Resisting Climate Hysteria

[DB008]

Ice Cores Reveal Green Arctic

Analyses of sediment cores show that Arctic summers 3.6 million years ago were a good 8 degrees C warmer than they are today, and supported Douglas Fir and hemlock. Sophie Bushwick reports.

The Arctic wasn't always covered in ice. Samples of sediment layers beneath a frozen lake show this region used to be a lot warmer””and may thaw out again in the future. The work is in the journal Science. [Julie Brigham-Grette et al, Pliocene Warmth, Polar Amplification, and Stepped Pleistocene Cooling Recorded in NE Arctic Russia]

El'gygytgyn, a Russian lake 100 kilometers north of the Arctic Circle, contains layers of sediment that date back to the lake's formation 3.6 million years ago. Analyses of sediment cores have revealed that back then summers reached about 15 to 16 degrees Celsius, a good 8 degrees warmer than modern Arctic summers. These warm temperatures, which supported plants like Douglas fir and hemlock, lasted until about 2.2 million years ago.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=ice-cores-reveal-green-arctic-13-05-10

 

[wayneL]

John Cook

...has actually done a good job in promoting climate alarmism to wannabe believers. It takes a pretty canny logician and a fair bit of capability to cut through the bullcrap that is (laughably named) Sceptical SCience.

But in one fell swoop, he pole-axed his entire credibility and esteem with his latest survey (the 97%) by the process being so transparently and ludicrously faulted and biased... and the conclusion (ie the 97%)so woefully and amateurishly manipulated, so easily exposed as a con.

Well done John.

 

[Knobby22]

I assume you are referring to:

97% of published papers (that are subject to peer group review) with a position on global warming agree that global warming is happening and we are the cause.

http://www.theconsensusproject.com/

Pretty good argument imo.

 

[wayneL]

I assume you are referring to:

97% of published papers (that are subject to peer group review) with a position on global warming agree that global warming is happening and we are the cause.

http://www.theconsensusproject.com/

Pretty good argument imo.

Yeah good argument, but only if you do not investigate further.

If one uses proper scientific method and attempts to falsify, the argument disintegrates and vapourizes into a mushroom cloud, raining toxic fallout on the whole Orwellian alarmist movement; a watershed for proper science and a knock-out blow to the evangelistic believers in the Carbon Armageddon.

Of course born again Apocalysts will refuse to be convinced and will turn up the volume on their shrill end times prophesies, but scientifically, the Cook MoFo has shot himself in the foo.... head.

 

[burglar]

... global warming is happening and we are the cause. ...

We are not the cause, we are exacerbators.

What we have to ask is this:
Is our contribution significant?
Will it push us past a tipping point?

Where is the tipping point anyway??




PS. We have all been doomed since I learnt to read!!

 

[Some Dude]

... the evangelistic believers in the Carbon Armageddon.

Of course born again Apocalysts will refuse to be convinced and will turn up the volume on their shrill end times prophesies, but scientifically, the Cook MoFo has shot himself in the foo.... head.

Hogwash.. We had a meeting and decided that we need to be a big tent group so called it Carbopocalypsemageddonacaust.

 

[basilio]

But in one fell swoop, he pole-axed his entire credibility and esteem with his latest survey (the 97%) by the process being so transparently and ludicrously faulted and biased... and the conclusion (ie the 97%)so woefully and amateurishly manipulated, so easily exposed as a con

If one uses proper scientific method and attempts to falsify, the argument disintegrates and vapourizes into a mushroom cloud, raining toxic fallout on the whole Orwellian alarmist movement; a watershed for proper science and a knock-out blow to the evangelistic believers in the Carbon Armageddon.

.

Yes of course. If you bash/deride/demonise the scientific community as loudly and voraciously as possible then nothing they say can possibly be taken seriously. Can it Wayne ?

On this topic your totally full of it mate. one stinking cesspit of bile.

 

[Knobby22]

Denial of climate change is a belief system equal in validity to its belief partner, creationism.

Saw this quoted - maybe a touch strong but I generally agree with it.

 

[wayneL]

Dont shoot the messenger ma'am.

 

[wayneL]

Knobby are you still stuck on the denial word? Really? That old straw man argument ..... again?

 

[Knobby22]

Ask Sarah Palin.

 

[wayneL]

I didn't know she was a member of ASF..

