I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[Mad Mike]

Here's how you get climate deniers... You pay them to speak.

http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Heartland.pdf

[twa]

most speakers are paid,some like the Clintons ect,. very,very well......... is there a point?

 

 

Are you assuming the AGW speakers are not getting paid?

[Mad Mike]

most speakers are paid,some like the Clintons ect,. very,very well......... is there a point?

 

 

Are you assuming the AGW speakers are not getting paid?

 

You mean like this conference which stipulates that even the speakers must PAY to register?....

 

Our Common Future under Climate Change

 

Do you see any fees offered to attend here?

 

Northwest Climate Conference | Abstracts & Special Sessions

 

In short, NO. It is NOT common practice to pay scientists to represent set positions.

[Mad Mike]

I'm well aware of the dangers of making the wrong choices

 

see California and the drought planning..

 

See NASA 

 

Ignorance comes in many flavors

 

add

 

take this brain fart for example

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3113908/How-world-s-biggest-green-power-plant-actually-INCREASING-greenhouse-gas-emissions-Britain-s-energy-bill.html

 

Between the irony of you accusing others of conformational bias and the idiotic insinuation that NASA (the single most successful scientific organization the world has ever seen) should not be trusted even as you support Ted Cruz in his efforts to get them to NOT EVEN STUDY THE PROBLEM, you have once again proven that there is no limit to the level of stupid your positions can take.

[Mad Mike]

RealClimate: What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?

 

 

A number of things reveal that this is no ordinary scientific meeting:

• Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one. The organisers are suprisingly open about this in their invitation letter to prospective speakers, which states:
  
  “The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective.”

  So this conference is not aimed at understanding, it is a PR event aimed at generating media reports. (The “official” conference goals presented to the general public on their website sound rather different, though – evidently these are already part of the PR campaign.)

• At the regular scientific conferences we attend in our field, like the AGU conferences or many smaller ones, we do not get any honorarium for speaking – if we are lucky, we get some travel expenses paid or the conference fee waived, but often not even this. We attend such conferences not for personal financial gains but because we like to discuss science with other scientists. The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change. So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper.
• At regular scientific conferences, an independent scientific committee selects the talks. Here, the financial sponsors get to select their favorite speakers. The Heartland website is seeking sponsors and in return for the cash promises “input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics”. Easier than predicting future climate is therefore to predict who some of those speakers will be. We will be surprised if they do not include the many of the usual suspects e.g. Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and other such luminaries. (For those interested in scientists’ links to industry sponsors, use the search function on sites like sourcewatch.org or exxonsecrets.org.)
• Heartland promises a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend.

This is very nice hotel indeed. Our recommendation to those elected officials tempted by the offer: enjoy a great weekend in Manhattan at Heartland’s expense and don’t waste your time on tobacco-science lectures – you are highly unlikely to hear any real science there.

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/#sthash.5WJy12Rd.dpuf

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | Environment | The Guardian

[twa]

Between the irony of you accusing others of conformational bias and the idiotic insinuation that NASA (the single most successful scientific organization the world has ever seen) should not be trusted even as you support Ted Cruz in his efforts to get them to NOT EVEN STUDY THE PROBLEM, you have once again proven that there is no limit to the level of stupid your positions can take.

 

Should not be trusted or wrong at times?

http://www.science20.com/science_20/ted_cruz_overseeing_nasa_it_hasnt_looked_this_bad_since_2013_except_for_1993_1973_and_1959-152268

 

Does Ted Cruz Hate NASA?

The big knock on Senator Cruz is that he is a climate change denier. Though it is unclear what that even means, what does it have to do with NASA? Unfortunately quite a bit, because NASA has become involved in things outside its core mission in order to keep money coming in, like climate change advocacy. I am not knocking the value of climate science or for government programs expanding when they can manage to do so under the system(2), but someone in science media needs to be a trusted guide for the public on a complex issue and not just simply demonizing Republicans. That Dr. James Hansen, recently retired from NASA, is the most famous global warming expert in the world, and became so while earning millions of dollars in private speaking fees while a NASA employee(3), is part of the perceptual problem NASA has had. 

I love cute robots on Mars and pretty pictures from Hubble but keep in mind that politicians and their staffers see beyond that. They know we could have cute robots and pretty pictures while spending a whole lot less money - and we wouldn't lose a single NASA employee. Though advocates claim we will "lose leadership" in some area or another if we don't spend more money than some other country, that argument does not work with politicians, who see how badly money can be misused - when it is the pet projects of their political opponents, anyway.

I don't care what Ted Cruz thinks about global warming, pollution is bad whether he thinks so or not, and Senator and now President Obama said he thought vaccines might be causing autism, but did anyone in science not vote for him in 2008 because of that? If you about care climate science, don't worry about NASA, worry about the new chair of the environment committee, Senator Jim Inhofe, who denies climate science outright.

If you do care about space science, Cruz is a good choice. Just like Cruz's opinion on climate change, that science media happens not to like Republicans is irrelevant to how well someone will do at NASA. He's likely to be better for space science than the people we have had under Democrats, including the space advocate (and space-farer) Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, who insisted that extending the life of the glorified space-going UPS trucks known as the Shuttle Program was somehow necessary for science - a porkbarrel agenda that would have starved out actual space science programs - and did nothing at all about President Obama canceling Constellation in his home state. Nelson has to be careful criticizing the President 'or the Republicans win' but Cruz is not handcuffed by common party registration. If he has presidential ambitions, helping NASA will help him in Florida and some common sense about funding will be welcome to the public and a lot of NASA employees and scientists who can't criticize the President. As I have discussed about the James Webb Space Telescope and its eternal cost overruns, every time a high-profile NASA project hemorrhages money, it's the less-publicized but more scientifically valuable projects that bleed.

NASA needs someone who is not going to sign off on projects hoping they will become too big to fail. It's better for the public and it's better for science, because all those experiments that only need a few million dollars can then get it, rather than being told to wait for next year

Read more: http://www.science20.com/science_20/ted_cruz_overseeing_nasa_it_hasnt_looked_this_bad_since_2013_except_for_1993_1973_and_1959-152268#ixzz3crhyIGTr

[twa]

RealClimate: What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?

 

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | Environment | The Guardian

 

scientist getting big bucks and breaking rules?

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/

[twa]

what do ya think?

 

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/

 

 Summary

For the past 30 years, NASA climate scientists under the leadership of Dr. Hansen have demonstrated nearly complete incompetence in forecasting, and they have tampered with data to try to hide their mispredictions.

[PeterMP]

First, Hansen's predictions of El Nino have nothing to do with climate.  El Nino's are weather and not climate, and people shouldn't/wouldn't take a warm year due to El Nino as climate change.

 

From there, this page directly addresses the 1988 climate change predictions:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm

 

The larger point I want to make is if we generally sit in 1998 and start making predictions (e.g. is the temperature going to go up, down, or not change) about how host of factors (temperature will increase), and he was right on essentially all of them (to my knowledge he got Antactia sea ice wrong and everything else was right).  That's a good prediction.

 

I'd love to see a skeptic make a similar set of predictions and do as well.

 

And once again, if you don't like the NASA data set, use another.  Long term, they all show essentially the same thing, and not just things that are directly measuring temperature but sea level and other factors I've already described in this thread recently.

 

Out of curiosity, why should NASA ask what Iceland thinks about the global temperature scale with respect to the region related to Iceland?

 

Does NASA have to consult every country when constructing a global temperature series about what that country thinks about what NASA says about the temperature in their area of the world?

Edited June 12, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

First, Hansen's predictions of El Nino have nothing to do with climate.  El Nino's are weather and not climate, and people shouldn't/wouldn't take a warm year due to El Nino as climate change.

 

 

So is AGW impacting El Nino's or not?

 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n2/full/nclimate2100.html

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-could-make-super-el-ninos-more-likely-16976

 

 

one minute it is weather,climate the next

 

'Essentially' we are on a mild warming trend that is beneficial.....be afraid

[PeterMP]

So is AGW impacting El Nino's or not?

 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n2/full/nclimate2100.html

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-could-make-super-el-ninos-more-likely-16976

 

 

one minute it is weather,climate the next

 

'Essentially' we are on a mild warming trend that is beneficial.....be afraid

 

An individual El Nino that would increase temperatures is weather.

 

A long term increase in El Nino's is climate.

 

Hansen in 1988 didn't predict an increase in El Nino's.

 

Why do you think it is beneficial?  

 

What evidence do you have?

 

When does it stop being beneficial?

 

In 2 centuries at 0.1 degrees C/decade is it still beneficial?

Edited June 12, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

warming beats cooling for quite awhile from where I sit.

going from historical temp records ya really think warming will continue 2 centuries?

Warming will result in more moisture going to the poles and more ice

[PeterMP]

warming beats cooling for quite awhile from where I sit.

going from historical temp records ya really think warming will continue 2 centuries?

Warming will result in more moisture going to the poles and more ice

 

There is a 3rd option.

 

As long as CO2 levels go up, the long term trend is going to be up.  It is basic physics.

 

I'm not sure why the last sentence is relevant even if it was really accurate (sea ice is declining so that's a decrease in ice, maybe it is off set by land ice, but I'm not sure that's the case).  More ice somewhere it is cold, doesn't make it colder.  A freezer full of water (and therefore ice), isn't colder than a freezer with no ice.

 

The ice doesn't cause cold.  The ice forms because it is cold.

Edited June 13, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

why worry over the co2 when the water vapor and methane will be contributing more(if the theory is sound)

the solution makes no sense

Ice does hold cold and water in a more stable state than air and has a few other impacts that cold alone does not.

I'm more concerned with nature killing us off. just a matter of time.

[Redskins3D]

FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/12/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june

[s0crates]

FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/12/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june

Sure there is a lot of alarmism in the news, but there are also real problems.

NY is doing a lot of engineering to protect its shorelines; consider Sandy for example.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/sirr/downloads/pdf/final_report/Ch3_Coastal_FINAL_singles.pdf

Edited June 13, 2015 by s0crates

[twa]

gonna take a lot of engineering,it's sinking just like New Orleans.

[PeterMP]

why worry over the co2 when the water vapor and methane will be contributing more(if the theory is sound)

the solution makes no sense

Ice does hold cold and water in a more stable state than air and has a few other impacts that cold alone does not.

I'm more concerned with nature killing us off. just a matter of time.

 

The products of combustion of carbon containing molecules, which includes fossil fuels are CO2 (g) + ?

 

Not the (g) after CO2 indicates it is in the gas phase.  Can anybody tell me what the other product is and what phase it is in?

 

Anybody?

 

Realistically, I think people focus on CO2 because it is what is going up the most where it is clear why it is going up the most, and there is something we can clearly do to keep it from going up more.

 

Keeping in mind that most methane is relatively quickly converted to CO2 in nature and there are these big bodies of water out there called oceans, do you have a plan to control methane or water vapor levels?

 

It does, but it doesn't make cold.  IF there is a net increase in ice (which I'm not sure is the case), there will be consequences to it.  They won't include creating cold to counter act the affect of CO2.  Ice doesn't create cold.

 

If a region is already cold, it might get more ice, which long term might means it takes longer for that region to warm, but it isn't actually going to make that region, much less the whole world colder or less warm.

Edited June 14, 2015 by PeterMP

[s0crates]

I think the climate change debate is a bit of a red herring. Even assuming the majority of scientists (who admittedly fudge data all the time) are wrong about climate change, burning fossil fuels still has an obvious environmental impact. Consider for example the smog in China or the high childhood asthma rates in LA.

Anybody who thinks all the combustion of fossil fuels is harmless should try sitting in his garage with the car running or living next door to a coal fired power plant.

Edited June 14, 2015 by s0crates

[Larry]

 

It does, but it doesn't make cold.  IF there is a net increase in ice (which I'm not sure is the case), there will be consequences to it.  They won't include creating cold to counter act the affect of CO2.  Ice doesn't create cold.

I understand your point. But I am pretty certain that ice reflects incoming sunlight back into space, reducing the amount of solar heat absorbed.

Although I also recall being told that it's at least a general rule that the worse a material is, at absorbing heat, the worse it is at radiating it, too. By that rule, ice would also reduce the amount of heat radiated into space.

In any case, I suspect that this analysis is both childishly simplistic, (even I can think of reasons why it's more complicated than that. Like the fact that POLAR ice is much better sited to work as a radiator than absorber, because it receives sunlight at a very low angle, but radiates perpinduclar to its surface), and moot. (Because ice ISN'T increasing, and isn't going to).

[Larry]

I think the climate change debate is a bit of a red herring. Even assuming the majority of scientists (who admittedly fudge data all the time) are wrong about climate change, burning fossil fuels still has an obvious environmental impact. Consider for example the smog in China or the high childhood asthma rates in LA.

Anybody who thinks all the combustion of fossil fuels is a harmless should try sitting in his garage with the car running or living next door to a coal fired power plant.

