Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

More Global Warming Lies; 2014 Almost Certainly Not the Warmest Year on Record

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

How do you know when global warming alarmists are lying? Well, there is no hard and fast rule here, but a good rule of thumb is “when their lips are moving.”

On January 16 NASA issued a much heralded press release claiming that 2014 was the warmest year since temperature records have been maintained. Given the 17-year long pause in global warming, when I saw that headline my immediate response: “That’s probably not true; in a few days investigative journalists will sort the lies out.” I was right.

Britain’s Daily Mail reports:

the NASA press release failed to mention…that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree—or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C—several times as much.

Summary: margin of error one tenth of a degree; alleged difference two hundreds of a degree. The change is five times smaller than the margin of error of the measurement.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted NASA thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.

Global warming: The only area of science where researchers report as absolute fact claims that are almost certainly not true. And why is this? Because for many environmentalists, their work is thinly veiled religious worship. Just like for many Darwinists. And that similarity is why a site devoted to origins reports on the former so often.

Comments
DATCG: Likewise, citing experts changing sides is not evidence. No, however, there is a strong consensus in scientific community that humans are changing the climate. The basics are quite simple. Human emissions are changing the greenhouse properties of the atmosphere trapping heat at the surface (atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere). The distribution of this heat is chaotic and only partly understood. This consensus includes evidence from multiple fields of study, as developed by scientists in many different political and cultural milieus.Zachriel
January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
Al Gore's dire warnings from Nobel speech, including Maslowski's dire prediction...
Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. Seven years from now. In the last few months, it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter. Major cities in North and South America, Asia and Australia are nearly out of water due to massive droughts and melting glaciers
Al Gore was an investor in Chicago Climate Exchange(CCX) through a company in the UK - Generation Investment Management - as Chairman and Founding Partner. Trading of Carbon Credits through CCX estimated from billions on up. After Cap and Trade was defeated, CCX and European ECX was sold to Intercontinental Exchange or ICE. Founder Richard Sander is said to have made $98 million off of his 16% investment. Not sure how much Al Gore's GIM investment in CCX made. Chicago Climate Exchange Obama originally set on the Board of the Joyce Foundation that gave donations to CCX...
This transaction occurred when a young community organizer, Barack Obama, served on the Joyce Foundation’s board of directors, along with his mentor, present White House advisor Valerie Jarret. Eventually Joyce Foundation startup contributions for CCX totaled about $1.1 million, and its president, Paula DiPerna, later left the organization to become executive vice president of CCX.
DATCG
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT
from content of link above by BBC 2007... Scientist or "expert" Maslowski projections were in the content...
By Jonathan Amos Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling(sic) studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times. Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections. "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: "I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you've had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out." Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski's analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo.
Dr. Serreze projects a little later, but will happen suddenly...
"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."
The citation of "expert" of Maslowski for a dire 2013 prediction by Al Gore was wrong. Likewise, citing experts changing sides is not evidence. If that were the case, then world renown geneticist Dr. John Sanford's change from unguided evolution to Design should change all opposing minds here to ID.DATCG
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
3/4 of the Canadian northern ice has melted... My crazy brother thinks it is happening because God is reverting the Earth's climate to the same one as in the Eden Garden. He believes that soon all ice will melt, the climate will change into the paradisiac (I can't spell it sorry) I like bets, so I told him if the trend continues according to his prophecies, I will conform....Quest
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
drc466: Now, does it really matter if it was the last 20, or just the last 17 minutes that don’t show heating? Yes, that is my point. It matters to the " pause". That is why it it a deliberate misrepresentation, if fact you provide the rationale And when the person measuring the statistics is being paid a lot of money only if the temperatures do show a correlation I contend that is exactly the genesis of the " no warming since x". And when even the cherry-picked and adjusted data don’t show a direct correlation, don’t you have to wonder if the other Fires might be significantly more important a factor Yes, but then I wonder how convienent that argument is for those who have a vested interest in producing CO2, and remember that a few years ago they argued that no warming was occurring at all.velikovskys
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Another timely paper published in the most reliable science press media -- Science China Press, that is. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-01/scp-www011915.php
A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and, as the Orient's equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world's top six learned journals of science, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.
