Global Warming backdown

[waldo]

Oh the irony!!!

whaaa! Yes, Shady, should we be surprised you would dredge up a fluff piece from... Andrew Bolt... the Aussie equivalent of your usually favoured British tabloid dishonest journalists. Although the one distinction with Bolt is that he, at least, acknowledges his denial. Much has been written about Bolt's brand of intellectually dishonest journalism... so... of course, he's a natural for you Shady!

but same ole, same ole Shady... no matter how hard you attempt to disguise it with fluff pieces, Shady, the Arctic Sea Ice Extent rate of decline continues.. - the linear rate of decline for March 2010 over the 1978 to 2010 period is 2.6% per decade

[Shady]

whaaa! Yes, Shady, should we be surprised you would dredge up a fluff piece from... Andrew Bolt... the Aussie equivalent of your usually favoured British tabloid dishonest journalists. Although the one distinction with Bolt is that he, at least, acknowledges his denial. Much has been written about Bolt's brand of intellectually dishonest journalism... so... of course, he's a natural for you Shady!

Spoken like a true-believe, and more importantly, a true McCarthyist. Smearing and attacking the messengers. Constantly.

Can you even acknowledge one skeptic who you don't deem dishonest, lying or taking money? Of course you can't. Not one single person out of thousands. Because you can't, even for a second, acknowledge any possibility of an aspect of AGW being wrong. That's why you're considered a religious zealot in this forum.

Your mind is closed, and you refuse to open it. Because if you did, you might learn something new. And your world would collapse.

[BubberMiley]

Spoken like a true-believe,

What's wrong with believing what's true? It's better than denying what's true.

[waldo]

whaaa! Yes, Shady, should we be surprised you would dredge up a fluff piece from... Andrew Bolt... the Aussie equivalent of your usually favoured British tabloid dishonest journalists. Although the one distinction with Bolt is that he, at least, acknowledges his denial. Much has been written about Bolt's brand of intellectually dishonest journalism... so... of course, he's a natural for you Shady!

but same ole, same ole Shady... no matter how hard you attempt to disguise it with fluff pieces, Shady, the Arctic Sea Ice Extent rate of decline continues.. - the linear rate of decline for March 2010 over the 1978 to 2010 period is 2.6% per decade

Spoken like a true-believe, and more importantly, a true McCarthyist. Smearing and attacking the messengers. Constantly.

Can you even acknowledge one skeptic who you don't deem dishonest, lying or taking money? Of course you can't. Not one single person out of thousands. Because you can't, even for a second, acknowledge any possibility of an aspect of AGW being wrong.

you would presume to equate the actions of pointing out a historical litany of dishonest fabricated journalism... as "smearing and attacking the messengers". I've provided details of the misinformation and outright lies that your favoured British tabloid "journalists" have been caught in - would you like links to those previous MLW posts? In the same way that many have taken to cataloging the dishonesty of British tabloid "journalists" fabricating anti-AGW climate change related articles, many have also done the same for similar instances of fabrication/lies throughout Australian newspapers/media... as I said, Andrew Bolt is one of the worst practitioners of intellectually dishonest journalism in Australia - so, of course, he's one of your go-to guys now.

if you actually have legitimate examples of skeptic science/research that presumes to challenge the overwhelming scientific consensus that accepts the theory of AGW climate change, certainly... bring them forward, lil' buddy! What have you been waiting for? (now, in the rarest likelihood that you actually have something to offer in that regard... don't be surprised if you receive challenge... hopefully a challenge you wouldn't label as "smearing and attacking the messengers").

[jbg]

What's wrong with believing what's true? It's better than denying what's true.

At this point it's more religion than science. There is no basis in current weather to believe in it. The long-term data supporting it is polluted.

[waldo]

What's wrong with believing what's true? It's better than denying what's true.

