The Reality of Climate Change

[hoosierdaddy]

And the polar bears will tell us that over zealous environmentalists took pictures of them on an iceberg in an attempt to pull at the heartstrings of the less-than-informed.
See, polar bears do not get stranded on icebergs, nor is their habitat in any danger. They can swim hundreds of miles at a time, and not our of desperation, but it's simply what they do.

We can't afford the fix that the ideologists and politicians want to put in place, which is the whole cruxt of this issue.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Was that before or after NASA admitted their data was all screwed up?
And who cares if 2007 was the warmest year in history? (don't think it was...as our record keeping is in baby stages as it is...) Sure doesn't look like it has continued. Wow, what a surprise. And where are all those damn hurricanes?
No, I think you will find that even with data within our recording of it shows that 2007 was not the hottest year in history.

Again, not much there, pal.

Here's the info on the "all screwed up data"
.

A minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century.
The data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record and the global ranks were unaffected

Doesn't look like it continued?.?.? when was the 2008 average published? Oh wait... there's been no data to compare to since then... looks like you're still talking out of your ass...

No, It shows that it was the second hottest, and that data indicates hotter ones are on the way...

Not much there??
Only the thorough debunking of your bullshit claims of things cooling off for the last decade...

 

[socioecologist]

Hoosierdaddy, you've made several posts re: climate change, but I still can't figure out what the premise of your argument is. What, from mainstream peer-reviewed climate science literature, do you so vehemently disagree with?

 

[hard rain]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCblo-mnvlA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U_niq3XqUY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGcO6D8kvuE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGcO6D8kvuE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNLcfMVV-8s

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Hoosierdaddy, you've made several posts re: climate change, but I still can't figure out what the premise of your argument is. What, from mainstream peer-reviewed climate science literature, do you so vehemently disagree with?

The expertise of those contributing to IPCC processes is unsurprisingly hugely varied, necessarily covering a vast array of disciplines and fields of research. So in reality, the ‘one report’ brings together distinct and discrete areas of expertise addressing often related but distinct questions – the experts on cloud formation, for example, will have little expert opinion to input into the discussion of the impact of global warming on biodiversity.

The contrast between the impression of thousands of scientists acting as one and the reality of the IPCC process was highlighted in an analysis recently conducted by John McLean, titled Peer Review, What Peer Review? and published by the Science and Public Policy Institute. Analysing information secured from the IPCC under a US Freedom of Information request, McLean examines the level of review activity associated with the IPCC’s key Working Group 1 (WG1) report that assesses ‘The Physical Science Basis’ of climate change.

Looking at the comments made by the scientific reviewers for the Second Revision of the Draft WG1 report, McLean found that a total of 308 reviewers commented on the Second Revision, which was the penultimate draft. According to McLean ‘only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and just five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters’. There were 143 reviewers (46 per cent) who commented on just one chapter and 71 reviewers (23 per cent) who commented on two chapters.

Such a tally does not itself demonstrate a faulty peer review process. However, McLean certainly seems to have a point when he draws attention to the gap between the perception the IPCC wishes to create of thousands of scientists in unity in one report, and the reality of a report comprised of many distinct parts, each contributed to and commented on by a far smaller number of scientists with knowledge of a specific field.

For example, McLean finds that for chapter nine, a chapter that he describes as ‘the key science chapter’ where ‘the IPCC concludes that “it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years"’, only 62 reviewers provided any comments on the chapter at all.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3967/


It is quite apparent that the UN and the IPCC have ideological and political agendas. Especially in light of the fact that the small group that made up the committee that publishes the summary reports for the IPCC eludes to the public that there are thousands of credible scientists that are all in consensus with the committee's findings, but the reality of the issue is that only a very minute group of individuals have even commented on the report. Only 5 individual reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the last report...the one that has the media and a large chunk of the free world in an unfounded panic.

 

[socioecologist]

The organization you cited--the "Science and Public Policy Institute"--was formed specifically to spread propaganda about climate change. I'm sure the $100,000 contribution to this think-tank from Exxon didn't skew their research into the matter. Or the fact that their chief scientist's--Willie Swoon--opposition to climate change is based on the concept of solar variation, which is specifically incorporated into the major climate models used by researchers.

That's a pretty shaky basis for all the venom your writing. Have you ever participated in a multi-agency, cross-discipline review panel on something as complex as "climate change" and its impacts? The chapters are divided up based on particular areas of expertise. It makes perfect sense that only a few reviewers comment on chapters that pertain to their expertise. Let me also tell you that 62 reviewers for one chapter is a very large number.

But none of this matters. You have criticized the process, but you are not criticizing the science. Are your views similar to Alexander Cockburn's? (If you are unfamiliar with him, he's a very liberal environmentalist who dismisses climate change). Give me something to work with here...

