Global Warming, eh?

[Iamwhomiam]

[Ben D]

The crash of the board caused the loss of about 4 posts, among them one by Wintler2 and another was my response to it. Wintler2 informed me that the IPCC AR4 graph in my last post is one that had been manipulated by Monckton, so I had posted the one below with some narrative.

It turns out that it is also an appropriate graph to post following the Trend and Variation video clip posted by Iamwhomiam. It's the long term 1880 - 2009 temperature trend (HADCRUT).

Note that the green trend line shows a linear warming increase of about 0.8 degrees Celsius over 130 years which works out at an average 0.006 degrees per year. If this trend continues, then it will mean an addition of another 0.6 degrees C by the end of the 21st century.

However AGW projections based on their computer climate modelling, projected 22 years ago, that global temperatures would see accelerated warming, and it hasn't happened. It doesn't show on this graph. Also please note on this graph that from the year 1998, actual temperature against the trend line has been converging meaning that there has not been a warming trend for the last ten years of the graph..

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/temperature-records/HADCRUT3_1880-2009.png/view

But beyond the copy and paste of graphs here, the WSJ opinion piece itself is solid evidence that AGW accelerated global warming is not happening.

Reflect on this, the sixteen persons behind the article are all eminent in their fields, so one would expect that they would not put their name to this article unless they were sure of their facts. This would include having studied the relevant data and information concerning global temperatures for the periods to which they refer. Just focusing on two of the points raised, the first is the fact that there has been a lack of global warming for well over 10 years now, and the second is that there has been smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections.

Imo, they are better placed and informed than myself or anyone else here on this matter, so unless someone can show evidence that they are all shills for big oil, liars, lack the smarts, etc., then it is reasonable to accept the facts as stated.

[Sounder]

Are any AGW proponents willing answer to my objections about proportion? Really, what do you see as the bigger threat in ten years? AGW, or to be very rough, pollution. But I will go further and put any one of the elements on the list up against the threat of AGW.

Sounder wrote:
Gee, I wonder what will be considered to be the greatest threat life on earth in five or ten years?

Lets ponder, would it be poisoning our environment, including our bodies, through GMO's, glyphosates, growing food in dead soil, constant dumping of industrial waste, fluoride, fracking, all or any of these things--- or CO2

You make the call wintler2, where should 'environmentalists' be spending their time? Should they be writing papers that say we need to tax carbon so that we may avert a future yet assured catastrophe? Good hook for the grant app. that there. 'Give me a little and I will justify your ability to get a whole lot more money, yes we have a winner'.

Or here, consider this option. Lets have environmental scientists study any and all aspects of environment so that we might respect the abode of our being in its essence and totality rather than as an eviscerated empty form that only serves to provide the illusion of righteousness.

I remain yours truly, suitably to be ignored

Am not aware that i'd ever ignored you, or that that might cause offence. And I'm really not sure what your point is above - if its that there are many other signs apart from anthropogenic global warming that show all is not well with our life support system, then i agree. If you feel that eg. depleted uranium munitions are a bigger threat to what matters to you than AGW, then go work on that issue, all good. But I don't see why other problems means you need to trivialise AGW.

I trivialize AGW because it seems like a way to promote another false imperative that not only wastes intellectual energy but also enriches the very elites that would otherwise have their money and dominance threatened by legitimate environmental concerns.

Here is another example on how and why AGW by rights ought to be trivialized.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25622&hilit=wintler2+sounder+AGW&start=45

This is the poison that has infected the human brain, to take something that is derivative and maybe incidental and to raise that thing up as being the crucial imperative, whether that thing leads to burning witches and crusades, or wars on drugs, terrorism, smoking or now carbon production, it’s all the same. It’s like, here we are in this modern age still thinking we can put all our problems in one basket and simply chuck it over some cliff. And not noticing that there is a rope tied from the basket to your foot.

Unjustified imperatives provide the leverage to falsify the narrative and increase the fixed costs required to live. Slay the demon within oneself, then the demons outside will not have so many willing partners. (The demon here is ‘fixing the form’ or product of the intellect into a recipe that validates socially contrived consensus.) So go ahead and build your bandwagons on the insecurities of your substance killing beliefs, but leave me off, as I’m in no mood to be taken for yet another ride.

[wintler2]

The crash of the board caused the loss of about 4 posts, among them one by Wintler2 and another was my response to it. Wintler2 informed me that the IPCC AR4 graph in my last post is one that had been manipulated by Monckton, so I had posted the one below with some narrative.

Monckton’s deceit #572

..However AGW projections based on their computer climate modelling, projected 22 years ago,

You running a 22y.o model/operating system on your computer? Didn't think so.

that global temperatures would see accelerated warming, and it hasn't happened. It doesn't show on this graph. Also please note on this graph that from the year 1998, actual temperature against the trend line has been converging meaning that there has not been a warming trend for the last ten years of the graph..

Untrue. Temperatures over last 10 years have been warmer than average, and indeed above the linear trend of your graph, thus continuing the warming trend. Y'all can cherrypick data till the cows come home, the temp-record trend remains indisputably warming.

