View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

How can Steve Lunetta sleep at night?

Posted: July 2, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: July 2, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

There’s nothing wrong with Mr. Lunetta questioning and challenging the assertions of the REMI report that a revenue-neutral carbon fee would have positive economic benefits as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions (June 26, “The carbon tax has flaws”).

There’s nothing terribly wrong with his heavy use of sarcasm, although it isn’t very helpful in establishing his credibility.

And even though his trying to win an argument through the use of emotionally laden terms (“far left,” “socialist,” “Marxist”) is a little sleazy, it’s his right.

But there is something seriously wrong with encouraging people to disregard the crisis posed by global warming.

It is real. It is scientific fact. There’s no legitimate debate to be made about it.

Doesn’t Mr. Lunetta care at all about human life and suffering?

Doesn’t he care that the people of Bangladesh are threatened with annihilation by flooding, that the citizens of Yemen are likely to run out of water soon, that Syria’s bloody civil war is fueled by drought, that rampant year-round wildfires are destroying much of the beauty of his native California, that people in cities like Los Angeles are dying because of extreme heat, that many people battered by Hurricane Sandy are still without homes, that our progeny will suffer greatly because of our profligacy and inaction?

Doesn’t he care about anything besides criticizing those who are trying to do something to help?

For Mr. Lunetta’s further education, I refer him to the article in Sunday’s New York Times by Henry M. Paulson, Jr. (conservative, Republican, secretary of the treasury 2006-09) in which he says, in part: “When you run a company, you want to hand it off in better shape than you found it.

“In the same way, just as we shouldn’t leave our children or grandchildren with mountains of national debt and unsustainable entitlement programs, we shouldn’t leave them with the economic or environmental costs of climate change.

“Republicans must not shrink from this issue. Risk management is a conservative principle, as is preserving our natural environment for future generations. We are, after all, the party of Teddy Roosevelt.”

Comments

CaptGene: Posted: July 2, 2014 6:00 a.m.

You've been duped.


ricketzz: Posted: July 2, 2014 7:00 a.m.

Tell that to the Navy. Norfolk is the new Bangladesh.

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/24/324891517/as-sea-levels-rise-norfolk-is-sinking-and-planning


chico: Posted: July 2, 2014 7:05 a.m.

All totally natural, floods, fire, droughts, and things.

The idea that these natural challenges will stop if we only 'change our ways' is typically found in primitive cultures where a powerful leader must trick the tribe.

How do low, or fixed income people sleep when they can't afford to run the a/c on a hot night?


BrianBaker: Posted: July 2, 2014 8:05 a.m.

"It is real. It is scientific fact. There’s no legitimate debate to be made about it."


Exactly what these enviro-wack fanatics say every time they want to shut down any "legitimate debate", because there's actually PLENTY of doubt about all this Chicken Littling.


ronos: Posted: July 2, 2014 8:08 a.m.

It's OK, Lunetta is a 'good Christian' and God will make it all better.


CaptGene: Posted: July 2, 2014 8:44 a.m.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/01/making-sense-of-senseless-sea-level-scares-in-norfolk-virginia-60-of-the-rise-is-from-subsidence/


hepnerkid: Posted: July 2, 2014 8:52 a.m.

This is exactly like the flat earth people of the middle ages. If you disagreed, you could end up in prison or worse. That people cannot recognize that this is all a money grab by the people who have conjured this up, somehow is getting by some people. There is no evidence, period. Antarctic ice has increased since 1979. No where is there any evidence, other that that is being made up. As a child, I would on occasion become frightened of some imagined being in my room but if I just pulled the covers up and went to sleep, it would all be gone. I'm sure that Steve sleeps very well knowing that this whole global warming is just a Hoax to liberate people from their hard earned cash.


projalice11: Posted: July 2, 2014 8:56 a.m.

"There is something seriously wrong with encouraging people to disregard the crisis posed by global warming."

"It is real. It is scientific fact. There’s no legitimate debate to be made about it."

BINGO Donald


17trillion: Posted: July 2, 2014 8:56 a.m.

Baaaaaaaa!

Oh no, weather! It's extreme and it's never been like this before. I need to change my diapers because I just wet myself because the WEATHER IS HERE!

The fools of the world use terms like "settled science" and "science deniers" to make the nonsense more palatable.

Anyone notice how NOAA just reversed itself, AGAIN, and made 1936 the hottest year on record instead of 2012? Anyone? Don? 1936 Don! And Bangladesh is still here? How can that be?

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!


BrianBaker: Posted: July 2, 2014 9:05 a.m.

Yeah, and it turns out NASA and NOAA *faked* the "data", substituting computer-modeling numbers for the real-world actual recorded temp data.

This whole thing is a massive scam.


projalice11: Posted: July 2, 2014 9:27 a.m.

This is a fact: BINGO, BINGO

Dow Jones Industrial Average
Dow Jones Indices: .DJI - Jul 2 12:23 PM ET
16,967.50


hepnerkid: Posted: July 2, 2014 9:28 a.m.

This excerpted from a letter sent by 141 scientist to Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.


Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

\



We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.


It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.


CaptGene: Posted: July 2, 2014 9:30 a.m.

I don't know Don Robinson, but I know that local locksteppers like cricketzz, projalice111, Indy Nile and steve all bought this nonsense hook, line and sinker. That fact alone should be enough to make people skeptical.


tech: Posted: July 2, 2014 9:32 a.m.

Rational people that aren't overwrought by emotion sleep rather well. That's because their critical thinking ability enables them to make sensible cost/benefit decisions.

Reasonable people question those who flack orthodoxy with appeals to emotion and ask: Cui bono?


therightstuff: Posted: July 2, 2014 9:37 a.m.

"It is real. It is scientific fact. There’s no legitimate debate to be made about it."

It speaks volumes that the most intelligent response to this statement is Bingo!!!


BrianBaker: Posted: July 2, 2014 9:45 a.m.

TRS, don't you mean to say: "It speaks volumes that the most intelligent response to this statement FROM THE LEFTISTS is Bingo!!!"?


tech: Posted: July 2, 2014 9:46 a.m.

Media reports of scientific “consensus” are always cause for gales of laughter. Note Galileo Galilei’s heliocentric observations, the germ theory of disease, Helicobacter pylori causation of peptic ulcers, etc. and the “consensus” they enjoyed upon introduction.

Science isn’t conducted by vote but by data gathered/tested via the scientific method. And theories can always be challenged with new data (if it isn’t censored or defunded).


chico: Posted: July 2, 2014 10:04 a.m.

"If you like your climate you can keep it" - a quote from a now famous liar. --edited.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 2, 2014 10:15 a.m.

Mr. Robinson sadly misses the point. I can agree that climate (or weather) is changing. Water levels are rising and there may be some truth to the increasing temperature scenarios.

However, the CAUSE of the climate/weather change is unproven. The REMI report proposes a fix where the problem in still in debate. That is the issue.

Is it solar activity? Is it normal earth/magma cycles? Is it some other factor that we do not understand? We need more data and knowledge.

For Mr. Robinson to say "there will be no further debate. We know the answer" shows an unfortunate narrow focus that could potentially harm us all. We need more data and critical thinking.


hepnerkid: Posted: July 2, 2014 10:18 a.m.

A voice crying in the wilderness. The only thing that will save us is more money. This is the cry heard from liberals for the last half century and it is always other peoples money. I'm not sure how global warming can cause the seas to rise in just specific places, such as Bangladesh or a store owner in Florida. For all you believers, I would like you to fill a pan with water and then make it rise in just one spot. I seems a physical impossibility but it is hard to think like a liberal. If you must do something, watch the Maldives. If they start to complain, then I'll take note. Until then, you folks might try Voodoo to get rid of some of your bogey men.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 2, 2014 10:19 a.m.

PS- anyone notice that the volcanic activity under Yellowstone has gone up radically lately? 100's of earthquakes recorded, magma pushing to surface. A super-volcano could erupt soon. Who is to say that this is not happening under the ocean as well, increasing sea temps and impacting greenhouse gas accumulation?