awstar
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Professor Schneider who served as a consultant to federal agencies and White House staff in the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, second Bush and Obama administrations: "I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming" http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.htmlEugen
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
Brent: We are just trying to cool ourselves from all this heat. The climate debate is all about thermodynamics.Zachriel
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
"we keep pointing to the evidence and you keep waving your hands." We are just trying to cool ourselves from all this heat.Brent
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Nunavut Climate Change Centre http://www.climatechangenunavut.ca/enZachriel
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
drc466: Say that you have a large boiler sitting above 4 different fires. You are attempting to prove that the continual increase of fire #2 is causing significant increases in the temperature of the water. You have models that predict how a change in the temperature of fire #2 will translate into a change in the temperature of the boiler water. Yes, we do have such models. If you light a fire under a container of water, the water's temperature will increase. The climate is somewhat different in that the heat is distributed chaotically. However, the overall energy of the system is increasing as expected. drc466: tell it to the Eskimos The Inuit, along with most native peoples, are very concerned about climate change. drc466: Counterpoint: In the last 200 years, the world’s population has grown from 1B to 9B people. I’m sure it can handle it if, in the next 200 years, 1B of those people have to pack up and move. Humanity will persevere. However, such an upheaval will cause social and political friction, possible war, and unnecessary human suffering. drc466: statement of Faith in the people cherry-picking and adjusting the data. It has nothing to do with faith, but scientific evidence. Notably, we keep pointing to the evidence and you keep waving your hands.Zachriel
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
hrun0815, Many thanks for the last word. I do now feel, however, that I should apologize and take back my statement that you are an ass. For it appears that you actually believe that I said, ". . . either ‘they are wrong’ or ‘they are right, but then they are idiots, so they are likely wrong anyway’," which means your case is considerably worse than I thought. I'm sorry.Brent
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Zach @87 interpreted: Point 1: Zach's statement of Faith that the world is doomed because people will have to move, and warmer temperatures are somehow bad for agriculture (tell it to the Eskimos). Counterpoint: In the last 200 years, the world's population has grown from 1B to 9B people. I'm sure it can handle it if, in the next 200 years, 1B of those people have to pack up and move. Point 2: Zach's statement of Faith in the people cherry-picking and adjusting the data.drc466
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
Vel, If it will make you feel better: "Given that the last seventeen years have exhibited statistically no warming...". Now, since you aren't apparently able to make the distinction: does the modification to my statement make a qualitative difference to the point, namely that warming has NOT tracked against fossil fuel consumption for an extended period of time? No. Does the 38% confidence level of the claim that 2014 was the hottest on record make a difference to the qualitative reliability of the claim? Yes. Duh. Since this seems to be a sticking point, for climate change true believers, think of the following analogy: Say that you have a large boiler sitting above 4 different fires. You are attempting to prove that the continual increase of fire #2 is causing significant increases in the temperature of the water. You have models that predict how a change in the temperature of fire #2 will translate into a change in the temperature of the boiler water. For a thousand minutes, you increase the temperature of fire #2, slowly at first, then increasingly rapidly over time. You measure the temperature of the boiler water at 100 different points every minute. You average the temperatures, you get a mean temperature at 1000 points in time, and you have a perfectly correlated graph between fire #2 temperature and boiler water temperature. This is exactly what we see with climate change, with fire #2 = CO2 consumption, and boiler water = global temperatures - right? Wrong. First of all, you only have about 100 points, you have to extrapolate the other 900 from random photos taken of sections of the boiler water surface at various points in time. Next, you've added points over that 100 minutes, you're not using the same points as you used to when you started. And some of those points have changed position, or the chemical make-up of the liquid around them has changed. Further, you throw out any "anomalous" readings you get (i.e. points that don't show the expected temp gains). Also, you "adjust" certain points upward to account for some reasonable-sounding factors (e.g. "this point was near the surface of the boiler, where the metal is corroding, and so more heat is escaping at that point than used to!"). And any time that the numbers still don't match your boiler climate change models, you point to motion in the water, or accumulating silt deposits, or stored "heat content" in unmeasured areas in the boiler, etc. Now, does it really matter if it was the last 20, or just the last 17 minutes that don't show heating? And when the person measuring the statistics is being paid a lot of money only if the temperatures do show a correlation, don't you have to be a little skeptical? And when even the cherry-picked and adjusted data don't show a direct correlation, don't you have to wonder if the other Fires might be significantly more important a factor? And when fire #2 is needed to power the existence of billions of people, are you really willing to tell those billions of people you have to shut it down, even though fire #5 isn't available yet? Especially when the people screaming that you need to shut off fire #2 are using more of fire #2 than anyone else?drc466
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
That out of the way, perhaps you can also trust that Mr. Muller, who you seem obligated to now to not claim he is an idiot, and remembering that you think he was a genuine skeptic at that (and NOT an idiot, in case you’ve forgotten that part already), was in, in his own non-idiotic words, the same exact boat that I’m telling you that I’m in. He didn’t trust because of the wild-ass alarmism and thuggish behavior. I don’t trust because of it either. He changed his views. I haven’t.
