So Cruz lied about the satellite data, saying it doesn't show warming (when it does) and asks the guy "Do you agree with this?" the guy says no.
It would be like saying "Since dolphins are fish, [not mammals]. . . Do you think they are the most intelligent fish?" If the premise is wrong, anything following thereafter is null.
Uh...wrong. The graph that you posted ends in 2010. We have data all the way up until now. Your choice could be called "cherry picking".
Meanwhile...
Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 8 months since January 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings occurred during the period of the Pause.
I cautioned you before that you don't appear to be very good at evaluating data.
Your reading comprehension skills now also appear to be sorely lacking.
The article you cited clearly says: "Annual Mean Anomaly Time Series ..." It also states: "We provide the NOAAGlobalTemp dataset as temperature anomalies.... and goes on to state: The anomalies and error fields are available from the FTP area and the Global Temperature and Precipitation Maps page."
Do we need to discuss the *meaning* of the terms ANOMALY and ERROR ?
Where you presumably see a trend of rising temperatures, the data is actually describing a trend of increasing anomalies and/or errors in the temperature data.
Let's REPEAT once more what the authors themselves said:
"We provide the NOAAGlobalTemp dataset as temperature anomalies, relative to a 1971–2000 monthly climatology, following the World Meteorological Organization convention. The anomalies and error fields are available from the FTP area and the Global Temperature and Precipitation Maps page." "
You are looking at a chart (dataset) of temperature *anomalies* or *errors* over time, NOT a constant definitive data series of temperature increases.
What you are not looking at in that article is a dataset of actual temperatures. While I understand your eagerness to possibly associate that increase in anomalies as an increase in mean temperatures, it simply isn't even stated as such even by the authors.
Evidence indeed.
Perhaps on questioning my reading apprehension, you should try reading yourself?
Temperature anomaly describes departure from average. Its essentially the most direct way of showing a deviation of temperature. The article clearly links and shows where they acquired the raw data from, both HERE and HERE.
Second, cute polar bear reference. I'll just assume you forgot to mention the bans/quota's introduced on polar bear hunting put in place in the 50's/60's but multiple countries that was put in place after Al Gore was born as well, right?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
Uh...wrong. The graph that you posted ends in 2010. We have data all the way up until now. Your choice could be called "cherry picking".
Meanwhile...
Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 8 months since January 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings occurred during the period of the Pause.
Again, cherry picking. You move before or after that 1998 El Nino year and your 'pause' goes away. 2016 is supposed to have another large El Nino. I eagerly await the excuses when the 1998 starting point can no longer cover this.
Again, cherry picking. You move before or after that 1998 El Nino year and your 'pause' goes away. 2016 is supposed to have another large El Nino. I eagerly await the excuses when the 1998 starting point can no longer cover this.
Wrong. The starting point is January of 1997, not 1998.
Here is a warmist study that, although it claims natural variability "masks" alleged human caused warming, its acknowledges the pause. And it's just one example. Your claim the pause doesn't exist because of "cherry picking" is easily invalidated.
Antarctica is growing not shrinking, according to the latest study from NASA. Furthermore, instead of contributing to rising sea levels, the still-very-much-frozen southern continent is actually reducing them by 0.23 mm per year.
The study – by an organization not hitherto noted for playing down environmental scares – will come as a major blow climate alarmists. For decades, they have cited Antarctica as one of the bellwethers of global warming catastrophe and have claimed – as the IPCC’s most recent Assessment Report did – that its land ice mass was slowly melting into the sea.
But the satellite measurements used in the latest NASA report tell a different story. Unlike previous studies – many largely based on guesswork because the continent is so vast and inhospitable, meaning that data is extremely limited – they use satellite altimeters to calculate changes in the surface height of the ice. What they show is that the amount of ice lost by glaciers collapsing into the sea has been exceeded by the gain in ice mass from accumulated snow.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
Among those alarmists trying to put a brave face on the shocking news is the report’s lead author Jay Zwally. Like so many of his colleagues at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), Zwally has fought heroically over the years to promote the climate change scare narrative – and he’s not about to give up now.
“I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear.
