CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised

[GostHacked]

After 1 minute, some unnamed gentleman in an armchair tried to say that CO2 levels have a *negative* effect on temperature. Up until that point, it was classic propaganda methods.

That's all you get of my time for this one.

That's a cop out Mike. Watching one minute of the documentary gives you an idea of the whole movie? So you are purposely not wanting to take in other information that might go against the whole fearmongering propaganda that is CO2 and global warming?

Take an hour out of your day, give it a watch. I know you are pretty solid in your decision about this, so this movie will not change your mind at all. So give it a shot. What have you got to lose?

[Michael Hardner]

That's a cop out Mike. Watching one minute of the documentary gives you an idea of the whole movie? So you are purposely not wanting to take in other information that might go against the whole fearmongering propaganda that is CO2 and global warming?

Are you against propaganda ? Then why do you like this film ? I don't have to waste 15 minutes of my life watching propaganda. I didn't watch 'An Inconvenient Truth' either. I don't need to - I know propaganda when I see it.

As with 9/11 truth films, as soon as I see misinformation, I bail out.

Take an hour out of your day, give it a watch. I know you are pretty solid in your decision about this, so this movie will not change your mind at all. So give it a shot. What have you got to lose?

An hour is more time than I have to waste. I have already seen hours of propaganda on these topics and it won't change my mind. It just gets me aggravated to watch this type of thing.

My PVR is loaded with shows that I'm waiting to watch, so I'll go there.

[TimG]

After 1 minute, some unnamed gentleman in an armchair tried to say that CO2 levels have a *negative* effect on temperature. Up until that point, it was classic propaganda methods.

Actually, that is not what he said. He claimed that temperature changes cause CO2 increases. The argument itself is wrong and is based on a misunderstanding of how feedbacks work but you should at least get the argument that you are dismissing correct.

[waldo]

After 1 minute, some unnamed gentleman in an armchair ...

that was Tim Ball... enough said!

ok, ok... in response to an earlier question of yours asking me who on MLW I thought exhibited real genuine skepticism, I offered a few names... one was GH, although I also provided a comment that I felt he too often "get's lazy". I now retract my earlier suggestion - for GH to front that fraudulent video, particularly given it's relative datedness, particularly in that it has been so dramatically debunked, far and wide... that truly suggests GH is truly nothing but a denier outright (which of course he has acknowledged), one not willing to turn a skeptical eye towards all sources of information and/or 'propaganda'. So as not to get into blogWars, I'll just offer up a like video tribute (a crock video is always a ready reference to most any BS the denial machine has to offer):

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, that is not what he said. He claimed that temperature changes cause CO2 increases. The argument itself is wrong and is based on a misunderstanding of how feedbacks work but you should at least get the argument that you are dismissing correct.

Ok... I misinterpreted what he meant when he said the opposite was true.

[Pliny]

Of course it is.

And government agencies have a stamp on all of his "approved" data. It stretches from the top of the political chain to the bottom.

He cares about the science.

Then why didn't he post the CERN study?

We already discussed the CERN study, and we're nowhere near the point where that can happen yet.

Will the IPCC stay with the current models or do studies incorporating the data in their models?

w(sic)aldo would rather it go away. He has already had his mind mad up for him.

When I look at the presentation of the "science" I see a lot of spin on it, like the Petermann glacier, for instance. Most people don't even know that the calving of glaciers is a sign of increased cold, not warming. The general populace look at a picture of ice then no ice and get emotionally lost. If you read the story there is, to the authors credit, no claim of warming, just that the majesty of the change was shocking.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually, that is not what he said. He claimed that temperature changes cause CO2 increases. The argument itself is wrong and is based on a misunderstanding of how feedbacks work but you should at least get the argument that you are dismissing correct.

True, but acceptable enough given the popular and political obsession with CO2 and other lagging indicators.

[Michael Hardner]

No surprise really...your stance on this issue is confirmed.

