3rd Coldest Winter in American History

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...and-devastate-the-global-economy-9198171.html

Official prophecy of doom: Global warming will cause widespread conflict, displace millions of people and devastate the global economy.

Climate change will displace hundreds of millions of people by the end of this century, increasing the risk of violent conflict and wiping trillions of dollars off the global economy, a forthcoming UN report will warn.

The second of three publications by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, due to be made public at the end of this month, is the most comprehensive investigation into the impact of climate change ever undertaken. A draft of the final version seen by The Independent says the warming climate will place the world under enormous strain, forcing mass migration, especially in Asia, and increasing the risk of violent conflict.

Based on thousands of peer-reviewed studies and put together by hundreds of respected scientists, the report predicts that climate change will reduce median crop yields by 2 per cent per decade for the rest of the century – at a time of rapidly growing demand for food. This will in turn push up malnutrition in children by about a fifth, it predicts.

The report also forecasts that the warming climate will take its toll on human health, pushing up the number of intense heatwaves and fires and increasing the risk from food and water-borne diseases.

<snip>

The end is near!

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

What should also be apparent but you seem to miss is the planet does not require respect. It is a ball of molten rock with a thin candy shell.

There's arrogance, and then there's this. The earth doesn't deserve respect? The ball of molten rock that feeds you, allows you to breathe, deserves to be respected.
Nice.

 

[Cstefan]

Needless to say, I find it rich that someone who so furiously denies the overwhelming conclusions of the best science available has the gall to say someone else ignores evidence.

Except the systematic silencing of scientists who disagree? Except for blaming global warming on every single temperature fluctuation while denying this has occurred since the dawn of time and there are records to prove it? Outright lying about data and collusion to spread disinformation and getting caught doing it?

I'm not saying there is some issue here, I am saying the above shenanigans REALLY makes it hard to swallow.

Yes, we need to get away from fossil fuels. Yes manufacturing should do their best within reason to eliminate harmful emissions. But overwhelming scientific conclusions? No sir.

, the IPCC reports cite their sources so when it's released you will know. That's what real science is all about.

And they have also been caught red handed making shit up. Caught once lying, hard to trust. Especially with such a serious affair as the health of our planet.

And to be clear, not saying it's nothing. I'm saying the side screaming we are all gonna die, they are damaging their message.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Real science like saying the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035? Please tell me again about what "real science" is all about.

 

[bshole]

Real science like saying the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035? Please tell me again about what "real science" is all about.

You know what I don't understand? They make these huge predictions that turn out completely wrong and they lose no credibility. All they do is "scientifically" explain why their "scientific" prediction didn't come true. Absolutely nothing is falsifiable in the arena. I know of no other branch of science that acts in such a sloppy/shoddy fashion.

 

[fskimospy]

Real science like saying the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035? Please tell me again about what "real science" is all about.

Real science doesn't mean never being wrong. Global warming deniers have no respect for real science, however, instead replacing it with religious faith. They simply cherry pick what they want to hear.

If the science someday points against AGW I'll be the first to celebrate. Think how great that would be! Sadly, the evidence is overwhelming so that is unlikely.

 

[fskimospy]

You know what I don't understand? They make these huge predictions that turn out completely wrong and they lose no credibility. All they do is "scientifically" explain why their "scientific" prediction didn't come true. Absolutely nothing is falsifiable in the arena. I know of no other branch of science that acts in such a sloppy/shoddy fashion.

Says the guy who tried to argue that a cold winter in America was evidence against climate change.

You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[sm625]

After the sheeple allow the oligarchs to tax carbon, they will promise to divert some of the proceeds towards extra space heaters. Maybe they will be made by a company called Spalyndra, with opportunities for taxpayer fraud, endless bribes, and kickbacks aplenty. None of the sheeple will even notice the irony of this.

 

[bshole]

Says the guy who tried to argue that a cold winter in America was evidence against climate change.

You're embarrassing yourself.

Eski, so all undesirable weather is proof of AGW? Your AGW "scientists" have said that this cold winter in America is evidence of AGW. They have postulated that extreme weather is evidence of AGW so every time extreme weather happens, AGW proponents spam the news media with articles announcing that the weather proves AGW. This despite the fact that extreme weather has ALWAYS existed and the frequency and strength of it has actually diminished in the past few years (especially hurricanes).

The original post was tongue in cheek. Obviously you want to argue it because it is an easy straw man. There have been a myriad of posts in this thread by various authors which have made strong arguments rebutting the looming threat of AGW. To date, you have refuted NONE of them. Not a single one. It would be nice if you would truly ENGAGE and actually THINK about the issue.

Why is AGW the only science in the world that is "settled"? Shit, shouldn't they get at least one prediction correct before they announce it settled? They have certainly got too many to count predictions wrong.....

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Real science doesn't mean never being wrong. Global warming deniers have no respect for real science, however, instead replacing it with religious faith. They simply cherry pick what they want to hear.

Does "real science" mean it's OK to represent non-peer reviewed "grey literature" as fact and do it purely to sensationalize your cause for political reasons?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

In my opinion, the climate science community has some serious credibility issues to overcome.