That data is unreliable because it's been adjusted to death, see Dr. Roy Spencer:
"Since 1979 we have had 15 satellites that lasted various lengths of time, having slightly different calibration (requiring intercalibration between satellites), some of which drifted in their calibration, slightly different channel frequencies (and thus weighting functions), and generally on satellite platforms whose orbits drift and thus observe at somewhat different local times of day in different years. All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results. This is the unavoidable situation when dealing with less than perfect data." Source.
Originally posted by randye: You are looking at a chart (dataset) of temperature *anomalies* or *errors* over time, NOT a constant definitive data series of temperature increases.
Originally posted by RandomTask: Second, cute polar bear reference. I'll just assume you forgot to mention the bans/quota's introduced on polar bear hunting put in place in the 50's/60's but multiple countries that was put in place after Al Gore was born as well, right?
You mean prohibition of hunting may have had a positive impact? Mind blowing.
Originally posted by fierobear: Here is a warmist study that, although it claims natural variability "masks" alleged human caused warming, its acknowledges the pause. And it's just one example. Your claim the pause doesn't exist because of "cherry picking" is easily invalidated.
Cherry picking is how the 'pause' is created. You have to cherry pick a short time period, the coldest running data set, from within only 2.3% of the data.
The 'pause' isn't a cherry pick, it's several cherry picks. Any 'admission' of a 'pause' is concerning atmospheric or surface temperature data only.
That data is unreliable because it's been adjusted to death, see Dr. Roy Spencer:
Those are calibration adjustments for things like satellite drift, not at all like the adjustments made to the surface temperature record that people like you claim show warming.
Uh, oh. Speaking of adjustments, looks like the ocean heat scare stories suffer from the same kind of adjustments. And the depiction of graphs in joules rather than temperature to make them look more scary.
Originally posted by fierobear: Those are calibration adjustments for things like satellite drift, not at all like the adjustments made to the surface temperature record that people like you claim show warming.
Satellite drift is one of many error inducing faults in the dataset. Also, the method does not directly measure temperature but guesses what the temperature should be based on microwave emissions from oxygen in the troposphere.
The only reason deniers like you love the satellite record is not based on soundness of the data or method, but just because its the coldest running dataset out there.
Even still, unless you cherry pick a short time period the satellite record shows the same warming: Source
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: And the depiction of graphs in joules rather than temperature to make them look more scary.
The word you're looking for is ghouls, not joules.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-05-2015).]
The only reason deniers like you love the satellite record is not based on soundness of the data or method, but just because its the coldest running dataset out there
Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. It exists, and it is telling us a different conclusion than the surface record. And it carries more weight because..
1. It covers more of the earths surface than the thermometer data
2. It is immune to the polluting of the data by the urban heat island effect
3. Although you claim there are problems in the satellite data, that is false, and the surface record you prefer is LOADED wi questionable "adjustments"
Much is being made of the “global” surface thermometer data, which three-quarters the way through 2014 is now suggesting the global average this year will be the warmest in the modern instrumental record.
I claim 2014 won’t be the warmest global-average year on record.
..if for no other reason than this: thermometers cannot measure global averages — only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – hell, every cubic inch — of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby.
(And even if 2014 or 2015 turns out to be the warmest, this is not a cause for concern…more about that later).
The two main research groups tracking global lower-tropospheric temperatures (our UAH group, and the Remote Sensing Systems [RSS] group) show 2014 lagging significantly behind 2010 and especially 1998:
Yearly-global-LT-UAH-RSS-thru-Sept-2014
With only 3 months left in the year, there is no realistic way for 2014 to set a record in the satellite data.
Granted, the satellites are less good at sampling right near the poles, but compared to the very sparse data from the thermometer network we are in fat city coverage-wise with the satellite data.
In my opinion, though, a bigger problem than the spotty sampling of the thermometer data is the endless adjustment game applied to the thermometer data. The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data.
Furthermore, land-based thermometers are placed where people live, and people build stuff, often replacing cooling vegetation with manmade structures that cause an artificial warming (urban heat island, UHI) effect right around the thermometer. The data adjustment processes in place cannot reliably remove the UHI effect because it can’t be distinguished from real global warming.
