientists understand this quite well -- the atmosphere and ocean are dynamic systems. "Climatology" is the study of the mean state of the atmosphere/ocean systems, both in terms of space and time. Climatological timescales are decades (as opposed to diurnal, seasonal or interannual) -- changes over decades are of concern to us (mankind) because they can impact societies. A society becomes accustomed to a certain climate, so that when changes occur, the society may be impacted.
It's not a matter of "control" -- indeed, we have no control at all over things. However, humans do have a measureable effect, not only because of our numbers, but also because of our industry.
Again, the following link is to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration (NOAA) website, discussing the measured incease in atmospheric CO2, a predominate greenhouse gas. CO2 is a byproduct of combustion, which is currently going on at a mind-boggling rate, 24/7/365.
NOAA: Longest Continuous Record of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/datasets/mauna/welcome.html#record
What effect?
February 17, 2008 - 16:32 ET by CobraManWe humans have been trying to affect the climate for several
generations yet we are unable to even predict what the climate will be
next year, let alone change it. Just how much of an affect do we REALLY
have, as opposed to an assumed affect? Why don’t our scientific
predictions match real world data? Could it be that our basic
assumptions are wrong and that we really don’t have as great an affect
as we, especially the scientists, like to believe?
The NOAA scientists are using assumptions and models that don't match real world observations, so how can anything they say be considered correct? These are the same scientists who predicted an increase in the number and veracity of Hurricanes for the last two years, yet nature refuses to follow their predictions. That reality severely reduces their credibility, in my opinion.
Also, plant life is dependent upon CO2 and the amount of plant growth is directly depended upon atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Since the amount of CO2 plants absorb and covert to mass is proportional to the concentrations of atmospheric CO2, it is obvious to anyone that the system is self-correcting and that short term increases in CO2 will be contradicted by short-term increases in plant growth and mass.
Life, especially plant life, likes a warm environment. Most of the coal and oil deposits we use for fuel were deposited when the global temperature was several degrees higher then it is today. The large animals, the massive forests, and the explosion of live that followed were all preceded by an increase in global temperature. So, how can a similar increase in global temperatures today be considered bad?
As far as societies becoming dependent upon certain environmental factors and society in general will be destroyed if these conditions change; that’s a false assumption as we, by our very nature, are very adaptable creatures. Those who do not adapt to a changing environment will die, while those who do will live and produce descendents. That’s called evolution and it is the natural state of life on earth.
As a matter of fact, history has shown us again and again that environmental change was the catalyst that produced the greatest advancements in human society. So, if environmental change was good for humanity in the past, why shouldn't a similar change be just as good for us today? Has human nature changed to the extent that we are completely dependent upon a changeless environment? If, so, then we really are a doomed species.
The basic truth is that we have no idea what the future will bring to us concerning the environment and its affect on humanity. It's foolish to insist that we do and that we can actually predict and affect environmental conditions. We're not gods and we need to stop acting like we are. A false belief in our superiority over nature is the true danger, not the environment. Just ask the Romans about that.
First off, note that there
February 17, 2008 - 22:06 ET by lotrFirst off, note that there is a fundamental difference between predicting, say, whether or not a tornado will hit in a certain location, or whether or not this winter will be warmer/colder/drier/moister, and that predicting what the mean equilibrium temperature of Earth will be given known forcings. Of course, that doesn't mean climate models aren't without errors/limitations/flaws. But to my knowledge, all models, based upon known classical physics, predict a warming, and the warming is pretty darn consistent with what we are currently observing. While there are some scientists (whom I know) who are skeptics, these are falling more and more into a minority.
Secondly, while we (humans) are "puny" no doubt, the fact is our industry is not without a "footprint." In the case of fossil fuel combustion, the footprint is mindboggling quantities of CO2. The increase in atmospheric CO2, a measured trend spanning 5 decades, is a direct consequence. CO2, unlike H2O, has a long residence time (as in centuries).
Thirdly, I can't say that I would strongly disagree with anything you said about increased CO2, warmer climates, etc. not necessarily being bad things. That's where I think the policy debate should lie -- does any of this warrant draconian measures on our part? Right now I say no, it does not. You are right that we don't know for absolute sure yet whether trends will continue (although we have good reason to believe that they will) -- does this mean we need to commit to reductions in emissions when that may deeply impact our standard of living? Again, I would argue against that. I, like probably everyone here, enjoys our standard of living, and I believe that people (the world over) come first, not the "Earth Mother." Note these are conservative principles, ones that I would say the majority of Americans would still be in agreement with.
I would agree with the Roman analogy, except I would say it is more about our neo-paganism, materialism, hedonism, etc., not our climate science.
Not quite ...
February 17, 2008 - 23:02 ET by masslibertarianLOTR, I always read your stuff and try to keep an open mind, but I can't let the following quote pass without comment:
But to my knowledge, all models, based upon known classical physics, predict a warming, and the warming is pretty darn consistent with what we are currently observing.
The models you refer to were tweaked to roughly match recent observations, so of course they're "consistent." They haven't been successful at predicting anything. They are PlayStation Climatology and are not based purely on "known classical physics" - unless you care to provide us with the "earth equation."
For chrissakes, even the modelers admit they don't treat clouds properly. It occurs to me that clouds - you know, the kind made of water vapor, the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by several orders of magnitude - might ought to be handled properly by climate models before we take their output seriously enough to commit economic suicide.
As Douglass, Christy, Pearson and Singer recently highlighted, climate models may correctly align with the macro warming trend, but they get there by showing a pronounced warming of the tropical troposphere which is not present in real-world observations.
Saying that the models are consistent with observed warming is at best a half-truth.
Sorry for the rant. Please don't take it personally. I just believe we're placing way too much faith in garbage-in, garbage-out climate models run by weenies in air-conditioned rooms who don't spend enough time out in the sun observing the real world (yes, Jim and Gavin, I'm thinking of you).
Computer Models are worse than that
February 18, 2008 - 01:51 ET by PopularTechIt is not good enough for a model to get close, they must be exact. If anything is off at all then the model is flawed period. And I mean anything. That is the way computers work. But it is not just exact by answer but by process and you CANNOT PROVE THE PROCESS IS CORRECT ON THE MODELS! Even if they match the real climate that does not prove they are reaching the results based on what happens in the real world. I will give a simple example as to why.
Say the model is programmed so increased CO2 gives an increased warming of 1 degree over one hundred years. How you get to that number can be calculated in an infinite amount of incorrect ways but get the same result. A very basic example:
Say +100-99 = +1, or +1000-999 = +1 or +10000-9999 = +1, all equal +1 and you can do this forever but which PROCESS is correct? You cannot prove this on a model.
The models are MEANINGLESS!
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Here is some of the
February 18, 2008 - 02:16 ET by RESTLESS 1Here is some of the problems with computer models.
"Professor", you really should read past the first page.
"Chapter 5: Recommendations
1. Separate the uncertainties in climate forcings from uncertainties in the climate
response to forcings.
