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

[twa]

7 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

 

 

If I am a journal editor, my immediate concern is that this data cannot be fully trusted.

 

Science denier 

[The Evil Genius]

5 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Alt-Science denier 

 

FTFY

[No Excuses]

24 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Compromised Science denier 

 

FTFY

[twa]

1 minute ago, No Excuses said:

 

FTFY

 

His was better 

[No Excuses]

Just now, twa said:

 

His was better 

 

That's just like your opinion man.

[Popeman38]

4 hours ago, Mad Mike said:

Trump is a dangerous fool of a dictator, and democracy is dying right before our eyes.

Trump has been President for ~5 days and he is now a dictator?

Quote

Definition of dictator

1. 1a :  a person granted absolute emergency power; especially, history :  one appointed by the senate (see senate 1a) of ancient Romeb :  one holding complete autocratic control :  a person with unlimited governmental powerc :  one ruling in an absolute (see absolute 2) and often oppressive way <fascist dictators>

 

[Dan T.]

[PeterMP]

If people are really concerned about the muzzling of federal scientists there are a couple of White House.gov petitions out there that you can "sign".

 

The system is a bit clunky in that there is no way to search them and people can start similar petitions, and unless somebody sends you the link or you run across it somewhere else, there is no way to see them until they are public, which requires 100+ signatures.  The system also is slow to update signatures.  These are both registering at 1 signatures, but I know both have more than that (they both said 1 when I signed them and they both still say 1 so they have at least 2).

 

If one gets to 100,000 signatures, the White House is supposed to address the issue.  It isn't much (calling congressional people is probably better), but it is an easy way make a point.

 

You can sign more than one petition.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ungag-environmental-protection-agency

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prohibit-muzzling-federal-scientists-and-allow-them-discuss-their-work-any-interested-parties

 

Here is the page with all of the public petitions:

 

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/#signapetition

 

 

 

[FanboyOf91]

 

[PeterMP]

For anybody interested, people are planning a "science" march in DC and other major cities.

 

https://twitter.com/ScienceMarchDC?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

 

Both petitions are only registering 1 vote, though just in my circle we've calculated over 150 verified signees.  We don't know if they shut off registering votes for all of the petitions or just certain ones.  The last ones appearing on the public page are dated the Jan 22nd, which is before they got started so it looks like that as a valid way to express your opinion might be out.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Somebody much more reliable than all these warmist lib-tard scientists with their fancy ass "diplomas", "credentials", and "expertise" affirmed yesterday that we are going to experience an extra long winter. Trump and his staff have begun vetting (not too strenuously) Punxsutawney Phil for a high-ranking position in the national "Climate Change is a Hoax" committee.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Busch1724]

Sacks, he's putting Phil in charge of the EPA...get real here!

[twa]

Weather is not climate ya science deniers. 

 

Phil is gonna head up NOAA .

[twa]

Speaking of NOAA, remember that data discussion we had ?

 

 

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XuWjfSlt 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[PeterMP]

47 minutes ago, twa said:

Speaking of NOAA, remember that data discussion we had ?

 

 

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XuWjfSlt 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

The data was put into the public domain via a ftp link upon publication with a link from the publication to the data.  People that wanted to find the data were easily able to get it and find it.  The data was publicly available and has been.

 

They were then slow to archive as required, but it has been done.  Realistically, even before a study has been published scientists are already onto the next study/topic and things like archiving data are frequently put on a back burner.  The paper gets published, and they are already working on the next paper.  And isn't even clear that their inattention broke any laws/guidelines as there is (at least was) no stipulated time frame by which the data had to be properly archived considering they had put it in the public domain.

 

There is no real evidence the study is flawed in that nobody has done a different analysis that results in the opposite conclusion.  A lot of people pick at the various decisions that were made in the context of the study, but nobody has shown that changing any of those decisions actually changes the results.

 

 

This figure from your story is essentially a lie and is done with two different data sets with two different offsets to create an impression that is not accurate.  Most of the differences go away if even using the two different data sets you use the same offset (and the absolute difference is irrelevant as the question was about the change in temperature).

 

Here are several temperature date sets all base lined the same:

 

Metoffice in the figure above = Hadley here.

 

You are being lied to.  Do you really think, if I am looking at the change in temperature, it matters which data set that I use?

Edited February 6, 2017 by PeterMP

[twa]

I'm undoubtedly being lied to.

[skinny21]

Dan Rather suggested constructing a monument with the names of prominent climate change deniers... at the water line in Miami.  

 

Said essentially he didn't think they'd want to be remembered that way and would likely step back a bit. 

[twa]

Mention lying and Dan Rather comes up....coincidence?

[skinny21]

Yeah, pretty strange to discover that someone can be imperfect.  

 

Your comment, on the other hand... well it would have been more surprising if you hadn't laughed it off.  

Good for you for attempting to use humor to lift spirits in a time of despair.  Gotta at least give semblance to staying sane!

Edited February 6, 2017 by skinny21

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

I saw tulip bulbs coming out of the ground this weekend and flies flying happily in February .... something is most definitely wrong. 

[PeterMP]

It is not going to happen, but:

 

"First, the federal government would impose a gradually increasing tax on carbon dioxide emissions. It might begin at $40 per ton and increase steadily. This tax would send a powerful signal to businesses and consumers to reduce their carbon footprints.

