Climate Change

[raw_thought]

True, skeptical science is not a primary site. However, I did not say yhat all my sites were primary. However, NASA''s site gave the names of scientific organizations. And wiki did allso, wiki gave the primary sites.

[raw_thought]

e"]

t"]NASA, Royal Academy, American Meteorological Society, NOAA are not primary sites???

[/quote][/quote]

"Do you know the difference between the word cite and site?
You claimed that you cited. "
Hobbes
Ummm, I think my meaning was clear. Primary SITES, in other words the NASA, Royal Academy....official SITES!
Good grief! You just keep making yourself look more silly!

[raw_thought]

Ummm ok, so no nationally funded organizations because eveeyone knows that NASA, NOAA, Royal Society and EVERY scientific organization in the world. is part of the conspiracy.
What about Scientific American?
Anyway, I think it is silly to say all my sources are part of a conspiracy.
Anyway, continue to speculate (without any facts bexause they come from the lying world scientific community) and think you know more science then the scientific community reveals.

[raw_thought]

Ummm its not just me saying that 97% of climate scientists agree with AGW, its NASA etc. So if Im confused so is the entire world's scientific community. Your problem is that you make xlaims but have no links or evidence. I have links and evidence.

[raw_thought]

Nice try at the "atheism on trial" thread. Claiming that you meant that I did not understand my links. That was not your claim. Your claim was that I was ignorant for using the word "sites" incorrectly. Anyone can scroll back.
Anyone can see that (from the links) that those scientific organizations do in fact endorse AGW. To say that I do not understand when a site says that AGW is real is a silly insult. I guess I was just lucky that my interpretation of an explicit statement was correct.

[raw_thought]

Simply give ONLY ONE primary site (NASA, NOAA....) that says that AGW is a myth. Note, "Forbes" the international business magizine is not a primary site.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Ummm... a whole page repeating yourself.

I think I feel an Unbookmark coming in my future.

[Graeme M]

raw_thought, there's clearly little point in arguing with you as you very much have your mind made up. And as you say, your sense of the matter conforms to the consensus view, so you would feel pretty safe in arguing for being on the side of right. So when I offer my personal view, I do so just to show I differ in opinion, not to try to change your mind. And of course while I feel I have a fairly well thought out opinion, it may very well be I am simply wrong. Let's see how it pans out.

1. The physics points to CO2 being a greenhouse gas and with the increase in CO2 should come an increase in LWR from the earth's surface being absorbed and re-radiated back down. That much is pretty uncontroversial.
2. The effect of this forcing is generally accepted to be that the atmosphere warms an amount. This will result in a variety of positive feedbacks, which will further warm the atmosphere. Again pretty uncontroversial, though some may disagree.
3. I am of the camp that feedbacks are probably net negative, not positive.
4. The temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 is therefore likely to be not much at all, probably not much more than 1C.
5. There IS a conspiracy between all the major scientific organisations. It's called consensus. It is driven by noble corruption underpinned by a deep belief that using fossil fuels is evil. This in turn is driven by political/ideological beliefs. At its core, climate change is a battle of ideology.
6. The modern temperature record is now so contrived as to be largely useless for establishing what has actually happened in the past century.
7. The weather of the past has been wiped from the public consciousness and modern weather exaggerated in its severity. That is not to say there are not extremes, but there have always been extremes.
8. I suggest that some of the poster children for CO2 driven climate change, such as polar bears, summer sea ice in the Arctic, loss of glacial mass, sea level rise, global average temperature, and so on, are either no longer happening (more exactly, trends have reversed, are stable, or increasing more slowly) or part of longer cycles at play.
9. My 'denial' of climate change is largely intellectual. Politically/ideologically, I think governments should act on the scientific advice and consider climate change to be real. That said, I am most bemused by current progress and really cannot see where this is going to go. Industrialised nations probably have to accept a fall in living standards if they seriously want to reduce CO2 emissions.

[Graeme M]

oh and in case you wonder at my own philosophy of the world, here's a small peek at that. We need to have a population of probably no more than 1-2 billion total. We should live far more simply. We should abandon the pursuit of material goods, and reduce consumption, the cycle of growth and productivity needs to be broken, and we need to stop the industrial murder of animals to feed our entertainments.

But I've got little hope of any of that happening, eh?

[raw_thought]

“These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades.’
FROM
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... /page4.php
“Since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, human activities have contributed substantially to climate change by adding CO2 and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere.’
FROM
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html
Oh yeah NASA is part of the conspiracy!
Here is an article that explains why uninformed people are confused and think that the current increase in temperature is natural.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Could-g ... ycles.html

The impact of global warming/
http://climate.nasa.gov/resources/educa ... 2Overview/
“Global warming is driving Earth towards a critical state’
FROM
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/958/

[raw_thought]

“There IS a conspiracy between all the major scientific organisations.”
Graeme M
Well Ok, NASA was lying and falsifying data along with EVERY scientific organization in the world. Since ALL data is falsified concerning global warming where do you get your data that there is no AGW?

[Graeme M]

raw_thought, you'd need to read the other side of the argument in depth to get a feel for that. It's not lying directly so much as it is group think. I think there is great pressure within science to conform to the consensus narrative. People like Hansen have a goal and it's not objective science - that goal I think is something that many earth scientists feel great affinity with. After all, it doesn't take much of a look around to see humanity wrecking the environment in pursuit of short term gain.

The skeptical argument as it stands in generally agreed form is not that climate doesn't change. Sure some people might think that, and some people in the street might say "Oh a volcano puts out more CO2 than people do in a year". But those are naive arguments. The skeptical view is that climate sensitivity is low, much lower than the IPCC proposes. Thus far there appears to be reasonable observational evidence to support that, and if you read more extensively you'd have noted a number of papers in recent times that also support that. Even the IPCCs own argument has brought sensitivity down a notch.

There are plenty of very intelligent people who are skeptics. And there's plenty of evidence for significant uncertainty. Climate sensitivity is just one aspect (although a critical one).

If you read more, you might also find that the temperature indices have been heavily adjusted to support the warming narrative. If you read sites like NASA or Real Science or SkepticalScience (hahahah, do you know how skeptical John Cook is??? Not at all!!! Sheesh) you won't hear that, rather you'll hear extensive arguments to defend the adjustments. I can't comment directly but have read both sides in depth and I am pretty confident that there is definitely some shenanigans going on.

Like I said, when July was claimed as the hottest on record, and trumpeted from the rooftops, you might check ALL the indices, check the degree by which July was the warmest, and also chase down the error bars on those numbers.

On the topic of temperatures, an interesting recent case was how NOAA adjusted their Sea Surface Teperature product following Tom Karl's paper. Maybe it was defensible but to my eye it wasn't.

Bottom line, raw_thought, and you are welcome to your own views, but my view is that there are substantial grounds to doubt the consensus narrative.

[raw_thought]

It is interesting that in the Republican debate last night none of the candidates denied (except Ted Cruz) the reality of AGW. Rubio even objected to being called an AGW denier! Obviously, he felt insulted to be grouped with the science haters.

[henry quirk]

After my nine year old went to bed, I tried to watch the latter half of the 'debate'...fell asleep in the middle of things...clear indication of my 'I don't give a fuck'...knowing the 'analysis' that would dominate the news this morning, I opted for cartoons instead...let's just hire the commie bastid (any of 'em) already so we can get back to eatin' doughnuts.

[raw_thought]

I dislike them also. My point is that now even the right wing republicans agree with AGW!!!