 

[hoosierdaddy]

62 reviewers does not a scientific consensus make.
Besides, there is no consensus in true scientific research of any sort.

Why do I have to hold the credentials? Are the rest involved in this discussion also going to have to hold credentials in the field? Seems all they need is "trust them, it's real".

Ther UN apparently doesn't need one to hold credentials in the field to be a part of their claimed consensus. (shrug)

 

[socioecologist]

Hey man, I'm not asking for anything but some substantive criticism of the science, not the process. I could care less about "credentials". The folks selected for the IPCC panel were done so based on their experience, publication record, and peer reputation. They are representative of the finest scientists in the world. If you choose to not accept that statement--and brother, I'm a skeptical bastard myself--there are other ways to examine consensus in the greater scientific community.

The meta-review GreatfulHead brought up is one of the better ways to find out the level of consensus within scientific literature. Note that it found 88% of the climate literature agreeing that this round of climate change is due to CO2 and is anthropogenic in origin. There is significant debate as to the amount of climate variation this will all cause.

I know there is publication bias, but please be aware that the bias is generally conservative in what is accepted.

 

[strain_searcher]

What makes all the global warmists experts?

Thats the thing you only need common sense to understand what is happening.

 

[genkisan]

And the polar bears will tell us that over zealous environmentalists took pictures of them on an iceberg in an attempt to pull at the heartstrings of the less-than-informed.
See, polar bears do not get stranded on icebergs, nor is their habitat in any danger. They can swim hundreds of miles at a time, and not our of desperation, but it's simply what they do.

We can't afford the fix that the ideologists and politicians want to put in place, which is the whole cruxt of this issue.

Polar bears eat primarily seals, which they catch on the ice.

With the polar ice caps shrinking rapidly, there is no ie to go onto to hunt, so it matters not if they can swim 1000 miles....they can't hunt.


This info is not coming from any panel of "experts" or any such crap....this is coming from a number of Innuit hunters who I have talked to, who know ice and polar bears WAY fucking better than you or any "global warmist" ever will.
Just you making that statement shows that you don't bother to even vaguely inform yourself, and your ideas on this topic are fixed.


These are the same Innuit who have had to start making up names for new birds they have never seen, like robins, who are starting to appear in the Far North, because of the changes.


We are looking at no polar ice sheet in the summer within 15-20 years........and you keep whining about this all being a politically driven hoax to increase taxes.


Future generations of humans doomed to live in a totally violated and exploited world will curse people like you, who whined and ignored reality and guaranteed them a shit life (or no life at all).


I personally believe that the main reason humans are teetering on the brink of extinction right now is because of one basic factor: our economic paradigm of profit-mongering, exploitation and resource hoarding.


We live by a philosophy that by it's very nature denies the unique non-entropic quality that defines all living things.

Life is the only thing in the known universe that works against entropy (other than gravity)....for anything alive to be true to it's nature, it must live/behave/interact in a non-entropic way.....putting more into the syatem than it takes out.

You cannot have a philosophy of infinite economic and population growth within a finite system. PERIOD.

Our entire modus of life for the past 5000-8000 years (since mono-culture farming and the advent of cities) has been based on an exploitative, entropic way of treating our home, each other and all the living things that share this planet.......we see everything as something we can exploit for our own use...not a fellow piece of this amazing machine of life we call planet Earth.


I have been thinking about these kinds of issues since I was 6, and I really can't see any long term future for human beings in general until our present malignant, exploitative paradigm is replaced by a much more holistic and non-entropic one based on long term survival and building on the systems we depend on....not destroying them for the sake of next quarters profits.

Unfortunately, the only way I see that paradigm changing is as the result of a catastrophic, near total annihilation of our species (and soon) in a way that is UNDENIABLY ALL OUR FAULT. That way maybe the survivors will teach their kids to live by a different paradigm, and the entropic, exploitative one we have now will become taboo and not tolerated.

I see a very extreme Dark Ages coming for humans in the next hundred years or so......whether we live thru it as a species depends totally on changing the way we see life, happiness and our reasons for being here.

We are not here to make lots of money, or build the biggest house, or exploit our planet/neighbours/animals/children/resources.....we are here to be alive, breathe clean air, enjoy the wonders of this planet and continue the species....life is not a question or mystery to be answered...it is an experience to be lived.

And if we do not learn that, and start thinking about and basing our actions on real long term survival (2000-5000 years in the future), we are dooming future generations to living in an increasingly hellish world, until the planet wipes us off like the malignant growth we have become and continues along it's merry way.....all cause we were too selfish and shortsighted.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

This info is not coming from any panel of "experts" or any such crap....this is coming from a number of Innuit hunters who I have talked to, who know ice and polar bears WAY fucking better than you or any "global warmist" ever will.