Satellite microwave radiometers, however, are equipped with laboratory-calibrated platinum resistance thermometers, which have demonstrated stability to thousandths of a degree over many years, and which are used to continuously calibrate the satellite instruments once every 8 seconds. The satellite measurements still have residual calibration effects that must be adjusted for, but these are usually on the order of hundredths of a degree, rather than tenths or whole degrees in the case of ground-based thermometers.
And, it is of continuing amusement to us that the global warming skeptic community now tracks the RSS satellite product rather than our UAH dataset. RSS was originally supposed to provide a quality check on our product (a worthy and necessary goal) and was heralded by the global warming alarmist community. But since RSS shows a slight cooling trend since the 1998 super El Nino, and the UAH dataset doesn’t, it is more referenced by the skeptic community now. Too funny.
In the meantime, the alarmists will continue to use the outdated, spotty, and heavily-massaged thermometer data to support their case. For a group that trumpets the high-tech climate modeling effort used to guide energy policy — models which have failed to forecast (or even hindcast!) the lack of warming in recent years — they sure do cling bitterly to whatever will support their case.
As British economist Ronald Coase once said, “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”
So, why are the surface thermometer data used to the exclusion of our best technology — satellites — when tracking global temperatures? Because they better support the narrative of a dangerously warming planet.
Except, as the public can tell, the changes in global temperature aren’t even on their radar screen (sorry for the metaphor).
Of course, 2015 could still set a record if the current El Nino ever gets its act together. But I’m predicting it won’t.
Which brings me to my second point. If global temperatures were slowly rising at, say, a hundredth of a degree per year and we didn’t have cool La nina or warm El Nino years, then every year would be a new record warm year.
But so what?
It’s the amount of temperature rise that matters. And for a planet where all forms of life experience much wider swings in temperature than “global warming” is producing, which might be 1 deg. C so far, those life forms — including the ones who vote — really don’t care that much. We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree, which no one can actually feel.
Not surprisingly, the effects on severe weather are also unmeasurable …despite what some creative-writing “journalists” are trying to get you to believe. Severe weather varies tremendously, especially on a local basis, and to worry that the average (whatever than means) might change slightly is a total misplacement of emphasis.
Besides, once you consider that there’s nothing substantial we can do about the global warming “problem” in the near term, short of plunging humanity into a new economic Dark Age and killing millions of people in the process, its a wonder that climate is even on the list of the public’s concerns, let alone at the bottom of the list.
You mean prohibition of hunting may have had a positive impact? Mind blowing.
That is not the story that was being told. The world was told that Polar Bears were dying off because they were unable to successfully hunt because of the ice being too thin or completely missing. That the ice problem was associated with human-caused global warming and therefore human activity (such as burning fossil fuels) was causing the endangerment and the expected extinction of Polar Bears.
I'd like to add that a hiker recently found a Viking sword that had been buried in ice and snow for hundreds of years. That proves that ice is melting. However, it also proves that it wasn't there before and men lived in those areas. People have been burning things as long as they've been here yet there have been cycles of icier ages. Temperatures seem to rise and fall and ice seems to come and go. Are we in a cycle of melting ice? Maybe. Is this cycle the product of human activity? I don't believe so. Is it possible for humans to alter these cycles? Maybe but again, I don't believe so.
Do we really want to put PEOPLE in charge of the Earth's climate cycles? What could possibly go wrong?
[This message has been edited by Boostdreamer (edited 11-05-2015).]
Originally posted by fierobear: Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. It exists, and it is telling us a different conclusion than the surface record.
Ahem. If you didn't know, RSS and UAH are the satellite records in this image. They show the same warming.
Originally posted by fierobear: And it carries more weight because..
1. It covers more of the earths surface than the thermometer data
Yet thermometer data still produces the same warming trend. If 100% coverage influenced the results this wouldn't be the case. This shows how robust the surface dat network is.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: 2. It is immune to the polluting of the data by the urban heat island effect
This old myth again? You've really turned into a burnout on this topic.