The simulations of 20th century (20CEN) climate analyzed here show climate responses
that differ because of differences in:
• Model physics and resolution;
• The forcings incorporated in the 20CEN experiment;
• The chosen forcing history, and the manner in which a specific forcing was applied.
• Model initial conditions.
We consider it a priority to partition the uncertainties in climate forcings and model
responses, and thus improve our ability to interpret differences between models and
observations. This could be achieved by better coordination of experimental design,
particularly for the 20CEN simulations that are most relevant for direct comparison
with observations.
2. Quantify the contributions of changes in black carbon aerosols and land use/land cover
to recent large-scale temperature changes.
We currently lack experiments in which the effects of black carbon aerosols and LULC
are varied individually (while holding other forcings constant). Such “single forcing” runs
will help to quantify the contributions of these forcings to global-scale changes in lapse
rates.
3. Explicitly consider model and observational uncertainty.
Efforts to evaluate model performance or identify human-induced climate change
should always account for uncertainties in both observations and in model simulations
of historical and future climate. This is particularly important for comparisons involving
long-term changes in upper-air temperatures. It is here that current observational
uncertainties are largest and require better quantification.
4. Perform the “next generation” of detection and attribution studies.
Formal detection and attribution studies utilizing the new generation of model and observational
data sets detailed herein should be undertaken as a matter of priority."
"In Chapter 5, we seek to explain and reconcile
the apparently disparate estimates of observed
changes in surface and tropospheric temperatures.
We make extensive use of computer
models of the climate system. In the real world,
multiple “climate forcings” vary simultaneously,
and it is difficult to identify and separate the
climate effects of individual factors. Furthermore,
the experiment that we are performing
with the Earth’s climate system lacks a suitable
control – we do not have a convenient “parallel
Earth” on which there are no human-induced
changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, or other
climate forcings. Climate models can be used
to perform such controlled experiments, or to
simulate the response to changes in a single
forcing or combination of forcings, and thus
have real advantages for studying cause-effect
relationships. However, models also have
systematic errors that can diminish their usefulness
as a tool for interpretation of observations"
"This “noise reduction” aspect of AMIP runs
has been exploited in efforts to identify human
effects on year-to-year changes in atmospheric
temperatures (Folland et al., 1998; Sexton et
al., 2001) and volcanic influences on surface air
temperature (Mao and Robock, 1998).
One disadvantage of the AMIP experimental
set-up is that significant errors in one or more
of the applied forcing factors (or omission of
key forcings) are not “felt” by the prescribed
SSTs. Such errors are more obvious in a CGCM
experiment, where the ocean surface is free to
respond to imposed forcings. The lack of an
ocean response, combined with the masking
effects of natural variability, make it difficult
to use an AMIP-style experiment to estimate
the slow response of the climate system to an
imposed forcing change ."
"The CGCM experiments of interest here involve
a model that has been “spun-up” until it reaches
some quasi-steady climate state . The CGCM
is then run with estimates of how a variety of
natural and human-caused climate forcings
have changed over the 20th century. We refer
to these subsequently as “20CEN” experiments.
Since the true state of the climate system is
never fully known, the same forcing changes
are applied n times, each time starting from
a slightly different initial climate state. This
procedure yields n different realizations of climate
change. All of these realizations contain
some underlying “signal” (the climate response
to the imposed forcing changes) upon which
are superimposed n different manifestations
of “noise” (natural internal climate variability).
Taking averages over these n realizations yields
less noisy estimates of the signal (Wigley et
al., 2005a).
In a CGCM, ocean temperatures are fully predicted
rather than prescribed. This means that
even a (hypothetical) CGCM which perfectly
captured all important aspects of ENSO physics
would not have the same timing of El Niño
and La Niña events as the real world (except by
chance). The fact that ENSO variability – and
its effects on surface and atmospheric temperatures
– does not “line up in time” in observations
and CGCM experiments hampers direct
comparisons between the two ."
"This does not diminish the
importance of other climate forcings, whose
global-scale contributions to “differential
warming” have not been reliably quantified
to date.
Examples of these “other forcings” include
carbon-containing aerosols produced during
fossil fuel or biomass combustion, human-induced
changes in land surface properties, and
the indirect effects of tropospheric aerosols on
cloud properties."
Source
Seems that there are plusses and minusses in all computer models, but like Pop Tech said, any minusses and the models are junk.
RESTLESS
February 18, 2008 - 16:31 ET by lotrI appreciate the link to the free online textbook -- I think I will be downloading all the chapters for my own reference. I noticed that you cut and paste some excerpts from one of the chapters. In all this material, I find nothing whatsoever that supports the one sentence conclusion you arrived at.
I did, however, notice the following text at the start of Chapter 3:
Observed Changes - Surface
Globally, as well as in the tropics, the temperature of the air near the Earth’s surface has increased since 1958, with a greater rate of increase since 1979. All three surface temperature data sets are consistent in these conclusions.
• Globally, temperature increased at a rate of about 0.12ºC per decade since 1958, and about 0.16ºC per decade since 1979.
• In the tropics, temperature increased at a rate of about 0.11ºC per decade since 1958, and about 0.13ºC per decade since 1979.
• Most, if not all of the surface temperature increase since 1958 occured starting around the mid-1970s, a time coincident with a previously identified abrupt climate shift. However, there does not appear to be an abrupt rise in temperature at this time, rather the major part of the rise seems to occur in a more gradual fashion.
I'll agree that any physical model is worthless if it churns out results that don't jive with observations. However I have yet to stumble upon any smoking guns showing this about climate models.
Really?
February 19, 2008 - 14:11 ET by RESTLESS 1I guess what I am getting at, and what the summary attempts to tackle, is that the models are only as good as which forcings are chosen to be use on a particular program, and the values assigned the these forcings. There seems to be some inconsistency between the observational data and the computer models. For example, more "single forcing" runs are needed to better project effects on the climate.
Also, the different systems have strengths and weaknesses within each that cast doubt on certain results. All of these issues need to be addressed, and that is what the summary above is about.
All I am really saying is that I don't see any evidence that the computer models are accurate enough, with enough bugs worked out, to spend millions, billions, or maybe more on drastic proposals to mitigate climate change that may not work anyway. I've seen you post that you are not for spending this kind of capatal as yet also. If the science used to predict temps. is faulty, how can the science be settled. I know you are not saying it is settled, but the post above was from a thread where that was the claim.
I have no major
February 19, 2008 - 16:29 ET by lotrI have no major disagreements about anything you just said -- in no way do I suggest that the models are flawless; however I do contend that they represent the best of our ability to understand and predict climate behavior. Even if I knew that the models were perfect, I can still say that I would be against any candidate who proposes draconian measures to curb greenhouse gases without having a plan to mitigate the economic impact (i.e., the impact on people's lives).
lotr
February 19, 2008 - 18:59 ET by RESTLESS 1The way I figure it, we agree more than we disagree. The science of this stuff probably makes more sense to you. It just stretches credibility in my mind that humans have nearly as big an influence on the climate that the alarmists would suggest.
