Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

^ That is your job not mine. Since you are so committed to denying the science have at it.

^^ He has nothing but he just can resist making himself look the fool.

Snub when your creator was giving sense of humour's out where you at the back of the queue.

well at least he was queuing. when they were dishing out reason and common sense, you were over in the corner busily playing with ants and magnifying glasses.

And the point to that list of names and august institutions is to prove what, exactly?
Do you think you just neutralized Snub's rather well researched post?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by RPETER65

This post is typical progressive junk, a farce.

I think it's rather telling and amusing that you think the word "progressive" is a pejorative.

That having been said, care to expand on that comment Peter? What's farcical about it?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

That statement goes both ways.

No it doesn't.

Of course it does.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

Snub are you a scientist.?

I am closer to being one then you and a few other posters in this thread.

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

were are all the skeptical scientists,don't you deny they exist so whats the point in posting them.

There have been attempts made to post their names and articles. Not one of them has proven to be legitimate. The denier movement here has posted the same repackaged nonsense over and over. I have counted less than ten "so called" scientists quoted on this thread and all have been debunked and discredited in the scientific community.

Everyone of them has ties to big oil. Everyone of them. They are paid shills nothing more.

BTW Boon mee and Rpeter fell for the WMD/Iraq BS and they are science deniers and creationists like most conservatives. If you want to throw your hat into that loony bin be my guest.

They are also big time Koch brothers supporters/apologists again like most conservatives.

Whoa there Snubbles your talking out of your ass if you think I fell for the WMD crap, I never agreed with the second Iraq war, and no I did not vote for Bush twice.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by RPETER65

This post is typical progressive junk, a farce.

I think it's rather telling and amusing that you think the word "progressive" is a pejorative.

That having been said, care to expand on that comment Peter? What's farcical about it?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

That statement goes both ways.

No it doesn't.

Of course it does.

You're really not very good at this are you.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by RPETER65

This post is typical progressive junk, a farce.

I think it's rather telling and amusing that you think the word "progressive" is a pejorative.

That having been said, care to expand on that comment Peter? What's farcical about it?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

That statement goes both ways.

No it doesn't.

Of course it does.

You're really not very good at this are you.

In fairness, I don't think he has bought his new glasses yet.

Oh, and he's senile.

NASA’s data is also showing the trend continuing.

August 2015 2nd hottest August recorded.

NASA reports that this was the hottest start to any year on record by far.

and now NOAA

Broken Record: Hottest August, Hottest Summer, Hottest Year To Date

Like a broken record, we are breaking records for temperature over and over and over again. NOAA’s latest monthly State of the Climate Report reports that the Earth just experienced the hottest August on record, the hottest summer (June to August) on record, and the hottest year to date.

And it wasn’t even close. Each of those records was broken by 0.18°F (or more). So, yes, 2015 is going to be the hottest year on record — by far. Last month, climate scientist Jessica Blunden, who works with NOAA, said it’s “99 percent certain that it’s going to be the warmest year on record.” That is crystal clear from this NOAA chart:

Again, there never was any slowdown in surface temperature warming. This year won’t just top the previous global temperature record set just last year, 2015 will crush 2014. That’s especially likely since the strong underlying global warming trend is being boosted by an emerging “Godzilla El Niño,” as a NASA oceanographer put it.

Bottom line: 2014 was the hottest year on record. 2015 will easily top that. And 2016 may well beat 2015, as discussed here. The long-awaited speed up in global warming is at hand.

This animation shows the evolution of the Arctic sea ice cover from its wintertime maximum extent, which was reached on Feb. 25, 2015, and was the lowest on record, to its apparent yearly minimum, which occurred on Sept. 11, 2015, and is the fourth lowest in the satellite era.

It’s a story reminiscent of the way Big Tobacco covered up the deadly effects of smoking. In the 1980s, Exxon spent millions of dollars on groundbreaking research which irrefutably showed how their products would change the climate. And then they buried it all.

Inside Climate News unearthed a series of studies commissioned by Exxon that show just how much they knew about the harm of burning fossil fuels almost 40 years ago, long before this type of research was being done.

In 1977, climate scientist James F. Black made this statement to Exxon execs:

“In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels”
A year later, Black and his team of Exxon scientists came back with more specific information: They estimated that doubling atmospheric CO2 would increase global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit). And they guessed that Earth had about five to ten years before irreversible change would begin to occur. Hmmm, sounds familiar!

Throughout the 1980s, Exxon funded the most comprehensive data gathering and climate modeling on the planet. No one else had the financial support to fund these types of studies at the time.