UHI influence in the surface record was debunked ages ago by numerous studies, including the BEST study. The BEST study shows that Anthony Watts silly claim of UHI influence was just empty rhetoric.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: 3. Although you claim there are problems in the satellite data, that is false, and the surface record you prefer is LOADED wi questionable "adjustments"
There are numerous issues with the satellite record which is why it has to be adjusted. Even clouds or moisture in the atmosphere bias the results. Dr. Roy Spencer again:
"One might ask, Why do the satellite data have to be adjusted at all? If we had satellite instruments that (1) had rock-stable calibration, (2) lasted for many decades without any channel failures, and (3) were carried on satellites whose orbits did not change over time, then the satellite data could be processed without adjustment.
Hence adjustments are required to patch up the data. Your fear mongering over 'adjustments' is basic hypocrisy. You only endorse the satellite record because its the coldest data set. It's the exact same reason why deniers like you used to champion the Hadcru dataset - it's the coldest of the surface records.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record
..if for no other reason than this: thermometers cannot measure global averages — only satellites can.
This is just some anti-science nonsense.
Again, unless you cherry pick a short time period the satellite shows the same warming. Arguing over which year is the hottest among surface data vs satellite data is literally an apples to oranges comparison. Even among the various surface data sets there's disagreement on hottest years. What year is the hottest is a product of the data and method used.
What's important is the long term trend not individual years. And satellite records show the same long term warming we see in the surface records.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-05-2015).]
Originally posted by Boostdreamer: That is not the story that was being told.
That the ice problem was associated with human-caused global warming and therefore human activity (such as burning fossil fuels) was causing the endangerment and the expected extinction of Polar Bears.
Deniers like to point to a growth in population as proof global warming wont hurt them. They purposefully neglect to mention prohibition of hunting lead to this growth of population.
quote
Originally posted by Boostdreamer: Do we really want to put PEOPLE in charge of the Earth's climate cycles? What could possibly go wrong?
Exxon Mobil Investigated in New York Over Possible Lies on Climate "The New York attorney general has begun a sweeping investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how those risks might hurt the oil business.
According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents."
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: This is factual.
Deniers like to point to a growth in population as proof global warming wont hurt them. They purposefully neglect to mention prohibition of hunting lead to this growth of population.
That's right, the same folks who say the warming isn't real believe the warming problem can be solved by trying to engineer the climate!
I assume a "denier" is a person who KNOWS the facts (that supposedly support a global warming/climate change-caused-by-humans theory) and claim that the data is false or doesn't truly exist.
I don't fit that narrative. I don't believe it BEFORE I've seen the studies.
As for people or companies that try to "cover up" similar findings in their own studies; perhaps they have simply come to the same, albeit incorrect conclusions. It would be irresponsible of them to hide what they think to be the truth but if they are wrong, it really doesn't matter now does it?
Furthermore, if the Polar Bear population has more than quadrupled in the last 50 years, perhaps that overpopulation has pushed the bears out onto the ice for hunting. Maybe that wasn't always their preferred method of hunting. How much was known about Polar Bears 50 years ago? Anyway, bears are very smart and adaptable. If there is enough food available, they will find a way to survive even if that means developing a completely new hunting strategy.
IF there is a warming trend and IF humans are causing it, a few conscientious people or countries will not be able to stop it. It will take a unified effort world wide. That is also something I don't believe can or ever will happen. So, if we can't stop it, then the effects that it brings are inevitable. Do we hide our heads in the sand and worry about it or do we make the most of the time we have left? I say open another bottle of wine and throw another log on the fire!
Originally posted by Boostdreamer: ...do we make the most of the time we have left? I say open another bottle of wine and throw another log on the fire!
In this post are many things you are misinformed about or were simply 'off the cuff'. Here for example, you're speaking for yourself but use the word "we" as if there's global solace in the unnecessary suffering of future generations through your imbibement of alcohol down by the fire.
You're a nice guy. And you tend to take things very personal. So I'm going to respectfully disagree and leave it at that.
World Resources Institute - STATEMENT: Pres. Obama Rejection of Keystone Pipeline Should “Reverberate” in Paris Climate Talks "President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline that would have crossed from Canada into the United States, and run all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. This announcement resolves one of the major environmental issues from President Obama’s tenure and sends a strong signal of the administration’s leadership, coming just ahead of the Paris climate negotiations in December."
