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

[Mad Mike]

Oh! Have you returned from the future to inform us how things turn out?

We're talking about predictions on what will happen. They can say all they want. I'm saying their 'sayings' should be taken like a typical weather report in trying to predict the weather a week from now. Except, don't expect the same accuracy. There are exponentially more factors to take into account when predicting future climate.

 

No I simply listen to ACTUAL experts like NASA and the National Academy of Sciences rather than pseudo scientists and crooked politicians paid for by big oil and coal. And I'm saying you are talking out of your ass.

 

But while we are talking about risk assessment. Which is the smartest play... Following the growing evidence for man made climate change and acting to mitigate it, in which case if we are wrong we will have still advanced our energy independence and will live in a less polluted world, or assuming that 97% of the worlds peer reviewed scientists are wrong and risking trillions of dollars of damage and our national security?

[Popeman38]

Tell you what, I'll stop calling republicans stupid when they stop saying things like this...

Republican Lawmaker Thinks Women Can Get Gynecological Exams by Swallowing Cameras

Smart guy, republicans aren't just elected officials. When you paint with a broad brush, you label ALL Republicans as dumb/idiot/stupid. And both parties have idiots as elected officials.

[twa]

Ya would have a bit more credibility w/o that deceitful 97% meme.

but if if facts are inconvenient I guess BS is ya best route 

[Mad Mike]

WSJ’s shameful climate denial: The scientific consensus is not a myth - Salon.com

 

 

 

They (the WSJ) correctly identify, as well, a 2009 survey of 3,146 earth scientists that asked the question, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Overall, 86 percent of the respondents answered in the affirmative, but the survey’s authors arrived at the 97.5 percent figure after deciding to include only the responses of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change — and those are the only ones whose scientific opinions are truly relevant to the matter at hand. Bast and Spencer leave out that first point and treat the second as a deficit: “Seventy-nine scientists,” they write, “does not a consensus make.”

 

The point being that those people denying the 97% number are full of crap. Scientists publish research for peer review, so other scientists can try to find flaws in their logic or methodology. And scientists LOVE being the one to discover flaws in others papers. 

 

Meanwhile as I posted before.

 

Climate Deniers' Favorite Scientist Quietly Took Money From The Fossil Fuel Industry | ThinkProgress

 

 

One of the world’s most prominent climate researchers publishing scientific papers that doubt humanity’s role in climate change has received at least $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry to fund his research and salary, according to documents revealed this weekend.

Wei-Hock Soon (known mainly as “Willie”) is aerospace engineer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and has written papers on how the sun’s role in the Earth’s climate outshines the warming impact of humans burning fossil fuels. His papers have cast doubt on how hot the last century really was, whether polar bears are negatively impacted by a warming Arctic, and concluded the sun plays a larger role in climate change than greenhouse gas emissions. He has said that mainstream climate scientists and those concerned by the causes and impacts of human-caused climate change are “out of their minds.”

Soon received hundreds of thousands of dollars each from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, coal utility Southern Company, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, and other conservative groups, according to documents obtained by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center, and spotlighted by the New York Times on Saturday. Over the last decade, Soon failed to disclose this funding in at least 11 of his scientific papers, likely violating ethical guidelines in eight of those cases.

[Mad Mike]

Smart guy, republicans aren't just elected officials. When you paint with a broad brush, you label ALL Republicans as dumb/idiot/stupid. And both parties have idiots as elected officials.

 

Oh, you mean the people who keep voting these morons into office? 

 

Of course there are idiots in both parties. But one has CLEARLY gone way over the deep end and has an over abundance of them. But I'll tell you what, lets start a thread, We'll call it "the stupid politician of the day" thread. We can all post the dumb statements made by politicians of either party. Lets see who wins. 

Edited March 1, 2015 by Mad Mike

[Skins24]

No I simply listen to ACTUAL experts like NASA and the National Academy of Sciences rather than pseudo scientists and crooked politicians paid for by big oil and coal. And I'm saying you are talking out of your ass.

Example?

But while we are talking about risk assessment. Which is the smartest play... Following the growing evidence for man made climate change and acting to mitigate it, in which case if we are wrong we will have still advanced our energy independence and will live in a less polluted world, or assuming that 97% of the worlds peer reviewed scientists are wrong and risking trillions of dollars of damage and our national security?

Striving for energy independence, reducing any and all pollution and keeping this world we live in clean should be priorities period! If scaring people by saying 'this and that' will happen is the only way to get people to act, then so be it.

I'm simply saying 'this and that' may not happen. Or 'this and that' may happen years, even decades later than currently predicted because of factors not previously taken into account.