Oh, you are so right. Mea culpa... Hang on, yes, you are right, I do believe that you and Muller were in the same boat. Turns out that Muller did not start reasoning like you did though. He did not make the claim that either 'they are wrong' or 'they are right, but then they are idiots, so they are likely wrong anyway'. He actually went ahead and checked for himself, quite needlessly one might add. And, in fact, there were many that did actually challenge his idiotic skepticism when he was charging that climate science is simply wrong and done so shoddily that it couldn't possibly be right. Just like there are people here who take you to task for dismissing stuff out of hand for some reason, and then coming up with some other reasons when the first were shown to be ridiculous. Since you are done, and it seems impolite to take the last word, I will give it to you:
Mr. Muller stuck to his guns no matter who said the data was solid; until he checked for himself. I will not believe until I see something that convinces me.
hrun0815
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
drc466: I’m also glad that you feel that the economic, political and social disruption of people moving is greater than that of having to replace the existing world’s energy sources. Turns out that when millions of people are dislocated it causes human suffering, as well as political tension as poor dislocated populations move to other areas. Sea level rise is not the only problem, of course, but disruption of agriculture, and loss of habitat and species. The Earth is on the cusp of a 6th great extinction event. Don't worry. Humans will survive, even if there are irretrievable ecological losses. We have great confidence that humans will change their behavior and avoid some of the most dire possible circumstances. That's the advantage of the foresight provided by science. drc466: When measuring climate change and its effects, scientist always use the complete set of raw data collected, and apply no cherry-picking or subjective adjustments of data. The original data was spliced manually, but nowadays, modern statistical techniques are used. Those original studies have largely been confirmed.Zachriel
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
Z, I'm glad you are comfortable with hey, sometimes temps go up, and hey, sometimes "heat content" of oceans rise as temps stay the same. CO2 effects can be so sneaky that way, with the head-fakes and all. I'm also glad that you feel that the economic, political and social disruption of people moving is greater than that of having to replace the existing world's energy sources. I'm not. Agree to Disagree. True or False: When measuring climate change and its effects, scientist always use the complete set of raw data collected, and apply no cherry-picking or subjective adjustments of data. If the answer is False (hint: it is), the conclusions are subject to strong confirmation bias. Even climate models cannot be used to validate the conclusions, as the models are both based on, and compared to, the modified and cherry-picked temperature data. So, at the end of the day, it comes down to whether you have Faith in the integrity of the scientists generating the climate-change alarmist studies (ref. Mann, Hansen). The OP is just one example of many (ref. Climategate) as to why Skepticism is warranted on this topic. Final word to Instapundit: I’LL BELIEVE IT’S A CRISIS WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO TELL ME IT’S A CRISIS START ACTING LIKE IT’S A CRISISdrc466
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Brent Hrun is actually Eugene Goostman. At first seems serious but after 3 minutes you realize he's a robot.Eugen
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Brent: my main contention is that it is natural variability. The evidence indicates otherwise. See Meehl et al., Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate, Journal of Climate 2004. Only CO2 forcing explains the data. http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/Meehl-with-labels-44587810031.jpegZachriel
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Drc466 Given that the last two decades have exhibited statistically no warming 2014-1998 = 17, two decades would be 1995. The " pause" requires a extremely hot starting year, 1998 .Using 1995 would be problematic to the claim of a pause. Normally one would take two decades as a figure of speech but per Barry Here’s the main question I keep asking myself. If the science is so overwhelming, why does it appear that they believe they need to resort to deceptive tactics such as the NASA press release (and by “deceptive tactics” I mean the moral equivalent of a “damned lie”) to get people to believe them?velikovskys