I see your analogy no more relevant to the global situation as the farmers in the coffee shop.
There is no doubt our world is changing. All the time. It does not stop changing at midstream just because humans are becoming more aware of the changes.
And who are we to say what is the optimum temp set point anyway?
Are you, me, the farmers in the coffee shop, or the Innuits supposed to decide on what the optimum earth temp is? How selfish is it to think that the temps during our small span is optimum?
No, the question is not about the earth changing, it is about whether man is changing it by the release of Co2, period.
Finding yourself so aware of the environment, is mans release of Co2 what you are arguing about? I mean anyone who has thought about these issues since age six surely has a greater insight than most...yes?
(I'm sorry but that part brought a major eye roll from me...how irrelevant is it to judge your thoughts by when they started?) Most people can't remember earlier than age 4-5, however I remember very vividly my third birthday, so in essence I have memories of when I was only 2. Does that make me sharper than others? Hardly.

Future generations of humans doomed to live in a totally violated and exploited world will curse people like you, who whined and ignored reality and guaranteed them a shit life (or no life at all).

Wow, now that is quite a charge there. Speculative bullshit of the highest order. Who are you to pretend to have insight on who will and who will not be cursed by future generations. I choose to think that it is the man made global warmists that will be cursed for changing our way of life to a point that our children won't be able to enjoy the wonders of the planet as we have. Is your prediction any more valid than mine? NO! And you have a lot of nerve charging such things.

It seems like the only paradigm shift that you find appropriate, would be for us to go back to the cave and hunt for berries. If we do that, we better hide all the history books, because I guarantee your grandchildren's grandchildren will curse YOU, once they find out what you robbed them of, and why, my friend.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Besides, there is no consensus in true scientific research of any sort.

LMAO... consensus means general agreement...
Only an Idiot would assert that there is no general agreement in any sort of scientific research...

 

[hoosierdaddy]

You are one ignorant individual.
Big mouth and few clues.
Any scientist, any real scientist, knows what I stated is spot on.
You are only a poseur.

See, when there is a consensus, there is no need for scientific research.
Which is exactly the situation the advocates of man causing the global warming crisis want. Squash the debate, and draw a consensus, so that there is no more need for debate (or research for that matter) and we can get on with the good deeds of the United Nations and The Sierra Club.

 

[Tradescantia]

I didn't read the whole argument, but if I got it right, the argument is about whether or not human actions are affecting the climate, not the fact that the climate is changing.

When I was born, the area I live in was rated 5 for USDA hardiness, it is now 7b.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

See, when there is a consensus, there is no need for scientific research.
Which is exactly the situation the advocates of man causing the global warming crisis want. Squash the debate, and draw a consensus, so that there is no more need for debate (or research for that matter) and we can get on with the good deeds of the United Nations and The Sierra Club.

LMAO again...

When there is general agreement there is no need for research???

Bwaaahahahaha...

Grasping at straws, you are...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

You are one ignorant individual.
Big mouth and few clues.
Any scientist, any real scientist, knows what I stated is spot on.
You are only a poseur.

Any real scientist, meaning ones who agree with your view...

LMAO at you again... My abs are getting sore, stop being so entertainingly funny, please...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

is it just my eyes or does that graph show that temp and co2 are intertwined. I'm sure there are other factors but to say we arent warming the earth is insane. Want if global warming stops the currents in the oceans and causes another ice age. I just wonder where they get this info for the graph from. couldnt all that data be bs. I'm sure some scientists said it was true so everyone believes them.

Notice how this relevant post got skipped right over?

 

[ureapwhatusow]

Notice how this relevant post got skipped right over?

relevant and relative are nothing more than flowery language used by the government so they can tax and control us.

there are much bigger problems, like the current baby eating fad, man think of the children

 

[bighogg]

ureap, you have to understand that I have been trained as an anthropologist and tend to look long-term rather that short term. It sickens me to see the way we have polluted the earth, but I realize that there are no quick fixes. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try!

Exactly! try we must.

pollution for me is THE main issue. GW is the "noble lie" we tell to reduce the amount of pollution on our precious earth. (i have no idea if its a "lie" or not, nor do i care) but pollution i care a LOT about, and if we can reduce pollution on our planet, i'm for it. but how do we reduce pollution without disrupting the economy? hmmmm that is a dilema. and hence the controversy and heated discussions. nobody wants to give up modernity...i KNOW i don't. but i don't want to fuck up our planet either, which we are most certainly doing, i really don't need proof, just a few senses on my body and some basic sense.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I agree with 100% of that, bh. ("noble lie" quite a clever coinage as well!)