No one knows.

Why would we cripple our economy if, the whole time, climate change was being driven by simple natural cycles over which we have no control?


chefgirl358: Posted: July 2, 2014 10:52 a.m.

But it's real everyone! This guy writing the letter says so...

Yeah right!

Even if it WAS true, which I don't believe, there is ZERO evidence that it is a manmade cause. Weather has gone through cyclical changes since the beginning of time and it always will. That's why we've had ice ages, super volcanoes, and crazy random weather patterns. Earth is always volatile.

That said, I'm not convinced there is any such thing as the crazy "climate change" theories or "Global warming" or whatever they're calling it now.

I agree wholeheartedly with CaptGene and his right on assessment of questioning it simply because of the posters who think it's true.

I also had the exact same thought as the fellow who mentioned that it was like the flat earth society...exactly!


BrianBaker: Posted: July 2, 2014 10:59 a.m.

The example I often cite is this:

Ten thousand years ago, a mere blink of the eye in geological time, half the Northern Hemisphere was covered in a sheet of permanent pack ice that extended all the way down to what is now Central California. It was thousands of feet thick.

If the climate never "changed" on its own, we'd be trying to dodge sabre-tooth cats and wooly mammoths on our morning commutes.


philellis: Posted: July 2, 2014 11:03 a.m.

Lois, can you tell me if the temperature in the British Isles is back up to where it was during the Roman occupation of England?


Lotus8: Posted: July 2, 2014 2:17 p.m.

BrianBaker is on to something. During the recent ice age where the Bearing Straight was a land bridge, the sea levels globally were some 400 feet lower than they are in the present day. Changes of ten or twenty feet as the planet goes through naturally occurring warming and cooling cycles should be expected, right? And these can happen pretty quickly and we still aren't talking about a global catastrophe when this happens, as we should expect it. Anyone living in a very low flood plain near the sea should really think again about where they are living. Science has shown us that, over the course of the Earth's history, sea levels have risen and fallen by rather large amounts.

That is the science that we should be looking at. Should we try to be as efficient as possible with respect to energy and fresh water consumption? Of course we should! The global population is soaring and we should really consider some planning for this trend to continue. But setting up carbon credit trading floors will only result in folks like Goldman Sachs and other billionaire investors getting rich off of manipulating these farcical "markets". Our industrial progress will be further slowed while China and other economies whiz right past us. If we can make solar work, or fuel cells make sense, or turn sea water into fresh water at a reasonable cost, these are technologies that most any American would love to embrace as opposed to continuing our dependence on coal and oil. I even support subsidies to encourage the adoption of these technologies if getting to a certain scale would bring the costs down. Hopefully we are approaching that point with respect to solar panels in the next decade.

But let's not point to the sea rising a few feet and the planet warming a bit and cry out that the sky is falling. Remember it was only a few decades ago that the covers of major magazines warned us all of the coming ice age.


philellis: Posted: July 2, 2014 2:27 p.m.

Remember it was only a few decades ago that the covers of major magazines warned us all of the coming ice age.

Maybe the warming has occurred due to overcompensation in our fight against the coming ice age? :)


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 2, 2014 2:44 p.m.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971

So, were they lying then or are they lying now? LOL


philellis: Posted: July 2, 2014 3:27 p.m.

were their lips moving?


tech: Posted: July 2, 2014 4:32 p.m.

Good points, Lotus8.

The Netherlands has sea walls. Why hasn't the former Dutch colony of NYC made similar investments along with shoreline development?

FYI, the global population trends are set for a reversal to non-replacement birth rates.

World population to peak by 2055: report

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101018722#.

More detail:

The end of global population growth may be almost here — and a lot sooner than the UN thinks

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/09/the-end-of-global-population-growth-may-be-almost-here-and-a-lot-sooner-than-the-un-thinks/


BrianBaker: Posted: July 2, 2014 6:34 p.m.

There are some good points there, but here are some engineering realities.

Solar power: solar power is completely dependent on the electro-chemical properties of rare earth metals. Guess who controls the vast majority of those elements?

Communist China.

And they're useless when the sun ain't shining. So we can trade being "dependent on foreign oil" to being dependent on Communist China for a tech that only works when the weather's nice.

Battery power: Two problems. First, batteries have to get their charge somehow. Plugging them in is how. But WHAT do we plug them into?

A wall socket, which gets its power from the nation's electrical grid.

Second, the charge they can hold and utilize is limited before needing to be recharged, and there's no way now or in the foreseeable future to "slam" a charge into a battery. Tesla's leading the pack on this technology, and even THEY are saying that the nearest tech -- not CURRENT tech -- would still require a minimum of 20 minutes to partially recharge a battery to usefulness again.

A full charge would still be a matter of hours, at least.

Thirdly..... where ya gonna find "recharging" stations? They're certainly not available like gas stations. And there's no way we're gonna be replacing gasoline stations and the cars they fuel -- which number in the hundreds of millions -- any time soon. The cost would be literally incalculable.

Windmills. When the wind don't blow, they're useless.

Tidal. Please. Why not the Vulcans' dilithium crystals?

Further, NONE of these technologies encompass energy sources as concentrated as fossil fuels. Fossil fuels pack more potential (useable) energy than anything else other than explosives.

Then the issue of how you fuel aircraft.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. And I wouldn't want anyone to think I've caught Indy's bloviation virus.


therightstuff: Posted: July 2, 2014 6:48 p.m.

"""If the climate never "changed" on its own, we'd be trying to dodge sabre-tooth cats and wooly mammoths on our morning commutes."""

And if evolution is true, why do we still have monkeys? But I digress.


Indy: Posted: July 2, 2014 8:11 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: There are some good points there, but here are some engineering realities.

Solar power: solar power is completely dependent on the electro-chemical properties of rare earth metals. Guess who controls the vast majority of those elements? Communist China.

Indy: Wow, you’d think anyone with brains would grasp the fact that China owns hundreds of billions of dollars of US debt . . . great leverage in negotiating, no?

In any event, a good article on the solar panels and the hype that really doesn’t map to the poster’s assertions:

Do Solar Cells Even Need Rare Earth Minerals?
http://www.solarblogger.net/2013/01/down-to-earth-will-scarce-rare-earths.html

I’ve had a good look around, and the only reference I can find to rare earth elements in solar, is that Cerium Oxide is sometimes added to glass used in solar modules to increase UV absorbtion.

It appears that the reason so many people have written that rare earth are ‘essential’ for solar cells can be traced to a report written by the US Department of Energy in 2010 “Critical Materials Strategy”.

Two forms of thin film PV materials were identified in the report as using critical (but not rare earth) elements. CIGS thin films use indium and gallium, and CdTe films use tellurium. (See the table below, summarizing the materials considered). The report then goes on to conclude that indium, gallium and tellurium all come from diverse sources.
In 2010, thin film PV dropped to only 13.5% of the market in the face of price competition from crystalline silicon cells, and CIGS and CdTe PV are only two thin film technologies among many.

So, a fine example of how journalism works. Two forms of the less widely-used types of solar PV get mentioned in a report that assessed strategic materials such as rare earths; rare earths hit the headlines in a trade war; and we end up with articles that suggest we’re going to run out of the raw materials for solar PV.


Indy: Posted: July 2, 2014 8:17 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote And they're useless when the sun ain't shining. So we can trade being "dependent on foreign oil" to being dependent on Communist China for a tech that only works when the weather's nice. . . .

Windmills. When the wind don't blow, they're useless.

Indy: I suggest looking into the ‘reality’ that wind is low in the day and high at night . . . when the sun don’t shine!

So the two ‘renewable’ energy sources are complementary.

But the reality is that burning fossil fuels jeopardizes not only our economic security but our future economic opportunity that is tied into issues of climate change.

Even our military is advising that we look for alternative and renewable sources.