Trend 1998-2008


Trend 1999-2009


Trend 1880-2009

But beyond the copy and paste of graphs here, the WSJ opinion piece itself is solid evidence that AGW accelerated global warming is not happening.

An opinion piece in the definitive propaganda arm of the 1%ers is solid evidence? Now i've heard everything.

.. the fact that there has been a lack of global warming for well over 10 years now,

and the second is that there has been smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections.

Which is it? "smaller than predicted" or "a lack of"? You contradict yourself in the one paragraph.

[wintler2]

Are any AGW proponents willing answer to my objections about proportion? Really, what do you see as the bigger threat in ten years? AGW, or to be very rough, pollution. ...

Ha ha, you must take me for a great fool, unless you are one such yourself, your question is ridiculous on all fronts.

[Sounder]

your question is ridiculous on all fronts.

Really why so?

It's ok, you are welcome to choose AGW as being more a bigger deal than Fukushima ten years from now.

I'm saying that in my opinion, Fukushima will be bigger, and you need not be such a scardypants that you cannot assert the opposite.

[wintler2]

Really why so? It's ok, you are welcome to choose AGW as being more a bigger deal than Fukushima ten years from now. I'm saying that in my opinion, Fukushima will be bigger, and you need not be such a scardypants that you cannot assert the opposite.

I have no need to assert that "my catastrophe is bigger than your catastrophe", i'm not compensating for anything.

[wintler2]

Trend & Variation vid

Thanks for posting this Iamwhomiam, its a great piece of media. Theres a set of vaguely similar short vids on weather patterns in south eastern Oz, for any interested skips.
http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/f ... limatedogs

[Sounder]

Wintler2 wrote…

Am not aware that i'd ever ignored you

Ah, but unconsciousness of rational points made seems to be quite the same as ignoring.

The Mark Sharma article is to illustrate the point that certain well placed people are using political power to both protect and enrich themselves by wearing the mantle of ‘responsible steward of this planet.’

To recap,
I trivialize AGW because it seems like a way to promote another false imperative that not only wastes intellectual energy but it also enriches the very elites that would otherwise have their money and dominance threatened by other environmental concerns.

http://www.stopgillardscarbontax.com/20 ... nd-up.html

Will the real Garnaut please stand up

Mark Sharma discusses the credibility of Ross Garnaut:

Just when you thought that you knew everything about Australian politics they throw in another bombshell! Remember real Julia and Fake Julia from last August? Now, there is a new riddle for you. Guess real Ross Garnaut from fake one.

Wikipedia describes Ross Garnaut as “a distinguished professor of Economics” and a “senior political economic adviser”. His supporters in the Labor party which includes Kevin Rudd swear by his word. But the skeptics in the “Anti Carbon Tax coalition” see him nothing more than a government propagandist whose sole aim is to sell the much hated carbon tax.

In the year 2007, when all Australian states were under the control of the Labor party, the then Federal Opposition leader Kevin Rudd with the help of his state colleagues, commissioned Professor Garnaut to undertake a study to understand the effects of climate change on Australian economy and recommend suggestions to reduce its impact.

That announcement in effect became Labor’s “Climate change policy” that it took to 2007 election. At almost every speech and at every forum whenever Kevin Rudd was quizzed about climate change, he had the same answer -We will make our policy clear in due course based on Professor Garnaut’s review. But Rudd is not the only connection Garnaut has with the Labor Party.

This is a borrowed cut and paste of the issue:

>Ross Garnaut: "The failure of our generation will haunt humanity until the end of time"

"While the good and gilt-edged professor was highlighting the impending loss of the Great Barrier Reef, a few thousand kilometres to the north, Lihir Gold, a mining company of which Professor Garnaut is chairman, was dumping millions of tonnes of toxic-sludge into the ocean near its mine site on Lihir Island, north of the Papua New Guinea mainland.

While the good professor has making us all feel guilty every time we turn on our leaf-blower or toaster, up in Papua New Guinea, his mine was destroying about 60 square kilometres of ocean floor, and it is just getting started. The mine has a life expectancy of 20 years so by the time it stops, toxic-waste will have destroyed coral reef and ocean life
over a vast area of the Pacific. It is creating a dead-zone".

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doo...mining-garnaut

Dumped into our world by Ok Tedi mining, of which Garnaut is a director:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/img/conte...aut%20mine.jpg

"The mine sludge contains cyanide and heavy metals and the practice of dumping toxic mine-waste, submarine tailings, into the sea, is *banned* in China, Canada and the United States. It is banned by the UN. But in his webcast to Lihir shareholders last month, Professor Garnaut made the extraordinary statement that “The LGL Board, [Lihir Gold] has always
adopted responsible environmental management. Our environmental track record of Lihir is exemplary".

"The Ok Tedi mess is considered the worst environmental disaster in the Southern Hemisphere, where over 20 years, 80,000 tonnes of mine waste has been dumped into the Ok Tedi and Fly rivers, every day. BHP, the then co-owner of the mine, sought legal indemnity from the PNG government for the pollution and environmental damage it caused in exchange for billions of dollars in compensation and restoration. Ok
Tedi affects 50,000 people and 120 villages and will take an estimated half a century to clean up.