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-06-2015).]
I used to be on the right side of "this issue" Now I'm on the left of "this issue" but I'm starting to feel movement to the center, "this issue".
I have listened to this debate in the media, on the internet and in this thread. No, I'm not qualified, educated or even confident enough to say with certainty what the evidence is revealing. it seems at this point the only thing the facts have supported is the opinion of the people using them.
I do not trust graphs and charts because of how easily the graphics can be exaggerated to skew perception while remaining accurate. And that does happen on both sides of the issue. Some where in the middle of this discussion are facts that are inconvenient. They get labeled anomalies and omitted as irrelevant. It's is human nature to dismiss coincidence even in the scientific community. But when people have invested in the outcome and see trends diverting from their desired path, they quickly start pumping additional data into the stream to shift it back toward the target.
I used to think that opposing sides would prove to be a good filtration system to refine the data. Today is appears to me that they pollute more than they filter out. If this were about gold mining and 2 sides were panning to prove the presence or lack of gold, it would be easy to see the problem. Both would manipulate the findings to fit their claim.
The "no gold" crowd would pocket every ounce and show you the dirt. Declare the other side's findings are in fact : pyrite. Might even show footage of a masked man feeding gold chain into a wood chipper to suggest fraudulent findings on the other side of the issue.
The "lots of gold" crowd would show every ounce of gold they found along with all the fragments that "might be gold" , "looks kinda like gold" and "could be a rare undiscovered precious metal worth as much as gold" but end the end you will pay them more to prove they're right than the value of all the real gold they found.
The out come is the same. They both make a ton of money and we get empty pockets, less freedom and an occasional Pyrrhic Victory over our co-works, friends, family and neighbors when arguing the side of the issue we chose to stand on. But, no definite answer to resolve the initial question.
I can't tell you which is right, more right or completely wrong. But I can tell you when it does not sound right or make sense to me. Right now, I believe something is happening, the sun is a constant influencing factor, occasionally the earth belches out temporary factors, mankind has produced a short term periodic influences.
Curiously,
quote
Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century. The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion of the oceans (water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice due to increased melting. Is Sea Level Rising?
- National Ocean Service oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/.../issea.pdfNational Ocean Service
Curiously,
quote
The human body is more than 60 percent water. Blood is 92 percent water, the brain and muscles are 75 percent water, and bones are about 22 percent water. * A human can survive for a month or more without eating food, but only a week or so without drinking water.
For the last 50 years, world population multiplied more rapidly than ever before, and more rapidly than it is projected to grow in the future. In 1950, the world had 2.5 billion people; and in 2005, the world had 6.5 billion people.
2015 we are at 7.5 billion. So if we had 2.5 Billion in 1950 and today we have 7.5, we have grown by 5 billion since then. If human bodies are 60% water and the average weight (world wide) is 137 pounds (some sources say 170 lbs), that would be about 411 billion lbs more water walking the earth.
So, how can water levels be rising when the population growth is removing water from the system. I guess the 685 billion lbs of increased human flesh in compressing the land mass creating the appearance of rising sea levels.
I joke, but seriously. with nearly every creature and plant retaining water to maintain their existence, how can we have an increase in population without a noticeable decrease in global water levels. But likewise, the increased human populations also mean larger quantities of water being stored to accommodate larger populace areas as well as rural. Not to leave out the water supplies stored in bottles on store shelved. Granted, much of the stored water cycles it's way back into the environment but only as it's replacement is being siphoned off. With out more understanding of our influence on global water supply, I just can not wrap my head around rising seal levels while water consumption (hoarding) increases. Unless we are creating more water some how
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 11-08-2015).]
I just did some rough calculations, starting from the empirical data points that 1 cubic foot of sea water weighs 64 pounds, and that the total surface area of all of the oceans is about 129,000,000 square miles.