Really ? Did you watch An Inconvenient Truth ? Are you feeble ? Do you need to be spoon-fed and explained what the industrial revolution is, or shown selected information to get the facts ?

I'd rather just have somebody refer to the scientific literature.

I gave it another 15 minutes, since I was wrong about Tim Ball's statement but it bored me and I could see what they were focusing on (politics) and leaving out (cites to literature). Some of the scientists were indeed climate scientists and others were not, including one I recognized from having appeared on CoastToCoastAM.

For those of you who would force me to watch 1:15 of this, would you enjoy spending hours watching videos on the other side of the topic ?

[Michael Hardner]

And government agencies have a stamp on all of his "approved" data. It stretches from the top of the political chain to the bottom.

The fact that the science points to a human-caused issue means that policy will inevitably be engaged.

Till the IPCC stay with the current models or do studies incorporating the data in their models?

As we have said - the results of the CERN study need additional steps before that could happen.

When I look at the presentation of the "science" I see a lot of spin on it

The mass media spins everything and overstates the case on both sides.

[waldo]

Then why didn't he post the CERN study?

Pliny... what is the relevance of the initial CERN/CLOUD experiments? If your answer is anything other than an acknowledgement to everything I'm previously stated in regards to possible new understandings concerning atmospheric aerosols and their related modeling aspects... new understandings and aspects that scientists have been clamoring for, for some time now, waiting for a vehicle like CERN/CLOUD... if your answer is anything other than that, don't hesitate to step forward, and go beyond your clown act.

as for posting studies, I could, quite literally, flood these threads daily with new ongoing studies/papers reinforcing the AGW theory, over and over and over again. Instead, I choose to swat at the gnats... the nonsense coming forward from the usual MLW suspects. Now, I could certainly be swayed to move into an aggressive frontal action movement and do just that Pliny - would that suit you Pliny?

Will the IPCC stay with the current models or do studies incorporating the data in their models?

CMIP5

CMIP5 is meant to provide a framework for coordinated climate change experiments for the next five years and thus includes simulations for assessment in the AR5 as well as others that extend beyond the AR5. CMIP5 is not, however, meant to be comprehensive; it cannot possibly include all the different model intercomparison activities that might be of value, and it is expected that various groups and interested parties will develop additional experiments that might build on and augment the experiments described here.

[bush_cheney2004]

Really ? Did you watch An Inconvenient Truth ? Are you feeble ? Do you need to be spoon-fed and explained what the industrial revolution is, or shown selected information to get the facts ?

I have never watched An Inconvenient Truth in its entirety, but have seen portions of the film in other media.

I gave it another 15 minutes, since I was wrong about Tim Ball's statement but it bored me and I could see what they were focusing on (politics) and leaving out (cites to literature). Some of the scientists were indeed climate scientists and others were not, including one I recognized from having appeared on CoastToCoastAM.

I had seen this film before and while it lacks the specific scientific analysis you crave, I found it valuable specifically as a contrarion view in the climate change propaganda war.

For those of you who would force me to watch 1:15 of this, would you enjoy spending hours watching videos on the other side of the topic ?

Sure, but like you, I will bail once they get to the "poor polar bears" schtick and coastal floods in Kansas.

[Michael Hardner]

I have never watched An Inconvenient Truth in its entirety, but have seen portions of the film in other media.

Right. So how is your attitude towards such things different than mine ? It isn't.

I had seen this film before and while it lacks the specific scientific analysis you crave, I found it valuable specifically as a contrarion view in the climate change propaganda war.

Just as I see the films of Michael Moore as a 'perspective' on things, that amounts to an emotive plea without any substance. I enjoy them, but they're not substantive in terms of offering alternatives.

Sure, but like you, I will bail once they get to the "poor polar bears" schtick and coastal floods in Kansas.

As I suspected, you value your time as much as I do.

By contrast, someone posted a thoughtful monologue on multiculturalism in Europe (the Mark Steyn thread) and I watched it all the way through. I agreed with the general lament, and the longing for the good old days but there wasn't much in the way of concrete offerings.