In any event, batteries are a good option especially as our transportation system goes ‘electric’ in that your car can actually supplement your home’s electrical needs at night . . . when the sun don’t shine!!!

Educate yourself on these issues beyond the conservative recitals developed from fossil fuel industries marketing firms.


Indy: Posted: July 2, 2014 8:22 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Further, NONE of these technologies encompass energy sources as concentrated as fossil fuels. Fossil fuels pack more potential (useable) energy than anything else other than explosives.

Indy: Note the US only has 3% of the worlds’ proven oil reserves that amounts to about 32 billion barrels.

The US uses about 7 billion barrels per year. What’s 7 into 32?

Wonder why we’re still importing 50% of our oil?

BrianBaker wrote: Then the issue of how you fuel aircraft.

Indy: As we move our ‘ground’ transportation, the remaining oil will be adequate for planes.

But even more important that burning oil for transportation is the use of oil in so many products we use every day.

Why burn up something valuable to commerce when you can power our cars and trucks from the sun/wind . . . and solve the climate change process at the same time?


Indy: Posted: July 2, 2014 8:27 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: (LTE writer: But there is something seriously wrong with encouraging people to disregard the crisis posed by global warming. ) "It is real. It is scientific fact. There’s no legitimate debate to be made about it."

Exactly what these enviro-wack fanatics say every time they want to shut down any "legitimate debate", because there's actually PLENTY of doubt about all this Chicken Littling.

Indy: Would anyone here recite this type of statement in any serious setting that in discussion of climate change?

In any event, a really good site that discloses the fantasies of the climate deniers is: www.skepticalscience.com

You can search on the denier assertions and find full explanations and discussions.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 3, 2014 10:39 p.m.

Captain Irrelevant, you continue to write the stupidest comments on these threads.

And that's all your inane comments have earned in response.

Back to Momma's basement now, y'hear?


projalice11: Posted: July 3, 2014 11:17 p.m.

Again BINGO to Indy..


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 3, 2014 7:54 a.m.

BB- to be fair, Indy did do some research on the rare materials issue and we should respect that. I read over the material and it seems fairly reasonable.

On this issue, I think Indy has some valid points. Egad, what did I just say?


ricketzz: Posted: July 3, 2014 7:55 a.m.

The warming is happening. Human activity, specifically releasing billions of tons a day of sequestered carbon to power hyper-industrialization of some parts of society, is the reason. All other possible causes including solar variation and multi-millennial orbital variations have been plugged into the measured data and they do not come close to the effects of people putting billions of tons of co2 and ch4 into the atmosphere every day. (The west coast will be OK for sea level rise for the time being, we are on the back side of the earth's rotation).

Industrialization without our consideration of lasting damage has rendered us here. The damage continues. We argue philosophy.


17trillion: Posted: July 3, 2014 8:32 a.m.

It is Ricketzz? Well then, I guess this is sure an inconvenient fact:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/antarctic-sea-ice-hits-second-all-time-record-in-a-week/

Donald Robinson, how do you sleep at night? Soundly, safe in knowing you're so full of bs that not even facts will penetrate your skull?


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 3, 2014 9:05 a.m.

Well, here's the deal. Both ricketzz and 17t may both be right. How? Is AR speaking out of both sides of his mouth? As usual? Maybe...

I looked up increasing sea levels at NOAA. The data is very hard to interpret. Some data is up, some is down. Ironically, there is a pair of good charts on Wiki.

The first chart shows rising sea levels from 1870 to 2010 (U of Colorado and EPA). And, yes, sea levels are rising about an inch per decade. Point to Ricketzz.

BUT, look at the second chart. When you look at the last 20K years (as BB has noted in the past), sea levels have always been rising. In fact, its only recently that things have flattened. Point to 17t.

Were there autos and huge industry all during this time to drive increasing ocean levels?

Nope. There is some other process at work. Rising sea levels and, by inference, global climate change, probably has some other source other than gas produced by man. To say they are linked is not scientific.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 3, 2014 10:35 a.m.

Exactly, AR.

Our climate isn't a static system by nature. It's dynamic, which means it's ALWAYS "changing", and has been for the planet's entire 4.4 billion year history.

In fact, we're in the middle of an unusually mild period of change. According to paleo-climatologists, we're actually several hundred years overdue for a major change in climate, based on the historical record of climatological cycling.

I've never understood how the enviro-wacks think we have any kind of ability to actually STOP the climate from changing. The whole idea's absolutely preposterous. You may as well claim you can keep the tide from going out by using a kid's sand bucket to bail it.

And why would anyone think THIS moment in history is the "perfect" climate we should preserve, even if it WERE possible?

You want to see an example of a "stable" climate? Look at the Moon. THAT is a stable climate, because it has no climate. That's the only way a climate can be "stable".


Rmcbroom: Posted: July 3, 2014 12:31 p.m.

Why is it you deniers always quote the two or three "scientists" with the data that disproves global warming. The point is that 97% of all climate scientist believe that human beings are the cause of global warming. And every single argument against it has been debunked - look at skepticalscience.com. Do you really think these thousands of scientists are lying or fudging data because they are left wing nuts? I agree completely with the writer - Lunetta, with his "aw shucks" attitude, is just dooming his children, grandchildren, and everyone else's to a very tough life. As to all you conservative "I know better than the scientists" why don't you stick to whining about Benghazi, Obamacare, and your other pet peeves? It's clear you don't know any science.


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:06 p.m.

"If the climate never "changed" on its own, we'd be trying to dodge sabre-tooth cats and wooly mammoths on our morning commutes."

Why is it necessary to continually point out the logical fallacy in this "reasoning"?


BrianBaker: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:07 p.m.

Bullpuckey, rmcbroom.

First of all, that "97%" number you guys always throw around is completely false. It's based on some survey that was sent around to which very FEW people even responded. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with an accurate percentage of "scientists". Even at THAT, the responders were allowed to classify themselves as to their expertise. Well, hell, I guess I'LL classify myself as an "expert", too. Why not?

"Every single argument" has been debunked? How's that? Are they making the absolutely idiotic claim that the climate never changed before now, and to a degree that's orders of magnitude greater? WHAT, exactly, have they "debunked"?

Have they mentioned that NOAA and NASA just recently admitted faking their data, and substituting computer-model data for the real-world climate data? Or did they just conveniently "forget" that? Kind of a Hillary Clinton "I can't recall" moment?

Go on back to your jug of Kool-Aid.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:08 p.m.

There is no "fallacy", stevie-boy. The historical record is what it is.


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:10 p.m.

"Yeah, and it turns out NASA and NOAA *faked* the "data", substituting computer-modeling numbers for the real-world actual recorded temp data.

This whole thing is a massive scam."

Source?


BrianBaker: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:13 p.m.

You too lazy to read the news, stevie-boy?

Look it up.


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:25 p.m.

Yes, your "thinking" is fallacious.

In the past, A caused B.
Therefore, A *always* cases B.

Fallacy.

Guess you don't have a good source for your claim, eh? The amateur/layperson at Real Science using a fake name doesn't quite count as actual science, you know.


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:35 p.m.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/#atfhead


17trillion: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:36 p.m.

"We" are often called deniers. Can someone explain to me what exactly we are denying? That the climate is changing? Nope, no denying on that one from anyone I know.

The climate is changing! Can you please pick another name to call me please?


BrianBaker: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:37 p.m.

"Fallacious"?

Hey, bubba, are you claiming that somehow the planet's climate, a dynamic system, could somehow magically stop "changing"?.... Ever?

Really?


Hahahahahahaha!

Your tinfoil hat needs reblocking, bud.



stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:40 p.m.


"that "97%" number you guys always throw around is completely false."

http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:42 p.m.

'"Fallacious"?

Hey, bubba, are you claiming that somehow the planet's climate, a dynamic system, could somehow magically stop "changing"?.... Ever?

Really?


Hahahahahahaha!

Your tinfoil hat needs reblocking, bud.'

Well, at least you've made it abundantly clear to everyone that you have no idea how to think logically and rationally.

