Global warming discussion III

[Corsair 115]

Maybe Haig can answer when climate change transformed from actual research into the giant worldwide conspiracy he apparently thinks it is now. 2007? 1997? Or was it always a conspiracy right from the very start? Was the formation of the IPCC in 1988 part of the conspiracy? Was the formation of the U.S. Global Change Research Program in 1990 under the Bush [41] administration a part of this conspiracy?

Inquiring minds want to know!

So, please, lay out all your best conspiratorial explanations of the how, when, and why of this worldwide climate change conspiracy!

 

[aleCcowaN]

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03

Why don't you better quote yourself? It'll make more sense. What's your plan? find the hundreds of thousands of text chunks denying AGW and presenting them as a quote, one by one? You can do it, if you are not lazy.

What does it proof other than your ability for googling and copypasta?

What can be of some utility for educational purposes is taking Moore's "[climate change] It has a much better correlation with changes in solar activity than CO2 levels" or how come to be this Moorean paragraph about a time before civilization existed: "The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming."

I already proved here years ago that global temperatures correlate much better with Buenos Aires population than with solar activity variability in its better presentation (A-K indexes).

r-j, why don't you make room for better denialists? I'm sure there are a lot but they won't come here when they see the tomfoolery posted by their allies here. This constant recycling of old stuff debunked long time ago made by feisty simpletons is really boring, besides the implicit confession of having found nothing in their support other than paying for ears to hear the same once and again.

 

[Trakar]

That's not correct RC, actually the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has been trending down since around when the Pause/Hiatus started. Just a coincidence?

http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/

This historical reconstruction of TSI is a model that needs to be credited to other researchers as it has limited direct contributions from SORCE measurements. These estimated solar irradiances for the last 400 years are based on an historical TSI reconstruction by N. Krivova et al. (see references below), which is used in the IPCC AR5 Working Group I’s Assessment Report. The values from this group’s SATIRE model have been offset a small amount (-0.30 W/m2) for agreement with SORCE/TIM values and replaced by SORCE/TIM annual averages from 2003 onward. The historical reconstruction provided here was computed using TIM V.15 data in February 2014. It is updated annually as new TIM data are available or as improved historical reconstructions are created.

The "hiatus" began in 1998 and is supposedly still going on. And yet, the three warmest years in the historic record have occurred in this time frame. On a 30-year trend line TSI has been declining since ~1950 according to your referenced composite graphic.

Looks like we are heading to the TSI levels of the LIA as the Sun descends into a Grand Solar Minimum

You should probably see an opthamologist,...and quit trying to understand science and scientific data based upon wiki and opinion pieces in business magazines.

There is no compelling evidence that TSI levels were a major factor in the regional north Atlantic centered cooling some refer to as the LIA. Most reconstructions of the time frame (1600 - 1800) annual average TSI estimates do indicate approximately a half watt/m² drop in TSI from 1600 -1700, but then that increased back to 1600 levels by ~1750 (1365.0 Watts/m²) and more-or-less steadily rose to the modern high point in 1950 (~1365.5 W/m². TSI has more-or-less steadily declined since then to the current average of about 1361.4W/m²
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140225/ncomms4323/fig_tab/ncomms4323_F1.html

http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce...ts/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_2400x1800.png

Other recent studies support this ...

David Evans devises solar model to tame climate chaos

This is a blog post with comments, not science or even the presentation of science. link to the peer reviewed work (aka journal paper presentation), pseudoscience word salad is not science.

So RC what do you say to the notch filler? suggesting "This means there must be a delay — probably around 11 years. This not only fitted with the length of the solar dynamo cycle, but also with previous independent work suggesting a lag of ten years or a correlation with the solar activity of the previous cycle. The synopsis then is that solar irradiance (TSI) is a leading indicator of some other effect coming from the Sun after a delay of 11 years or so."

Quite the magic computer model you're pinning your science denial on there, good luck with that, so why are the average annual planetary temps still rising when TSI has been demonstrably declining for 60+ years?

 

[Trakar]

If the facts don't accord with your fantasy, then just ignore the facts.

With Lamar Smith, it isn't just a fantasy, it's full blown delusional disconnect. You probably aren't aware that though he now chairs the U.S. House of Representatives Science Committee, before that, he was on the House Judiciary Committee. His views on torture, warrantless wiretapping, and presidential authority (depending upon who is president) are every bit as deranged and perverse as his climate science misunderstandings.

 

[Trakar]

What is this? Stand-up comedy day?

Dang, I nearly missed standup day?!

Give this one a try - http://www.standupeconomist.com/archived-8.6.09/clips/globalwarming.mp4

Good, simple economic explanations delivered with a spoonful of humor to help the medicine go down.

"VANILLA ICE"

 

[DC]

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03

"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists. "

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
"Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. "

Evidently Moore does not know what science is or how it works.