 

Second, the proceeds would be returned to the American people on an equal basis via quarterly dividend checks. With a carbon tax of $40 per ton, a family of four would receive about $2,000 in the first year. As the tax rate rose over time to further reduce emissions, so would the dividend payments"

 

" Martin S. Feldstein was the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan and N. Gregory Mankiw was the chairman under President George W. Bush. Ted Halstead is the founder and chief executive of the Climate Leadership Council."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-climate-action.html?_r=0

Edited February 9, 2017 by PeterMP

[China]

Who's Still Fighting Climate Change? The U.S. Military

 

Despite political gridlock over global warming, the Pentagon is pushing ahead with plans to protect its assets from sea-level rise and other impacts.

 

Norfolk, VirginiaTen times a year, the Naval Station Norfolk floods. The entry road swamps. Connecting roads become impassable. Crossing from one side of the base to the other becomes impossible. Dockside, floodwaters overtop the concrete piers, shorting power hookups to the mighty ships that are docked in the world’s largest naval base.

 

All it takes to cause such disarray these days is a full moon, which triggers exceptionally high tides.

 

Norfolk station is headquarters of the Atlantic fleet, and flooding already disrupts military readiness there and at other bases clustered around the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, officials say. Flooding will only worsen as the seas rise and the planet warms. Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the naval station was built. By 2100, Norfolk station will flood 280 times a year, according to one estimate by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

This visibly changing geography made Norfolk the natural poster child for the climate challenges confronting the Defense Department—and seems as good a setting as any to consider the fate of climate science and the military in the new political era in Washington that will set the bar for how climate science is pursued by the government.

 

The Defense Department has been planning for climate change for more than a decade, often in the face of roadblocks set up by climate science skeptics in Congress. In 2014 and again last year, Republicans in the House of Representatives added language to Defense Department spending bills prohibiting funds from being spent to plan or prepare for climate change. Terrorism is the greater threat, the authors of those prohibitions declared, and federal funding should be steered towards snuffing out ISIS instead. Both times, the restrictions were nullified by the Senate. It is too early to say whether efforts to bar defense spending on climate change will be tried again.

 

...

 

The Defense Department assiduously avoids the politics of climate science debate, while pressing ahead.

 

“We don’t talk about climate change,” Capt. Dean VanderLey told visiting journalists in a tour of the base before the election. “We talk about sea-level rise. You can measure it.”

 

...

 

On American shores, three feet of sea-level rise, a mid-range estimate that could occur by 2100—would threaten 128 coastal bases, valued at $100 billion. Among the most vulnerable are 18 installations arrayed along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts from New London, Connecticut to Key West, Florida. Nine of those properties are major Navy hubs. At least four bases in Florida, Virginia, and South Carolina—including the Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island—could be mostly submerged by century’s end. Likewise, parts of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, where tidal flooding now occurs 50 times a year, could also be under water.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Mad Mike]

Landmark suit against the U.S. government replaces Barack Obama as defendant with President Trump, argues that climate action is a constitutional right.

 

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09022017/climate-change-lawsuit-donald-trump-children

 

 

[twa]

Making sense of senseless sea level scares in Norfolk Virginia – 60% of the rise is from subsidence, the remainder from landfill settling

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/01/making-sense-of-senseless-sea-level-scares-in-norfolk-virginia-60-of-the-rise-is-from-subsidence/

[PeterMP]

10 hours ago, twa said:

Making sense of senseless sea level scares in Norfolk Virginia – 60% of the rise is from subsidence, the remainder from landfill settling

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/01/making-sense-of-senseless-sea-level-scares-in-norfolk-virginia-60-of-the-rise-is-from-subsidence/

 

Oh goody!  More graphs by either stupid or dishonest people!

 

twa's link says:

 

"The most important thing to note is that unlike the steeply vertical graph in the WaPo article showing up to 8 feet of projected sea level rise, there is no acceleration visible in either of these two tide gauge graphs. They illustrate the slow, linear, subsidence that Nature has been doing for thousands of years."

 

I'm going to take the tidal gauge that has data going all the way to the present.  I'm going to plot the actual points and get rid of the noise by taking yearly averages and then fit with the best fit line.  I've started in 1928 because that's the first whole year there was data, and I dropped 1961 and 1966 because they have months for which there aren't data.

 

Here's the result:

 

 

See how the points at the bottom (the early years) tend to below the line (the first 6 are either below or on the line), and the ones at the top (more recent years) are all above or on the line.  That's what it looks like when something is accelerating.  

 

Let's look at it another way. Let's determine the best fit line for all of the data, but the last 9 years.  If there is no acceleration, then this line should fit the last 9 years of data well- it should in general be on the line (the points might not actually be on the line, but the data points should pretty evenly distribute to being below and above the line so that on average they are on the line).  If there is acceleration, then the line is underestimating sea level rise in more recent years and the points on average will be above the line:

 

 

The red points are the last 9 years.  All of them are above the line except for the oldest one.  That certainly looks like acceleration to me.  Assuming the long term linear increase in sea level rise is accurate under estimates recent sea level rises.

 

From 1966 to 2006 using Excel's LINEST function using only the yearly sea level data (not the years no x-intercept), I get a slope of 0.0047/year.  Using 2007-2016, I get a slope of 0.007/year.  The more recent slop is much greater than the longer term slope indicating acceleration in sea level rise and any calculations based on the longer term slope might be badly flawed.  It isn't even the long ago data that is the issue.  Starting with 1966, you still end up with a trend that doesn't match the most last 9 years.

 

Now, it is possible that the person that wrote the stuff at twa's link is ignorant or stupid.  But I'd put my money on they are lying.

Edited February 12, 2017 by PeterMP