As if that were ever in question.


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:44 p.m.

" Can someone explain to me what exactly we are denying? That the climate is changing? Nope, no denying on that one from anyone I know."

I think we all know the answer, but you tell us...what *are* you denying?


BrianBaker: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:46 p.m.

Pfffftttt...

Those links are meaningless, stevie-boy, because they forget to mention where that bogus "97%" claim comes from, which is exactly as I stated it.

A small percentage of those who were sent questionnaires even responded, and they were allowed to "classify" their own "expertise".

Like I said, I now proclaim myself a "climate expert".


BrianBaker: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:49 p.m.

I notice you didn't answer the actual question, stevie-boy. Why's that?


Here. I'll give you another chance:

Hey, bubba, are you claiming that somehow the planet's climate, a dynamic system, could somehow magically stop "changing"?.... Ever?


Well......?


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:51 p.m.

Actually, it seems the survey was done two ways: independently, and via self-assessment. Guess what? The results agreed.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange


17trillion: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:53 p.m.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Did you even read your link Steve? Normally when one wishes to debunk something, say the 97% comment, one provides a link that actually addresses that issue. Sadly, (I love using that word), you link did not. Now, your 2nd link did address the 97%, but that too is flawed so I present you another link:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.html

Or how about this one:

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/debunking-97-consensus-on-global-warming.html

This is a good one too:

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/07/30/new-studies-debunk-alarmism-included-97-percent

Here's a good one for you Steve, I really like the title:

http://blog.heartland.org/2012/10/im-here-to-chew-bubble-gum-and-debunk-the-97-global-warming-myth-and-im-all-out-of-bubble-gum/

I know, you and yours will put your hand over your ears and yell NA NA NA NA really loudly or perhaps you'll hold your breath until you turn blue.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:56 p.m.

MORE meaningless bullpuckey, stevie.

Unless you believe that 100% of scientists in ANY field, including "climate", actually write and publish. Because unless that's the case, their methodology is again fatally flawed.

In fact, I'd posit that the vast majority of actual scientists never publish anything at all.


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:56 p.m.

'I notice you didn't answer the actual question, stevie-boy. Why's that?


Here. I'll give you another chance:

Hey, bubba, are you claiming that somehow the planet's climate, a dynamic system, could somehow magically stop "changing"?.... Ever?


Well......?'

That's not your claim, as you know perfectly well. Your (hidden) claim is that because the climate has always changed, humans can't cause it to change, so therefore, ACC is a fraud.

Just because climate change in the past wasn't caused by humans in no way at all disproves the theory that the *current* change isn't caused by humans.


17trillion: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:58 p.m.

I'm denying that man's activities are the sole cause of said change. I'm denying that even were it true, there is practically nothing we can do about it short of reducing the planetary population by 99%. I'm denying that your goals are pure on this matter and that it is indeed another example of the lefts unwavering desire to control all aspects of life.

The fact is that YOU are the one denying. You deny any possible cause of an extremely minute increase in temperature beyond oil and coal. The sun can't be a cause. The earth's natural cycles can't be a cause. Things, gasp, beyond your intellect can't be a cause either! Nope, it's coal and we know it and in order to fix it you must yield!


Indy: Posted: July 3, 2014 2:03 p.m.

AlwaysRight wrote: BB- to be fair, Indy did do some research on the rare materials issue and we should respect that. I read over the material and it seems fairly reasonable.

On this issue, I think Indy has some valid points. Egad, what did I just say?

Indy: That’s why these forums exists . . . to flush out ‘fact from fantasy’.

The rare earth metal issue is of real concern.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 3, 2014 2:05 p.m.

Wrong again, stevie-boy.

Wow. You've really amassed quite the track record.

"That's not your claim, as you know perfectly well."

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Haven't we talked before about how BAD you are at mind-reading?


"Your (hidden) claim is that because the climate has always changed, humans can't cause it to change, so therefore, ACC is a fraud."

Nope, not even close. See? You need to stop pretending to be Carnack.

I've never said that humans don't have an effect on climate. What I HAVE said is that almost EVERYTHING has an effect on climate, and that it's an extremely complex system that we don't come close to fully understanding. Hell, we can't even make up our collective "scientific" minds on whether butter and sugar and eggs are good or bad for us.

What I've ALSO said is that it's the stupidest idea in the world for humans to think they can PREVENT the climate from changing.


Indy: Posted: July 3, 2014 2:08 p.m.

Looks like we need another refresher to ‘level set’ the amount of carbon being burned and placed into the atmosphere:

What I find fascinating is that some Americans believe climate change is simply based on one’s ‘beliefs’ and not science.

We all know about earth’s history including the ‘fact’ that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that does trap solar radiation that keeps this planet warm. Without this, we'd be living on a ice ball in space . . .

The problem is that we’re increasing the CO2 very very quickly.

But first, the simple chemistry:

C + O2 = CO2

When we burn fossil fuels, we are taking carbon from the carbon chains in the fuel, combusting it with oxygen in the air, using the heat and exhausting the combustion products that include CO2.

How much of the CO2 is being emitted to the atmosphere?

Consider the following just for the USA:

- we burn about 1.1 BILLION tons of coal each year (about 3 tons per American)

- we burn about 7 BILLION barrels of oil each year (about 23 barrels per American)

- we burn about 23 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas (75,000 cubic feet per American)

All of this carbon is being ‘dug out of the ground’ and reintroduced to the atmosphere. This is causing the concentration of CO2 to raise from preindustrial levels of about 280 ppm (parts per million) to now going into the 390 ppm range.

This has caused the mean thermal temperature of the earth to raise about 1.5 degree Fahrenheit (read global warming).

So the science is well understood and we can see that ‘humans’ are burning more and more carbon raising the concentration.

The question is what will all of this mean?

Well, more energy on the planet will create changing weather patterns (aka ‘climate change’) as the heat absorbed raises both the air and water temperature.

Higher air temperature causes the air to hold more water and thus rain output will increase the magnitude of rainfall in some areas.

Higher ocean temperatures will cause storms of greater magnitude.

What these will be and their aftereffects we’re just starting to understand. But these changes are happening . . . and their consequences could be significant.

So there’s little doubt that the burning of fossil fuels is having an ‘effect’ and we’re going to have to try to understand what that means long term.

For links to the rising temperature due to climate change introduction of more CO2:
But we can see the rising global mean temperatures: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

And we can also see the rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as we burn more and more fossil fuels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg


Here’s a good link that clearly explains in the burning chemistry equations of coal and natural gas:

http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/09fossil.shtml

This is something you can again ‘see’ for yourself.

Interestingly, they start off using my basic equation . . . .


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 2:09 p.m.

"You deny any possible cause of an extremely minute increase in temperature beyond oil and coal. The sun can't be a cause. The earth's natural cycles can't be a cause. Things, gasp, beyond your intellect can't be a cause either!"

Sigh...do you really think that *all* of those things, and many more, aren't considered and analyzed and factored in to the models and mathematics and data analysis that (gasp!) *real* scientists do?

I am *constantly* amazed at how people with ZERO scientific experience or training are suddenly SO much smarter than the thousands of actual climate scientists the world over...

Wait for it...here comes Baker telling us that HE has a Bachelor of *SCIENCE* degree, so therefore HE'S a scientist, too!


17trillion: Posted: July 3, 2014 2:13 p.m.

"But first, the simple chemistry:

C + O2 = CO2"



Laughing....it never gets old. In fact, I think the more I read that the more hilarious it becomes.


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 2:16 p.m.

"I've never said that humans don't have an effect on climate. What I HAVE said is that almost EVERYTHING has an effect on climate, and that it's an extremely complex system that we don't come close to fully understanding. "

My apologies for misunderstanding your denialist method.

Yes, it's a complex system...but that's not necessarily any reason for us not to understand it. We understand quite a lot of complex systems (quantum physics, for example).

And nobody is saying that other factors aren't involved in climate change, as you know.

