Resisting Climate Hysteria

[PZ99]

Symbolic suicide won't make Tony any more intelligent, Wayne.

 

[wayneL]

Symbolic suicide won't make Tony any more intelligent, Wayne.

It will remove me from witnessing the final destruction of the country formerly known as Australia

 

[PZ99]

It's not yet hot enough for that

 

[Tisme]

http://www.ladbible.com/news/news-a-hole-bigger-than-scotland-has-opened-up-in-antarctica-20171011

it's known as a polynya, which is an area of open water surrounded by sea ice. Apparently, this polynya was discovered in the 1970s, however it's five times larger than the one that was found then.

 

[SirRumpole]

Climate sceptics become believers.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-25/climate-change-sceptics-converted/9053406

 

[wayneL]

Climate sceptics become believers.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-25/climate-change-sceptics-converted/9053406

These are not recent converts. They have been pious observers of the religion and grateful grant recipients for quite some time.

 

[overhang]

These are not recent converts. They have been pious observers of the religion and grateful grant recipients for quite some time.

It couldn't possibly be because their research has proven their original hypothesis incorrect.....
Instead they have altered their view due to evidence based research not some blinkered ideology.

 

[wayneL]

It couldn't possibly be because their research has proven their original hypothesis incorrect.....
Instead they have altered their view due to evidence based research not some blinkered ideology.

I don't think so.

And can always find scientists who've jump the fence in the opposite direction

 

[overhang]

I don't think so.

And can always find scientists who've jump the fence in the opposite direction

Care to name any?

 

[wayneL]

Care to name any?

Well, I'm at work, burning copious amounts of fossil fuels, for the benefit of entitled leftists, pious lecturers of the green religion, from the pulpit of their large, opulent, air conditioned mansions and their Range Rovers and Chev Suburbans to pull the horse float.

There are many, but will have to look them up later

 

[overhang]

Well, I'm at work, burning copious amounts of fossil fuels, for the benefit of entitled leftists, pious lecturers of the green religion, from the pulpit of their large, opulent, air conditioned mansions and their Range Rovers and Chev Suburbans to pull the horse float.

There are many, but will have to look them up later

I'll be interested to hear. I mean if you believe scientists have altered their stance for grants then surely you would be equally open to scientists change in position due to big oil etc payments.

 

[basilio]

It couldn't possibly be because their research has proven their original hypothesis incorrect.....
Instead they have altered their view due to evidence based research not some blinkered ideology.

Dr Richard Mueller was probably the best example of that situation. I remember for years the climate deniers were banging on about urban heat islands and dodgy temperature records etc being the primary cause of nominal increases in recorded temperatures.

Dr Mueller, a climate sceptic at that stage, was paid by the Koch brothers (ardent climate deniers) to re-examine all the temperature records and discover the errors made by the rest of the worlds climate scientists/meteorologists.

His team duly did the research and then to the stunned horror of his climate denying funders and the associated baggage hangers on, declared yes climate change was real and the alleged urban heat islands problems did not invalidate the overall results.

So of course after he produced his research results he was promptly branded as one of the "not to be believed" climate scientists. Worth reading his story in more detail.

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLERJULY 28, 2012

Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Berkeley, Calif.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.

Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

• 
  Opinion Dot Earth Blog
  'Converted' Skeptic: Humans Driving Recent Warming JULY 29, 2012

Continue reading the main story
Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

 

[Logique]

Care to name any?

Care to provide evidence of AGW?

 

[overhang]

Care to provide evidence of AGW?

We are 486 pages in, there are an abundant amount of posts that are evidence of AGW. Given that you presumably have read most of those then I fail to see how there is one piece of evidence that would convince you otherwise. You tell me what piece of evidence would you accept as proof?

 

[Knobby22]

Red herring.

 

[Logique]

So no evidence then? 486 pages of opinions for and against.

In contrast, there have been 400 scientific papers sceptical of AGW in just 10 months of 2017! And the world hasn't warmed in 20 years.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10...cientific-papers-debunk-climate-change-alarm/
October 25, 2017 - So far this year, 400 scientific papers debunk climate change alarm by Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone
During the first 10 months of 2017, 400 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…

 

[overhang]

So no evidence then? 486 pages of opinions for and against.

In contrast, there have been 400 scientific papers sceptical of AGW in just 10 months of 2017! And the world hasn't warmed in 20 years.

Many researchers told us that, even by the crude metrics of the No Tricks Zone post, and even without intending to address anthropogenic climate change in their research, their papers’ data actually support anthropogenically driven recent warming. This was the case for Claremont McKenna professor Branwen Williams, whose paper (“North Pacific 20th Century Decadal-Scale Variability Is Unique for the Past 342 Years”) was featured:

https://www.snopes.com/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/

We've seen this in the past, scientists when questioned are shocked to find their research has been used by climate skeptics as some sort of proof AGW doesn't exist when often their studies show no such thing.

 

[basilio]

The take down by Snopes on the way No Tricks Zone fabricates arguments against AGW is full on. Well worth reading.

I suppose I keep wondering why Logique and others continue to quote sources that are repeatedly shown to take scientists work and then completely misrepresent it.

 

[basilio]

Care to provide evidence of AGW?

How about reading the NY times article I posted directly above your request ?

 

[IFocus]

So no evidence then? 486 pages of opinions for and against.

In contrast, there have been 400 scientific papers sceptical of AGW in just 10 months of 2017! And the world hasn't warmed in 20 years.

They don't live in the SW of WA then