Global Warming, eh?

[Iamwhomiam]

Honestly, Ben, how is it possible at all for you to understand the content of the entire conversation Jones was engaged in by pulling one word out of many messages, especially without your ever having read any of the others?

Could it be at all possible that the model he had been working with would be proved inaccurate and he was hoping that that was not the case?

[Ben D]

Honestly, Ben, how is it possible at all for you to understand the content of the entire conversation Jones was engaged in by pulling one word out of many messages, especially without your ever having read any of the others?

Could it be at all possible that the model he had been working with would be proved inaccurate and he was hoping that that was not the case?

How about from the horses's mouth, will that satisfy you?

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

By JONATHAN PETRE

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

-snip

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries. But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions. ‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
-
Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’. He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

[Freitag]

It's odd to me that the massive uncertainty over the existence, cause, and future severity of global warming appears less preferable to some folks than the absolute certainty of catastrophic consequences of a global bureaucracy to deal with the "problem". When did government become so capable and trustworthy? I must have missed that part.

I mean, it shouldn't be glossed over that the "solution" is anything less than global governance, or massive steps in that direction. Do people really think the result is more likely to be a Utopia than a Dystopia? Based on what, the fact that human nature has fundamentally changed, and nobody is trying to take over the world anymore? Not likely.

Once this thing is in place, there's no going back, it's permanent. Do you really think the people whose livelihoods are related to perpetuating the myth are going to take a fresh look at the data one day, and say "You know what folks? we were wrong. It looks like the sun causes climate cycles. Here's all your tax money back, and we'll dismantle the system immediately."

But they won't have to, because it's unfalsifiable, it's the ultimate open-ended problem like the War on Terror. The supposed effects of any changes would lag by so many years, there would never be any accountability. "Climate not getting any warmer? Well let's carry on taxing and regulating for a few more decades, these things take time."

I think it taps into a psychological narrative some people have, of humanity as a cancer upon the earth. I just don't understand how, with all the immediate, concrete problems humanity has, how such a horrific, globalist solution can be proposed for so something so remote and uncertain. Hell, I hope global warming is true, maybe we can avoid the next ice age.

[eyeno]

This may be my last participation in this thread possibly. Makes me sad too because there are so many fascinating aspects of this subject that could be discussed. Depends on what is said after the fact. I doubt I can be drug back into this because the repetition of "you are a polluter, no i'm not" is a real drag for me. Mother nature and all her forces are a dynamic system whose wonders are a sight to behold.

For those that want a fascinating tour off the beaten path from run of the mill climate science check the links and use your own imagination.

I am not into this subject because there are things in this universe that are, well, universal and repeating, and those seem to be taboo for the discussion. Astute scholars denote that the Fibonacci sequence is alive and well, as is the Golden Mean Ratio. http://www.goldennumber.net
Behold the power of nature to repeat itself over and over.



The things that interest me most are taboo in this conversation. There is relevant data which cannot be driven out of the climate change equation for a real scientist, but it is summarily dismissed by IPCC type scientists, and when recognized by them explained away in such a manner that it makes me giggle at sheer prospect that they believe they can even factor it in, much less dismiss it. When I took the time to read ALL the information in the following link I realized (for myself) how impossible it is that that IPCC could even imagine that they can explain climate change with such a limited model of information. It does not even matter if all the information in the following link is 100% accurate because there is no way it could be. The following link demonstrates the sheer impossibility of accurately modeling this situation in my opinion. I don't think humanity is up to the task yet, and if it is, its not revealing it to us for sure. If you are interested in the truly dynamic nature of mother nature this is a good link for you. If not it will only piss you off.
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2011/0 ... poleshift/


Not to mention the awesome power of the Sun itself.
http://www.solarham.com/




Astute scholars are also aware that there is a roughly 20 year cycle known as "hindsight is 20/20. 20/20 is also known as good vision when the eye doctor tests your sight.

nordic wrote:
Well the jury is indeed NOT out as to whether global warming is happening -- the data proves that it is -- the only thing you can argue about is whether or not its being caused by man, or whether its part of a naturally occurring cycle.
I've seen data that suggests its part of a naturally occurring cycle, at the same time its difficult to believe that 300 years of burning everything we could get our hands on would not have an affect.
You do realize that burning a couple pounds of gasoline produced something like 20 pounds of CO2? Just dwell on that for a while.