But the *current* climate change is not merely about absolute temperature values. It's the *rate* of change which is so much faster than previous changes, and THAT *is* caused by humans.

And even if there were changes in the past with equally rapid changes, it is STILL a fallacy to claim that because *those* weren't caused by humans, humans can't cause them now.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 3, 2014 2:19 p.m.

I'm a prophet like Nostradamus! My prediction of a long Indy post came true!


BrianBaker: Posted: July 3, 2014 2:24 p.m.

"But the *current* climate change is not merely about absolute temperature values. It's the *rate* of change which is so much faster than previous changes, and THAT *is* caused by humans."

Of COURSE it is! Because that's your political agenda. It's as simple as that.

BTW, your claim that "It's the *rate* of change which is so much faster than previous changes" is also completely false.

I've regularly referenced the paleo-climatologists, including right here on this thread, and it's AMAZING (that was sarcasm, of course) how you enviro-fascists always ignore what they've said; that we're long overdue for a major climatological change.

Further, there have been hugely radical climate changes in the past that happened VERY quickly. It's nothing new. The only thing "new" about it is that now there are hysterical Chicken Littles in existence that can run around bleating about it ad nauseum.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 3, 2014 2:25 p.m.

LOL, AR!

That's like predicting that the sun rises in the morning. Pretty safe bet...


17trillion: Posted: July 3, 2014 2:29 p.m.

"And nobody is saying that other factors aren't involved in climate change, as you know. "

You've never said it. The Black Knight has never said it. You are the denier! Because if you and your experts DID say it, there wouldn't be all that tax money and control to be had.

"But the *current* climate change is not merely about absolute temperature values. It's the *rate* of change which is so much faster than previous changes, and THAT *is* caused by humans."

Really? So we have a hot year or 3 and all of a sudden the end is near? We have a 100 years of data to prove that Co2 is destroying the planet even though 1936 was a hotter year and even though 40 years ago so-called experts and scientists were warning of a pending ice age? We can simply discount the prior 4.399999999999999999999999999999999999 billion years because we have a centuries worth of knowledge on how hot it is? I laugh at your premise!


BrianBaker: Posted: July 3, 2014 2:36 p.m.

Well said, 17trill.

You are right. THEY are the actual "climate deniers" by refusing to ever acknowledge that factors other than human activity affect the climate.

To them, it's all man, all the time.

Coupled with the moronic concept that we can ever somehow actually STOP the climate from changing.


17trillion: Posted: July 3, 2014 2:54 p.m.

It's beyond moronic. Furthermore, who got to decide what the optimal temperature is? When did this happen? And.....did any of the numbskulls factor in what a really big volcanic eruption would do to muck up their plans? I'm no expert and simple chemistry is challenging, but isn't there a lot of C + o2 = Co2 coming out of erupting volcanoes?


BrianBaker: Posted: July 3, 2014 3:03 p.m.

Yeah, along with a lot of other pollutants. Volcanic activity is a HUGE factor in climate.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 3, 2014 3:12 p.m.

And Yellowstone looks like its warming up....


BrianBaker: Posted: July 3, 2014 3:35 p.m.

Yeah, I've read about that. There was even a show on TV about it, on Discovery or History or some channel like that.

Apparently, if it blows, it'll be a "super volcano" possibly resulting in a catastrophic climate event like the K-T event 65 million years ago.


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 4:08 p.m.

Yeah, those dumb scientists...plumb fergot all 'bout them *volcanoes*.

Seriously? You guys must think scientists are the dumbest people on earth, completely unable to understand even the simplest things. You're constantly accusing them of ignoring or not knowing about: the sun; volcanoes; previous ice ages; previous warm periods; orbital mechanics; chemistry; and on and on.

Have you even bothered to read things like the IPCC report which discusses all of these things, and more?

(BTW, if you're relying on cable TV channels for your science, you're going to have to learn to sift the wheat from the chaff...the Yellowstone hotspot has been there for quite a while, and has a habit of blowing up about every 600,000 years...the evidence is all along the Snake River plain. However, sorry to burst your "what about volcanoes?" bubble, but none of those came anywhere even close to the K-T event. The "Yellowstone is going to blow up" "documentaries" are half science, half sensationalism, half scary movie).


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 4:09 p.m.

"even though 40 years ago so-called experts and scientists were warning of a pending ice age?"

This has been debunked time and time again. It's not even worth repeating the actual facts for the 90th time here, because you'll a) ignore them, and b) repeat this myth in the next thread, anyway.


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 4:12 p.m.

'"And nobody is saying that other factors aren't involved in climate change, as you know. "

You've never said it. '

Quite the contrary, I've said it numerous times. Because it's *TRUE*.

But climate change deniers like you guys take something that's true, and then twist it into something false...somehow, if other factors are involved in climate change (they are), then they *must* either dwarf or negate the impacts of humans (which is not true).


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 4:14 p.m.

""And nobody is saying that other factors aren't involved in climate change, as you know. "

You've never said it. "

BTW, in case you haven't been paying attention the last several years, I say this *every single time* one of you says something about volcanoes, or the sun, or anything else which might be a factor in climate...

Because I continually point out to you that *all of those things are accounted for in the models*.


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 4:44 p.m.

Every once in a while, you guys might want to go do a little reading from actual climate scientists:

"The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

"Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998)."

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php


BrianBaker: Posted: July 3, 2014 5:27 p.m.

Hahahaha!

Stevie-boy's starting to sound like a whiny version of Captain Irrelevant.

Long bloviations signifying nothing.


Indy: Posted: July 3, 2014 5:34 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "But the *current* climate change is not merely about absolute temperature values. It's the *rate* of change which is so much faster than previous changes, and THAT *is* caused by humans."

Of COURSE it is! Because that's your political agenda. It's as simple as that.

Indy: It’s pathetically sad that in 2014, issues of science are reduced to political nonsense as demonstrated by this poster.

Obviously, the fossil fuel industry has done an excellent job of distorting the climate change issue.

Their self-interest to maintain ‘energy market share’ and not lose depreciation dollars on ‘stranded assets’ sadly forfeit’s our long term future including both economic opportunity and energy security.

Understandably, the nature of climate change has never exposed to the public the amount of detail and observations that require a level of attention unknown in human history.

In any event, to base our common future on an ‘agenda’ that is based on partisan politics is not only inappropriate, but simply wrong.


Indy: Posted: July 3, 2014 5:52 p.m.

AlwaysRight wrote: Nope. There is some other process at work. Rising sea levels and, by inference, global climate change, probably has some other source other than gas produced by man. To say they are linked is not scientific.

Indy: Sort of a bizarre statement to make . . . but there’s knowledge (science) to be had on this issue:

Why did sea level fall in 2010?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-fall-2010.htm
Climate Myth:

Sea level fell in 2010
Large sea level fall in 2010 means IPCC sea level projections are wrong.

A number of climate not-so-skeptics have been exploiting global sea level data in their latest attempt to hide the incline. Skeptical Science readers will be very familiar with the tactics the "skeptics" use to make this argument:

1. Cherrypick a very small amount of data during which the short-term noise has dampened the long-term incline

2. Ignore the long-term trend

3. Refuse to examine the reasons behind the short-term change

Climate "skeptics" have used this exact same strategy to hide the incline in global surface temperatures (here and here and here), lower troposphere temperatures (here), and ocean heat content (here and here). We've found that an effective way to reveal the deception of these arguments is with an animated GIF, comparing the long-term data with the short-term "skeptic" cherrypick. Figure 1 makes this comparison for the global mean sea level data during the satellite radar altimiter record (since 1993) from the University of Colorado. The first frame shows the entire record, the second shows four periods of flat or declining mean sea level, and the third shows the most recent short-term decline.

Indy: I suggest reading this entire link.


Indy: Posted: July 3, 2014 6:05 p.m.

17trillion wrote: "But first, the simple chemistry:

C + O2 = CO2"

Laughing....it never gets old. In fact, I think the more I read that the more hilarious it becomes.