 

[r-j]

Evidently Moore does not know what science is or how it works.

That seens to happen a lot.

More Proof of Global Warming
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-proof-of-global-warm/

Scientists are fighting deniers with irrefutable proof the planet is headed for catastrophe
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warming-is-very-real-20130912#ixzz372mT21nI

Heatwaves are proof of global warming, says Nasa scientist
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...obal-warming-says-nasa-scientist-8008441.html

You can see why some people would get confused and think there was proof of global warming. How can we stop such blatant ignorance of basic science?

Objection: Correlation is not proof of causation. There is no proof that CO2 is the cause of current warming.

Answer: There is no “proof” in science — that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.

In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-proof-that-co2-is-causing-global-warming/

Now that would actually be helpful, except the links, as we have found from experience, don't go to the theory, or an explanation of the theory. Much less explain how we can tell if the theory is accurate.

Everyone notes that I stated the fact in the real world: there is no such thing as your "Theory of Global Warming" as you have actually shown with your searches.

And I told you, you are wrong of course. And showed you multiple lines of evidence that proved you wrong.

It appears because people like you trot it out. It doesn't appear in the scientific literature.

No, you were wrong, and still are. I showed you that even on your favorite website they use the term.

Sometimes people ask "what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?". Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html Not that it made much difference.

There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming, the expectation that there would be indicates a profound misunderstanding of the nature of climate science.

Once again, you are wrong. That you think like that (along with more than few others here) was at first surprising.

The greenhouse warming theory found a lone advocate.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Nor does it go against the grain of basic global warming theory.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coldweather-2009.html

The link between increased atmospheric greenhouse gas and global temperatures underlies the theory of global warming, explained the authors.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449

Over time I've come to realize why some fight so hard against the very idea that there is a theory, as well as why some would really not like to discuss the theory. Which is really unscientific.

There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming, ...

In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-proof-that-co2-is-causing-global-warming/

Since there is so much evidence (mountains of it), and since there is a theory, it should be simple to explain the theory, and explain why the evidence supports the theory.

So far, this just hasn't been done in this topic. Which is really strange, considering how long the topic has been going, and how contentious the subject is.

 

[r-j]

"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists."

I he had used "evidence" instead of "proof", it wouldn't have mattered.

But this is a founder of Greenpeace, which is so ironic. On the one hand, you could say "of course he doesn't understand science", and on the other you could say the same thing about the greenpeacers who claim global warming is killing the earth.

 

[greybeard]

I he had used "evidence" instead of "proof", it wouldn't have mattered.

But this is a founder of Greenpeace, which is so ironic. On the one hand, you could say "of course he doesn't understand science", and on the other you could say the same thing about the greenpeacers who claim global warming is killing the earth.

You keep telling us you are a sceptic r-j but you swallow anything that suits your agenda. It would have only taken a few minutes for you to find that Greenpeace have proved that he wasn't a founder or even a co-founder. Isn't it ironic that many of these "sceptics" who claim to be exposing some great fraud keep getting caught out lying.

 

[DC]

I he had used "evidence" instead of "proof", it wouldn't have mattered.

But this is a founder of Greenpeace, which is so ironic. On the one hand, you could say "of course he doesn't understand science", and on the other you could say the same thing about the greenpeacers who claim global warming is killing the earth.

greenpeacers mostly don't understand nor care for science. no argument there.
and everyone that says things like "killing the earth" does not understand science.

but it would have mattered alot if he used evidence instead of proof. because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence.

 

[DC]

You keep telling us you are a sceptic r-j but you swallow anything that suits your agenda. It would have only taken a few minutes for you to find that Greenpeace have proved that he wasn't a founder or even a co-founder. Isn't it ironic that many of these "sceptics" who claim to be exposing some great fraud keep getting caught out lying.

really? i accepted that claim wihtout questioning it. do you have a link?

 

[DC]

That seens to happen a lot.

More Proof of Global Warming
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-proof-of-global-warm/

Scientists are fighting deniers with irrefutable proof the planet is headed for catastrophe
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warming-is-very-real-20130912#ixzz372mT21nI

Heatwaves are proof of global warming, says Nasa scientist
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...obal-warming-says-nasa-scientist-8008441.html

You can see why some people would get confused and think there was proof of global warming. How can we stop such blatant ignorance of basic science?http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-proof-that-co2-is-causing-global-warming/

Now that would actually be helpful, except the links, as we have found from experience, don't go to the theory, or an explanation of the theory. Much less explain how we can tell if the theory is accurate. And I told you, you are wrong of course. And showed you multiple lines of evidence that proved you wrong. No, you were wrong, and still are. I showed you that even on your favorite website they use the term. http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html Not that it made much difference.
Once again, you are wrong. That you think like that (along with more than few others here) was at first surprising.