But once Exxon realized how this information could damage their business, they started a campaign which cast doubt on their own research. Here’s Exxon’s CEO Lee Raymond during the Kyoto Protocol in 1997:

“Let’s agree there’s a lot we really don’t know about how climate will change in the 21st century and beyond. We need to understand the issue better, and fortunately, we have time It is highly unlikely that the temperature in the middle of the next century will be significantly affected whether policies are enacted now or 20 years from now.”
Exxon eventually helped to block the protocol.

The story is devastating in that Exxon is likely responsible for much of the anti-science climate denial rhetoric out there to this day. I just read the whole thing, and it’s made me incredibly angry. Part I is here and Part II is here. Part III, which looks at Exxon’s climate modeling work, will be out next week.

[Inside Climate News]

Exxon Scientists Knew Fossil Fuels Caused Climate Change Back in 1977

Damning if true.

The big oil companies made $93 Billion profit in 2013.

Damn right they don't want anyone blaming climate change on fossil fuels!

It's not 97% (as climate scientists believe) but it's 92% for non-climate scientists

The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

Purdue study: Climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

A Purdue University-led survey of nearly 700 scientists from nonclimate disciplines shows that more than 90 percent believe that average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels and that human activity has significantly contributed to the rise.

The study is the first to show that consensus on human-caused climate change extends beyond climate scientists to the broader scientific community, said Linda Prokopy, a professor of natural resource social science.

"Our survey indicates that an overwhelming majority of scientists across disciplines believe in anthropogenic climate change, are highly certain of these beliefs and find climate science to be credible," Prokopy said. "Our results also suggest that scientists who are climate change skeptics are well in the minority."

Previous studies have shown that about 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists believe in human-caused climate change, and a review of scientific literature on the existence of climate change indicated that about 97 percent of studies affirm climate change is happening.

However, no direct surveys had assessed whether the general agreement on the impact of human activities on the Earth's climate extended to scientists in other disciplines.

Prokopy and fellow researchers conducted a 2014 survey of scientists from more than 10 non-climate disciplines at Big Ten universities to determine the relative prevalence of belief in, and skepticism of, climate change in the scientific community.

Of 698 respondents, about 94 percent said they believe average global temperatures have "generally risen" compared with pre-1800 levels, and 92 percent said they believe "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

In the 1980s, Exxon spent millions of dollars on groundbreaking research which irrefutably showed how their products would change the climate. And then they buried it all.

More on Exxon,….

Interview with Neela Banerjee, lead reporter on the bombshell series of revelations from Inside Climate News, – what Exxon knew about climate change, and when they knew it.

The oil company was actually doing cutting edge research in the late 70s and early 80s, working with world class organizations like Columbia University and Scripps Institute of Oceanography – and made projections very much in line with the very best science of the day – in fact astoundingly accurate as to what we are observing today.

What Exxon knew and when they knew it.

Notice that Exxon 1981 had it right. The revelations of the Exxon research, and the fact that it was kept secret and all that, is an interesting story. And, that story will develop over coming days, week, and months. But I don’t want to lose track of the other story, in some ways even more interesting. How surprised should we be, after all, that a major corporation would both look into and ignore, possibly even repress, the science associated with their primary activity? Not at all, really. But what is surprising is that we (and by “we” I mean scientists who have studied climate change) have understood the basic problem for a very long time, and decades of research have confirmed early findings, and of course, added important details.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Katie Tubb
Katie Tubb
Katie Tubb is a research assistant for the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research.
President Obama gave a doom and gloom speech yesterday at the Global Leadership in the Arctic (GLACIER) conference in Alaska to build momentum for the U.N. climate deal in Paris this December.

So far less than one third of countries have submitted plans to cut carbon dioxide emissions by the Wall Street Journal’s count.

According to Obama, “Climate change is happening faster than we’re acting” and the world is facing a future of more fires, more melting, more warming, more suffering.

But there are at least two major problems with his focus on global warming as he’s presented it in Alaska.

The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.

Sign Up
Ignoring Evidence On Climate Change
Obama continues to ignore science that doesn’t fit his narrative and has ignored sound evidence from people who disagree with him. Many of the environmental trends Obama has warned of do not appear to fit current realities.

In his speech he warned that,

“If [current] trend lines continue the way they are, there’s not going to be a nation on this earth that’s not going to be impacted negatively…More drought, more floods, rising sea levels, greater migration, more refugees, more scarcity, more conflict.”

However, Judith Curry, professor at Georgia Institute for Technology and participant in the International Panel on Climate Change and National Academy of Sciences, writes that when politicians talk about an undeniable climate “consensus” they are brushing over “very substantial disagreement about climate change that arises from:

Insufficient observational evidence
Disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence (e.g. models)
Disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence
Assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance
Belief polarization as a result of politicization of the science
All this leaves multiple ways to interpret and reason about the available evidence.”