Indy: I can’t ‘force’ people to read my links . . . especially when their more interested in partisan nonsense and physical reality.

But follow this link and you find: http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/09fossil.shtml
Science Notes: Chemistry of Fossil Fuels
Combustion and Energy Release
The chemistry principles previously described can be used to describe the burning of methane (CH4, marsh or natural gas), or of carbon in coal. Combustion involves combinations of the fuel with oxygen.
Thus,
C + O2 CO2
CH4 + 2O2 CO2 + 2H2O
We can show that these reactions release energy. The basic reaction of the burning of C is the basis of our largest energy source -- fossil fuels of various types, including coal, natural gas, and oil. Recall the energy in these bonds came originally form the solar energy captured by plants and then "processed" for millions of year (transformed over millions of years) under the pressure in the Earth.

Indy: It’s sad to me personally that people are so political blinded by their ideology that they are willing to risk our ‘common’ future over nonsense.

But knowledge is key, science is fundamental, and merging both creates understanding.


CaptGene: Posted: July 3, 2014 6:27 p.m.

steve, first check this:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php

Check the qualifications of "the team" and tell me which one is the "real scientist"

Then check this out:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/ --edited.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 3, 2014 6:37 p.m.

And here he is, the real and forgettable Captain Irrelevant himself, in all his bloviating glory.




Okay, Captain and stevie-boy, here's a question for either or both of you. Because it cuts to the bottom line of this entire issue.

Do you seriously believe that ANYTHING humankind can do is actually gonna STOP "climate change"?

HOW, exactly, are we gonna do THAT?

WHAT are we gonna do that's going to STOP the climate from changing?


Because that's exactly what all the hysteria you guys spread around is all about. How "we" are going to "keep the climate from changing". All we have to do is destroy our economy, and turn everything over to the elites who know so much better than we do how everything has to be.

So........ HOW is it going to work? WHAT is going to be done? HOW is it gonna STOP the climate from changing?


Hmmmmmmmm.....?



Indy: Posted: July 3, 2014 7:39 p.m.

CaptGene wrote: Then check this out:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/ --edited.

Indy: Let’s go down the path . . .

Who is James Taylor: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=631
Senior Fellow, Heartland Institute
Managing Editor of Environment & Climate News, Heartland Institute publication

What is the Heartland Institute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian[2] public policy think tank based in Chicago, which states that it advocates free market policies.[3][4][5][6] The Institute is designated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit by the Internal Revenue Service and has a full-time staff of 31,[7] including editors and senior fellows,[8] as well as 222 unpaid policy advisors.[9] Heartland's 990 form in 2011[10] reported revenues of $4.7 million. The Institute was founded in 1984 and conducts research and advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, hydraulic fracturing[11] global warming, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.

What is the Popular Technology: http://ipka.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/denialist-populartechnology-net-denier-website/

PopularTechnology.net is a denier website

Indy: So I’m not surprised that a Op-ed writer for Forbes who works for a libertarian think tank thinks so badly of a scientific website that explains climate change.

But hey, it's comedy gold!


Indy: Posted: July 3, 2014 7:41 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Do you seriously believe that ANYTHING humankind can do is actually gonna STOP "climate change"?

Indy: Great question . . . but I’ve got to go mow the lawn . . . but I’ll be back!


CaptGene: Posted: July 3, 2014 7:57 p.m.

Still trying to poison the well. Notice that Indy Nile didn't even attempt to refute any of it? That's because he can't.


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 8:03 p.m.

See how this works? The deniers toss out some supposed factoid which "proves" climate change is a worldwide fraud and conspiracy, to wit (in this case) "VOLCANOES!"

When you start to look at the actual science, turns out, that ones been asked and answered many times over. Point that out to them, and... *poof*...that "debunking" is ignored, and it's on to the next one!

Repeat that cycle over and over...right-wing talking point-actual science response/ignore rebuttal and move to the next talking point/repeat.


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 8:11 p.m.

"Do you seriously believe that ANYTHING humankind can do is actually gonna STOP "climate change"?"

Again, a conflation of natural vs. human-caused changes. Nobody has ever said they would stop the long-term variations in climate across the globe, nor should we.

The current human-caused climate change is extremely rapid, and *that's* what the problem is.

There's an almost perfect analog with species extinction rates. The historical, long-term extinction rate is about 1 species/million species/year. Humans show up, modern industrial society explodes, and the current rate is about 100-1000 times higher than the background rate.

Will we "stop" extinctions? No. Should we reduce the extinction rate that occurs because of our activity? Most probably, yes.

Same thing with climate change...we've created an environment where the climate is changing extremely rapidly, to the detriment of *all* species, ourselves included. Should we work to reduce that effect? I guess it all depends on whether you view anything other than yourself as having any intrinsic value.


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 8:15 p.m.

'steve, first check this:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php

Check the qualifications of "the team" and tell me which one is the "real scientist"'

You're joking, right? From what I see, not *one* of them is an actual climate scientist. Resumes like this:

"She has always had a lot of interest in environmental issues and has been active as a volunteer at the local zoo and a conservation group for many years."

are NOT convincing. LOL!


CaptGene: Posted: July 3, 2014 8:25 p.m.

Now you're joking, right?

At 4:44 today, in this very thread you wrote this:

"Every once in a while, you guys might want to go do a little reading from actual climate scientists:"

Which was followed by a quote from:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

At least we can agree that they are not convincing.


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 8:47 p.m.

No, when they went to the *actual science*, instead of pretending to do it themselves, they found:

"Published reviews of the scientific literature by Mörner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject. "


stevehw: Posted: July 3, 2014 8:49 p.m.

In other words, even the denialist team at Skeptical Science knows when to give up an absurd claim. And yet, the "experts" here persist in bringing it up...


Indy: Posted: July 4, 2014 9:06 p.m.

C(omedy)aptG(old)ene wrote: Still trying to poison the well. Notice that Indy Nile didn't even attempt to refute any of it? That's because he can't.

Indy: It’s comedy gold!


Indy: Posted: July 4, 2014 9:08 p.m.

Stevehw wrote: See how this works? The deniers toss out some supposed factoid which "proves" climate change is a worldwide fraud and conspiracy, to wit (in this case) "VOLCANOES!"

When you start to look at the actual science, turns out, that ones been asked and answered many times over. Point that out to them, and... *poof*...that "debunking" is ignored, and it's on to the next one!

Repeat that cycle over and over...right-wing talking point-actual science response/ignore rebuttal and move to the next talking point/repeat.

Indy: That’s the ticket . . . but realize the GOP runs on ‘value’ not facts or science.

Thus, they give their believers some talking points and off they go . . . over and over and over . .


tech: Posted: July 4, 2014 9:19 p.m.

You may wish to reconsider your last post, Steve.

The "experts" who quote from the Skeptical Science site are Indy, ricketzz and now, you. It's a well known AGW advocacy site.


stevehw: Posted: July 4, 2014 9:28 p.m.

Yeah, you're right...I misspoke...too many cold frosties starting the long weekend :)

I think the point is still valid, though...when you get to the *actual* science and the work of *actual* scientists, the whole "volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans* meme is pretty dead.

Back to enjoying a nice Sierra Nevada and a Fuente Rosada... :)


tech: Posted: July 4, 2014 9:35 p.m.

I've been denied a smoke for a few days myself. I'm waiting for it to cool down! :-)


stevehw: Posted: July 4, 2014 10:04 p.m.

Tonight is cooler, that's for sure...good evening for a nice smoke! Go grab ya one and enjoy it!


BrianBaker: Posted: July 4, 2014 10:26 p.m.

"BrianBaker wrote: Do you seriously believe that ANYTHING humankind can do is actually gonna STOP 'climate change'?

"Indy: Great question . . . but I’ve got to go mow the lawn . . . but I’ll be back!"



Well, at least THAT was somewhat honest. An honest admission that he can't or won't answer the question.