So while we were all being lectured about our failure to protect the Murray River from the environmental consequences of global warming, by our overuse of fossil fuels, up north, across the border at Ok Tedi, a *Ross* *Garnaut* company has been up the mighty Fly River. Talk about hypocrisy.

http://phorums.com.au/showthread.php?28 ... -time-quot

[wintler2]

I trivialize AGW because it seems like a way to promote another false imperative that not only wastes intellectual energy but it also enriches the very elites that would otherwise have their money and dominance threatened by other environmental concerns. ..

Right, because there were so many other 'environmental concerns' that were making such great progress before AGW became undeniable.


And Mark Sharma?!

But despite all this, the Greens are relentlessly bringing up gay marriage and attacking Australian families. Why is Senator Brown doing all this? The only assumption one can make is that the Greens want to weaken our economy with a carbon tax and destroy our social fabric with gay marriage. A weakened nation would serve as a perfect launch pad for communism.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41508.html

You'd think a billion dollar 'perception management' industry could come with some new lines every decade or so .. but no.

[Ben D]

..However AGW projections based on their computer climate modelling, projected 22 years ago,

You running a 22y.o model/operating system on your computer? Didn't think so.

that global temperatures would see accelerated warming, and it hasn't happened. It doesn't show on this graph. Also please note on this graph that from the year 1998, actual temperature against the trend line has been converging meaning that there has not been a warming trend for the last ten years of the graph..

Untrue. Temperatures over last 10 years have been warmer than average, and indeed above the linear trend of your graph, thus continuing the warming trend. Y'all can cherrypick data till the cows come home, the temp-record trend remains indisputably warming.

But beyond the copy and paste of graphs here, the WSJ opinion piece itself is solid evidence that AGW accelerated global warming is not happening.

An opinion piece in the definitive propaganda arm of the 1%ers is solid evidence? Now i've heard everything.

.. the fact that there has been a lack of global warming for well over 10 years now,

and the second is that there has been smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections.

Which is it? "smaller than predicted" or "a lack of"? You contradict yourself in the one paragraph.

This is not a primary school debate, your attempts to obfuscate the facts presented to you are just so transparent. You've already made up your mind, and therefore nothing can be said or presented to you that will change that...still luv ya tho..

If I may borrow an observation made on another forum...

You can easily tell the difference between an Environmentalist and a Denier. If someone is a true environmentalist whose vision is for a healthy planet into the future, then he is one who celebrates when the recent climate data show the AGW alarmist’s predictions of catastrophic warming might be wrong. The denier on the other hand though, usually an eco/political activist, always denies new data that shows the planet may be not as unstable as first believed after all. The Media usually defines deniers as those who deny the AGW scientist’s computer model predictions. However, denying the measured climate data meets a better definition in the world of science.

[Luther Blissett]

In what way is pollution innocuous or even good for us? I feel like climate arguments ultimately distract from the fact that we, and more of us, are literally trashing the planet.

[eyeno]

Stated earlier in this thread the north and south poles move at approximately 35 miles per year. I have no idea if this measurement is exactly accurate, and i'm sure the exact measurements could be debated endlessly, but the sake of argument lets go with 35 miles per year.

The major weather patterns of the earth circle the poles. This is well known. The major weather patterns and winds circles the poles like a merry go round.

35 x 500 years = 17500 miles of movement in 500 years.

This is no small change in weather pattern. This type of movement is enough to shift the climate of an entire continent considerably.

[wintler2]

In what way is pollution innocuous or even good for us?

AGW deniers run a line of rhetoric for that, eg. Exxon-funded scientist says CO2 emissions are good for us and we need more

I feel like climate arguments ultimately distract from the fact that we, and more of us, are literally trashing the planet.

I think that we're trashing the planet is well known, what is news about AGW is that it is trashing the planet is such a way as to potentially make it completely uninhabitable. The difference between pissing on the carpet and burning the house down, if you like. Some of the heat in the argument comes from the fact that the roof is already on fire.


Annual global surface temperature anomalies, 2011. Source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

[eyeno]

In what way is pollution innocuous or even good for us? I feel like climate arguments ultimately distract from the fact that we, and more of us, are literally trashing the planet.

My exact opinion too. Ditto.

What good does it do to treat the symptoms of pollution (climate change) and not address the cause? This is like treating Type 2 diabetes with a drug. Type 2 diabetes can usually be cured with a change in lifestyle/diet but instead is allowed to proliferate and 'treated' with a drug. Makes no sense.

'If', (big if) man made warming is even real why treat the symptoms with a carbon tax, a tax in which the money will never be used for good, but only sucked up by the polluters that cause the disease?

So far the issue of climate change is centered around extracting cash from it instead of a sincere meaningful effort to clean up the planet and stop pollution. Efforts made to stop pollution, thus far, I don't consider effective to any meaningful degree.

I do consider the efforts to extract cash from climate change meaningful, meaning that cash means more to supposed protectors of the environment than environmental health means to them.