Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

[TastesLikeChicken]

and the anti-science crowd is full of shit too.

The bottom line is that the planet has warmed, lost a lot of ice and the sea levels have risen. Anyone that lives on the coast can confirm this fact.

Who is being anti-science? I want fact-based science, not science promulgated by fearmongers with an agenda who seem to fear their funding might be in danger so they distort the facts.

Nor am I arguing that climate change is not happening. I'm saying it's not happening like the AGW alarmists have preached for years now, and whose brainwashed adherents constantly try to stifle any and all dissent by claiming people who don't drink their kool-aid are "anti-science."

 

[Lemon law]

Who is being anti-science? I want fact-based science, not science promulgated by fearmongers with an agenda who seem to fear their funding might be in danger so they distort the facts.

Nor am I arguing that climate change is not happening. I'm saying it's not happening like the AGW alarmists have preached for years now, and whose brainwashed adherents constantly try to stifle any and all dissent by claiming people who don't drink their kool-aid are "anti-science."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhat of a bingo for TLC as he DEMANDS FACT BASED SCIENCE.

Sadly a little hard to come by in a science that is barely out of the starting gate and underfunded.

But sadly, as we face a bullet coming at us problem, the dilemma is and remains, will we wait until the bullet hits us or wait forever for the Total Fact Based Science?

Because the downside is, once the bullet hits, it will come in the form of a non reversible tipping point that will lead to a climate disaster.

I suggest no one knows, not me , not TLC, and in such a case how do we want to hedge our bets?

 

[IGBT]

Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels challenged that position. "This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud." The e-mails implicate scores of researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Among the IPCC elite embarrassingly, if not criminally, compromised is Phillip D. Jones, a Ph.D. climatologist at the University of East Anglia whose work figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001. Jones also contributed significantly to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 (AR4), but he failed to follow through when skeptical investigators asked to review raw data associated with that report. They announced intent to use UK Freedom of Information laws to obtain the data, so Jones sent the following e-mail to one of his collaborators: "Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.... Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?... Will be getting Caspar to do likewise." The Mike in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential "hockey stick" graph warning of pending global warming eco-catastrophe was found by a congressional investigation to be fraudulent. In another correspondence about AR4 labeled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, Jones contacted Mann regarding research critical of their global warming platform. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," wrote Jones. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

 

[PJABBER]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhat of a bingo for TLC as he DEMANDS FACT BASED SCIENCE.

Sadly a little hard to come by in a science that is barely out of the starting gate and underfunded.

But sadly, as we face a bullet coming at us problem, the dilemma is and remains, will we wait until the bullet hits us or wait forever for the Total Fact Based Science?

Because the downside is, once the bullet hits, it will come in the form of a non reversible tipping point that will lead to a climate disaster.

I suggest no one knows, not me , not TLC, and in such a case how do we want to hedge our bets?

How about some fact to back up your opinions for a change?

As the hacked emails show, there is a lot of fact bending to fit the opinion rather than the other way around and you seem to be demonstrating it on the little playing field we have here as well.

You state that you are sad (boo, hoo, hoo) that climatology is underfunded. Compared to what? National defense? Education? Other sciences? Does anyone reputable that doesn't have their hand out for grant money share your opinion as to the relative merit of funding this one aspect of science over another, or just those guys that got caught with their emails hanging out of their pants? Myself, I'd rather spend the money on eliminating malaria and building nuclear power plants so that we can get on to moving civilization forward with current technology clean energy - available right now, but for political correctness and leftish ideology.

You state that climatology is "just out of the starting gate." Surely climatology and weather have been studied since man first got rained on and struck by lightning. Prediction accuracy is what seems to be missing, not surprising if the data and analysis is deliberately corrupted. I think we might consider suspending the funding of all of the jackasses that passed for reputable scientists and start off fresh with fewer but more conscientious researchers.

I assure you that is not a bullet coming at you, especially as I have seen and heard more than a few bullets coming my way. What you really have is the sinking sensation of an onset of crushing government programs emptying out the national treasury of all nations and impoverishing everyone from the sub-Sahara to your local megalopolis. Like the Taliban, for reasons of theology you want a return to the pre-industrial imaginary age of peace, darkness and harmony, along with a human population 1/10th the size it is right now. And you want it right now. No wonder you'd like to set up the conditions for the return of the Mahdi.

As you admit, you really have faith but don't know anything of substance. That's OK, my friend, we have religious freedom here. If you were in some other places you would be getting stoned to death.

 

[Carmen813]

I didn't read the OP or any posts in this thread, but I'll make my standard reply:

Even if global warming weren't real, does that mean we shouldn't live environmentally friendly lives or promote environmentally friendly policies? We only have one planet to live on, we should take care of it.

 

[PJABBER]

I didn't read the OP or any posts in this thread, but I'll make my standard reply:

Even if global warming weren't real, does that mean we shouldn't live environmentally friendly lives or promote environmentally friendly policies? We only have one planet to live on, we should take care of it.

You should read these stories, Carmen. The consequences of bad or corrupted science at this level, where it is being used to leverage trillions of dollars of not only government spending but a curtailment of economic development on a global scale, materially affect your well being and absolutely require accountability.

Live green, control your consumption, avoid egregious polluting, but take the time RIGHT NOW to seriously re-consider why we are being shepherded down a single, narrow path that includes the curtailment of the economic development that will lift millions of people from abject poverty and the options most likely to effect a significant long term reduction in fossil fuel use, ie nuclear energy.

Thanks be to Obama and his minions, for in stopping projects like Yucca Mountain, and thus the chance for new nuclear energy generation, He has made sure we go another 20 years without clean energy and energy independence!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhat of a bingo for TLC as he DEMANDS FACT BASED SCIENCE.