Now let's contrast that with Stevie's lame attempt:

"Again, a conflation of natural vs. human-caused changes. Nobody has ever said they would stop the long-term variations in climate across the globe, nor should we."

Really? Then what's all the blabber I hear from Gore and Obama and everyone else Chicken Littling this subject when they talk about "saving the planet"... using THOSE EXACT WORDS. Huh?

All you're trying to do is weasel around it. Like this:

"The current human-caused climate change is extremely rapid, and *that's* what the problem is.... Same thing with climate change...we've created an environment where the climate is changing extremely rapidly, to the detriment of *all* species, ourselves included. Should we work to reduce that effect?"


Meaningless gibberish. First of all, I always find it a dead giveaway that none of you EVER address the fact that paleo-climatologists have repeatedly stated that we're LONG overdue for a major climate alteration. And THAT, bubba, is the opinion of the majority of THOSE scientists. The record is crystal clear and irrefutable. REAL science, not the political bullsheep you guys spout.

Further, and again, what does your statement even MEAN?

You can't even QUANTIFY what a "reduction" is. You can't even predict what effect you anticipate. You got nothin', bud, but a lot of hair-on-fire nonsense.

Because the bottom line is the climate's gonna change no matter what anyone does. And it would still do it even if there wasn't a single human being anywhere on Earth.


stevehw: Posted: July 4, 2014 10:36 p.m.

Blah blah blah Al Gore blah blah blah.

A "major" climate change in geologic terms is one thing...a sudden and drastic change in atmospheric composition and global temperatures on the order of decades is quite another.

Perhaps if you actually knew and talked to actual scientists, you'd be less inclined to spout nonsense.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 4, 2014 10:47 p.m.

"A 'major' climate change in geologic terms is one thing...a sudden and drastic change in atmospheric composition and global temperatures on the order of decades is quite another."

Yet more meaningless gibberish. Define "sudden". Define "drastic". All of which AGAIN we're long-overdue for according to paleo-climatologists.

BTW, what ever happened to all that "global warming" everyone was Chicken Littling about last? Twenty years ago, Gore and the rest of the hysterics were saying that by NOW New York City would be completely submerged. Sadly, it's not. A "sudden" and "drastic" problem that was only 20 years away. What happened?

Oh... wait... I remember now. The temps haven't increased in about FIFTEEN YEARS!

Major oooopsie there, stevie. I guess your climate "scientists" are about as accurate as all the dietary experts who can't ever make up their minds about butter and sugar and eggs and such.

"Perhaps if you actually knew and talked to actual scientists, you'd be less inclined to spout nonsense."

Maybe REAL scientists, but not the political hookers you guys are always relying on to sell your snake oil.

Don't wanna interrupt your evening. I'm sure you've got a goblet of Kool-Aid there you're just waiting to gulp. Have at it.


stevehw: Posted: July 4, 2014 11:11 p.m.

Well, since you're incapable of making real arguments, and instead have just resorted to your usual nasty personal attacks, guess we're done here.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 4, 2014 6:57 a.m.

LOL!

Well, stevie, let me summarize for you what we've accomplished here.

You admit we can never stop the climate from actually changing.

You can't quantify or define what normal "climate change" is.

You can't quantify or define what benefits we're supposed to achieve by radically altering our lifestyles and destroying our economy.

You refuse to acknowledge the paleo-climatological record, and what it means.

Your "scientists" have a dismal record of being utterly inaccurate in all their hysterical predictions reaching back over 40 years.

And then you wonder why we don't believe anything you guys say, and call US "deniers"?

Yeah, I guess if I were in YOUR shoes, I'd be "done here", too.


ricketzz: Posted: July 4, 2014 7:50 a.m.

Golly. The religious fervor here is silly. The only people who still deny Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring are the Republican base (abt 20% of the electorate) and the Koch heads (and the Kochs aren't really into it that much because they are the progeny of a scientist and have not yet been lobotomized by KABC.) Have some fun once in a while. I can't imagine discussing these weighty matters without some lighter excursions, for sanity's sake.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-u-s-exports-global-warming-20140203

We are already on the "blade" of the Hockey Stick. President Gore's predictions are being proven by empirical data. It is "happening now".

http://americablog.com/2013/05/the-climate-crisis-story-in-three-easy-charts.html


BrianBaker: Posted: July 4, 2014 8:13 a.m.

LOL, ricketzz.

Yeah... sure thing, pal. There sure is "religious fervor" here, and it's evidenced by the religion of "climate change".

That's the only way it can be characterized, since as I've just demonstrated there are no definable or quantifiable actual FACTS on the table.


CaptGene: Posted: July 4, 2014 8:17 a.m.

So, first you use skepticalscience.com to make your point, then you admit that they are not to be trusted, then you think they are a bunch of denialists...you've lost me. This nugget you posted:

"Published reviews of the scientific literature by Mörner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject."

They managed to provide names and data range from the first group (which is dubious given the hobbyist nature of the "team"), But no names or data ranges from the second group. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Seems like they are trying to keep something from the rubes that think these guys are "real scientists".

Also. you never commented on the Forbes link. It explains where the "97.1%" figure alarmists like to parrot. I'm curious as to what you think of it. Here's an excerpt:

"Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed."


CaptGene: Posted: July 4, 2014 8:19 a.m.

The hockey stick is bogus.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 4, 2014 8:32 a.m.

Hell, the whole scam is bogus.


tech: Posted: July 4, 2014 11:12 a.m.

stevehw:
Posted: July 4, 2014
10:04 p.m.
Tonight is cooler, that's for sure...good evening for a nice smoke! Go grab ya one and enjoy it!

I didn't make it out last night, Steve. However, in the spirit of Independence Day, I am enjoying a Punch Gran Puro & coffee this morning. :-)


Indy: Posted: July 4, 2014 8:41 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "BrianBaker wrote: Do you seriously believe that ANYTHING humankind can do is actually gonna STOP 'climate change'?

"Indy: Great question . . . but I’ve got to go mow the lawn . . . but I’ll be back!"

Well, at least THAT was somewhat honest. An honest admission that he can't or won't answer the question.

Indy: LOL . . . as if you were hanging on the edge of the throne you are sitting on typing to this site!


Indy: Posted: July 4, 2014 8:46 p.m.

Ricketzz wrote: Golly. The religious fervor here is silly. The only people who still deny Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring are the Republican base (abt 20% of the electorate) and the Koch heads (and the Kochs aren't really into it that much because they are the progeny of a scientist and have not yet been lobotomized by KABC.) Have some fun once in a while. I can't imagine discussing these weighty matters without some lighter excursions, for sanity's sake.

Indy: Good to keep in mind that conservatives vote their ‘values’ and not their intelligence.

They also can’t grasp the ‘context’ of climate change as we currently witness it.

But hey, let’s give the deniers credit for telling the public that plants like CO2!!!!!

For anyone really concerned about climate change, check out the www.skepticalscience.com site . . . and you can search on the climate denier’s talking points and get good solid information on the given deception.

And here’s a good discussion of the 97% issue that making the libertarian rounds:


http://www.skepticalscience.com/why-we-care-about-97-percent-consensus.html
Why we care about the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming


Indy: Posted: July 4, 2014 8:50 p.m.

CaptGene wrote: The hockey stick is bogus.

Indy: If you want an excellent read on this, try:

The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines [Kindle Edition]
Michael E. Mann

Here’s a good recap of this guy’s work and credentials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

Michael E. Mann (born 1965) is an American climatologist and geophysicist,[1] currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, who has contributed to the scientific understanding of climate change over the last two thousand years. He has pioneered techniques to find patterns in past climate change, and to isolate climate signals from "noisy data."[3]

As lead author of a paper produced in 1998 with co-authors Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes, Mann introduced innovative statistical techniques to find regional variations in a hemispherical climate reconstruction covering the past 600 years. In 1999 the same team used these techniques to produce a reconstruction over the past 1,000 years (MBH99) which was dubbed the "hockey stick graph" because of its shape. He was one of 8 lead authors of the "Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report published in 2001. A graph based on the MBH99 paper was highlighted in several parts of the report, and was given wide publicity. The IPCC acknowledged that his work, along with that of the many other lead authors and review editors, contributed to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, which was won jointly by the IPCC and Al Gore.