William F. Buckley was always fascinating to listen to, and you could find yourself almost convinced even if you absolutely disagreed with him as I did.

To say somebody isn't open minded because they won't devote an hour and fifteen minutes (!) to watching propaganda isn't fair at all.

[TimG]

To say somebody isn't open minded because they won't devote an hour and fifteen minutes (!) to watching propaganda isn't fair at all.

If someone has only ever seen IT then they should watch GWS to get the other side of the story. However, you have read the various sceptical arguments presented in more detail than anything you would see in a movie. You would likely be wasting your time to watch it because, like all movies of the genre, the arguments are dumbed down to the point where they are wrong.

[bush_cheney2004]

...William F. Buckley was always fascinating to listen to, and you could find yourself almost convinced even if you absolutely disagreed with him as I did.

Buckley's gift went beyond fine intellectual discourse; his existence in popular media served to provide balance, in and of itself quite valuable.

To say somebody isn't open minded because they won't devote an hour and fifteen minutes (!) to watching propaganda isn't fair at all.

This is where my comment was intended, as you have sought to squelch debate on the underpinnings of so called "climate change" in favor of "moving on" to possible solutions. Your expressed stance has been that the "science is decided", unless I have misinterpreted many such posts.

[Michael Hardner]

This is where my comment was intended, as you have sought to squelch debate on the underpinnings of so called "climate change" in favor of "moving on" to possible solutions.

Squelching and moving on are different things. I'd like to move on because we have an overwhelming consensus that human generated CO2 is causing warming. The amount of debate on what to do about it isn't proportional to the amount of debate on whether it's happening, which is why I'd like to move on.

The debate as it is could continue as does the debate about evolution, 9/11 conspiracies and whatever else people want to distract themselves with.

[GostHacked]

For those of you who would force me to watch 1:15 of this, would you enjoy spending hours watching videos on the other side of the topic ?

Sure, why not. And I've seen An Inconvenient Truth, a couple times already. Once when I believed it, and again after I stopped beleiving in it.

[waldo]

Sure, why not. And I've seen An Inconvenient Truth, a couple times already. Once when I believed it, and again after I stopped beleiving in it.

really? You're a lapsed believer? Now, clearly, to make a distinction around the film itself, as you should realize, the film has been dissected many, many times over... another denier 'iconic target', of course! Equally, from a scientific standpoint, a critical eye was turned toward the film in terms of how well it represented the consensus and where it lacked/failed... try a lil' googly and enlighten yourself as to just how well, overall, the film did present the science - whether you want to categorize it as 'propaganda', or not. Oh wait... you don't accept the science... carry on!

[GostHacked]

really? You're a lapsed believer? Now, clearly, to make a distinction around the film itself, as you should realize, the film has been dissected many, many times over...

By who?

another denier 'iconic target', of course!

I am a denier, and yet you throw it around like it is something new, or something to ridicule me with.

Equally, from a scientific standpoint, a critical eye was turned toward the film in terms of how well it represented the consensus and where it lacked/failed... try a lil' googly and enlighten yourself as to just how well, overall, the film did present the science - whether you want to categorize it as 'propaganda', or not. Oh wait... you don't accept the science... carry on!

No I don't accept the science, because first, it IS politically motivated. Stop acting like an arrogant ass, and some may want to engage in conversation. There is a way to win a conversation, and what you are doing is not winning. You are actually driving people away from the debate.

[waldo]

GH, other than acknowledging your claim to be a 'lapsed believer'... nothing else I said was personalized towards you. The film is, as I stated, another denier iconic target. I'm not particularly interested in your stated rationalization; however, I most certainly am interested in any claims/statements you bring forward that are not factual and that are not based on prevailing consensus science.

[GostHacked]

GH, other than acknowledging your claim to be a 'lapsed believer'... nothing else I said was personalized towards you. The film is, as I stated, another denier iconic target.

Well that would be a first that it is not personalized. Why is everything a target and needs to be attacked viciously?