Sadly a little hard to come by in a science that is barely out of the starting gate and underfunded.

But sadly, as we face a bullet coming at us problem, the dilemma is and remains, will we wait until the bullet hits us or wait forever for the Total Fact Based Science?

Because the downside is, once the bullet hits, it will come in the form of a non reversible tipping point that will lead to a climate disaster.

I suggest no one knows, not me , not TLC, and in such a case how do we want to hedge our bets?

So let me get this straight. In LL's words, AGW is "a science that is barely out of the starting gate and underfunded." So, according to LL, in order to get their message across it's OK to bend, twist, and distort the facts that we do have in order to deflect a bullet that may or may not be coming at us?

Wow. Brilliant.

Here's a thought, LL. Maybe we can't deflect this bullet, if it is actually coming in the first place? I'm fine with reducing greenhouse gas output, within economic reason, but what happens when we do that and then ultimately find out that natural causes are having far, far more influence on current climate change? You assume we can stop from reaching a tipping point. imo, it's poor assumption and it's ultimately fearmongering at this point.

 

[piasabird]

Temperature data is only available for about 200 years or so. Also the further you go back the less data there is. Earlier than 1880, you will not find much data available.

In the past there have been Ice ages if you believe the scientific data from various data like ice cores and ocean floor cores. So the question would be what caused the ice ages to end and the climate to normalize with no human intervention or interference with the climate change and how does that fit into the models? The answer is the scientists just do not know. Heaven forbid they might have to admit there are shifts in temperature and climate that we just can not control, that are caused by sources they are not even measuring.

When I took statistics, I learned that just because two things seem connected according to data that seems to be correlated, it does not always hold true. You can see similar things in mathematics. When supposed researchers get paid to come up with data to get funding for research they tend to look for the data that supports their funding.

 

[SagaLore]

We all remember ex-VP Al Gore's

You had me at Al Gore.

 

[Lemon law]

Temperature data is only available for about 200 years or so. Also the further you go back the less data there is. Earlier than 1880, you will not find much data available.

In the past there have been Ice ages if you believe the scientific data from various data like ice cores and ocean floor cores. So the question would be what caused the ice ages to end and the climate to normalize with no human intervention or interference with the climate change and how does that fit into the models? The answer is the scientists just do not know. Heaven forbid they might have to admit there are shifts in temperature and climate that we just can not control, that are caused by sources they are not even measuring.

When I took statistics, I learned that just because two things seem connected according to data that seems to be correlated, it does not always hold true. You can see similar things in mathematics. When supposed researchers get paid to come up with data to get funding for research they tend to look for the data that supports their funding.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The piasabird argument is rather shallow. Because we have ice core records going back hundreds of thousand of years as well as many other measures of what the climate was at any point in time using a pile of other measures. Even tree ring analysis takes us back thousands of years. We can even accurately date the age of rocks over 2 billion years old while proving our measurements are consistent.

Luckily real scientists are not shallow nor will they allow bogus data to go unchallenged. Bogus date may lead to some temporary side tracking, but real science is self corrective.

I stand by my earlier conclusion that global warming science in its relative infancy, buts it is very clear already that many unprecedented things are going on. What is now lacking is predictive models. As it is, the models we have predict far more warming at the lower latitudes than the results bear out, and far less warming at the poles which is exactly what we are not getting. There is little doubt that global warming is occurring on unprecedented scales, what we do not understand is exactly how the earth distributes the warming and why the effects are mainly shunted to the poles.

 

[PJABBER]

You had me at Al Gore.

;-)

 

[PJABBER]

Another instance of do as I say and not as I do. The following article references the UN document - “Details of Outreach Activities carried out by Chairman IPCC, Dr. R. K. Pachauri Jan ‘07 July ‘08″

http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session29/doc7-add1.pdf

*************************

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2JiNGY1MzllMTc4YWFlMzJkMTk4NDk4YjY2OWZiZDg=

Come Fry with Me

Mark Steyn
National Review
Monday, November 30, 2009

In order to save the planet from global roasting, it seems entirely reasonable to ask Mr. and Mrs. Joe Peasant to subordinate their freedom of movement to an annual "carbon allowance" preventing them flying hither and yon and devastating the environment. As Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, explains:

"Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world’s leading climate scientist has told the Observer."

Rajendra Pachauri? Hey, if you're manning the VIP lounge at Heathrow, that name may ring a bell:

"Dr Rajendra Pachauri flew at least 443,243 miles on IPCC business in this 19 month period. This business included honorary degree ceremonies, a book launch and a Brookings Institute dinner, the latter involving a flight of 3500 miles."

Wow. 443,243 miles. How many flying polar bears does Dr. Pachauri kill in an average quarter? Well, not to worry, he probably offsets his record-breaking ursocide with carbon credits from carbon billionaire Al Gore.

And in any case it's okay to devastate the planet on IPCC business — plus the occasional cricket match:

"So strong is his love for cricket that his colleagues recall the time the Nobel winner took a break during a seminar in New York and flew in to Delhi over the weekend to attend a practice session for a match before flying back. Again, he flew in for a day, just to play that match."

And why not? Aside from a slight increase in the risk of polar bears dropping from the skies onto stray Indian bowlers and wicket-keepers, where's the harm?

P.S. I like the headline on Dr. Pachauri's climate'n'cricket story: "Heat On Cricket Pitch Warms This Climate Change Laureate." If you're waiting for some journalist to ask him about the contradictions between his lifestyle and the one he wants the rest of us to submit to, that sound you hear is cricketers chirping.

 

[StageLeft]

Stop questioning it, just believe.