Curry, and others with evidence countering the president’s narrative of an accelerating and catastrophic warming, are labeled by Obama as “critics,” “cynics,” “deniers,” and on “their own shrinking island.”

Yet data of observed reality collected from the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. National Climate Data Center does not show increasing frequency of extreme weather across the globe, whether you look at hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, or floods.

With so much yet unknown or unclear, one has to wonder if we are entirely misdiagnosing the problem.

What Will New Measures Do?
Obama hasn’t given Americans, or the world, an answer to perhaps the most important question: what kind of impact will global warming measures accomplish?

For starters, Federal subsidies and tax credits for wind and solar have cost billions of dollars while only increasing wind and solar contribution to the American energy by only 5 percent. In addition, it has tied both industries to government dependence with only minor success.

Energy efficiency mandates have reduced choices for Americans through the back door of regulation.

That has meant more expensive kitchen appliances or car models that must prioritize carbon dioxide emissions over other preferences like size, safety, or performance, not to mention an insult to the ability of Americans to make good energy efficiency choices for themselves.

And the Clean Power Plan, should it survive the serious legal problems with the regulations, promises to create a $2.5 trillion loss in GDP, hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, and a total income loss of $7,000 per person by 2030.

Those hardest hit will be people in manufacturing and with lower incomes.

Rich with irony, Obama warned that if we don’t act on climate change there would be “entire industries of people who can’t practice their livelihood.”

Tell that to those in the coal industry facing the gauntlet of the Clean Power Plan and a slew of other federal regulations, or miners and oil companies in Alaska in the crosshairs of the Obama administration’s zero carbon economy.

As it turns out, these mandates and subsidies also prove to be barriers to the progress and innovation the Obama administration wants.

Where does it get us on the path to addressing global warming?

Just shy of nowhere, or less than 0.002 degrees Celsius using an EPA model.

Jim Hansen, far from Obama’s global warming “deniers,” called the Clean Power Plan “practically worthless,” even though it is the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s climate agenda.

The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Clean Power Plan, has testified before Congress that the Clean Power Plan isn’t about reducing global temperatures but “an investment opportunity” and “the tone and tenor” of international climate discussions.

Too many government policies, at home and abroad, make opportunity further out of reach under the misguided notion of making a dent in global warming.

In the process they thwart the opportunity, mobility, and wealth that can empower people to deal with environmental challenges.

The climate has been changing and continents moving for millions of years, fossils of prehistoric fish have been found in the middle of continents, but I suppose the "scientists and experts" must justify the huge amounts of money they are granted to produce graphs by the hundreds and statistics to prove human interference is changing what has been happening for millions of years so that "their" money is not diverted to worthwhile causes.

Originally Posted by Ozcol

The climate has been changing and continents moving for millions of years, fossils of prehistoric fish have been found in the middle of continents, but I suppose the "scientists and experts" must justify the huge amounts of money they are granted to produce graphs by the hundreds and statistics to prove human interference is changing what has been happening for millions of years so that "their" money is not diverted to worthwhile causes.

It might be to your advantage to have a look at some of the 2766 pages behind yours before making that accusation.

Originally Posted by Ozcol

but I suppose the "scientists and experts" must justify the huge amounts of money they are granted to produce graphs by the hundreds and statistics to prove human interference is changing what has been happening for millions of years so that "their" money is not diverted to worthwhile causes.

Originally Posted by MrG

It might be to your advantage to have a look at some of the 2766 pages behind yours before making that accusation.

Allow me to assist with this helpful flow-chart:

Climate change has been happening for millions of years, continents have been under water as fossils of prehistoric fish have been found in the middle of places that are nowhere near the current oceans. The "scientists and experts on climate change" produce graphs and charts to "prove" human interference is influencing what has been happening for millions of years so the money they are granted does not go to deserving causes.

Say it a third time, that'll make it true (Internet Law; Clause 234(b)(ii))

Sorry about the duplication but it did need saying twice it has more relevance than 100 graphs.

Originally Posted by Ozcol

Sorry about the duplication but it did need saying twice it has more relevance than 100 graphs.

Goodo. It's who it's relevant to that's part of the issue though really.

OK Ant believe what you like but tell me the climate has not been changing for millions of years with PROOF.

Originally Posted by Ozcol

OK Ant believe what you like but tell me the climate has not been changing for millions of years with PROOF.

I don't think that anyone has disputed that the climate has changed over time, have they? That's not really the issue: the extent of mankinds influence on it in recent times is.