At this point it's more religion than science.

science has/does/will always prevail over the denialist religion

There is no basis in current weather to believe in it.

deniers will always deny the empirical evidence... and will forever attempt to improperly conflate weather with climate.

The long-term data supporting it is polluted.

without foundation or substantiation, deniers will continue to state data that counters their denial is tainted.

[jbg]

science has/does/will always prevail over the denialist religion

The use of the word "denier" is offensive and you know why.

deniers will always deny the empirical evidence... and will forever attempt to improperly conflate weather with climate.

Weather is a subset of climate. This global warming panic's been ongoing since 1988. I see no reason not to watch to see whether or not (or weather or not, pun intended) anything in the "real world" is happening.

without foundation or substantiation, deniers will continue to state data that counters their denial is tainted.

East Anglia data wasn't sabotaged? Come on.

[waldo]

The use of the word "denier" is offensive and you know why.

as before, it's a long standing term - a part of the lexicon surrounding the debate on climate science. No one uses the term/label for any consideration other than towards those denying the overwhelming scientific consensus that accepts the theory of AGW climate change. Your continued beak-off rings hollow.

Weather is a subset of climate. This global warming panic's been ongoing since 1988. I see no reason not to watch to see whether or not (or weather or not, pun intended) anything in the "real world" is happening.

you're hopelessly out of your element if you would presume to only base your acceptance... or your denial... on the every day presentation of weather. You know this - for some reason you've decided to play silly bugger and emphasize weather - over climate.

East Anglia data wasn't sabotaged? Come on.

step up and present the case for that supposed sabotage. While you're doing that, perhaps you'd like to offer a proportionate assessment on where you see the data associated from one institution/organization in relation to all other world-wide forms of data and empirical evidence that supports the theory of AGW climate change. We've been missing a bit of the denialist conspiracy angle around here... here's your opportunity to champion that cause.

[Shady]

science has/does/will always prevail over the denialist religion

I feel the opposite. Science will prevail over alarmist religion and rhetoric. We need more moderate, sensible climate scientists and environmental advocates. Environmental zealotry has run its course, and has ultimately done more harm than good to the cause. More people today than ever are legitimately skeptical of the claims put forth by enviromental alarmists, because they've been so over-the-top in their predictions.

The more climate hysteria is produced, and the more environmental zealots use McCarthy-like tactics, such as throwing around terms such as denier, the more the general public is turned off. The AGW side of the debate needs to work harder to win hearts and minds. If they don't, they'll continue to lose ground and become more isolated and cult-like.

[Shady]

as before, it's a long standing term

So was the term nigger. But we evolve, and progress, hopefully for the better. Maybe you should start.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Shady

[Michael Hardner]

More people today than ever are legitimately skeptical of the claims put forth by enviromental alarmists, because they've been so over-the-top in their predictions.

The more climate hysteria is produced, and the more environmental zealots use McCarthy-like tactics, such as throwing around terms such as denier, the more the general public is turned off. The AGW side of the debate needs to work harder to win hearts and minds. If they don't, they'll continue to lose ground and become more isolated and cult-like.

I expect that the scientists are also wary of the alarmists, as they do more harm to their cause than good.

[waldo]

I expect that the scientists are also wary of the alarmists, as they do more harm to their cause than good.

why do you even indulge the little twerp? Clearly... in Shady's view, the world-wide consensus of scientists that support the theory of AGW climate change... are the "alarmists"

[waldo]

So was the term nigger. But we evolve, and progress, hopefully for the better. Maybe you should start.

apparently... we have seen your limits reached. Apparently, you are able to draw a distinction between a dancing bear and your perceived (and incorrect) understanding of how others use the denier label within the climate science debate.

[Michael Hardner]

why do you even indulge the little twerp? Clearly... in Shady's view, the world-wide consensus of scientists that support the theory of AGW climate change... are the "alarmists"

Well, ultimately there is some value in what the skeptics say and I feel that it's good to acknowledge it, as it serves the overall process of finding the truth.

