The Great Green Con #1 GW Forecasts Wrong Again

[BubberMiley]

Except that I never said the climate isn't changing... try reading.

Why don't you think humans could cause such a thing?

[GostHacked]

That isn't an algae bloom. But, as you can see from the photos provided, folks are trying to get a meal from this river. Yuck. The Ganges is another river that is toast.

Fresh water will become the new gold.

[waldo]

The 95% confidence interval has been "bandied" about by the alarmists as well, so all is fair.

of course... when you don't even know the difference between an uncertainty range (@ 5%-95%) and a confidence interval (@ 90%)... your bandying about doesn't mean that much, right?

[BubberMiley]

Except that I never said the climate isn't changing... try reading.

Why is it that you refuse to answer a simple question about how you have reached the conclusion that it is not human-caused? Is it because you only came here to repeat an erroneous report, make a political accusation that people are "conning" others, and then slink away because you know you don't have the tools to make an informed debate?

[waldo]

Consider the source though - this is tabloid press at its finest. Should we take this article seriously at all ?

one should also consider the source of this thread... it's always heartening to see one of the usual suspects stumble forward with (her) a continued quandary. Bubber's trying to get her to address that quandary - I doubt she'll take it on!

by the by, does Shady know his David Rose tabloid pipeline is being cut into? Yet another gem from "journalist" David Rose!... should one actually dignify yet another of his charades? ... that begins with his blog source graphic... that extends to his changing and misrepresentation of his blog source graphic... that continues with his misinformation from and mischaracterization of those he references.

[Hudson Jones]

Except that I never said the climate isn't changing... try reading.

...there is no climate change and that our activities are not contributing to the environment.

Yes. Try reading.

[scribblet]

...there is no climate change and that our activities are not contributing to the environment.

Yes. Try reading.

Your words, not mine so quit imputing words that were not said.

I said:

I've never denied that the climate could be changing, only that any change today is totally caused by humans. I don't believe it is and I certainly don't believe that we can stop it. I've never said we should keep on polluting either, but I do question the hyperbole and fear mongering.

Edited March 26, 2013 by scribblet

[waldo]

I said:

I've never denied that the climate could be changing, only that any change today is totally caused by humans.

then you're in good company... no advocates for the theory of AGW suggest GW/CC is totally caused by humans. Where are your concens then? What would cause you to front this ridiculous thread presuming to question whether global warming is happening?

[Spiderfish]

Why don't you think humans could cause such a thing?

Why do you think humans could cause it?

[waldo]

Why do you think humans could cause it?

see empirical evidence

[Spiderfish]

see empirical evidence

I have seen empirical evidence that would support the hypothesis of global warming being caused by humans. I have also seen evidence supporting alternate hypotheses, such as solar cycles. I have seen recent evidence that the climate is actually cooling. I have not seen irrefutable conclusive evidence supporting any single position.

It seems to have apparently become a moving target. Anthropogenic global warming has now become climate change, as it has become evident that the global temperature is not as easy to define as once thought, and what is "normal" earth climate is somewhat arbitrary, due to the fact that the earth's climate has always fluctuated. Some areas of the planet appear to be cooling, and some would argue that this, too is linked to human influence. As the data and quantitative evidence changes, it seems the supporting science and qualitative observation seems to change as well.

I'm not a climate scientist so I don't support one theory over another. I can't (and wouldn't) deny the possibility that humans play some part in the equation. But some out there seem to be willing to buy into the theory that humans are the main, or even the only influence on global temperatures. I think this extreme viewpoint is counter-productive, and actually damages their cause.

[scribblet]

...............

I'm not a climate scientist so I don't support one theory over another. I can't (and wouldn't) deny the possibility that humans play some part in the equation. But some out there seem to be willing to buy into the theory that humans are the main, or even the only influence on global temperatures. I think this extreme viewpoint is counter-productive, and actually damages their cause.

Well said.

The U.K. is actually now trending towards colder winters and http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth9.htm

[DogOnPorch]

I have seen empirical evidence that would support the hypothesis of global warming being caused by humans. I have also seen evidence supporting alternate hypotheses, such as solar cycles. I have seen recent evidence that the climate is actually cooling. I have not seen irrefutable conclusive evidence supporting any single position.

It seems to have apparently become a moving target. Anthropogenic global warming has now become climate change, as it has become evident that the global temperature is not as easy to define as once thought, and what is "normal" earth climate is somewhat arbitrary, due to the fact that the earth's climate has always fluctuated. Some areas of the planet appear to be cooling, and some would argue that this, too is linked to human influence. As the data and quantitative evidence changes, it seems the supporting science and qualitative observation seems to change as well.

I'm not a climate scientist so I don't support one theory over another. I can't (and wouldn't) deny the possibility that humans play some part in the equation. But some out there seem to be willing to buy into the theory that humans are the main, or even the only influence on global temperatures. I think this extreme viewpoint is counter-productive, and actually damages their cause.