You and I Nordic, are basically in the same camp on this issue. But, but, but,...

If a person wants to grow plants indoors it works. If a person wants to grow plants indoors, and adds copious amounts of additional CO2 it works exponentially better and plant growth is rampant. This of course gives off more of that unfortunate gas called oxygen that humans need to survive. Its a give and take. Less C02 less oxygen, more C02 more oxygen.

Metaphors are a bitch. Earth's atmosphere is a greenhouse. Animals that live within it emit greenhouses gases known as C02 and Methane. Those would be the exhaled breaths and farts of the beasts in the fields upon the earth, if, you wanted to look upon it that way, well you could I suppose. You could compare that to the fact that some, uhhh, weather scientists, believe the human population, at its present size, is "unsustainable" for all 'practical' purposes. That would be a silly comparison, so I wouldn't do that.

nordic wrote:
Justy because the PTB want to profit from every event on earth doesn't mean that they are creating every event, whether they literally create it or create the fiction that it exists. IOW I doubt climate scientists dreamed up the idea of a carbon tax. That's not exactly their area of expertise.

Indeed. I agree. Most people have a price though. Oncologists certainly have one, and its big payday.

nordic wrote:
My take on the hysteria we see on thgis issue is that if, say, the Pentagon's globval warming scenario turns out to be what's really gonna happen, we are so incredibly fucked that there is literally nowhere you can go, and nothing you can do, to escape it. That freaks people out to the point where a hysterical level of denial kicks in. Thus we have people who are complete dilletants presuming to draw conclusions based on what thety want to see.

That happens every day and I agree.

nordic wrote:
Really the only thing to do is to zen out and see what happens. We're all utterly powerless to change anything -- just try changing one person, then wonder why tyou can't change society or culture. We're all along for the ride here, and only history will know.

True and untrue. History unfolds a minute at a time. As history unfolds most of humanity lives in an illusion that does not permit seeing the facts as they unfold. As the facts unfold history is written incorrectly by those who create history. After the fact a few observant people uncover the past and are negated by those who wrote the past. Such is history, mostly nothing but a mirror if its true self. Some looking into the mirror, some looking out, few who look in ever learn to look out. And actually in a way vice versa, but not the same extent.

You would have thought that the invention of the Gutenberg printing press would have been enough to teach the PTB that distribution of information is dangerous to their well being. But no, they had to unleash the internet on humanity. Just as there was a purge after Gutenberg there may have to be a purge after the internet.

Seems to indicate the fact that strong power is not as strong as it presents to be, but as C2W has alluded to, this is not the case. According to history power always slowly molds its creations after it seems that it has waned away, and much misery ensues in the process.

According to the Kondratiev wave shit will hit the fan, unless lightning strikes, and I doubt it will. Smart folks might take cover. A storm may be brewing. There may be another wave after this one hits bottom but I suspect it will be a much longer wave perhaps because the game of King Of The Hill may have leveled out for a while. "Sustainability" may have been achieved at this point in history and after the line goes back up a bit it may go more or less FLAT for a long time. I am too old, and so are you, to live long enough to see if it does go flat (sustainability) but I wish I could be around just to see if it does out of curiosity.

What line? This line.
http://www.deflationeconomy.com/kondratiev-wave.html

We live in interesting times, and they will become more so. Hope you find the links interesting.

[Sounder]

Freitag wrote...

I mean, it shouldn't be glossed over that the "solution" is anything less than global governance, or massive steps in that direction.

How many times do folk need to get screwed over before they realize that they are paying for martini's that they don't get to drink?

This is a subject where no response to ones comment is a good thing. So thanks all.

[Ben D]

It's odd to me that the massive uncertainty over the existence, cause, and future severity of global warming appears less preferable to some folks than the absolute certainty of catastrophic consequences of a global bureaucracy to deal with the "problem". When did government become so capable and trustworthy? I must have missed that part.

I mean, it shouldn't be glossed over that the "solution" is anything less than global governance, or massive steps in that direction. Do people really think the result is more likely to be a Utopia than a Dystopia? Based on what, the fact that human nature has fundamentally changed, and nobody is trying to take over the world anymore? Not likely.