He was organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences Frontiers of Science in 2003 and has received a number of honors and awards including selection by Scientific American as one of the fifty leading visionaries in science and technology in 2002. In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union. In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, and awarded the status of distinguished professor in Penn State's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.


Indy: Posted: July 4, 2014 8:56 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Oh... wait... I remember now. The temps haven't increased in about FIFTEEN YEARS!

Indy: Suggest the following article to address this talking point:

Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?

Myth:Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
"January 2008 capped a 12 month period of global temperature drops on all of the major well respected indicators. HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year" (source: Watts Up With That).

A common claim amongst climate "skeptics" is that the Earth has been cooling recently. 1998 was the first year claimed by "skeptics" for "Global Cooling". Then 1995 followed by 2002. 'Skeptics' have also emphasized the year 2007-2008 and most recently the last half of 2010.

NASA and climate scientists throughout the world have said, however, that the years starting since 1998 have been the hottest in all recorded temperature history. Do these claims sound confusing and contradictory? Has the Earth been cooling, lately?

To find out whether there is actually a "cooling trend," it is important to consider all of these claims as a whole, since they follow the same pattern. In making these claims, 'skeptics' cherrypick short periods of time, usually about 10 years or less.

'Skeptics' also take selected areas of the world where cold records for the recent past are being set while ignoring other areas where all time heat records are being set.

Indy: I highly suggest reading the whole link as the author shows how the data is being misused as we see with this poster.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 5, 2014 10:22 p.m.

Captain Irrelevant, how about answering the questions I posed before dodging off into your standard talking points? Because until you DO, you have nothing else of value to say on this topic.

So... Here they are again:

Do you seriously believe that ANYTHING humankind can do is actually gonna STOP "climate change"?

HOW, exactly, are we gonna do THAT?

WHAT are we gonna do that's going to STOP the climate from changing?


Because that's exactly what all the hysteria you guys spread around is all about. How "we" are going to "keep the climate from changing". All we have to do is destroy our economy, and turn everything over to the elites who know so much better than we do how everything has to be.

So........ HOW is it going to work? WHAT is going to be done? HOW is it gonna STOP the climate from changing?


Hmmmmmmmm.....?


CaptGene: Posted: July 5, 2014 11:41 p.m.

Anyone notice how Indy Nile ignores the fact that skepticalscience.com is made up of nothing more than climate hobbyists? Yet he is promoting them as experts in the field!

I remember when a MBA from CSUN used to mean something. Sad, pathetic.


CaptGene: Posted: July 5, 2014 7:16 a.m.

I have some climate change info from someone with the following education:

Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics
M.Phil. Geology & Geophysics
M.Phil. Physics
M.S. Physics
A.B. Applied Math, Physics

Does this person qualify as a "real scientist"? --edited.


tech: Posted: July 5, 2014 3:42 p.m.

"I remember when a MBA from CSUN used to mean something. Sad, pathetic." - CG

Are you implying it wasn't as rigorous as President George W. Bush's Harvard MBA, CG?


ricketzz: Posted: July 9, 2014 6:41 a.m.

Hurricanes spoil holidays in September, not July. All the crops in Valencia Spain are destroyed by 2 hours long hailstorm.


tech: Posted: July 9, 2014 9:50 a.m.

Weather is unpredictable indeed.


ricketzz: Posted: July 10, 2014 7:10 a.m.

"May 2014 Global Weather Extremes Summary

May featured record heat in portions of China, Japan, Korea, and Eastern Europe. Deadly floods occurred in China and the Baltics. The most intense tropical storm on record for May, Amanda, formed in the Eastern Pacific. The global temperature anomaly rankings for May have yet to be released by NOAA or NASA, but given the unusual warmth (at least over land) I would not be surprised if the month ends up ranking as among the warmest Mays on record.

Below are some of the month’s highlights."

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=281


BrianBaker: Posted: July 10, 2014 12:37 p.m.

Big deal.

Remember the record COLD temps just last winter?


tech: Posted: July 10, 2014 6:35 p.m.

You do know that the "extreme weather" tactic is a nonstarter from a historical data perspective, right?


CaptGene: Posted: July 10, 2014 6:54 p.m.

I'm still waiting to hear if a person with degrees in Geology, Geophysics, Physics and Applied Math make them a "real" enough scientist that is qualified to discuss "climate change".


tech: Posted: July 10, 2014 7:55 p.m.

Expect to measure your wait in geologic time, CG.


CaptGene: Posted: July 12, 2014 8:18 a.m.

Sure looking that way. I'll remember that next time some alarmist tries to poison the well with their "real scientist" shtick.


ricketzz: Posted: July 13, 2014 7:30 a.m.

It says "Weather extremes" not "Extreme Weather". Are you that jittery or nervous or what? Or maybe you were talking about something else.

This argument was over 10 years ago. Now, virtually no credible climate scientist disagrees. The 97% consensus was not a survey. It was a study of every paper mentioning climate change and its likely causes. Thousands of peer reviewed real scientific studies.

The BBC wants their airwaves cleansed of the confusing deniers, for the greater good. I agree.


CaptGene: Posted: July 13, 2014 9:54 a.m.

cricketzz: "This argument was over 10 years ago. Now, virtually no credible climate scientist disagrees. The 97% consensus was not a survey. It was a study of every paper mentioning climate change and its likely causes. Thousands of peer reviewed real scientific studies"

Absolute hogwash.


tech: Posted: July 13, 2014 3:41 p.m.

"The BBC wants their airwaves cleansed of the confusing deniers, for the greater good. I agree." - ricketzz

"Totalitarian methods must be used, in lieu of an objective press and an educated electorate, to maintain order." - ricketzz

The underlying trend line is clear and it's Orwellian.


ricketzz: Posted: July 15, 2014 7:53 a.m.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The BBC correctly does the responsible thing and calls out the shills for the old economic order for what they are, lying propagandists. "Freedom is slavery".


tech: Posted: July 16, 2014 1:07 a.m.

"Ministry of Truth"


ricketzz: Posted: July 16, 2014 7:56 a.m.

Tech, should the BBC also broadcast Anti-Vaccine madness even though doing so will cause deaths? The Anthropogenic Global Warming science is there, waiting for debunking. Every new experiment is an attempt to debunk. Thus far the AGW theory is the only plausible explanation for the earth being hotter than any time in thousands of millennia. We are killing the garden.


tech: Posted: July 16, 2014 6:28 p.m.

Your vaccine example is a false equivalency. We have decades of observed, not modeled, data to support the efficacy of vaccinations.

The summer of 1936 is the hottest on record in the USA. Natural variation is plausible. The climate models are flawed and fail to match actual observed predictively and in regression. The science is disputed by reputable scientists.

Even if AGW is validated as a primary cause, adaptation is more rational than massive disruption to the global economic system.

Orthodoxy in science is untenable. Debating climate alarmist fanatics is futile because they'll accept no alternative hypothesis. State controlled media determining scientific "truth" and blocking debate is censorship.


ricketzz: Posted: July 17, 2014 7:45 a.m.

You slept through the part where less disruptive measures were appropriate. As I have been saying forever, the longer we wait the less chance of success, the worse the pain. There is no state controlled media except NASA TV.

The BBC not giving crackpots airtime blocks no debate (science is debated with peer reviewed papers, not on TV). The people are confused; they think this is a toss-up as proven on HBO; any media outlet who pretends there is more opposition than there is, by providing a split screen with a liar and an expert, is killing your grandchildren for money.


ricketzz: Posted: July 18, 2014 7:56 a.m.

Now, call me crazy.


tech: Posted: July 18, 2014 8:26 p.m.

"…is killing your grandchildren for money." - ricketzz

"Now, call me crazy." - ricketzz



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...