I'm assuming you think I'm disputing climate change? I'm not, we're currently in a warming period. I'm disputing the overplayed gloom and doom predictions, especially the timing...

[Mad Mike]

Example?

Striving for energy independence, reducing any and all pollution and keeping this world we live in clean should be priorities period! If scaring people by saying 'this and that' will happen is the only way to get people to act, then so be it.

I'm simply saying 'this and that' may not happen. Or 'this and that' may happen years, even decades later than currently predicted because of factors not previously taken into account.

I'm assuming you think I'm disputing climate change? I'm not, we're currently in a warming period. I'm disputing the overplayed gloom and doom predictions, especially the timing...

 

Seriously? You want an example? 

 

YOU: 

 

 

 

Nope, not as climatologist. Weather is my game. My "evidence" is looking outside.

 

NASA:

 

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

Edited March 1, 2015 by Mad Mike

[Mad Mike]

 But I am curious why you dispute "the timing". What timing? 

 

And if you are going to be skeptical, why not be skeptical about politicians and scientists funded by big oil companies?

Edited March 1, 2015 by Mad Mike

[twa]

 

 

 

The point being that those people denying the 97% number are full of crap. Scientists publish research for peer review, so other scientists can try to find flaws in their logic or methodology. And scientists LOVE being the one to discover flaws in others papers. 

 

 

 

your 'consensus' is based on these questions

 

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

 

which even I agree with  ....we probably vary greatly on the significant part(which is rather important)

[Mad Mike]

your 'consensus' is based on these questions

 

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

 

which even I agree with  ....we probably vary greatly on the significant part(which is rather important)

 

‎tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

 

 

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.  

 

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

 

 

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).

 

The fact is that those two questions are backed up by peer reviewed papers the delve into the details. 

 

I find it amusing that you think your opinion carries any valid weight compared to theirs. 

[Burgold]

 

 

which even I agree with  ....we probably vary greatly on the significant part(which is rather important)

Except that the word significant means something very specific to a scientist. When a scientist is asked if there is a significant linkage in his mind he is asking himself am I setting my alpha at .01, .001, or .05? Meaning what is the chance that something other than the variable be examined is causing the effect.

 

Significance is science is one of the most critical concepts.

[twa]

peer reviewed like the one they are witch hunting in my earlier link? 

 

My vote counts just as much as theirs and my influence might be greater....a difficult thing for some folk to grasp when they think they know things.

a different peer review if ya will

[twa]

Except that the word significant means something very specific to a scientist. When a scientist is asked if there is a significant linkage in his mind he is asking himself am I setting my alpha at .01, .001, or .05? Meaning what is the chance that something other than the variable be examined is causing the effect.

 

Significance is science is one of the most critical concepts.

 

significant but not specific in the survey, nor did they get to the true issue of how much of that is economically possible to address.

 

A bullet to Al Gores head would reduce our carbon footprint, but would it be significant?

[Burgold]

Ah, but if we did a t test to find out whether the results the poll yielded would they be specific?

 

More importantly, how the scientists answer that question is based on how they interpret the wording. What I suggest is that when they see that word "significant" in the question they answer it very carefully, using a high level of scrutiny.

 

There's a huge difference to a scientist or a statistician between these two questions--

 

Do you think human activity is a contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

 

Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

 

The answer and the difference is well... significant.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Burgold

[PeterMP]

Peter, those two statements aren't contradictory at all. The first was talking about this warming period. The second, weather events.

 

I don't know if they are contradictory, but they are ridiculous.

 

But you're the  only person talking about weather.  You are using weather events to make statements about climate.

 

Long term changes in precipitation, drought, etc. are all climate not weather.

 

Other climate events almost certainly tell us more about climate changes than a weather event like El Nino.

 

It MIGHT be another issue if the climate event was causing changes related to the weather event, but that's not the case.

CA doesn't get more rain during El Nino's because the global temperature goes up.

 

Most of the weather effects of El Nino's are not related to the increase in global temperature.  Most of them are related to the specific warming of the water in a particular part of the ocean and the change in the differential between the air and water temperature in that area of the ocean.

 

If X causes A and B that doesn't mean that A is caused by B.

 

And again, we can see that El Nino's are different than the climate change signal.  El Nino's cause troposphere warming in a manner that climate change isn't.

 

If El Nino's were an actual good predictor of climate change, then they should have similar affects.

 

Just look at what is happening in CA currently.  We're having very warm years, but CA is in the middle of a really bad drought.

Edited March 1, 2015 by PeterMP

[Burgold]

My vote counts just as much as theirs and my influence might be greater....