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
hrun0815, Thank you. Now let me tell you something first and foremost. You are an ass. That out of the way, perhaps you can also trust that Mr. Muller, who you seem obligated to now to not claim he is an idiot, and remembering that you think he was a genuine skeptic at that (and NOT an idiot, in case you've forgotten that part already), was in, in his own non-idiotic words, the same exact boat that I'm telling you that I'm in. He didn't trust because of the wild-ass alarmism and thuggish behavior. I don't trust because of it either. He changed his views. I haven't. Mr. Muller stuck to his guns no matter who said the data was solid; until he checked for himself. I will not believe until I see something that convinces me. But convinces me of what? Though it won't matter to you, hrun, I'll just say that I don't CARE if global temperatures have risen basically as touted. I have concerns that the data isn't as accurate as it's said to be, but even if it is, my main contention is that it is natural variability. Continue your field day of twisting if you wish. I don't care.Brent
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
drc466: Given that the last two decades have exhibited statistically no warming There is a more than 90% chance the Earth's surface has warmed over the last two decades. Meanwhile, ocean heat content continues to increase. http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png drc466: Also – you are aware that 5m is hundreds of years’ worth of even accelerated sea level rise Here's the 1.5 meter levels for Bangladesh http://www.grida.no/images/series/vg-climate/large/33.jpg Here's Florida for one meter. http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/climate2025/fl_1meter_sm.gif Keep in mind that this is just one of many effects of climate change. drc466: How is it that you have faith that we can discover all kinds of effective, wonderful alternatives to fossil fuels in mere decades, yet your trust in human ingenuity fails when it comes to our ability to figure out how to adapt to rising sea levels over centuries? Of course people will adapt to sea level rise. They will move. This will cause economic, political, and social disruption. But they will adapt.Zachriel
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
Do you trust that the reporting on Muller is correct, that he was a genuine skeptic, and that his data and findings were pretty much correct?
1) Yes, even though I do not think it matters at all if the 'reporting on Muller' is correct. 2) Yes, even though I do not think it matters at all if Muller was a 'genuine skeptic'. 3) Yes, of course I do. His data is out there for everybody to see, nicely annotated for anybody to check. 4) Yes, why wouldn't I. His methods are laid out nicely, published, and accompanied by the code he used so everybody can test for themselves. You however should feel free to be doubtful about his work whether you check into it or not. And make sure you don't forget the new denialist mantra: - If I don’t believe them its their fault even if they are right. - But if they are too stupid to make me believe even if they are correct they truly must be idiots. - And if they are idiots, how likely is it that they really are correct. - So if they are wrong they are wrong, and if they are right, they also must be wrong because they are idiots.hrun0815
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT
hrun0815, Well, that was all very well put. Well put, that is, if your intention was to twist beyond all recognition what I said. Nicely done. So nicely done, in fact, that I won't take the time to try to untwist it. I would like to ask you a question, however. Do you trust that the reporting on Muller is correct, that he was a genuine skeptic, and that his data and findings were pretty much correct?Brent
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT
Re 76: And here we have some more goalpost moving. First it was a matter of Mueller publishing in the NYT and not releasing his methods. That was clearly wrong. Next try was that Muller wasn't a TRUE skeptic and he was using similar methods as the evil nefarious climate scientists all over the world. Well, clearly the 'TRUE skeptic' argument is as stupid as it comes and without explaining what OTHER method should have been used the second criticism doesn't hold any water either. But hey, let's move on and criticize something else:
I didn’t think the data was “clean” before Mr. Muller gave us his, and I have some concerns that his data may have some of the same dirt in it.