I'm not particularly interested in your stated rationalization;

I know, being rational is not your forte.

however, I most certainly am interested in any claims/statements you bring forward that are not factual and that are not based on prevailing consensus science.

I have, and I have also seen how you treat those posts.

[waldo]

I most certainly am interested in any claims/statements you bring forward that are not factual and that are not based on prevailing consensus science.

I have, and I have also seen how you treat those posts.

and when you continue to present those presumed facts you perceive to counter the AGW theory, particularly in a pompous display that disregards/ignores consensus science, that claims consensus science is politicized thereby invalid, that denigrates legitimate scientists... you will continue to realize a response, one, given your presentation style, may not be acceptable and/or fathomable to you.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure, why not. And I've seen An Inconvenient Truth, a couple times already. Once when I believed it, and again after I stopped beleiving in it.

I could see the value of watching such things a few times if I was hearing things for the first time, or in the process of re-evaluating my opinion.

[Pliny]

Pliny... what is the relevance of the initial CERN/CLOUD experiments?

I think that was my question to you, waldo? Apparently, it means very little.

If your answer is anything other than an acknowledgement to everything I'm previously stated in regards to possible new understandings concerning atmospheric aerosols and their related modeling aspects... new understandings and aspects that scientists have been clamoring for, for some time now, waiting for a vehicle like CERN/CLOUD... if your answer is anything other than that, don't hesitate to step forward, and go beyond your clown act.

New understandings and aspects scientists have been clamoring for? To do what, waldo? To revise their models accordingly?

as for posting studies, I could, quite literally, flood these threads daily with new ongoing studies/papers reinforcing the AGW theory, over and over and over again. Instead, I choose to swat at the gnats... the nonsense coming forward from the usual MLW suspects. Now, I could certainly be swayed to move into an aggressive frontal action movement and do just that Pliny - would that suit you Pliny?

CMIP5

Is "flooding the threads daily" or "aggressive frontal action" different somehow than what you are already doing? If you feel you can ramp it up, go ahead.

Can't wait for CMIP5! What studies do you think will be accepted for inclusion? Do you think that the defeat of Obama will have any impact?

[Pliny]

and when you continue to present those presumed facts you perceive to counter the AGW theory, particularly in a pompous display that disregards/ignores consensus science, that claims consensus science is politicized thereby invalid, that denigrates legitimate scientists... you will continue to realize a response, one, given your presentation style, may not be acceptable and/or fathomable to you.

and when you continue to present those presumed facts you perceive to support the AGW theory, particularly in a pompous display that disregards/ignores all the science, that claims all science disputing the concensus is oil contaminated thereby invalid, that denigrates legitimate scientists... you will continue to realize a response, one (that), given your presentation style, may not be acceptable and/or fathomable to you.

[sunsettommy]

But Michael - WHAT current warming. There's been nothing for 15 years. Remember what Kevin Trenberth said in 2009?

"It's "travesty" that "we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment."

Remember - scientists haven't proven what amount of warming can be attributed to CO2 - they just know that it has the capacity to affect climate. They just don't know what else could cause excessive warming other than CO2 - that's the only thing they can feed into their models to make things "work". Well, now they have to start paying more serious attention to cosmic rays and clouds - instead of arbitrarily brushing them off as insignificant.

Trenberth was complaining that they can not find the postulated warming in the deep ocean waters.But he and a few of his boys still believe the never seen or measured heat.That by magic,sneaked by the ARGOS boys and is now piling up in the deeeep ocean waters.

I have already shown how irrelevant the AGW hypothesis as per the 2007 IPCC report.I also showed that three main 20 year warming trends since the 1850's are nearly the same."Global" warming was never evident since 1979 anyway.It is a NORTHERN Hemisphere warming.

I have also pointed out that the temperature projections for the first decade of the 21's century as shown in the 2001 IPCC report.To be in grave error.They say .20C The empirical data says,flat to a slight cooling.

I brought all this up a few months ago in the forum.There was not a single credible counterpoint made against it.