All of that "seawater" that is trapped within human bodies--411 billion pounds according to jmclemore's arithmetic--corresponding to the growth in global human population from 1950 to date? If spread evenly over the total area of the world's oceans, that amounts to a difference in sea level of 0.00003 inches. That is not even measurable because of accuracy limitations, and it is of no significance compared to the many orders of magnitude greater differences in sea level that are being considered within the framework of the various debates about global warming and how to attribute the anthropogenic contribution as the impact of human greenhouse gas emissions and other human-related factors.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-08-2015).]
If spread evenly over the total area of the world's oceans, that amounts to a difference in sea level of 0.00003 inches.
Are you saying that 3 billion people could walk across the beach and into the ocean and the rise in sea level would be (0.00003 inches) virtually unnoticeable....
Are you saying that 3 billion people could walk across the beach and into the ocean and the rise in sea level would be (0.00003 inches) virtually unnoticeable....
I'd say that if the entire population of China walked into the ocean, we wouldn't be able to tell anything happened on the East Coast. Yes, I agree that it would be virtually unnoticeable.
Originally posted by jmclemore: I agree as well, but what would be considered noticeable. how many gallons of water would be required to generate a noticeable rise in sea levels.
Enough to cover a city?
There are underwater structures existing currently, and ice ages proven in the past as well.
Then theres also earth quakes, volcanos.... and oceanic and fresh water aquifers pumping millions of gallons too.
2 quadrillion, 241 trillion, 857 billion, 984 million, 251 thousand and 983 gallons (to the nearest gallon)
That (according to my calculations) is how many gallons of seawater would have to be added to the oceans in order to raise global sea level by a single inch, using the simplifying (but not fully realistic) assumption that the water would be spread evenly over the entire 129 million square miles of ocean surfaces across the globe.
"If you see me acting truly, then follow me. If you see me acting falsely, then advise and guide me…. If I disobey God, then do not obey me." Attributed to the First Caliph, Abu Bakr (successor to Mohammed) ~ 10 AH (632 CE).
IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU ARE DOUBTFUL ABOUT MY CALCULATIONS, I IMPLORE YOU TO CHECK MY ARITHMETIC..!
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-24-2016).]
World Resources Institute - STATEMENT: Pres. Obama Rejection of Keystone Pipeline Should “Reverberate” in Paris Climate Talks "President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline that would have crossed from Canada into the United States, and run all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. This announcement resolves one of the major environmental issues from President Obama’s tenure and sends a strong signal of the administration’s leadership, coming just ahead of the Paris climate negotiations in December."
Has nothing to do with "saving the environment" - Obama is simply protecting his "Made in the US" stance - anything else is simply twisting it for propaganda purposes.
RE: The Article, Just as many people believe / doubt global warming as before. Our priorities are just not out of line with more urgent concerns. We have Islamic Jihadist threating to attack us and we have western leaders claiming global climate change is a greater threat than terrorism....
I think the ignorance/arrogance of our western leaders is the greatest threat. "don't convict the criminals for armed robbery, fine them for the emission released by their idling get away car"
Maybe I'm too stupid to allow the eventual (maybe) climate change catastrophe to take a higher place among my priorities than terrorist actively probing for a weakness.
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 11-28-2015).]
Over the next 10 days, 140 world leaders – including Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and David Cameron – will descend on Paris to join 40,000 delegates at the UN’s COP21 climate conference.
Here is why they might just as well not have bothered.
1. There has been no ‘global warming’ since 1997
monckton1
So, of all the children round the world currently being taught in schools about the perils of man-made global warming, not a single one has lived through a period in which the planet was actually warming.
2. The polar bears are doing just great.
As they have been for the last five decades, during which time their population has increased roughly five-fold. So why does the IUCN still classify them as “vulnerable”? Because the environmentalists needed a cute, fluffy white poster-child for their “the animals are dying and it’s all our fault” campaign, and the snail darter and the California delta smelt just didn’t cut it. So various tame conservation biologists came up with all sorts of nonsense about how polar bear populations were dwindling and how the melting of the ice floes would jeopardize their ability to feed themselves etc. How can you tell a conservation biologist is lying? When his lips move.
3. Antarctica is growing.
According to the greenies, this just wasn’t meant to happen. But it is. Even NASA admits this.