Anyway, the quote is fallacious, as both extremes require a belief system akin to religion and does not add anything useful to the discussion

 

[Knobby22]

I won't mention religion if you don't.

 

[basilio]

And I'll talk nicely if you (Wayne..) stop trashing the entire scientific community that currently recognizes the significance and gravity of human produced climate change.

 

[wayneL]

Answering from my phone only short messages possible, home now on the 'puter

.

Yes of course. If you bash/deride/demonise the scientific community as loudly and voraciously as possible then nothing they say can possibly be taken seriously. Can it Wayne ?

I see you are using your favourite argumentative fallacy again.

Firstly, the scientific community is a broad church and I have never bagged the scientific community wholesale, that is extremely disingenuous of you to say. I will slag off on 'bad' science however and I think you will find many within the community will support and join me in this.

Secondly, part of scientific method is the process of falsification... childs play in this particular instance (Cook's 'survey'). The whole thing nuked in the time it takes to make a cup of coffee. I apologise if that sublimates one of the central tenets of your religion, but 'that's science'.

On this topic your totally full of it mate. one stinking cesspit of bile.

I love it when you talk dirty to me LOL

Mere ad hominem, I could see you and raise you tenfold.... it would be fun, but not productive, so I'll let that go through to the keeper.

 

[wayneL]

And I'll talk nicely if you (Wayne..) stop trashing the entire scientific community that currently recognizes the significance and gravity of human produced climate change.

You mean you'll talk nicely if I agree with you... LOL

Thank you for the kind offer, but I think I'll pass.

 

[Some Dude]

Secondly, part of scientific method is the process of falsification... childs play in this particular instance (Cook's 'survey'). The whole thing nuked in the time it takes to make a cup of coffee. I apologise if that sublimates one of the central tenets of your religion, but 'that's science'.

You won't mind then passing on the reference to the qualified peers falsifying the survey given that it takes the time to make a cup of coffee?

 

[basilio]

Ah how delightful is the delusional world of Wayne. A place where only the (97%) of the scientific community that disagrees him is derided as bad science. A place where not a single piece of contradictory research is every offered to demonstrate the invalidity of the clear evidence of climate change observed in every continent.

Its a majikal world isn't it ? where merely deriding the most eminent climate scientists as "psychopathic nutters" is sufficient to sweep away decades of research by hundreds of professionals in an instant.

Waynes world in a nutshell.

I think just to stick right up you Wayne (sideways of course - I know how much you like that!!) I'm going begin reposting the regular climate research that relentlessly tells us what we don't really want to know.

______________________________________________________________________________________

There was recent paper published by Alexander Gotto from the University of Oxford which actually got recognition from climate sceptics. The paper suggested that maybe climate sensitivity to increases in CO2 emissions just might not be as high as other cliamte scientists had previously thought. They thought it might be a little lower than some current models suggest.

Matt Ridley has joined the real climate debate

The climate sceptic's interpretation of my study as final endorsement of his position means we can move on.

It isn't often, as a climate scientist, that you find your research being enthusiastically endorsed by climate sceptic Matt Ridley in the Times. We published a paper in the journal Nature Geoscience on Sunday giving a new best estimate of 1.3C for the warming expected due to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the time when carbon dioxide levels reach double what they were before the industrial revolution (known as Transient Climate Response, or TCR).

Ridley is excited about this, because he feels it means that until his teenage children reach retirement age, they won't have to worry about global warming. And he is worried that government policies are misguided because they place their faith in climate models, like one of the Met Office models that puts the warming instead at 2.5C, almost twice our estimate.

But no one places their faith in any single climate model, and no one has done so for 20 years. Climate scientists are all well aware the Met's model (HadGEM2) is at the top end of the current range. The Met Office's advice to government is based on the range of results from current climate models, not just their own.

The relevant comparison is not with the 2.5C response of one model, but with the average of climate models used by the UN's climate science panel in its upcoming major report, which is 1.8C. Now 1.3C is 30% less than 1.8C, but this is hardly a game changer: at face value, our new findings mean that the changes we had previously expected between now and 2050 might take until 2065 to materialise instead. Then again, they might not: 1.8C is within our range of uncertainty; and natural variability will affect what happens in the 2050s anyway.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/may/21/matt-ridley-joined-real-climate-debate

 

[wayneL]

Tip: Extend your reading beyond the climate canon, which preaches to the choir.

 

[wayneL]

Just a tidbit for you dude

https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337126632080957441