Hey, wow, now Muller is working with dirty data. That dastardly rascal. But it a good thing that clever Brent, who by the way wasn't mislead by the neatly labeled data on the well hidden BEST website, has figured out that his data is not "clean". And I am sure that if we start probing into why the data is dirty we will get another reason why nobody could trust the BEST study. So, please, Brent, do not bother to put up those reasons. I know you will find some and there will be many more. I realize this is ALL the fault of those climate alarmists that made you, clearly against your will, into such a skeptic that now no matter what they say you simply can not believe them. So I think we will just have to give up on you and indoctrinate kids when they are young like those evilutionists are doing so well.hrun0815
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT
re #75
I’ll add: If it is in fact entirely true that global warming is happening anywhere relatively close to the scale that these alarmists are saying, I still blame them fully for my and others’ total reluctance to accept it. They have been the most stupid PR disaster ever if they happen to have the correct data.
Yes, after your post #44 and #46 this is totally believable. How dare these idiots from the BEST study hide their data in such a dastardly manner by publishing it secretly on the website 'http://berkeleyearth.org/' that only people in the know can find. And how dare they publicly announce their findings in the NY Times so that Brent is mislead into mistrusting them and then sneakily following them up with five detailed peer reviewed papers. And of course no right-thinking person would ever accept their findings because they obscured all source data so secretly by forcing honest folk to hover their cursor over a tab labeled 'data' and then having to click on some menu item they stupidly call 'source files'. And don't even get me started on their nefarious ploy to simply making their code available, but then confusing the matter by releasing new builds, bug reports, and a log! And then their data analysis... don't get me started. And they actually built data viewers to make it even harder for critical thinkers like Brent to trust them. So yes, it is obvious for every one to see that it could ONLY be because of BEST's missteps that Brent decided that BEST
He published in the NYT rather than subjecting his work to peer review. And as far as I understand he did not release his data and methods for scrutiny ...
And with that it is equally obvious why Brent would clearly gravitate to some blogger's critique of Mueller rather than trusting that such a bungling idiot did the work properly. So yes, Brent, as I wrote before, it is abundantly clear what you MEAN when you write these posts. By the way, I am particularly fond though of your new twist: - If I don't believe them its their fault even if they are right. - But if they are too stupid to make you believe even if they are correct they truly must be idiots. - And if they are idiots, how likely is it that they really are correct. - So if they are wrong they are wrong, and if they are right, they also must be wrong because they are idiots. So yup, it is now abundantly clear what you MEAN. Thanks for clarifying.hrun0815
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT
hrun0815,
Re @50: And with this the goalposts are successfully shifted: now the charge is not incomplete data release or not publishing the miethids, but the question is now was this guy a TRUE skeptic and are there some bloggers that can sling some mud. And so we backpedal from previous announcements that Mueller is a TRUE sceptic and denial it’s like Watts will accept his finding to the standard denial. And maybe along will come an even TRUER sceptic and the dance will begin again. EDIT: It’s worth noting how accurately I predicted exactly how Brent will react to the correction of his massive misconceptions about Mueller’s BEST study:
Yet, even after clarifying your misconceptions about this for you, I doubt that in your mind this will actually change anything. You and other deniers will likely find another reason to dismiss these findings and wait for a TRUE skeptic scientist who will REALLY delve into the data and CONCLUSIVELY show that that it’s all nonsense made up by alarmists.