RESTLESS - yep
February 20, 2008 - 10:36 ET by lotrFor what it's worth, I refuse to watch Al Gore's "academy award winning" movie (I'm becoming a bit of a prude as I don't watch much of anything from Hollywood these days), so I'm not sure what sort of alarmist stuff he's proposing. In the grand scheme of things, our industrial combustion doesn't have that big an influence. It's not like carbon is foreign to this planet -- life will continue to thrive, including human life, and the excess CO2 will eventually make its way back into the biosphere. But that doesn't mean there are no short-term impacts whatsoever -- our industry has come to the point where it leaves a "footprint," and it's good to be cognizant of that.
massliberatarian
February 18, 2008 - 12:30 ET by lotrVery glad to hear you have an open mind. I always broach this subject with a certain degree of trepidation here, knowing full well I will likely draw the ire of various individuals.
There is not "earth equation" -- there are, however, a known set of of so-called state equations that do in fact provide an exact (quantitative) description of the dynamics and thermodynamics. Most of it is classical physics (conservation of mass, energy and momentum; ideal gas law; hydrostatics; cloud microphysics; etc.), although not all of it -- radiation obviously draws upon quantum theory. I cannot emphasize enough that these models represent the very best of our capacity to understand the behavior of the real atmosphere. Everything else, to some degree or another, requires various degrees of handwaving.
You are correct that one of the current limitations to these models is their ability to treat clouds. They don't ignore them altogehter, but they do rely on parameterizations. Regarding clouds, however, these have the capacity of acting as positive or negative feedbacks. Lower level water clouds have high albedo and act as negative feedback (cooling mechanism). However, high level ice clouds can act more as a positive feedback (warming) due to their absorption of upwelling infrared radiation. Again, I am not a climate specialist -- this is stuff I learned in graduate level paleoclimate.
Don't worry -- you didn't get personal, so there's nothing to take personal. And one other thing -- I am more of an empiricist -- models are fine and dandy, but they are not the real world. But they do represent our best understanding of the real world, and I know the measurements show a long-term warming trend.
Best Guess is NOT Good Enough with Computer Modeling
February 18, 2008 - 14:16 ET by PopularTechANY "guess" makes your model irrelevant. Can you not comprehend this? Computers do not fill in the blanks for you, they compute what you put into them which includes who knows how many Fortran compiled errors in addition to the "guesses" and made up computations.
"Feedbacks" are made up processes. If you are scripting made up processes on top of guesses you get more junk. It doesn't matter what you think clouds do, it only matters what they actually do and until you understand that 100% you cannot simulate them.
Models based on crap getting ANY result is MEANINGLESS.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
You have absolutely no understanding of Computer Models
February 18, 2008 - 01:42 ET by PopularTechComputer Illiterates frequently make this bogus claim that climate prediction is different than weather. No it is not. They are based on the same incomplete Climate Physics, biased data and worthless models. It is simply a matter of resolution and scale. People like you are dangerous because you keep lying about it and computer illiterates keep believing it.
There are no close enough guesses with computers, this is something computer illiterates will never understand. If everything is not 100% understood with 100% correct data then the results are absolutely worthless, that is the way computers work and that is why weather prediction outside of a 1 day or so is so worthless. This makes climate prediction by a huge factor even more worthless yet because they now have nice looking colored graphics and run on multi-million dollar computers you fools fall for them. This is the biggest scam I have ever seen in my life.
Please leave the computer models to computer scientists and those who actually understand what computers can and cannot do.
There are no known "forcings", forcings is a bogus computer generated term that cannot be measured in the real world. Some natural scientist's script giving a result on a computer does not mean that is how it works in the real world.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PopTech
February 18, 2008 - 11:58 ET by lotrTwo (Latin) words for you: Ad hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I don't know where to start. Ever since the invention of FORTRAN in the late 1950s, scientists and engineers have used computers to quantitatively simulate physical reality. I'll give you one thing: I am not a computer scientist, never claimed to be, don't wanna be one. Thank God for high level languages.
Obviously you are not a Computer Scientist
February 18, 2008 - 14:17 ET by PopularTechSince you have no concept of how they work or what is possible to retrieve from them.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Christians
February 17, 2008 - 12:32 ET by Lame CherryThat about sums it up. The same persecutions which have driven Christians across the world from Rome, the Sanhedrin to the globalist ilk all are world governments attempting to dislodge the free peoples and enslave them.
Stoning, burning at the stake used to be the practice, but now they use laws to criminalize a free people who will not be enslaved.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Precisely
February 17, 2008 - 13:23 ET by sentforth5I was also looking for:
Super Geniuses
But I didn't see that option!
I wish you had included a
February 17, 2008 - 12:39 ET by Clear thinkerI wish you had included a choice for "Normal".
Set the GOP back on the right course. http://gopteaparty.com/
how about
February 17, 2008 - 12:55 ET by soosansmart
I like that better than
February 17, 2008 - 13:01 ET by Clear thinkerI like that better than mine.
Set the GOP back on the right course. http://gopteaparty.com/
Actually, people that don't
February 17, 2008 - 12:42 ET by riff_raffActually, people that don't believe human activity is the cause for "global warming" should be referred to as scientists.
Climatic Non-gullibles.
February 17, 2008 - 12:48 ET by GregEClimatic Non-gullibles.
But seriously, there really isn't a term to be used. Anyone with a different interpretation of the same set of data is simply someone with a different interpretation of the same set of data. I don't really think there should be a word for those who don't look at global warming as a human-induced or human-assisted phenomena.
But of course words/phrases are used, and when it's the media or anyone who is of the global warming acceptance group, those who disagree with global warming are implied to be deniers of a forgone conclusion and implied to have an agenda. In summary, implied to be trying to allow the world to be destroyed.
Call William Safire
February 17, 2008 - 12:44 ET by mom_roxSeriously, I think this would make a great Safire article.
Unfortunately, these nouns do not roll off the tongue, but disavowers and repudiators come to mind.
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. - George Bernard Shaw, 1944
I like 'dissenters', it has
February 17, 2008 - 12:48 ET by LighthouseJI like 'dissenters', it has a communist-like feel.
"Boats are safe in the harbor, but that's not what they're made for." -- Maritime quote
Solists ;^ )
February 17, 2008 - 12:48 ET bysince i believe the Sun (sol) and it's natural cycles holds the greatest impact on global temperatures
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
"Realist" - I Love It
February 17, 2008 - 12:54 ET by zeestephenWay to go, NewsBusters - I'm always searching for political shorthand that accurately and memorably labels my principles - "Climate Realist" does it for me.
Realist
February 17, 2008 - 12:55 ET by catnamedjakeApologies if this sounds too glib, but how about sane? Al Gore has always appeared to me to be crazy. And I don't mean just because I don't agree with the Global warming, look at his eyes.....
Sane
February 17, 2008 - 19:34 ET by Republican_by_DefaultIt wasn't in the list, but I agree, it's the most accurate.
No more Chicken Little.
Since "normal" was not among the choices, I chose skeptic.
February 17, 2008 - 13:09 ET by R D HelmTo me, skeptic has historically been the term applied to those who resist the trendy, pop-culture movement of the moment, and this is what I see the "climate change" farce to be. Climate realist, while accurate, is a bit clumsy and a little to PCish for my taste.