Over time I've come to realize why some fight so hard against the very idea that there is a theory, as well as why some would really not like to discuss the theory. Which is really unscientific.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-proof-that-co2-is-causing-global-warming/

Since there is so much evidence (mountains of it), and since there is a theory, it should be simple to explain the theory, and explain why the evidence supports the theory.

So far, this just hasn't been done in this topic. Which is really strange, considering how long the topic has been going, and how contentious the subject is.

don't get your science from the media but from scientific journals?
stop quoting ignorant nutters that make such dumb claims like Moore?

so what was your point in quoting Moore? did you want to demonstrate his ignorance on the topic?

 

[DC]

...

Since there is so much evidence (mountains of it), and since there is a theory, it should be simple to explain the theory, and explain why the evidence supports the theory.

So far, this just hasn't been done in this topic. Which is really strange, considering how long the topic has been going, and how contentious the subject is.

now some would call this a blatant lie, one thing is sure, you are misstaken about it. i and others have explained it in great detail to you and others in the AGWII thread. and you have made that very same misstake over and over again.
why? it is no wonder you list all credibility here when you keep making the same misstake over and over again. why do you do that?

ETA: for example here : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9796198#post9796198

 

[greybeard]

really? i accepted that claim wihtout questioning it. do you have a link?

Here’s what Greenpeace has to say about Patrick Moore:

Patrick Moore, a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry, frequently cites a long-ago affiliation with Greenpeace to gain legitimacy in the media. Media outlets often either state or imply that Mr. Moore still represents Greenpeace, or fail to mention that he is a paid lobbyist and not an independent source…

For more than 20 years, Mr. Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. Most of these industries hired Mr. Moore only after becoming the focus of a Greenpeace campaign to improve their environmental performance. Mr. Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace.

Most importantly, given Patrick Moore’s insistence that he is a founder of Greenpeace, is this statement by the organization:

Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace

Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year.

Greenpeace even kept a copy of the letter Patrick Moore sent to them asking for a birth on a boat to engage in a nuclear protest, dated to long after the founding of Greenpeace. Here it is:

Quoted from this web page where the letter is shown.

 

[DC]

Quoted from this web page where the letter is shown.

oh well, that is not evidence i think. i still accept his claim of being one of the co founders.

 

[greybeard]

oh well, that is not evidence i think. i still accept his claim of being one of the co founders.

I'm sure you are joking DC but I think Patrick Moore would have to explain why as a co-founder he sent them a letter one year after Greenpeace was founded asking for a berth on one of their protest boats. Also in doing so why did he feel it necessary to set out his cv to them as if he was somebody who was completely new to them? As a co-founder, surely they would have known who he was.

 

[a_unique_person]

Are you calling Hansen an alarmist? His 1986 predictions are not even close at this point.

Just post a link to the list of them. Then we can focus on them.

From one chapter of the latest IPCC report, "Observations: Atmosphere and Surface"

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Have you ever actually read any of the IPCC reports at all?

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 4. Do not copy and paste large blocks of text from other sites.

 

[DC]

I'm sure you are joking DC but I think Patrick Moore would have to explain why as a co-founder he sent them a letter one year after Greenpeace was founded asking for a berth on one of their protest boats. Also in doing so why did he feel it necessary to set out his cv to them as if he was somebody who was completely new to them? As a co-founder, surely they would have known who he was.

no I am not joking at all.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/history/amchitka-hunter/

Greenpeace themselves call this boat journey in 1971 the beginning.

 

[greybeard]

no I am not joking at all.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/history/amchitka-hunter/

Greenpeace themselves call this boat journey in 1971 the beginning.

That is interesting DC but still doesn't explain why he was asking to join the voyage and effectively setting out his cv if he was a co-founder. Can everybody on that boat claim to be a co-founder? Also if Greenpeace are openly claiming that PM's letter was sent a year after it's founding surely as a co-founder he could easily show that claim to be false.
The more pertinent question though is why has he gone from an idealist to someone willing to sell his services to polluting industries?

 

[DC]

That is interesting DC but still doesn't explain why he was asking to join the voyage and effectively setting out his cv if he was a co-founder. Can everybody on that boat claim to be a co-founder? Also if Greenpeace are openly claiming that PM's letter was sent a year after it's founding surely as a co-founder he could easily show that claim to be false.
The more pertinent question though is why has he gone from an idealist to someone willing to sell his services to polluting industries?

i don't know if they can, but they certainly do. and there seems to be no official document signed by the founders. so it seems to be a bit of a debate, the guy from Sea shepherd also Claims to be a co founder and Greenpeace disputing that.

but it actually doesn't matter. Moore was surely a very early member. but also that changes absolutely nothing about how extremely wrong he is today with his Claims about AGW.