Well...there's one. There used to be a forest in British Columbia. Been there since the last Ice Age. Now it's been eaten by the spruce beetle...also around since the last Ice Age. Only brutal winters can keep its numbers in check. I haven't experienced a truly brutal winter since the early 1970s.

Edited March 26, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[Hudson Jones]

Your words, not mine so quit imputing words that were not said.

I said:

I've never denied that the climate could be changing, only that any change today is totally caused by humans. I don't believe it is and I certainly don't believe that we can stop it. I've never said we should keep on polluting either, but I do question the hyperbole and fear mongering.

Did you get a chance to read the information Betsy posted? It was an article from the scientist, Myles Allen, that David Rose misrepresented. I will post some of the information:

I also explained that doubling pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentrations, which we are almost certain to do now, was just the beginning. Increasing use of fossil carbon at the current rate would drive atmospheric concentrations towards four times pre-industrial figures by 2100. So even if the "climate sensitivity" is as low as 2C, as some lines of evidence now suggest, we would still be looking at 4C plus by the early 22nd century.

The reason is that there is plenty of fossil carbon down there, and we keep finding more: the Japanese have just demonstrated how to mine sub-ocean methane clathrates. And as other carbon pools fill up, an increasing fraction of the carbon we dump in the atmosphere stays there, in effect, forever (unless our grandchildren decide to pump it out again).

David accepted all of this – I quote: "Of course, I accept that CO2 emissions have to come down," – while arguing that the current government's emphasis on short-term measures like promoting windfarms is largely irrelevant.

[BubberMiley]

Well said.

The U.K. is actually now trending towards colder winters and http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth9.htm

So, once again, rather than answering a simple question, you're back to denying (with the obligatory follow-up denial of your denial).

[waldo]

I have seen empirical evidence that would support the hypothesis of global warming being caused by humans. I have also seen evidence supporting alternate hypotheses, such as solar cycles. I have seen recent evidence that the climate is actually cooling. I have not seen irrefutable conclusive evidence supporting any single position.

there is no solar related evidence that can support a principal causal tie to the relatively recent GW - if there was it would prevail. There is no recent evidence to suggest the earth is cooling - none. There is irrefutable evidence... empirical based... to conclude that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to the relatively recent GW.

.

It seems to have apparently become a moving target. Anthropogenic global warming has now become climate change, as it has become evident that the global temperature is not as easy to define as once thought, and what is "normal" earth climate is somewhat arbitrary, due to the fact that the earth's climate has always fluctuated. Some areas of the planet appear to be cooling, and some would argue that this, too is linked to human influence. As the data and quantitative evidence changes, it seems the supporting science and qualitative observation seems to change as well.

the claimed GW-to-CC shift/name change is simply a meme... one you're perpetuating. Perhaps you've heard of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change... 1988 origination. There are untold numbers of scientific papers going back decades that drew upon distinctions between climate change and global warming. Do you even make your own distinction?

your claimed arbitrariness of 'normal' is anything but arbitrary. The new normal is one recognized over the relatively recent historical record from industrialization forward... it is unprecedented warming not seen in the last 12,000 years - there are no natural attributions that can account for it. Your reference to recent regional climate changes... is not, obviously, global in nature... you're speaking more to weather than climate. Yes, data and quantitative evidence continually changes/adjusts and scientific understandings may or may not change, accordingly. It's called science - that's the nature of science.

.

I'm not a climate scientist so I don't support one theory over another. I can't (and wouldn't) deny the possibility that humans play some part in the equation. But some out there seem to be willing to buy into the theory that humans are the main, or even the only influence on global temperatures. I think this extreme viewpoint is counter-productive, and actually damages their cause.

mankind's burning of fossil-fuels is the principal contributor causal tie to global warming - this is not extreme, nor counter-productive. It is factual.

[waldo]

The U.K. is actually now trending towards colder winters and http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth9.htm

if you're going to state something... and presume to include a supporting reference... you should attempt to correlate your reference to your statement! That's always a good start.

[Bitsy]

if you're going to state something... and presume to include a supporting reference... you should attempt to correlate your reference to your statement! That's always a good start.

What is there to say about a five year old article written by a conservative think tank in part funded by Koch Bros?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Manhattan_Institute

[Michael Hardner]

and in Alaska http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V006/111TOASCJ.pdf

The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130325/overnight-snowfall-anchorage-could-shatter-winters-single-day-record

Forget global warming, Alaska is headed for an ice age

Alaska Climate Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks said in "The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska."

That's pretty good, you found a state. In any case, aside from Potshots at Al Gore, tabloid articles, and general whining you say that climate is changing ? And you quote - cough - Monckton ? I have some videos that thoroughly deflower him as an unequivocal know-nothing, a total blowhard if you'd like me to send them to you.