I remember being taught in middle school in the late seventies that scientists were sure we were headed for another ice age (though I do not recall its adherents threatening the livelihoods and even the freedom of those who dissented from what was the "conventional wisdom" of the day). If we didn't wind up freezing and/or starving to death, then the killer bees were going to invade our country and kill us all.
I have long since lost track of the myriad of calamities that we were all told were going to come to pass by the year 2000. The year came and went , and we are still here. I didn't buy any of their predictions then, nor do I buy them now.
I guess that makes me a skeptic, and I am just fine with that.
_____________________________
There is, however, one danger today that didn't exist in the seventies, and that is the type of people who are promoting the idea of "climate change." Unlike most of the "ice-agers" of the seventies, the climate change crowd is essentially made up of frustrated, hard-core socialists who are promoting this irrational fear as a vehicle to advance their Marxist agenda. Notice carefully how they never really complain about the environmental damage going on in places such as China, Russia and Mexico. This makes them a very real threat to our freedoms here in America, as we seem to be the sole target of their angst.
After all, Bill Clinton himself said we have to "slow down" our economy to help the environment. If that statement alone doesn't convince you of their actual motivations in all this, then I don't know what will.
intelligent
February 17, 2008 - 13:14 ET by lunaticcringeradioas opposed to the anti capitalist socialist used car salesmen who perpetuate the global warming lie, on the stooopid, ignorant, almost superstitious, suckers who buy this pile of dog squeeze.
lunaticcringeradio
Noel
February 17, 2008 - 13:19 ET byDo we get a poll on what the proponents of AGW should be called?
ALARMISTS
CHICKEN LITTLES
WARMERS
CLIMATE CHANGEISTS
REALISTS
HYPOCRITES
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
B
February 17, 2008 - 13:26 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Yes. I'll do that either later this evening, or tomorrow. You'll be interested to know that the scientists I communicate with are very interested in that question as well. Although "climate alarmists" says it, many feel that like "deniers," it's too negative.
One scientist -- waiting permission to give his name -- feels "climate pessimists" is the answer. However, I, too, am concerned that this is too negative.
With that in mind, hold your thoughts, and we'll do a follow-up poll later -- especially since I now know how to do these polls! :-) ns
i forgot changelings
February 17, 2008 - 13:29 ET byi forgot changelings
Noel
February 17, 2008 - 23:48 ET by wiley catMore suggestions:
FEAR-MONGERS
THE REDEFINERS
POP "SCIENTISTS"
PSEUDO-SCIENTISTS
GLOBAL HARMISTS
WARHOL-Y SCIENCE
MAN-MADE CRISIS FACTORIES
CARBON-LESS MINDS
MIND POLLUTERS
Skeptics is fine by me
February 17, 2008 - 13:49 ET by PopularTechI have no problem with being called a Skeptic which I am of everything not proven.
I have been debating this for over a year not just here and there is one unmistakeable trend. That is the consistent initial launch of personal attacks by calling anyone skeptical a 'denier' followed by large amounts of empty unverified statements and declaring the IPCC and RealClimate.org gods.
I have no problem calling them what they are which is Alarmists or Propagandists.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
S. Fred Singer
February 17, 2008 - 14:23 ET by Noel SheppardNBers,
I've received permission from S. Fred Singer to share his comments on this subject:
This is a key point that folks on the left continually ignore: climate realists don't dispute that average temperatures have risen in the past 150 -- although we believe the amount of the rise is very much up for debate given the faulty nature of the data collection and the equipment. However, what we definitely dispute is man's role in this increase, and what man can do to halt it assuming we want to. ns
Joe Daleo
February 17, 2008 - 14:50 ET by Noel SheppardNBers,
Here are ICECAP Joe Daleo's thoughts (with permission):
Roy Spencer
February 17, 2008 - 15:35 ET by Noel SheppardNBers,
Here's Roy Spencer's (U-Alabama, Huntsville) views (with permission):
Maybe we can get Dick
February 17, 2008 - 17:18 ET by bigtimerMaybe we can get Dick Morris to start following this on a daily basis. ;)
ROFLMAO!
Bob Carter
February 17, 2008 - 18:41 ET by Noel SheppardBob Carter of James Cook University in Australia added (with permission):
MIT's Richard Lindzen
February 17, 2008 - 18:44 ET by Noel SheppardMIT's Richard Lindzen offered (with permission):
Dr. Walter Starck
February 17, 2008 - 20:43 ET by Noel SheppardDr. Walter Starck offered a different idea for us:
I responded: "I've thought about climate agnostic as well. My concern is the religious overtone."
Dr. Starck countered: "That "climate agnostic" specifically rejects the religious overtone associated with AGW alarmism seems an important positive for it."
Interesting. ns
Climate Optimists
February 17, 2008 - 20:47 ET by Noel SheppardIn favor of climate optimist are Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner, and John Shotsky.
To the NB climate scientists
February 17, 2008 - 21:52 ET by masslibertarianLindzen (who lives in the next town over from me), Singer, Carter, Spencer, et. al. are people whose opinions on this matter I definitely respect. They're in the trenches fighting the alarmists hand-to-hand, and I'll call them whatever they want me to :-)
Mostly, as I see they're following this thread, I'd like to tell them "thanks." It can't be easy swimming against this tide in their profession.
Here's one of my favorite quotes for these guys and the rest of the Climate Realist scientists - "Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." ~ Mohandas Ghandi
Update
February 17, 2008 - 21:50 ET by Noel SheppardNBers,
Update: Fred Singer has come up with what might be the winner: "Hot Heads" and "Cool Heads"
Delicious. Absolutely delicious.
Thanks, Fred. ns
What The Rush Is All About
February 17, 2008 - 17:14 ET by Junk Science Skeptic"It is ironic we may be facing very different conditions should the sun
go into its normal 100/200 year sleep as it is showing signs of doing
and the oceans continue to cool as they have in the last few years."
Now you know what the rush to enact legislation is all about. In just 5-10 years, it will be so obvious that the long-term anthro-warming claims were false, that no sane person will believe them any longer.
ABC 2008 (Anybody But Clinton)
Truth is. Warming periods
February 18, 2008 - 16:36 ET by danboTruth is. Warming periods are usually good period. the viking explored during it. Populations increased. Cold periods are usually the problem. Cases in point, 535/6 and the year without summer.
Warmers can't even enjoy the good period.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
"Other"
February 17, 2008 - 14:30 ET by Uncle JohnOther: Sane
UJ.... LOL! GMTA....I
February 17, 2008 - 15:38 ET by bigtimerUJ....
LOL! GMTA....I didn't read these posts first before voting and commenting....see below.
Climate Neutral
February 17, 2008 - 15:12 ET by third eyeWhat should people that dont believe in manmade global warming be called?
Climate Neutral; n. Voters who won't be holding the current weather pattern aganist the Republicans in the fall. see also Conservative, Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln.