[waldo]

Well, ultimately there is some value in what the skeptics say and I feel that it's good to acknowledge it, as it serves the overall process of finding the truth.

of course, skeptics aren't deniers... skeptics aren't the intellectually dishonest fabricators intent on casting doubt and uncertainty in any way they can. We've had this point highlighted many times over - science is predicated upon skepticism. Challenges to the scientific consensus are what either add confirmation to the existing scientific foundation... or... introduce new understandings to that foundation. The obvious difficulty deniers have is that their favoured "skeptical" pursuits, if they actually have one/any in the first place, aren't able to dislodge the prevailing scientific foundation.

Edited April 25, 2010 by waldo

[wyly]

I expect that the scientists are also wary of the alarmists, as they do more harm to their cause than good.

who are these alarmists???...scientists are not PR types or glory seekers, most are happy doing their work unseen and left alone...that a few feel it's important to warn us of something they feel threatens our environment and our existence why is that wrong?..would you prefer they say nothing and just keep it to themselves?...if someone(Gore) who has talent for speaking and presentation and the means to deliver the message to aid scientists, why is that alarmist?...when scientists made an issue of pollution damaging our environment it was a good thing, cleaning toxic chemicals out of our water, food and soil no one labeled them alarmists unless they stood to lose financially...but let them point to CO2 emitters as a problem and now there is an issue because some feel it's a personal threat to their lifestyle... Edited April 25, 2010 by wyly

[Pliny]

Well, ultimately there is some value in what the skeptics say and I feel that it's good to acknowledge it, as it serves the overall process of finding the truth.

I call it "keeping them honest".

They needed, and got some deserved correction. Now let's move on to some important issues. How about those Canucks?

[Keepitsimple]

We've more than scratched the surface....we've come a long way in understanding many of the components that are involved in Climate Change. Have we discovered them all? No. Are we really that comfortable with measuring all the "feedbacks" for those that we DO know? Some say yes, others say no. Do we really have an accurate measuring system in place to determine historical temperatures like the MWP and the Roman Warming period? No. Can we accurately measure Global temperature anomolies today? Maybe/Mostly. Here's a previously unknown component of Climate Change - it doesn't appear that we know how this will affect all of the modelling that goes on - but it's interesting - there's probably many more discoveries to be made before the science is settled.

Scientists measure powerful ocean current off Antarctica

Agence France-Presse April 26, 2010

Oceanographers said on Sunday they had measured a system of mighty currents off Antarctica that are a newly discovered factor in the equation of climate change.

The system, known as Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW), is generated in clockwise movement in four big sea shelves that abut Antarctica -- the Weddell Sea, Prydz Bay, Adelie Land and Ross Sea.

Extremely cold water sinks to the bottom of these shelves and slides out northward along the continental shelf.

At the edge of the shelf, some of the water mixes with a well-known ocean movement, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, which sweeps around the abyss off Antarctica.

The rest of the AABW, though, makes its way northward through a maze of ridges and gullies, reaching into the southern latitudes of the Indian and Pacific Oceans and into the Atlantic as far north as southern Brazil.

The study, led by Yasushi Fukamachi of Japan's Hokkaido University, is published online in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Fukamachi's team used an array of eight seabed sensors, anchored at a depth of 3,500 metres (11,375 feet) for two years over 175 kilometres on the Kerguelen Plateau, east of Antarctica, where current exits from the Prydz Bay shelf.

On average, about eight million cubic metres of water colder than 0.2 C were transported northward over this narrow section.

That is four times more than the previous record documented in an AABW flow, at the Weddell Sea, on the other side of Antarctica.

Over two years, the Kerguelen monitors recorded the current's average speed at more than 20 centimetres per second, the highest ever seen for a flow at this depth.

The findings are important because ocean currents are major players in climate change. They circulate heat, moving warm waters on the surface to the cold ocean floor.