[Michael Hardner]

I have seen empirical evidence that would support the hypothesis of global warming being caused by humans. I have also seen evidence supporting alternate hypotheses, such as solar cycles. I have seen recent evidence that the climate is actually cooling. I have not seen irrefutable conclusive evidence supporting any single position.

There isn't 'irrefutable' evidence, nor will there ever be.

There is a broad fact-based consensus that human activity causes warming, though, and although some on here have asserted that the proof isn't there, I chased down those leads myself - it is as sure as anything we can say about climate.

So, if we're going to do nothing let's at least say so. The 'evidence' against warming amounts to minor quibbles about Norwegan bogs and whether we're seeing the highest temperature in something like 1000 years, or 1400... I don't have the numbers in front of me.

[TimG]

There isn't 'irrefutable' evidence, nor will there ever be.

That is kind of the point isn't it? Alarmists claim we know enough to justify numerous harebrained schemes designed to reduce CO2 emissions. Skeptics respond that we don't know enough to justify those kinds of insane policies. This makes alarmists froth at the mouth and start spinning tales of fossil fuel funded conspiracies but it does not change the fundamental truth: we have no idea what climate is going to do in the next 20 or 100 years nor do we know if the change to climate is going to be a net negative. Edited March 26, 2013 by TimG

[Spiderfish]

There isn't 'irrefutable' evidence, nor will there ever be.

I totally agree, but many environmentalists wouldn't.

There is a broad fact-based consensus that human activity causes warming, though, and although some on here have asserted that the proof isn't there, I chased down those leads myself - it is as sure as anything we can say about climate.

I'm not sure what a broad fact-based consensus is. I would agree with you that there is a general scientific consensus at the moment that the evidence gathered and quantified suggests human influence. I'm not sure this would equate to fact, however. General scientific consensus has a history of being revised and rewritten based on more thorough examination and collection of data.

So, if we're going to do nothing let's at least say so. The 'evidence' against warming amounts to minor quibbles about Norwegan bogs and whether we're seeing the highest temperature in something like 1000 years, or 1400... I don't have the numbers in front of me.

I'm certainly not suggesting nothing should be done. I would love to see cleaner energy solutions in the future and cleaner and more efficient ways to sustain ourselves. I believe the environmental movement has made great strides in the last 20 years in influencing progress in this area and changing attitudes. But we can't simply turn off the oil pipelines and natural gas plants. Parts of the prairies saw windchill temperatures of -28c last night, windmills and solar panels just aren't going to cut it in our climate. I believe things are being done, but it takes time to develop new technology...and it doesn't come cheap.

[Michael Hardner]

That is kind of the point isn't it? Alarmists claim we know enough to justify numerous harebrained schemes designed to reduce CO2 emissions. Skeptics respond that we don't know enough to justify those kinds of insane policies. This makes alarmists froth at the mouth and start spinning tales of fossil fuel funded conspiracies but it does not change the fundamental truth: we have no idea what climate is going to do in the next 20 or 100 years nor do we know if the change to climate is going to be a net negative.

You have to be more specific in your arguments: "Knowing enough" shouldn't mean that evidence is irrefutable.

[Michael Hardner]

I totally agree, but many environmentalists wouldn't.

You may have missed the part where I said there will never be consensus. What I'm saying is: don't wait for that, we may have to act anyway.

I'm certainly not suggesting nothing should be done. I would love to see cleaner energy solutions in the future and cleaner and more efficient ways to sustain ourselves. I believe the environmental movement has made great strides in the last 20 years in influencing progress in this area and changing attitudes. But we can't simply turn off the oil pipelines and natural gas plants. Parts of the prairies saw windchill temperatures of -28c last night, windmills and solar panels just aren't going to cut it in our climate. I believe things are being done, but it takes time to develop new technology...and it doesn't come cheap.

I agree that we can't turn off oil - I guess what we need to discuss is what is to be done. The recession has done more for the environment than any government program - just saying.

[waldo]

There isn't 'irrefutable' evidence, nor will there ever be.

irrefutable??? Perhaps it's a matter of degree/interpretation. Would you consider the greenhouse effect and rising CO2 levels as only coincidentally associated with mankind's fossil fuel burning? Would you consider the type of increasing and accumulating atmospheric carbon measured only coincidentally like the carbon from fossil-fuel burning? Or the decreasing amount of atmospheric O2 is only coincidentally associated with fossil-fuel burning? Or the increased carbon measured in ocean calcium carbonate ecosystems is only coincidentally associated with fossil-fuel burning and the type of carbon within fossil-fuels? One could extend this type of "coincidental occurrence" to atmospheric heat versus CO2 wavelength measurements... to accompanying surface measured infrared radiation... to correlated return (reflected) CO2 wavelength radiation... or to associated pattern cooling in the stratosphere... or to night-versus-day pattern warming... etc. All these so-called fingerprints and more... Irrefutable???