True. Your vote counts just as much, but your opinion counts less.  Mine does too for that matter. Peter gets more of the benefit of the doubt in this area.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Burgold

[PeterMP]

and atmospheric co2 is relatively quickly converted

Why yes there are people stopping it

the economics are impacted by policy as you well know

The climate will continue to change, just as plate tectonics will sink the east coast.....AGW schemes can't change that.

Where to intervene will be a interesting series of choices over time.

bring me solutions, I'm certainly open minded and support research and development....just not fantasy.

The half life of methane is 7 years. Most of it is getting converted into CO2.

CO2 has a much higher life time in the system. It might get dissolved in the ocean, but that normally just means another CO2 molecule gets forced out.

And realistically, I don't think anybody wants to argue that dissolving more CO2 in the oceans is a solution.

The half life of CO2 molecules in the total system is at least decades.

 

"AGW schemes" can at least slow specific unidirectional climate change that has been happening for the last several years related to CO2 increases.

 

When people talk about preventing climate change, they are talking about preventing a specific climate change.

 

Plate tectonics aren't playing a major role in East Coast sea level changes

 

I thought you were claiming to have solutions.

 

The East Coast is sinking due to changes in climate, but related to things like currents that especially if we don't believe the models might change.

 

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/06/sea-rising-faster-east-coast-then-rest-globe

 

What are we going to do, let the East Coast sink?  Spend a bunch of money to protect it based on models that might be wrong because currents might change in unexpected ways?

 

What to do?

Oh, but we don't have to worry about it because the models under estimate the effects. Except for of course the very thing we're talking about, East Coast sea levels, for which they are actually leaning towards UNDER estimating the impact.

Edited March 1, 2015 by PeterMP

[Skins24]

Seriously? You want an example?

YOU:

NASA:

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

I don't get it.

How is this relevant to anything I've said?

But I am curious why you dispute "the timing". What timing?

Thank you. Thank you for proving people either don't read or only see what they want to. The " timing " is just about the only thing I've been talking about! I'll let you figure it out.

(hint: the non-skeptical climate scientist I quoted will lead you in the right direction)

And if you are going to be skeptical, why not be skeptical about politicians and scientists funded by big oil companies?

I have no idea what you're talking about...

Um...why not indeed?

Peter:

I don't know if they are contradictory, but they are ridiculous.

But you're the only person talking about weather. You are using weather events to make statements about climate.

Long term changes in precipitation, drought, etc. are all climate not weather.

Other climate events almost certainly tell us more about climate changes than a weather event like El Nino.

It MIGHT be another issue if the climate event was causing changes related to the weather event, but that's not the case.

Wow. Complete opposite!

Mike posted an article showing climate change effects around the U.S. but it just cited weather events and made conjectures about the future. I'M saying those weather events over a 10 or so year period are not necessarily representative of climate change as real climate change will span multiple normal weather cycles.

As far as El Nino, I'm fully aware it's simply a weather event. But in predicting what future weather holds in a warmer climate, El Nino events give us the best hints. That's all I was saying.

[twa]

Peter, what is your solution for the East coast?.....the IPCC suggestions? 

sinking at half the rate of global sea level rise is nothing?

 

if the left hand don't get ya,....

[Skins24]

 Most of the weather effects of El Nino's are not related to the increase in global temperature.  Most of them are related to the specific warming of the water in a particular part of the ocean and the change in the differential between the air and water temperature in that area of the ocean.

Don't know if the studies have changed but climate change supposedly increases the number and strength of El Nino events.

So yes some effects will be different but if warming increases the events and warms the waters enough (so that you'll see near perm El Nino-like conditions), you'll see similar effects.

Completely understand what you're saying in the differences but as no one was around the last significant warming event, El Ninos are currently the only events that warm the Earth significantly enough to give us any hints at all. Nope, not going to be the same! But if we want any hints, our observable choices are limited...

Just look at what is happening in CA currently.  We're having very warm years, but CA is in the middle of a really bad drought.

Lol, CA's drought is because CA was due for a significant drought. Weather cycle event. Definitely not climate change.

[PeterMP]

Don't know if the studies have changed but climate change supposedly increases the number and strength of El Nino events.

The models are wrong, except for when I make an argument that requires them to be right.

That's your argument now?

They're no good for predicting drought, but they're perfectly good for predicting El Ninos because arguments that the models are wrong about future drought require they be right about future El Ninos.

Yeah, that's some great logic.