Once this thing is in place, there's no going back, it's permanent. Do you really think the people whose livelihoods are related to perpetuating the myth are going to take a fresh look at the data one day, and say "You know what folks? we were wrong. It looks like the sun causes climate cycles. Here's all your tax money back, and we'll dismantle the system immediately."

But they won't have to, because it's unfalsifiable, it's the ultimate open-ended problem like the War on Terror. The supposed effects of any changes would lag by so many years, there would never be any accountability. "Climate not getting any warmer? Well let's carry on taxing and regulating for a few more decades, these things take time."

I think it taps into a psychological narrative some people have, of humanity as a cancer upon the earth. I just don't understand how, with all the immediate, concrete problems humanity has, how such a horrific, globalist solution can be proposed for so something so remote and uncertain. Hell, I hope global warming is true, maybe we can avoid the next ice age.

Now that's what I call 'cutting to the chase'...Very well expressed.

[Saurian Tail]

Once this thing is in place, there's no going back, it's permanent. Do you really think the people whose livelihoods are related to perpetuating the myth are going to take a fresh look at the data one day, and say "You know what folks? we were wrong. It looks like the sun causes climate cycles. Here's all your tax money back, and we'll dismantle the system immediately.

And then there is this:

Once this thing is in place, there's no going back, it's permanent. Do you really think the people whose livelihoods are related to perpetuating the myth are going to take a fresh look at the data one day, and say "You know what folks? we were wrong. It looks like industrial society has caused climate change. Here's your ecosystem back, and we'll dismantle the system immediately.

[Rory]

Once this thing is in place, there's no going back, it's permanent. Do you really think the people whose livelihoods are related to perpetuating the myth are going to take a fresh look at the data one day, and say "You know what folks? we were wrong. It looks like the sun causes climate cycles. Here's all your tax money back, and we'll dismantle the system immediately.

And then there is this:

Once this thing is in place, there's no going back, it's permanent. Do you really think the people whose livelihoods are related to perpetuating the myth are going to take a fresh look at the data one day, and say "You know what folks? we were wrong. It looks like industrial society has caused climate change. Here's your ecosystem back, and we'll dismantle the system immediately.

Succinct and to the point.

There is an intellectual dishonesty at play when otherwise rational people dismiss the scientific evidence on the basis that they don't like the conclusions. Related to this, there is a disservice to yourself and the people in your community, when you embrace the defensive position behind the destructive powers of this world. (Kind of like socio-economincally poor Republican voters)

So bendie and chums want as an outcome, to convince everyone that AGW is a contrived issue, based in inaccurate scientific methodology, designed to convince people to pay more tax and support a scientific bureaucracy whose aims are to justify their existance with junk science and bluster.

The baddies here, the AGW crowd, say that the recorded temperatures display an upward trend and there is a measurable correlation between this rise and the 'greenhouse' gas emissions. They also say that there is a clear and incontrovertible relationship between the rise in atmospheric CO2 and a drop in oceanic pH (this is a desperate move on their part - to distract away from the junk science of 'climate change' towards something new and shiny)

Ike and Alex Jones have spotted the truth in this discussion and their eager and independently thoughtful followers are on hand to present the true truth. There is no reason to stop industrial pollution, carbon emissions, and reign in the catastrophic destruction of rainforests because GW happens regardless of mankinds influence, and AGW is made up by the polluters.

Oh, and ocean acidification and the possibility of photylplankton die off (who needs 50% of the CO2-O2 exchange mechanism, right?), mass fish and ocean mammal die off (fuck em if they don't get with the 'AGW is a lie' program). And these warmed conditions that give rise to catastrophic algae blooms are nothing to worry about. THIS IS ALL A SIDE ISSUE AND OF NO IMPORTANCE BECAUSE THE AGW CROWD ARE LYING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I'm glad these heros are on hand to to stop these junk science merchants who want to stop industrial societys destruction of the environment (EGOTISTS!!!) and prevent corporations form wanton and excessive of pollution (TOOLS OF TPTB!!!).

These heros are on hand to let the destruction of the environment continue unabated, because the other side who want to stop this, are working for the big polluters and oil barons creating this destruction.

And I'm glad the denialist position make as much logical sense as their rejection of facts and science imply.