In a sentence
Since he was Climate Neutral Jane's father was at home cooking dinner instead of vacationing in Bali protesting the facist neo-con polluters. Jane knew better than to politize the weather and recognized that free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity.
Sensible comes to mind,
February 17, 2008 - 15:09 ET by ConservativeRexSensible comes to mind, that at least still means something in my world. This is just another in the long line of communistic tendencies certain people have from time to time in this country. They are a people, who like the commissars before them, have to have something to lord over other people.
Trends, fads, what's in style, this is the only reason a majority of these people flock to (non)issues such as this. How great is this country of ours when something such as this is occupying so much of a lot of folks time?
I read somewhere that our military is at war, this country is not at war. This country is at the malls! Al Gore and his ilk, are nothing but spoiled rotten babies. They have ALWAYS gotten what they wanted. Now common sense folks are telling them this global warming crap is, well crap, and they throw a hissy. GD what babies.
Well, when this country really has something to worry about, don't count on these babies for any help or solutions. I certainly don't, ever.
"What should people that
February 17, 2008 - 15:10 ET by ckc1227"What should people that dont believe in manmade global warming be called?"
Employed.
The only answer to your
February 17, 2008 - 15:35 ET by bigtimerThe only answer to your question is ....SANE.
Since that wasn't on the list I chose #4.
Maybe "persecuted" fits
February 17, 2008 - 15:54 ET by wiwfMaybe "persecuted" fits too?
Althought libs might see us as "troofers."
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
What to do What to do?
February 17, 2008 - 17:10 ET by okiehawk44I've locked up on a local politician who was one of the 1st advocates of crying "the sky is falling" and calling for folks locally to admit their sins and go back to the middle ages. Yes sir! I can't fight all these crazies but I can lock up on one and call him on each and every utterance of stupidity and lack of knowledge he shows regarding AGW. I urge each of you to do the same with just one idiot.
can we add new options?
February 17, 2008 - 18:10 ET by pmohbuck- intelligent
- free thinking
- rational
- educated
- leaders, not followers
... and i definately like the previously stated label: sane
Gore's Ghastly Global Gas-factory
February 17, 2008 - 18:16 ET by wiley catReal Scientist
Gore's Ghastly Global Gas-factory II
February 18, 2008 - 00:41 ET by wiley catThe fact that you have to say "believe in" in the first place is the only piece of evidence needed. If you have to "believe in" it in the first place, you have made a statement of faith. No true scientist I know would ever say "I believe in (the hypothesis under discussion)" as a scientific statement. Those who "believe in" global warming are saying they believe the words of those who espouse it (most visibly Al Gore) and have made an issue of it.
All of the so-called "science" supposedly "proving" global warming is based on totally (scientifically) unprovable chains of assumptions, and not on subtantial scientific data coming from repeated and repeatable experiments. That is why the proponents and their knowledgable defenders must literally and figuratively "shout down" their opponents. (Some of the components and variables not adequately accounted for or mentioned in the "advocates" arguments are the earth's mantle (a huge, uncharted force), the global water cycle, the global wind cycles, the global sea currents, the sun's radiant and nuclear energy cycles, to name a few.)
Global warming
February 17, 2008 - 19:31 ET by Dumb CluckSomeone left out SMART
Noel
February 17, 2008 - 23:16 ET by shawn228I hardly ever post on a Global Warming threads because I know so little about it. I am actully more afraid of pollution in the air we breath, the water we drink and overfishing in the oceans.
The reason I am posting on this one is because I have a question for you. You do a great job moderating here and I have always found you to be quite fair. I love your Red Sox/Yankee analogy. Anyways when another poster used the word denier a few times, it seemed to really get you angry.
I have heard the past few months name calling not just with libs, but lots of conservatives toward each other as well. I have heard the words moron, idiot, dishonest, accussing each other of their sexuality. You did not seem to mind. When another poster used the word denier a few times, you seemed to really get angry and gave him a warning. When he did it agian, you threatened to ban him. I am just trying to figure out why the word denier robs you wrong way so much?
Stupid writers strike now I have to wait till 2009
Shawn
February 17, 2008 - 23:38 ET by Noel SheppardShawn,
Couple of reasons. First, it is intricately linked to the term "Holocaust Deniers," and, as such is intended to defame and debase those that don't buy into this nonsense.
Furthermore, it's inaccurate. Facts can be denied. Theories are disputed.
There has yet to be one scientist on this planet that has proven anthropogenic global warming is an indisputable fact. Not one. This is, indeed, still an issue being disputed, regardless of what folks like Gore, Hansen, and the mindless dolts at Real Climate claim.
As such, I'm not denying anything. I'm disputing it. And those suggesting I'm a denier do so exclusively to close the debate while intentionally defaming me.
Yet, hysterically, none of the most highly outspoken folks on the alarmist side are willing to debate this. Why do you think that is?
Does it disturb you at all that the folks who claim the world is coming to an end aren't willing to sit down in a public forum with folks on the other side and actually prove their case? Isn't that the basis of our society -- being willing to stand up for what you hold dear?
What does it say that alarmists refuse to debate, but instead, lob defamatory names like deniers at those willing to?
I hope this answers your question. ns
Noel
February 17, 2008 - 23:51 ET by shawn228I understand Noel. I'm not sure I agree that the term is intricately linked to Holocaust Deniers. Yes hypocrites like Al Gore bother me with all the money he spends on private planes. Again I do not have a opinion either way because it is a topic I know little about.
I do not know if it has any to do with greenhouse gases, but it seems like the world has been experiencing some really strange weather he past few yrs. Our summers are getting hotter and hotter. Definately more wildfires not including arson Yes some like where you and I live in the east bay was kind of cool this year, but worldwide it seemed like it was getting hotter, Extremely cold winters, more tornadoe and hurricanes and natural disasters.
Like I said, I don' know what is causing it and it seems unusual. I hope my question did not rub you the wrong way.
Stupid writers strike now I have to wait till 2009
Shawn
February 18, 2008 - 00:01 ET by Noel SheppardShawn,
Actually, in America, the hottest year in this warming cycle was 1998. Every year since has been cooler than that one.
Is that warming?
How long have you lived in the East Bay? I've been in this Valley since 1985. When I moved here, snow on Mt. Diablo was rather rare.
How many times has there been snow on Mt. Diablo so far this winter? Maybe more times than the past ten winters combined?
I've lived in NorCal since 1979, and there's no question that our hills have had more snow this year than any since I moved here.
You dispute this?
As for our summers getting hotter and hotter, tell me about last summer here. We turned on our air conditioner less days last year than since we bought this place in 1999. NO QUESTION.
It wasn't hot last summer here. It was one of the coldest summers I can remember.
You dispute this? ns
Noel
February 18, 2008 - 00:12 ET by shawn228I have lived here for about 9 yrs. Before that it was Vancouver British Columbia Canada. I am not disputing anything, as you can see in my prior post I said the east bay has been kind of cool the past summer.