After this water is chilled, it is eventually shuttled back by currents to the surface, for warming again.

Microscopic marine plants called phytoplankton take in carbon dioxide at the surface under the natural process of photosynthesis.

When they die, the phytoplankton sink, but a current will determine whether they reach the ocean floor, thus sequestering the carbon for essentially forever, or whether they are swept back up toward the surface.

Link: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Scientists+measure+powerful+ocean+current+Antarctica/2951674/story.html

[Keepitsimple]

New Zealand is contemplating an economically devastating Emissions Trading Scheme. Professor Bob Carter was asked to give his thoughts on the subject. This 9 minute video captures a lot of where we stand today on Climate Change in general. It's a very "comfortable" video - Carter is an easy guy to listen to.

Link:

[Pliny]

New Zealand is contemplating an economically devastating Emissions Trading Scheme. Professor Bob Carter was asked to give his thoughts on the subject. This 9 minute video captures a lot of where we stand today on Climate Change in general. It's a very "comfortable" video - Carter is an easy guy to listen to.

A very common sense point of view.

The intimidation of those that are not hopping on the alarmist bandwagon is evident.

We all agree we should be conscious of our environment and be content with controlling what we can control in the way of minimizing negative environmental influence what we can't control we have to adapt to. I think that's Prof. Carter's message.

[bloodyminded]

Spoken like a true-believe, and more importantly, a true McCarthyist. Smearing and attacking the messengers. Constantly.

If you agree with the inimitable Ms. Coulter, you admire McCarthy.

[Pliny]

If you agree with the inimitable Ms. Coulter, you admire McCarthy.

Is this what Shady is referring to as a smear?

[bloodyminded]

Is this what Shady is referring to as a smear?

It is not a smear, because it is demonstrably accurate that Ms. Coulter admires McCarthy (or claims to, at any rate). It might be argued to be out of place in this thread, however.

[Keepitsimple]

Here's another major component of Climate Change that may require some re-thinking. From the University of California, Irvine press release, a finding that suggests soil microbes have a negative feedback with temperature increase. This has broad implications for the amount of CO2 emitted estimated in climate models. It had been assumed that as temperature increased, microbes and fungii would increase their CO2 output. Globally, this microbiotic contribution is large. The amount of CO2 released from soils worldwide each year is estimated to be about 8-10 times greater than the amount released by humans.

Microbes, in the form of bacteria and fungi, use carbon for energy to breathe, or respire, and to grow in size and in number. A model developed by the researchers shows microbes exhaling carbon dioxide furiously for a short period of time in a warmer environment, leaving less carbon to grow on. As warmer temperatures are maintained, the less efficient use of carbon by the microbes causes them to decrease in number, eventually resulting in less carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere.

“Microbes aren’t the destructive agents of global warming that scientists had previously believed,” said Steven Allison, assistant professor of ecology & evolutionary biology at UCI and lead author on the study. “Microbes function like humans: They take in carbon-based fuel and breathe out carbon dioxide. They are the engines that drive carbon cycling in soil. In a balanced environment, plants store carbon in the soil and microbes use that carbon to grow. The microbes then produce enzymes that convert soil carbon into atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

The study, “Soil-Carbon Response to Warming Dependent on Microbial Physiology,” contradicts the results of older models that assume microbes will continue to spew ever-increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the climate continues to warm. The new simulations suggest that if microbial efficiency declines in a warmer world, carbon dioxide emissions will fall back to pre-warming levels, a pattern seen in field experiments.

Link: http://today.uci.edu/news/2010/04/nr_soilcarbon_100426.php

[Pliny]

It is not a smear, because it is demonstrably accurate that Ms. Coulter admires McCarthy (or claims to, at any rate). It might be argued to be out of place in this thread, however.

Yes, it is accurate. Coulter admires McCarthy. Thus confirming she is a real nutcase? Isn't that your message?