 

[bshole]

Does "real science" mean it's OK to represent non-peer reviewed "grey literature" as fact and do it purely to sensationalize your cause for political reasons?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

In my opinion, the climate science community has some serious credibility issues to overcome.

From Doc's link:

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

The "scientist" admits to chicken-littling, presents it as science and wins a Nobel Prize.

Question: How are we to know when they making up stories to scare us and when they are presenting us with science? We found this out years AFTER the crime.

Question: Die Albert Einstein or any other real scientist you know of engage in this sort of nonsense?

 

[Thebobo]

From Doc's link:

The "scientist" admits to chicken-littling, presents it as science and wins a Nobel Prize.

Question: How are we to know when they making up stories to scare us and when they are presenting us with science? We found this out years AFTER the crime.

Question: Die Albert Einstein or any other real scientist you know of engage in this sort of nonsense?

Is it possible you and the other folks who believe that science has the power to push such an agenda are corporate tools and don't even realize it?

 

[chucky2]

That doesn't matter, the same people who believe the science is settled with a religious faith are also corporate tools.

 

[fskimospy]

Does "real science" mean it's OK to represent non-peer reviewed "grey literature" as fact and do it purely to sensationalize your cause for political reasons?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

In my opinion, the climate science community has some serious credibility issues to overcome.

Well you're welcome to your opinion.

To me it is silliness to try and use a statement like that to undermine the science behind AGW. Not only is it a micro level prediction that isn't important to the overall principles and science behind AGW, but the standards of evidence present for both are totally different considering the overwhelming nature of the evidence for AGW from an enormous variety of independent sources.

It is also important to note the complete lack of credibility in the AGW denier community. The list of scams, distortions, red herrings, and dishonesty out of that camp is so vast that it is extremely difficult to take them seriously on anything they say.

 

[bshole]

Well you're welcome to your opinion.

To me it is silliness to try and use a statement like that to undermine the science behind AGW. Not only is it a micro level prediction that isn't important to the overall principles and science behind AGW, but the standards of evidence present for both are totally different considering the overwhelming nature of the evidence for AGW from an enormous variety of independent sources.

It is also important to note the complete lack of credibility in the AGW denier community. The list of scams, distortions, red herrings, and dishonesty out of that camp is so vast that it is extremely difficult to take them seriously on anything they say.

Well finally, finally, scientists are looking at the models and attempting to figure out why they are failing. I think simple observation over the past few decades confirms that the effect of CO2 on global temperature was overstated in the original models. The science is not settled, we are still learning.

The first is the result of a research effort conducted by Craig Loehle and published in the journal Ecological Modelling. The paper is a pretty straightforward determination of the climate sensitivity. Loehle first uses a model of natural modulations to remove the influence of natural variability
:
blah, blah, blah
:
the collection of climate models used in the IPCC&#8217;s most recent Assessment Report. In doing so, he arrived at an equilibrium climate sensitivity estimate of 1.99°C with a 95% confidence range of it being between 1.75°C and 2.23°C.

Compare Loehle&#8217;s estimate to the IPCC&#8217;s latest assessment of the earth&#8217;s equilibrium climate sensitivity which assigns a 66 percent or greater likelihood that it lies somewhere in the range from 1.5°C to 4.5°C. Loehle&#8217;s determination is more precise and decidedly towards the low end of the range.

The second entry to our list of low climate sensitivity estimates comes from Roy Spencer and William Braswell and published in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences. Spencer and Braswell used a very simple
:
:
blah, blah, blah
:
:
What the found, was the that the complex situation involving El Niño/La Niña feedbacks onto cloud properties produced the best match to the observations. And this situation also produced the lowest estimate for the earth&#8217;s climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide emissions&#8212;a value of 1.3°C.

 

[Jaskalas]

Says the guy who tried to argue that a cold winter in America was evidence against climate change.

It's evidence FOR Climate Change. :wub:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's evidence FOR Climate Change. :wub:

We had 2 winters on record that were colder than this one (1899 and 1979)...did global warming cause those as well?

 

[werepossum]

We had 2 winters on record that were colder than this one (1899 and 1979)...did global warming cause those as well?

Everything and nothing is proof of global warming, and you missed the irony implicit in his post.

 

[SparkyJJO]

What I've gotten out of this is everything, somehow, is proof of global warming, despite some events being polar opposites (hurr hurr see what I did there).

Or, I'm sorry, I guess it is actually "climate change" as that way anything can be pinned on it and blame cars/people and push for more taxes - like somehow giving the government more tax money will somehow change the climate one way or the other. Oh it is economic "incentive" - sure Be honest, it is a tax money grab, another method of control.

Anytime anything gets turned politicized we should become very suspicious. Lots of money involved there. Money and control.

 

[bshole]

More fear-mongering. I love the bolded line:

&#8220;As scientists, it is not our role to tell people what they should do,&#8221; the AAAS said in a new report, What we know.

But that is all they have been doing for two decades solid now!

Read the article, there appears to be a whole lot of chicken-littling but no real science. No basis at all for their fears of cataclysm, no data, nothing. The make numerous statements of FACT, of which none have actually been proven scientifically. I suppose that there is a model somewhere that predicts cataclysm and in their unscientific world, models are the same as evidence.