[slimmouse]

The baddies here, the AGW crowd

When you begin to understand that there are actually no more baddies than goodies on either side of this contrived debate( apart from the usual host of liars at the top of both), then I suspect we might start to get somewhere.

In the meantime, lets here it for the baddies ( by youre definintion )giving it their best shot at saving the planet for us whilst along with the goodies, we pay yet another premium.

[JackRiddler]

It's odd to me that the massive uncertainty over the existence, cause, and future severity of global warming appears less preferable to some folks than the absolute certainty of catastrophic consequences of a global bureaucracy to deal with the "problem". When did government become so capable and trustworthy? I must have missed that part.

How's Montag, again?

It's odd to me that the absolute certainty of catastrophic consequences of the hydrocarbon-based energy system presided over by the existing global bureaucracy of states and corporations should appear preferable to some folks than the economically beneficial adoption of an immediate large-scale multi-decade effort to adopt and further develop the many existing alternative energies and scale back on energy and resource use through an ecological conversion of the transportation, production and waste systems. When did burning millions of tons of hydrocarbons and lining up with the most reactionary corporatist elements on earth become so tasty to ostensibly anti-government activists? Could it be all the readings of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Telegraph, and the sturdy British tabloids?

[Rory]

The baddies here, the AGW crowd

When you begin to understand that there are actually no more baddies than goodies on either side of this contrived debate, then I suspect we might start to get somewhere.

In the meantime, give it your best shot. Save the planet for us. But dont forget to pay that extra AGW premium.

Is it just fucking money for you? In that case vote Ron Paul/or any other rabid anti environmentalist republican/conservative/tory politician from here on in because they will cut taxes and, at the behest of the big oil/MIC polluters, burn everything of value on this planet until it is gone.

Because, lets be clear here: the denialist side have some big hitters on their side: monied and motivated. Do you think the Koch/Cato or any other of these cynical sociopaths, genuinely believe in the truth of the denialist argument? Or is it simply a stalking horse against such environmental legislation that forces them to, wait for it, cut their profits. because that is all it is for them. While carbon taxes hedge against any losses they make on the profit side - we, the people always end up paying - be it reduced quality of life or in the pocket. Some of up prefer the improved quality of life though: just funny like that, thinking of future generations and all of that oil baron shill talk.

Al Gore is just another lip-service politician: say one thing while doing the other. That in itself is proof that he is atypical politician but proof of nothing else. (33rd degree mason and surely one of the bloodline, if you're one of these Ike pickled muppets that think this is a genuine reason to be conspiralicious)

So if money is all you care about, against the theroried threat of manmade global catastrophe, then fill your boots

[Simulist]

Rory, I like everything you say — but "Ike pickled muppets" is, hands down, the best phrase I've read all week.

[slimmouse]

Is it just fucking money for you?

No, it just money for them as usual. My argument is that this is a contrived debate. Like most other arguments of any real importance to the masses.

[Rory]

Is it just fucking money for you?

No, it just money for them as usual. My argument is that this is a contrived debate. Like most other arguments of any real importance to the masses.

Jesus...Ok: lets say for sure that it is a contrived debate.

1), The people denying AGW are, as far as I can tell: THE WORST POLLUTER GREEDY SOCIOPATH CORPORATIONS THIS PLANET HAS POSSIBLY SEEN. And the conpirafinancing supporters of David Ike/Alex Jones (conspiracy for profit, eh? but there is no agenda other than the true truth). The money (and any inherent biases or vested interests) is irrelevant - they are right.

2), Scientists with actual recorded measurements and proven, mathematical modeling techniques, computer processing tools and some of the brightest and non-agenda driven minds of the planets graduate community, have got it all wrong. Math is wrong! Computers are fucking wrong! Science, with all of its proven history and peer reviewed and tested methodology is biased and on the side of the polluters and the new world order and one world government and the lizards. THEY WORK FOR THE LIZARDS!

My hamfisted humour aside, can you honestly see past your distaste for Al Gore, perhaps that stopping the pollution might be a good thing? And if we have to subsidize this because getting corporations to pay for their own mess isn't a new phenomena?

[Rory]

Rory, I like everything you say — but "Ike pickled muppets" is, hands down, the best phrase I've read all week.

Cheers man, am glad you like!

Sorry to have offended any of the people who are vested in keeping the Ike family, and the family of his lawyers and accountants in champagne and shell suits.