No, the goalposts did not get moved. I simply meant that, from the word go, I would not be quickly compelled to accept the findings of Muller (I think my spelling is correct, no?) if he was not willing to submit his findings to peer review or be open with his data. I then realized that those initial reservations I had were in fact not according to the facts; he had done both. My bad. It would be truer to say that I thought the goalposts were closer. Nothing more. And with that, you are surprised that I have reservations about the data itself, when, his methods seem to me to be very similar to the methods of the traditional gatekeepers of the alarmists? For what reason exactly? Why should you be surprised? I didn't think the data was "clean" before Mr. Muller gave us his, and I have some concerns that his data may have some of the same dirt in it. Mind you, I'm not totally sure what to think about his papers. I was made aware of him only about 24hrs ago. Can you blame me, when, even Muller says that the old gatekeepers have done their own work a disservice by being so sloppy and thuggish, etc.? And to him not being a true skeptic, I of course do not know. I saw some quotations supposedly from him that would indicate he was not. But I don't presently know if they are accurate. If they are, it would mean he was two-faced, being a skeptic publicly, but not privately.Brent
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
Barry said,
"Here’s the main question I keep asking myself. If the science is so overwhelming, why does it appear that they believe they need to resort to deceptive tactics such as the NASA press release (and by “deceptive tactics” I mean the moral equivalent of a “damned lie”) to get people to believe them?"
My same point @38: ". . .they even feel the distinct need to present an overblown sense of the magnitude of their findings. All I hear, therefore, is that they cannot even justify cooking the books enough to not feel the need to overstate the significance of their findings, which says that they really have no evidence at all." I'll add: If it is in fact entirely true that global warming is happening anywhere relatively close to the scale that these alarmists are saying, I still blame them fully for my and others' total reluctance to accept it. They have been the most stupid PR disaster ever if they happen to have the correct data. But that, then, leads me to my next question and conclusion: If they are so stupid as to bungle so thoroughly the ability to get a large number of people to accept their data because of their wild alarmism, why should I think they are smart enough to actually compile accurate data, accurately analyze it, and come to plausible conclusions? It seems to me the latter is more difficult than the former.Brent
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT
Zach,
The Earth has alternated between warm and cold periods. The last few decades have exhibited anomalous warming.
Given that the last two decades have exhibited statistically no warming, and yet the greatest consumption of fossil fuels, I believe you made your point in the opposite direction you intended. Also - you are aware that 5m is hundreds of years' worth of even accelerated sea level rise? How is it that you have faith that we can discover all kinds of effective, wonderful alternatives to fossil fuels in mere decades, yet your trust in human ingenuity fails when it comes to our ability to figure out how to adapt to rising sea levels over centuries? Rather selective faith, if you ask me. As for the rest of your "rebuttals", once you factor in all the "almost certainly"'s, it comes down to "Zach has faith in Climate Change Alarmists". Duly noted. Here's the biggest problem, Zachriel et. al.: even if we accept everything that you say is true, the only use that these facts have been put to so far is to steal money from taxpayers, handcuff growth potential in developing countries, place roadblocks in the path of the progress, redirect money away from in-demand technologies (fracking) to politically-connected ones (solar, wind, rail transit), and pay for a bunch of already very rich politicians, academics and media personalities to go on expensive trips and feel better about themselves, while looking down their noses at the SUV and minivan-driving hoi polloi from inside their limos. Not exactly a winning marketing strategy for your side.drc466
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
RalphDavidWestfall: That was awfully convenient, wasn’t it? Nevertheless it’s irrelevant to the lack of transparency. As the cited article was about a lawsuit, the result of that lawsuit was certainly relevant. RalphDavidWestfall: So let’s see the data behind what was published. The raw data was always available to anyone who took the time and trouble to aggregate it. Today, it is easily available. The original studies have been largely confirmed. fifthmonarchyman: So is the increased extinction rate due to future warming? Climate change is one of many anthropogenic causes of extinction. fifthmonarchyman: So according to science predicted local flooding equals agricultural “disruption”? What about increased rainfall and prolonged growing seasons for large parts of the globe? You didn't answer our question, which entails the answer to your question. Millions of people who now live in places like Bangladesh will be forced to move. That causes social and political friction. fifthmonarchyman: Is there something in that statement about aggressive regulation? That's what's meant by a strong public sector. The public sector regulates markets, provides security, sets standards, protects the commons, and provides a minimal safety net. fifthmonarchyman: My point has been made What point was that?Zachriel
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply