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

[Mad Mike]

A classic TWA argument down the tubes....

 

Huckabee’s claim that ‘global freezing’ theories from the 1970s shows the science is ‘not as settled’ on climate change - The Washington Post

 

“Whether it’s man-made or not, I know that when I was in college I was being taught that if we didn’t act very quickly, that we were going to be entering a global freezing. And, you know, go back and look at the covers of Time and Newsweek from the early ’70s. And we were told that if we didn’t do something by 1980, we’d be popsicles. Now we’re told that we’re all burning up. Science is not as settled on that as it is on some things.”

— Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee ®, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” June 21, 2015

 

A reader asked about these remarks by the GOP presidential hopeful, who graduated from Ouachita Baptist University in 1975, believing that Huckabee had overstated the extent of the belief in “global freezing” at the time, as well as the news reporting on the issue.

 

 

 

 

First, let’s provide some context. In 1895, a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius first predicted in a scientific paper that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could alter surface temperatures.

 

A few years later, Arrhenius expanded on his research with a nontechnical book in which he described the “hot-house theory” of the atmosphere. While he observed that the burning of fossil fuels might contribute to this effect, he actually thought that might be beneficial because it would stimulate plant growth and thus provide more food.

 

In other words, for more than 100 years, scientists have found a link between burning fossil fuels and rising surface temperatures.

 

 

 

 

In 2008, several scientists decided to go back and review the peer-reviewed literature at the time. Despite the media coverage highlighted by Huckabee, it turns out that peer-reviewed articles on global cooling were in a distinct minority compared to those concerned with global warming. “The survey identified only seven articles indicating cooling compared to 42 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations,” the researchers reported.

 

Cut to the chase...

 

 

Huckabee is grasping at incorrect media reporting in order to make a ridiculous point. The main scientific consensus at the time of the Time and Newsweek articles was that the world was entering a period of global warming, as a result of man-made effects, that would overcome any possible cyclical cooling. Indeed, the science of that issue is even more settled now, which is why Newsweek 30 years later conceded it had been wrong.

 

Rather than cite discredited media reports, Huckabee had a responsibility to find out what actual scientific papers had determined at the time. 

 

Huckabee earns Four Pinocchios.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Mad Mike

[PeterMP]

our energy consumption can be provided for  by our own sources, removing market pressure, allow export and it does even more so and simply becomes a price game.

 

I think you overstate oil's part in our ME policy in the present......at least as far as OUR needs

 

I certainly don't object to reducing consumption as a part of that, hell I live it(unlike many)

 

But oil is sold on a global market, and you know it and so this point in irrelevant.

 

If the ME went crazy and oil prices went up, they'd go up here too.

 

We don't and aren't going to force oil companies to sell oil derived here for below world market price.

 

(Nixon actually did this, and the US oil industries response was to quit drilling for oil here, import the oil, and charge the world market price.)

 

While we might be able to produce enough oil for our own usage (in theory (note, I'm not sure this is actually true, but I'm not even going to bother to try and look up if it is true), it isn't relevant.

 

You may as well have responded with the sky is blue.  The information would have been just as relevant.

[twa]

A classic TWA argument down the tubes....

 

 

 

All that shows is peer review has went downhill, nothing new there 

 

Truthiness and fact checking  got a few issues as well

[twa]

But oil is sold on a global market, and you know it and so this point in irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

Market shares and other supply dynamics are factors....ask the Saudis

 

Ask the Europeans what a different supplier makes 

[Mad Mike]

All that shows is peer review has went downhill, nothing new there 

 

Truthiness and fact checking  got a few issues as well

 

It shows nothing of the sort. The only one who has issues with the truth is you.

 

At this point I expect another sarcastic remark and more poo flung against the wall, but you will still be wrong, as you have been, over and over and over again. From your insane theory that climate scientists are in it for the money while the Koch brothers pour millions into climate denial, to your belief that you know more than the 99.9% of published, peer reviewed experts. 

 

Yeah, clearly someone has issues.

[twa]

 

Yeah, clearly someone has issues.

 

What does that % agree on specifically? 

[Mad Mike]

http://www.popsci.com/insurance-agents-are-pretty-freaked-out-about-climate-change?dom=fb&src=SOC

[Mad Mike]

What does that % agree on specifically?

Must. Not. Say. What I am thinking....... *BOOM - head explodes*

[twa]

http://www.popsci.com/insurance-agents-are-pretty-freaked-out-about-climate-change?dom=fb&src=SOC

 

are those climate scientist insurance agents?

 

or are we opening up?

[Mad Mike]

are those climate scientist insurance agents?

or are we opening up?

"At this point I expect another sarcastic remark and more poo flung against the wall"

In this, you never fail to disappoint.

[twa]

"At this point I expect another sarcastic remark and more poo flung against the wall"

In this, you never fail to disappoint.

 

speaking of poo.

 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/25/the-white-house-wants-your-doctor-to-teach-you-about-global-warming/

 

Americans trust their doctors, so the White House wants these medical professionals to be a mouthpiece for President Obama’s global warming agenda.

“We also need doctors, nurses and citizens, like all of you”President Obama said in a taped speech presented to medical professionals gathered at the White House, “to get to work to raise awareness and organize folks for real change.”

The Obama administration has been hard at work trying to draw a link between global warming and public health issues. The summit included the U.S. Surgeon General, top administration officials, and public health experts from around the country telling doctors, nurses and other conference goers how to talk about global warming with their patients.

 

 

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/25/the-white-house-wants-your-doctor-to-teach-you-about-global-warming/#ixzz3eBoVVhU4

[Mad Mike]

speaking of poo.

 

 

 

I'm glad you recognize that article for what it is.

[twa]

I'm glad you recognize that article for what it is.

 

well under Obamacare they are now basically federal employees.....might as well tell what to do.

[Mad Mike]

Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study

 

 

This shouldn’t be a terribly shocking result. When confronted with inconvenient science, those in denial often reject the evidence by accusing the experts of fraud or conspiracies. We saw a perfect example of this behavior just a few weeks ago. When scientists at NOAApublished a paper finding that there was no ‘pause’ in global warming, one of the most common responses from those in denial involved the conspiratorial accusation that the scientists had somehow fudged the data at the behest of the Obama administration.

Nevertheless, nobody likes being characterized as a conspiracy theorist, and so those in the denial blogosphere reacted negatively to the research of Lewandowsky and colleagues. Ironically, many of the attacks on the study involved conspiratorial accusations, which simply provided more data for the social scientists to analyze. For example, the authors were accused of everything from faked data to collusion between Lewandowsky and the Australian government.

[Mad Mike]

What it’s like when your job is to predict the end of humanity - The Washington Post

 

 

A 2012 National Wildlife Federation report — “The Psychological Effects of Global Warming on the United States: And Why the U.S. Mental Health Care System is Not Adequately Prepared” — describes the challenge faced by scientists in stark terms, as a daily confrontation with a “devastating threat.”

“I don’t know of a single scientist that’s not having an emotional reaction to what is being lost,” Parmesan is quoted as saying in the report, in reference to an ocean reef she has spent more than a decade studying. “It’s gotten to be so depressing that I’m not sure I’m going to go back to this particular site again, because I just know I’m going to see more and more of it dead, and bleached, and covered with brown algae.”

Dr. Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State University, told Esquire that climate-change deniers have demoralized his colleagues, leaving one suicidal. Despite promising developments, such as increased public awareness and the recent agreement between the United States and China on emissions, Mann continues to battle nightmares and struggle under the weight of his own environmental awareness.

 

 

Yeah, they are in it for the money... [/sarc] 

[twa]

you don't need to convince me they are mentally unbalanced. ....tis rather obvious

[Mad Mike]

you don't need to convince me they are mentally unbalanced. ....tis rather obvious

So you have nothing to contribute but more poo...

[twa]

Did ya hear about the big freeze coming?

 

burn some Styrofoam while there is still time.

[Mad Mike]

Did ya hear about the big freeze coming?

 

burn some Styrofoam while there is still time.

 

News about an imminent ‘mini ice age’ is trending — but it’s not true - The Washington Post

 

 

Though University of Northumbria mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova, who led the sunspot research, did find that the magnetic waves that produce sunspots (which are associated with high levels of solar activity) are expected to counteract one another in an unusual way in the coming years, the press release about her research mentions nothing about how that will affect the Earth’s climate. Zharkova never even used the phrase “mini ice age.” Meanwhile, several other recent studies of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Are we heading into a new Ice Age?

 

 

 

So we can rest assured, there is no ice age around the corner. To those with lingering doubts that an ice age might be imminent, turn your eyes towards the northern ice sheets. If they're growing, then yes, the 10,000 year process of glaciation may have begun. However, currently the Arctic permafrost is degrading, Arctic sea ice is melting and the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass at an accelerating rate. These are hardly good conditions for an imminent ice age.

 

And we just had this conversation one page back....

 

Huckabee’s claim that ‘global freezing’ theories from the 1970s shows the science is ‘not as settled’ on climate change - The Washington Post

 

 

 

Huckabee is grasping at incorrect media reporting in order to make a ridiculous point. The main scientific consensus at the time of the Time and Newsweek articles was that the world was entering a period of global warming, as a result of man-made effects, that would overcome any possible cyclical cooling. Indeed, the science of that issue is even more settled now, which is why Newsweek 30 years later conceded it had been wrong.

 

Rather than cite discredited media reports, Huckabee had a responsibility to find out what actual scientific papers had determined at the time. 

 

Huckabee earns Four Pinocchios.

 

An intelligent man learns from his mistakes.

‎www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf

 

 

In summary, global mean temperatures in the year 2100 would most likely be diminished by about 0.1°C. Even taking into account all uncertainties in the temperature re- construction, the forcings, and the model physics, the overall uncertainty is estimated to be at most a factor of 3, so the offset should not be larger than 0.3°C. Comparing this to the 3.7°C and 4.5°C temperature rise relative to 1961–1990 until the end of the century under the IPCC A1B and A2 emission scenarios, respectively, a new Maunder‐type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. 

 

Edited July 15, 2015 by Mad Mike

[twa]

 

 

An intelligent man learns from his mistakes.

 

 

a intelligent man avoids making them

[Mad Mike]

a intelligent man avoids making them

 

Yet you made the same mistake twice....

[twa]

Yet you made the same mistake twice....

 

the mistake is on your part

[Mad Mike]

[twa]

[PeterMP]

Thought this might be interesting.  Most of the problem with the models over predicting temperatures is what they are being compared to.  The models are generally outputting surface temperature data.

 

The data sets are land surface temperature and surface water temperatures, but the surface waters are warming less fast than the air.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064888/full

 

Global mean temperatures from climate model simulations are typically calculated using surface air temperatures, while the corresponding observations are based on a blend of air and sea surface temperatures. This work quantifies a systematic bias in model-observation comparisons arising from differential warming rates between sea surface temperatures and surface air temperatures over oceans. A further bias arises from the treatment of temperatures in regions where the sea ice boundary has changed. Applying the methodology of the HadCRUT4 record to climate model temperature fields accounts for 38% of the discrepancy in trend between models and observations over the period 1975-2014.

 

 

 

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/robust2015/background.html