I know in the summers past that millons of homes not including arsen have went up into flames. The insurance industry has taken a huge hit financially and last summer was the first time they have made money for yrs because of less fires and in the winter it does not matter about all the landslides because earth movement is not covered under a homeowners policy. Remember a few yrs ago in Cali, the rain did not stop and everyone was getting flooded out? The levy in the Delta?
I did not just say it was getting hotter, but it is getting cooler as well. Winters have been scary cold in some parts. Our polar ice caps are melting, we have more days when the rain doe not stop. I am no saying anything about warming, i find the weather very strange period.
I have no idea if this is happenning because of global warming, I am just saying I find the weather worldwide has been very abnorma for a while
Stupid writers strike now I have to wait till 2009
Shawn
February 18, 2008 - 00:36 ET by Noel SheppardShawn,
It's called weather. It's not more violent, or more extreme. It's just weather.
Our wildfires this year? Caused by Santa Ana winds that have been happening in California for millennia. Nothing new.
Do you remember the Oakland/Berkeley Hills firestorm that occurred in 1991 before you moved here? Caused by Santa Ana winds. Destroyed some of the most expensive homes in the Bay Area. Anyway, at the time, I never heard ONE WORD about this being caused by rising global temperatures. It was caused by several days of Santa Ana winds, and a poor job of monitoring a fire that had been successfully squelched.
This stuff happens.
Want to know what else happens? Ice sheets that are supposedly at their lowest levels in history miraculously coming back months later: http://www.express.c...
But, you haven't heard about this, have you? Why do think that is? Why do you think that when the end of the world was supposedly happening in the Arctic a few months ago, it was headline news? But, now that the ice has come back to normal levels AND THEN SOME, media won't report it?
Isn't it newsworthy that the ice is back? Isn't it good news? Or, do you think these folks have an agenda? ns
Millions of homes?
February 18, 2008 - 00:38 ET by masslibertarianMillions of homes? Maybe I'm just too literal, but I'm betting the number is in the thousands, over several years, at worst. And our polar ice caps are not melting - this year the antarctic sea ice extent was the largest ever measured.
You're falling into a trap set by the warmers. Weather is not climate, and the timeframe of your memory is insignificant compared to the timeframe on which geological and climatic processes operate.
What you're doing is essentially equivalent to seeing the Dow Jones Industrial Average drop by 500 points in one day and extrapolating that memory to believing the DJIA will be zero in a few weeks. Would you short the market based on that one day observation, or is it more likely that the next move is a rebound? Same with climate - it's a dynamic system that some of us are humble enough to admit we don't fully understand.
I meant millions of dollars sorry.
February 18, 2008 - 00:42 ET by shawn228Stupid writers strike now I have to wait till 2009
No prob
February 18, 2008 - 00:48 ET by masslibertarianDoesn't take many homes in that wacko real estate market to get you there :-)
Although this one isn't much better.
masslib
February 18, 2008 - 00:53 ET by shawn228Maybe it is the msm messing with my head, but pictures look pretty convincing.
Nope
February 18, 2008 - 01:01 ET by masslibertarianShow me the "before" picture first for some context.
I'm from Georgia and grew up on something called the "fall line," which used to be the seacoast but is now a couple hundred miles inland.
Pictures of the pine trees there today don't prove it wasn't prime beachfront property bajillions of years ago any more that a picture of a tsunami or a polar bear on the beach proves man's destroying the planet.
Off of Destin Florida are
February 18, 2008 - 16:27 ET by danboOff of Destin Florida are a series of small cliffs about 100 feet under water. They're the old shoreline.
And we know the gulf on several occasions was a land locked dried sea bed. We know due to the layes of salt in the strata.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Noel if my memory serves me
February 18, 2008 - 16:22 ET by danboNoel if my memory serves me correct. 1998 is still the warmest of this cycle globally. To just about everyone but Hansen. Hansen first claimed 2005 was the warmest. But even his employee Schmidt claimed 1998 was warmest in his debate with Lindzen (IQ2 debate). I don't think IPCC holds 2005 warmest. I suspect 2007 will not be accepted either. It's hard to do that with so much of South American and Australia so cold.
But then GISS is a group that moves a station from a park like neighbiorhood to a parking lot. Doesn't adjust the reading from beside the parking lot. Then adjusts all the old records from the park like environment, down.
How do we get global warming. Adjust the data.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Another viewpoint
February 18, 2008 - 00:20 ET by masslibertarianShawn, I started to hop in and answer your question from my perspective, but it was specifically directed to Noel so I held off until he could reply.
The word "denier" is meant to promote equivalence of Climate Realists (already adopted the new term, Noel) to holocaust deniers. The first instance I know of where this happened was in an op-ed column by Ellen Goodman, who writes for the Boston Globe, a subsidiary of The New York Times Company.
The big difference, as alluded to by Noel, is that the holocaust is an undeniable historical fact, while AGW is an as-yet-unproven scientific theory.
Skepticism is the foundation of true science. As Einstein said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." With this in mind, it is instructive to observe that the Climate Realists are not the ones seeking to close off debate. IMO, the climate alarmists, on the other hand, are deathly afraid that the next experiment will be the one that proves them wrong and will do anything to make sure this doesn't happen.
This is not science.
masslib
February 18, 2008 - 00:27 ET by shawn228I have heard many call each other denier. I heard many Dems call Conservatives Deniers when they though Bush robbed the 2000 election, I do not agree this is tied exclusively to the Holocaust.
There is nothing wrong with skeptisim. I mean many of our Christian friends want to base all their hopes and belief in a single book. If people want to question them sometimes they are referred to as Anti Christian.
It is okay to not be believe in Global warming, but at the same time why thumb your nose at those that do?
Stupid writers strike now I have to wait till 2009
Reference
February 18, 2008 - 00:55 ET by masslibertarianShould've included a reference. Here's the money quote: "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers ..."
masslib
February 18, 2008 - 01:05 ET by shawn228That is just the opinion of one bias writer
Stupid writers strike now I have to wait till 2009
Shawn
February 18, 2008 - 01:01 ET by RESTLESS 1"It is okay to not be believe in Global warming, but at the same time why thumb your nose at those that do?"
Have that backwards don't you? I assume you have seen the AGW believers come in here level their complaints at our skepticism. They come in here, and I assume other conservative sites, and call us deniers, idiots, uninformed and what have you.
In answer to your question, the amount of wealth redistribution these people have planned for us is reason enough for us to keep our eyes on what they are doing. You know we can't count on the MSM to get the truth out or even entertain the notion of two sides on this. Remember, the debate is over? If that is how they are going about this, then it is incumbent upon us to fight back at every turn. It is a matter of conscience for us as well.
restess1
February 18, 2008 - 01:09 ET by shawn228Nowhere have I ever said that the Democrats are not as guilty of being smug about the topic as republicans They are certainly not blameless. I am just saying if a person uses the word denier, it almost seems he said something almost as bad as a racial slur. I certainly do not consider this word offenisive.
Stupid writers strike now I have to wait till 2009
Shawn
February 18, 2008 - 01:15 ET by RESTLESS 1I don't get as pissed as Noel does about it either, but I see his point.