Hush.

It has not been conclusively PROVEN that dumping half a billion tons of waste products, into the atmosphere, to the point where we are actually artificially altering the proportions of our atmosphere, has any undesirable effects at all, or that it ever will.

And the fact that we are seeing the results that 150 year old science says we should expect, from this product, is merely a coincidence. (Or a vast conspiracy, I can't decide).

[twa]

But many of the AGW folk say the ice will increase at the poles as the temps rise.....look it up

 

more water vapor in the air also absorbs heat,as does the increased water area(top ten ft of water holds the equivalent of all the atmospheres heat) and the land will cool from the increased moisture radiating less heat back during the night..

 

 

 

certainly complicated

 

Hush.

It has not been conclusively PROVEN that dumping half a billion tons of waste products, into the atmosphere, to the point where we are actually artificially altering the proportions of our atmosphere, has any undesirable effects at all, or that it ever will.

And the fact that we are seeing the results that 150 year old science says we should expect, from this product, is merely a coincidence. (Or a vast conspiracy, I can't decide).

 

I'm all for reducing waste products, sadly many Greens have opposed it for decades.(nuclear)

 

at least 80% of the worlds energy is going to come from fossil fuels over the next three-four decades by best estimates....and the energy need will keep expanding during that time.

 

some need to wake up to the reality these proposed 'solutions' are not going to work,even in the unlikely event ya get most of the world on board.

[PeterMP]

I understand your point. But I am pretty certain that ice reflects incoming sunlight back into space, reducing the amount of solar heat absorbed.

Although I also recall being told that it's at least a general rule that the worse a material is, at absorbing heat, the worse it is at radiating it, too. By that rule, ice would also reduce the amount of heat radiated into space.

In any case, I suspect that this analysis is both childishly simplistic, (even I can think of reasons why it's more complicated than that. Like the fact that POLAR ice is much better sited to work as a radiator than absorber, because it receives sunlight at a very low angle, but radiates perpinduclar to its surface), and moot. (Because ice ISN'T increasing, and isn't going to).

 

But we're talking about putting ice/snow on top of ice/snow.

 

The heat/light gets reflected whether there is 200 feet of the snow or 1 foot of the snow.

 

The poles are already covered.

 

Antarctica is a desert.  If there were moisture there, there would be precipitation.  If there was more precipitation, there would be more ice there.

 

But since it is already covered in snow, it wouldn't change reflection of light/heat.

Edited June 14, 2015 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

But many of the AGW folk say the ice will increase at the poles as the temps rise.....look it up

 

more water vapor in the air also absorbs heat,as does the increased water area(top ten ft of water holds the equivalent of all the atmospheres heat) and the land will cool from the increased moisture radiating less heat back during the night..

 

 

 

certainly complicated

 

 

At the extreme poles, but we can add more ice at the poles and have less ice total.

 

Which is why I made the initial point about sea ice melting in the first point.  You can add more ice at the extreme poles and have a decline in total ice if the sea ice and things like the Greenland ice sheets melt.

 

In terms of even preventing warming, I don't see or think that ice at the (extreme) poles is going to matter if total ice/snow is the same.

 

Cool compared to what?  What is now?  Or what it would be without the increased water?

 

And of course this requires all sorts of other issues.

 

Your essentially saying that your okay with increased sea levels and water moisture even though that comes with a whole host of problems, like flooding.

 

This is the larger point.  There is going to be an increase of energy in the system as CO2 goes up.  It might not directly affect surface/land temps, but in the shortish term, there is almost no way it is going to be good.

[btfoom]

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-releases-detailed-global-climate-change-projections

Is willfull ignorance of danger merely stupid or the product of a profound learning disability?

 

Is a person's complete lack of understanding of a subject stop them from starting a thread here?  

 

Here's more showing that the whole global "warming" isn't scientifically factual.

 

Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time.

The U.S. Climate Reference Network was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide “high-quality” climate data. The network consists of 114 stations across the U.S. in areas NOAA expects no development for the next 50 to 100 years.

The climate stations use three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation to provide “continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations,” NOAA states on its website. “The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades.” In essence, NOAA chose locations so they don’t need to be adjusted for “biases” in the temperature record.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/15/americas-most-advanced-climate-station-data-shows-us-in-a-10-year-cooling-trend/#ixzz3d9eXNAvi