Climate models aren't very good at predicting El Ninos. They aren't very good at predicting any regional climate event, but El Ninos are particularly difficult. The effect on warming on actual El Ninos is an open debate where El Ninos aren't just about warm water, but changes in temperature differentials between the water/water and water/air.

Models and previous climate change events are much better predictors of climate change based on the data we have over the last 30 years, and the comparison isn't even close.

 

Lol, CA's drought is because CA was due for a significant drought. Weather cycle event. Definitely not climate change.

I didn't say that the CA drought was caused by climate change.

Try again.

Peter, what is your solution for the East coast?.....the IPCC suggestions? 

sinking at half the rate of global sea level rise is nothing?

 

if the left hand don't get ya,....

Sinking isn't only related to plate tectonics. Various land use issues also contribute to sinking (sort of like ice melting/building up on land causes sinking and rising).

I thought you were going to tell us what the answers were.

Edited March 1, 2015 by PeterMP

[Skins24]

Ah, arguing for the sake of simply arguing, fun

They're no good for predicting drought, but they're perfectly good for predicting El Ninos because arguments that the models are wrong about future drought require they be right about future El Ninos.

Lol

*swinging this train back on track*

My argument is that the models have been wrong to date. They have been wrong to date because as that climate scientist mentioned, there are factors they did not take into account or underestimated. In the future, like in the past, there are factors that are currently not being taken into account. These factors can and will throw the doom and gloom predictions off, by decades even. Period.

I didn't say that the CA drought was caused by climate change.

Try again.

So, why even mention it? In a climate change thread? When the topic was the effects?

You said, we've been warm lately and look at California, they're in a drought.

You can see how that can confuse people in a climate change thread right?

[Burgold]

 can and will throw the doom and gloom predictions off, by decades even. Period.

 Decades? Do you realize how short a timeframe a decade is in terms of change or action?

[twa]

 

Sinking isn't only related to plate tectonics. Various land use issues also contribute to sinking (sort of like ice melting/building up on land causes sinking and rising).

I thought you were going to tell us what the answers were.

 

The Glaciers that melted before are the main reason for the sinking,but certainly subsidence both from soil composition and groundwater pumping add to it. 

 

I gave you answers ,just not the ones ya want.....the East will adapt or have wet feet.(or evolve )

 

a tidal wave will probably narrow the choices needed anyway

[PeterMP]

Ah, arguing for the sake of simply arguing, fun

I'm pointing out your awful logic, which ties into the point that I made to your initial post. You either have no clue what you're talking about and don't care and will willingly spout garbage like you do.

Understand what you are saying and are flat out willing to lie.

Or have some idea on the topic, but have other strongly held beliefs that aren't consistent with the information and that distorts your understanding of the information.

Arguments based on the models being wrong in one area because they are right in another area is evidence of one of those 3 things.

 

My argument is that the models have been wrong to date. They have been wrong to date because as that climate scientist mentioned, there are factors they did not take into account or underestimated. In the future, like in the past, there are factors that are currently not being taken into account. These factors can and will throw the doom and gloom predictions off, by decades even. Period.

This is vague enough that it doesn't matter. Mostly because off by decades could be off as coming sooner than the models state or coming later than models state.

But your arguments aren't really based on their being a possibility that things will come faster than expected or be worse than expected.

And if the models mis-estimated in only one direction, your argument might be right.

But as I've already pointed out that isn't the case. Yes surface temperatures are trailing projections, but precipitation and Arctic sea ice melting are going faster than projections and sea level increases are at the very edge of projections.

Looking at all of the data, there is a good as reason to believe that the models are under estimating the effects as over estimating them.

Yet, you don't take that into account.

You talk about unpredictable things happening to make the models wrong, but you only think about unpredictable things happening in terms making climate change not as bad as the models predict.

But unpredictable things work both ways. Sometimes they make things better, but they can also make things worse.

 

So, why even mention it? In a climate change thread? When the topic was the effects?

You said, we've been warm lately and look at California, they're in a drought.

You can see how that can confuse people in a climate change thread right?

Because it contradicts your argument.

Your argument is El Nino = rain in CA

CO2 induced warming = El Nino

so CO2 induced warming = rain in CA

My question is then, where's the rain in CA?

Because climate induced warming has certainly happened. At the surface level, 2014 was very very likely warmer than any El Nino year in history.

CA rain hasn't happened because CO2 induced warming doesn't = El Nino and so CO2 warming does not equal CA rain.

That doesn't mean though the drought is due to CO2 induced warming. It is just evidence that just because El Ninos bring rain to CO2 doesn't mean that CO2 induced warming will.

They are different.

Edited March 1, 2015 by PeterMP