D or R
February 18, 2008 - 01:20 ET by masslibertarianThis isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue. The Republican party's presumptive nominee for President believes in AGW. OTOH, the U.S. Senate voted not to take up ratification of Kyoto by a vote of 95-0.
Sure, most of the AGW alarmists are political liberals, but Climate Realists only need to adhere to the scientific method, which is non-partisan by definition.
The pejorative term "denier" is used by climate alarmists to poison the well.
Shawn
February 18, 2008 - 00:26 ET by Noel SheppardShawn,
Just as a follow-up about our area, are you a skier? I used to be. Avid. Serious. Black diamond, if that means anything.
Anyway, my favorite resort was Kirkwood. Here's their snow numbers for the season so far: 343-374".
That's 30 feet, Shawn. That's pretty amazing, don't you think?
Now, last year, when America and most of Europe had a bad snow season, there were all kinds of articles predicting that skiing may be a thing of the past, and that real estate in ski areas was going to plummet.
Let's take a look at some areas outside of California, like Mt. Schweitzer in Sandpoint, Idaho: 255". As their top elevation is 6,400', that's amazing.
Vail, Colorado has had 306" so far this year.
Stowe, Vermont has had 278" so far this year.
You think any of these resorts is having problems?
This whole issue is a lie, Shawn. Potentially one of the worst lies ever perpetrated on the American people. It's a myth with absolutely no facts to support it.
And the real deniers are the folks perpetrating it.
Noel
February 18, 2008 - 00:35 ET by shawn228I am not a skier Noel, we are quite fortunate to live somewhere that there is word class skiing just a four hr drive away. I actually prefer Tahoe in the summer, it is quite breathtaking. I heard the best skiing is from where I was before I lived here. Blackcomb/Whistler are world class and the all the skiing events from the next Winter Olympics will be held there.
I will say it again Noel, I am saying the weather world wide has been quite unusual the past few yrs and I do not just mean warming. I mean rain, wind, snow, tsunamis, hurricanes. Is it man made? I have no idea, but it is just weird.
Stupid writers strike now I have to wait till 2009
Shawn
February 18, 2008 - 00:44 ET by Noel SheppardShawn,
My understanding from reading one of the forums you participate in is that you're religious, or were raised as such? Have read the Bible? New and Old Testament?
Any climate events discussed in the Bible, Shawn? Some much worse than today? Rain, wind, snow, tsunamis, hurricanes? Think these events are new?
You know all that rain that happened in England last year? Wasn't record breaking. There's been worse. Name anything that's happened weatherwise recently, and something worse or close to it has happened before. This includes hurricanes, tsunamis, tornados, you name it.
Want to know what's different? 24-hour a day cable news networks. This stuff wasn't as actively reported even ten years ago.
Think about it, Shawn: are there REALLY more and extreme weather events today, or are they just reported more? ns
Noel
February 18, 2008 - 00:59 ET by shawn228My Grandfather was a Christian and mother and father are Buddhist.I spent alot of my time in my youth with my grandfather before he passed and he taught me alot about Christianity.
I would like to learn more about the bible because I feel my faith and opinions have shifted a little and the faith is not a strong as it once was. Yes there have been lots of passages of natural disasters in the Bible.
I do not know if the msm is just reporting it more, but a hurricane that displaces and floods a whole US city bringing it to its knees for over a year is not something that happens every day. A Tsunami that can take 200,000 lives certainly does not happen every day either.
Stupid writers strike now I have to wait till 2009
Those things are not
February 18, 2008 - 01:08 ET by RESTLESS 1Those things are not happening every day now Shawn. Has NO. been hit by another Katrina and nobody told me? Katrina and the tsumani were terrible, but they are rare occurences. Other things may happen in other parts of the world, but they are not occuring any more frequently. You are just hearing about them more as the media want to alarm you to AGW. Simple as that.
restless1
February 18, 2008 - 01:14 ET by shawn228Your right they don't happen every day, the thing is I don't remember something of that severity happen to NO in 30 yrs when it was hurricane Camile and that one did not flood the city. Has NO ever had that bad flooding ever in history?
I don't ever remember in my lifetime a Tsunami taking 200000 lives.
Stupid writers strike now I have to wait till 2009
Shawn
February 18, 2008 - 01:21 ET by RESTLESS 1Remember, it was not just the hurricane that flooded NO. The levies failed, thanks to some shenanigans with the federal money that was supposed to go to the upkeep of them. I guess you could say that the flooding of NO was manmade somewhat, but it had nothing to do with climate change.
I don't know offhand if tsunamis in the past have killed that many, but I'm sure either on of us could research that. I am not surprised that you don't remember such a thing in your lifetime. They are rare, and I would bet you'll never see it again.
Btw, wasn't the tsunami caused by an earthquake? What does that have to do with AGW, or is my fuel consumption getting the blame for those now?
restless
February 18, 2008 - 01:25 ET by shawn228I am including earthquakes. The weather all around have been strange along with natural disasters. Read my earlier poster to Noel, I am not saying if any of this has anything to do with fuel consumption or AGW, I just said overall the weather in US and aroud the world has become very unstable.
Stupid writers strike now I have to wait till 2009
Shawn
February 18, 2008 - 01:26 ET by Noel SheppardShawn,
Do I have to drive over to Dublin and give you a good shaking?
Katrina ended up being reclassified as a Cat-3. It wasn't the biggest hurricane in American history. The flooding was caused by poorly constructed and poorly maintained levees. You really need to do some more research about that area, and what happened. In particular, pay attention to Parishes in the area that didn't have anywhere near as much damage because the citizens paid extra taxes out of their own pockets to install stronger levees.
As for the tsunamis, they were caused by an earthquake in the middle of the ocean that resulted in part of the ocean floor dropping 100 feet. You think this is because of global warming?
Dude, head to your refrigerator, grab a cold one, and guzzle the sucker. Now. If you don't feel more rational, repeat this process until you do. :-) ns
Noel
February 18, 2008 - 01:32 ET by shawn228Lol, it might be fun to crack open a few since I don't have to work tomorrow:-) Noel, I don't believe I am getting through. I have tried repeatedly to let you know I don't know enough about global warming to comment on it. I am just saying the weather and natural disasters have definately not been the norm the past few yrs.
Stupid writers strike now I have to wait till 2009
Now that you metion it, I am
February 18, 2008 - 01:36 ET by RESTLESS 1Now that you metion it, I am off tomorrow as well, and may just take Noel's advice.
Shawn
February 18, 2008 - 01:43 ET by Noel SheppardShawn,
And I'm disagreeing. Nothing new here at all. Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes. Just happen. And they're not happening any more frequently than they ever have.
In fact, as it pertains to hurricanes, as I think you know, the last two years were below normal. And, to add to the equation, prior to the early part of this decade, we were in an extended period of below-average hurricane activity, a period that began in the mid-70s.
Actually, if you add it all up, in the past 30 some odd years, as it pertains to hurricanes, there have probably been five that have been above average, and 25 that have been average or below. Honestly.
However, as was predicted at the early part of this decade by many hurricane experts, this cycle changed, and we're now supposed to be in a period of above average activity for several decades.