They are the priests of the temple, they tell us the incontrovertible truth that we must accept unconditionally. LOL

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...rld-risk-irreversible-changes-scientists-aaas

The world is at growing risk of &#8220;abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes&#8221; because of a warming climate, America&#8217;s premier scientific society warned on Tuesday.

In a rare intervention into a policy debate, the American Association for the Advancement of Science urged Americans to act swiftly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions &#8211; and lower the risks of leaving a climate catastrophe for future generations.

&#8220;As scientists, it is not our role to tell people what they should do,&#8221; the AAAS said in a new report, What we know.

&#8220;But we consider it our responsibility as professionals to ensure, to the best of our ability, that people understand what we know: human-caused climate change is happening, we face risks of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes, and responding now will lower the risks and costs of taking action.&#8221;

 

[Thebobo]

Scientists Sound Alarm on Climate New York Times - &#8206;Mar 18, 2014&#8206;
Early in his career, a scientist named Mario J. Molina was pulled into seemingly obscure research about strange chemicals being spewed into the atmosphere. Within a year, he had helped discover a global environmental emergency, work that would ...

Climate change is putting world at risk of irreversible changes, scientists warn
The Guardian - &#8206;10 hours ago&#8206;
The seven summers with the lowest minimum sea ice extents have all occurred in the last seven years. Photograph: NASA/Reuters. The world is at growing risk of &#8220;abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes&#8221; because of a warming climate, ...

Official prophecy of doom: Global warming will cause widespread conflict ...
The Independent - &#8206;Mar 18, 2014&#8206;

Climate change will displace hundreds of millions of people by the end of this century, increasing the risk of violent conflict and wiping trillions of dollars off the global economy, a forthcoming UN report will warn. The second of three publications by the UN's ...

Climate Change Could Cause the Next Great Famine
TIME - &#8206;Mar 17, 2014&#8206;
Climate change impacts crop yields A warmer climate could reduce the yield of staple crops like maize Photo by John Moore/Getty Images. A new study finds that as the planet warms, yields for important staple crops like wheat could decline sharply.

And America Fuck ya!

In Depth Scientists Sound the Alarm on Global Warming, But Americans Sleep In
TIME - &#8206;Mar 18, 2014&#8206;

 

[unokitty]

U.S. Pledges to Contribute to $100 Billion Climate Aid Fund

Excitement is running through the corridors here at the Copenhagen climate change conference because Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged that the U.S. will contribute to a fund that would disburse $100 billion in yearly climate aid to poor countries by 2020.

What is clear is that politicians love Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever they, the (political) scientists, are calling it this week...

Don't worry though. All you have to do is open your wallet and give more money to the politicians...

And if you don't want to give more money to the politicians, obviously you don't understand (political) science. That is, you must be a denier!

LOL

Uno

 

[Thebobo]

Oh pictures?

 

[bshole]

Another week, more fresh fear-mongering..... How in the hell is this science. This horrible thing "may" happen, that disaster "might" happen, etc.... Is this what passes for science now? Why is it utterly out of the realm of a possibility that a single good thing could come from AGW? What is the percent probability of "could"?

IPCC report: climate change felt 'on all continents and across the oceans'

Leaked text of blockbuster report says changes in climate have already caused impacts on natural and human systems, with assessments into the future. This report will, for the first time, look at the effects of climate change as a series of risks &#8211; with those risks multiplying as temperatures warm.

:
Food production will also be at risk, the report said, from drought, flooding, and changing rainfall patterns. Crop yields could decline by 2% a decade over the rest of the century.

Fisheries will also be affected, with ocean chemistry thrown off balance by climate change. Some fish in the tropics could become extinct. Other species, especially in northern latitudes, are on the move.

Drought could put safe drinking water in short supply. Storms could wipe out electricity stations, and damage other infrastructure, the report is expected to say.
:
:
:

https://plus.google.com/+PamelaZuppo/posts/SjYutgauy5L#+PamelaZuppo/posts/SjYutgauy5L

 

[bshole]

Another week and they have gone nuclear. Their predictions were not horrible enough before so they have updated the horror level. Of course nothing bad has happened yet but what is around is the corner is Freddy Krueger bad.

:
"We're all sitting ducks," Princeton University professor Michael Oppenheimer, one of the main authors of the 32-volume report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in an interview.
:
"Things are worse than we had predicted" in 2007, when the group of scientists last issued this type of report, said report co-author Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development at the Independent University in Bangladesh. "We are going to see more and more impacts, faster and sooner than we had anticipated."

The problems have gotten so bad that the panel had to add a new and dangerous level of risks. In 2007, the biggest risk level in one key summary graphic was "high" and colored blazing red. The latest report adds a new level, "very high," and colors it deep purple.

You might as well call it a "horrible" risk level, said report co-author Maarten van Aalst, a top official at the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

"The horrible is something quite likely, and we won't be able to do anything about it," he said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/#/science/en...eport-says-climate-risks-go-beyond-red-n67516