4. The Maldives aren’t sinking
Or, if they are, their government is responding in a very odd way. Just a few years back, they were staging photos of their Cabinet meeting underwater to symbolize how threatened they were by “climate change” – a problem that could only be cured, apparently, with the donation of large sums of guilt money from rich Western industrialized nations. But a few months ago they completed work on their 11th international airport. So that all the climate refugees caused by global warming can escape quickly, presumably.
5. Ocean acidification is a myth
If I were an eco-Nazi I would seriously think about killing myself at this point. Ocean acidification was supposed to be their Siegfried Line – the final line of defense if, as has grown increasingly obvious over the last few years, “anthropogenic global warming” theory proved to be a busted flush. But it turns out that ocean acidification is as big a myth as man-made climate change. a) it’s based on dubious, possibly even fraudulent, research and b) if anyone’s acidifying the ocean it’s those wretched bloody coral reefs…
6. The alarmist climate scientists are talentless low-lives who cannot be trusted
Possibly there are exceptions to this rule, somewhere. But just look at NASA GISS, NOAA and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia/Hadley Centre at the Met Office – three of the main organizations responsible for maintaining the world’s temperature data sets.
NASA has been caught red handed turning cooling trends into warming trends. NOAA is currently under Congressional investigation for its mendacious, politicised attempts to pretend that the “Pause” in global warming doesn’t exist. The CRU was ground zero of the Climategate scandal. The Met Office is a joke. Yet these shysters have the gall to demand that the world’s leaders take urgent action on the basis of their dodgy data.
7. Winter Is Coming
Sunspot activity is diminishing in a manner worryingly similar to that experienced during the Maunder Minimum (1645 to 1715) when ice fairs were staged on the River Thames and the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830) which gave us Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow and the Year Without A Summer. Some scientists are predicting the imminent return of a Little Ice Age.
8. CO2 is greening the planet
The Sahel region in Africa is getting greener and more fertile. This is something we should be celebrating, not trying clumsily and expensively to prevent.
9. There has been no increase in “extreme weather events”.
Who says so? The IPCC in its most recent Assessment Report. Droughts, heatwaves, heavy rain events, cyclones, storms: they just haven’t increased in the alarmists assured us they would.
10. People are losing interest in global warming.
A) they don’t believe it’s a real threat, b) they keep being reminded of things that ARE real threats
11. $1.5 trillion is a lot of money to pay every year for a problem that doesn’t exist
This, according to Climate Change Business Journal, is how much it costs every year to “combat climate change.” $1,500,000,000,000 may not sound like a lot of money when the world’s polar bears, not to mention “the children of the future” are at stake. But you’d be surprised: spend $1,500,000,000,000 here and $1,500,000,000,000 there and pretty soon you’re talking serious money.
12. It will make (almost) no difference
If all the world’s leading nations stick to the carbon-reduction commitments they will make in Paris this week, then they will stave off “global warming” by the end of this century by 0.170 degrees C.
Oh – and that’s the optimistic scenario, calculated by Bjorn Lomborg, assuming that countries like, say, China don’t lie or cheat about how much CO2 they’re burning secretly.
His more pessimistic – ie more realistic – scenario is that the best we can hope for is a reduction in global warming by the end of the century of 0.048 degrees C.
This temperature reduction – five hundredths of one degree – is so small as to be almost immeasurable. But if you want to know what it feels like, Willis Eschenbach has done the calculations. It’s the equivalent of walking five metres higher up a mountain. Or, if you prefer, climbing two flights of stairs.
And there you have it: the lunacy of the Paris climate conference in one sentence: $1.5 trillion every year till the end of the century to effect the equivalent of walking to your bedroom.
In the United States overall, since 1990 land use, land-use change, and forestry activities have resulted in more removal of CO2 from the atmosphere than emissions. Because of this, the Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) sector in the United States is considered a net sink, rather than a source, of CO2 over this period. In many areas of the world, the opposite is true: In countries where large areas of forest land are cleared, often for agricultural purposes or for settlements, the LULUCF sector can be a net source of greenhouse gas emissions.
issue".