You know what else? This has been happening for centuries -- decades of above average hurricane activity followed by decades of below average activity.
Been recorded for centuries, Shawn. Honestly. I wouldn't lie to you. Look it up. Or, better yet -- HEAD TO YOUR FRIDGE AND CRACK OPEN A BEER! ns
Average
February 18, 2008 - 01:58 ET by masslibertarianA bunch of above average along with a bunch of below average is a pretty good way to get to average, isn't it? :-)
You're right, Noel, all this stuff is much easier to wrap your brain around when said pursuit is accompanied by a tasty malt beverage.
Noel
February 18, 2008 - 02:02 ET by shawn228Actually I think it will be shot of Nyquil. I am fighting a cold and taking care of my daughter while the wife is on a ski trip in Tahoe.
I can't think of a time I have ever participated in one of these global warming threads, but I cannot think of debates that get more personal than global warming ones including religion and the Iraq war.
I do not claim to know much about global warming but I do know all the gas fumes and coal burning effects the air we breath. Over fishing causes a serious imbalance to the oceans food chain. I agree with clear cutting to a point because of all the forest fires. I also believe it is time to start drilling in Anwar.
Stupid writers strike now I have to wait till 2009
Personal
February 18, 2008 - 02:15 ET by masslibertarianShawn, by "...get more personal..." I hope you don't think my comments have been meant as personal attacks. Nothing could be further from the truth, as a fellow 24 fan would never do that :-)
Best wishes for a successful Mr. Mom event. Remember - 220 ... 221 ... whatever it takes.
masslib
February 18, 2008 - 02:19 ET by shawn228No bud, not all. I just meant these threads in general
Stupid writers strike now I have to wait till 2009
Nothing new here... (Noel)
February 18, 2008 - 08:40 ET by RonCHow right you are! Nothing new at all - just more socialist propaganda, designed to get DEEP into our pocketbooks, and redistributed our earnings to government-dopes to play with - and handed out to their dishonest supporters.
For the youngsters here, I can tell you that the so-called 'record' temperatures bandied about in media recently are plain bunk. First of all, they have very few ‘records’ to go by – and the few they do have are scanty at best. I know that from experience, both from looking at what is available, and from first hand experience.
I’ve been on this earth since 1941 – and I can tell you from experience that the mid 1950’s in remote areas of New Mexico were quite hot – up to 10 degrees hotter than in recent years. Example: In the desert south of Deming, NM I personally saw multiple thermometers registering 120-125 degrees in the summer of 1954 – but couldn’t find that information listed anywhere in NM temperature records – or any other US government records for that matter. Why? Because ‘official records’ from remote areas are not even reported – much less tabulated and kept in record format.
I know too of even hotter temperatures in Arizona, again in remote areas where I was, in the early 1960's that were never reported – and can not be found in any records that exist.
Point is, the propaganda, about 2007 being the ‘hottest on record,’- is absolute bunk. To the contrary (as it pertains to places I personally was in during the summer of 2007 – specifically New Mexico and Arizona) I found weather there cooler than it was the prior year (2006,) and as much as 10 degrees cooler in NM than I have experienced it, and 15 degrees cooler than I have experienced it in AZ (same locations in each state.)
Now, about storms – hurricanes and tornados get an excessive amount of media attention these days, and they go on and on and on about them – for hours at a time. You’d think they’ve never seen or heard of one before…
I lived through and experienced the destruction of several tornadoes, in Oklahoma – and was at sea during two very destructive hurricanes when I was in the Navy in 1960 and 1961 – both of which put the destroyer I was on into dry-dock for 6 months and three months respectively, to repair the damage.
There are hundreds of towns and thousands of people that live through and experience the damage of tornadoes every year… for as long as I can remember in my lifetime.
The difference between then and now is that years ago, there weren’t tens of thousands of ‘reporters’ sitting in front of TV cameras, looking for something to blither incessantly about.
Today the hottest gas being emitted anywhere is within the studios of the leftist dominated MSM. They personify the only real AGW in existence - and represent a far greater threat than anything the weather can ever throw at us.
Your lifetime
February 18, 2008 - 01:33 ET by masslibertarianShawn, part of the problem with your argument is that you tend to compartmentalize your knowledge of climate change into weather events occurring in your lifetime.
The Galveston hurricane of 1900 is a good example of a really bad weather event that even the shameless Jim Hansen wouldn't blame on manmade CO2.
Shawn. Camile a true cat 5.
February 18, 2008 - 15:54 ET by danboShawn. Camile a true cat 5. Didn't flood New Orleans in 69. Camile was a small tightly woven but intense storm. Fast moving. Didn't have as much time for the tide to build. Now Betsy a cat 3 did flood New Orleans. The Labor Day Florida Keys storm 1935 knocked a locomotive off the tracks. The Cheniere Caminada hurricane. 1893. Lets say there are towns that no longer exist because of that storm. And it washed waves over the Chandeleur Island Light House. (50 feet above sea level.) There was also the Galveston Hurricane that killed over 8,000 in 1900. The 1871 storm that hit Galveston flooded New Orleans, "giving it the appereance of a submerged city" (That was before New Orleans grew into the low areas.) And in the old French records there are reports of a hurricane that hit soon after New Orleans was built. Drowning people up river from the city.
Yes this never happened before.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Noel
February 18, 2008 - 01:55 ET by wiley catI agree with Shawn, you are exceptionally fair as a moderator. You are not hesitant to call anyone to account, either, and that is great.
You are correct, IMHO, to characterize the issue as "..a lie,...Potentially one of the worst lies ever perpetrated on the American people. It's a myth...". Isn't it time to start asking ourselves to what end/purpose is this myth being perpetrated?
And, after asking that question, isn't time to look at the scenario emerging from all of the global manipulations and desparate evangelism in this country and ask what is the most logical effect of acting on this myth? Isn't there good evidence to conclude that "point man" Al Gore, and his supporters/perpetrators, expect to saddle the American taxpayer with a crushing load of debt (to go with the guilt) to finance the government machinery to implement and enforce regulations to control and eliminate this mythical crisis? And since, globally, almost all other countries couldn't or wouldn't pay their share (a repeat of the UN disaster to American interests, in spite of America paying the bulk of legal UN bills), wouldn't the American taxpayer wind up paying these bills too? Wouldn't the power accruing to someone or a group who instituted such regulations have to be almost total? Would there be enough power centralized to effectively destabilize the American political and economic system as envisioned by the Constitution?
Those would seem to be some of the questions that need to continually be asked.
How about ----
February 18, 2008 - 09:45 ET by mytwocents"Thinkers"
new category
February 18, 2008 - 10:49 ET by DFLowerHow about Minnesotan? Up here in the frozen tundra, I keep hoping for global warming.
what to call the GW believers?
February 18, 2008 - 16:14 ET by PeterThe two terms that seem most appropriate for those who buy into the manmade climate change myth are 1) Global Warming Believers, 2) Adherants of the Cult of Global Warming..
It has basically become a religion for those who choose not to participate in a traditional religion. It has all the elments right down to not being provable.