Any doubts about Climate Change?

**TonyBKK** · 22-10-2013, 08:05 AM

^ There ya go cherry picking again.

Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science.

**S Landreth** · 22-10-2013, 02:43 PM

maybe TD should consider a new policy

How 9 Major Papers Deal With Climate-Denying Letters

How 9 Major Papers Deal With Climate-Denying Letters

If you've looked through the letters sections of US newspapers, you've probably read that human-caused global warming is a "hoax" and a "myth." You've also likely read about how "mankind cannot change the earth's climate" and how the carbon dioxide we release isn't a "significant factor" driving global temperatures.

But recently, the Los Angeles Times took a stand against this type of misinformation. Paul Thornton, the paper's letters editor, wrote that he doesn't print letters asserting that "there's no sign humans have caused climate change." Why? Because, he wrote, such a statement is a factual inaccuracy, and "I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page." He cited the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's recent statement that scientists are at least 95-percent certain humans are causing global warming.

Does this mean the Times will never publish a letter skeptical of climate change? Not necessarily. Thornton told Climate Desk that he evaluates all letters on "a case-by-case basis" and that he would consider running one from a climate scientist with "impeccable credentials" who disagreed with the scientific consensus. But he says those letters are unusual. "I don't get a lot of nuance from people who question the science on climate change," he explains. Rather, he says, letters frequently portray climate change as a "hoax" or a "liberal conspiracy."

Thornton's announcement drew praise from some scientists and activists, and Forecast the Facts, an advocacy group "dedicated to ensuring that Americans hear the truth about climate change," launched a petition drive calling on other major papers to follow suit. "The idea that opinion pieces should be based in the realm of facts is nothing new," argues Brad Johnson, the group's campaign manager.

So how do other newspapers handle climate-denying letters? Climate Desk contacted editors across the country to find out.

The Washington Post

The Dallas Morning News

The Tampa Bay Times

USA Today

The Plain Dealer

The Houston Chronicle

The Denver Post

The San Diego Union-Tribune

_______________________

On letters from climate-change deniers - latimes.com

Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy.

**ENT** · 22-10-2013, 03:34 PM

Humans are part and parcel of climate change, but not the cause.

**Boon Mee** · 22-10-2013, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by ENT

Humans are part and parcel of climate change, but not the cause.

Got that right although Climate Change has been the norm throughout the millenium but don't tell that to the Al Gore acolytes. Too much Face involved now to admit they're wrong...

**S Landreth** · 22-10-2013, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by ENT

Humans are part and parcel of climate change, but not the cause.

And like other deniers I bet you don't believe this warning either.

**S Landreth** · 22-10-2013, 06:25 PM

Dr. Joe Romm, Climate Progress joins Thom Hartmann. Right now – we still have have a chance to save our planet from the greatest threat it’s ever faced: climate change. But at what point will our efforts be in vain? At what point will climate change become permanent?

Joe discusses the new Summary for Policy Makers of the IPCC 5th Assessment report.

Summary: http://www.climatechange2013.org/ima...d27Sep2013.pdf

**GR3** · 23-10-2013, 06:53 AM

Now this guy I can respect;
One Guy With A Marker Just Made The Global Warming Debate Completely Obsolete

**TonyBKK** · 23-10-2013, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by S Landreth

"The idea that opinion pieces should be based in the realm of facts is nothing new,"

Imagine how many posts would be deleted if TeakDoor were to put this policy into effect

**TonyBKK** · 23-10-2013, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by GR3

Now this guy I can respect;
One Guy With A Marker Just Made The Global Warming Debate Completely Obsolete

Thank you for that. An interesting argument and presentation, and while there are some obvious flaws in his logic I think everyone can agree with his conclusion:

"The risk of not acting far outweighs the risk of acting"

Joel Pett summed it up perfectly:

**Boon Mee** · 27-10-2013, 08:53 AM

Well, how about this? Some in the Land Down Under are starting to catch on.

Aussie PM: carbon tax is ‘socialism

Australia’s newly elected prime minister pulled no punches when giving his thoughts on the country’s carbon tax, which he says must be abolished as quickly as possible.

“The carbon tax is bad for the economy and it doesn’t do any good for the environment,” Abbott told The Washington Post. “Despite a carbon tax of $37 a ton by 2020, Australia’s domestic emissions were going up, not down. The carbon tax was basically socialism masquerading as environmentalism, and that’s why it’s going to get abolished.”

“If the Labor Party wants to give the people of Australia a Christmas present, they will vote to abolish the carbon tax. It was damaging the economy without helping the environment. It was a stupid tax. A misconceived tax,” Abbott added.
No shit, Sherlock...

Aussie PM: carbon tax is

**ENT** · 27-10-2013, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Originally Posted by ENT

Humans are part and parcel of climate change, but not the cause.

And like other deniers I bet you don't believe this warning either.

The daftest suggestion made this century is that humans are the sole cause of climate change.

Climate change is an ongoing geophysical cycle, originating long before any life even existed on this planet.

**Boon Mee** · 27-10-2013, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Originally Posted by ENT

Humans are part and parcel of climate change, but not the cause.

And like other deniers I bet you don't believe this warning either.

The daftest suggestion made this century is that humans are the sole cause of climate change.

Climate change is an ongoing geophysical cycle, originating long before any life even existed on this planet.

Again, not if you're Al Gore and his sycophants who are raking in the bucks with this scam...

**ENT** · 27-10-2013, 10:25 AM

The carbon tax scam was just that, a scam, invented by capitalists to feather their own nests, it was never going to work as too many industrialists were looking to win on it.

Direct intervention, not offering sweet deals to polluters is far more effective in reducing carbon emissions, among other pollutants

Oz's Abbot's a jerk, in my book, trying to make political capital out of a failed carbon accounting system condemning it as a socialist plot or somesuch, almost as bad as the McCarthyist "reds under the beds" catch-cry.

**Umbuku** · 27-10-2013, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Australia’s newly elected prime minister

Tony Abbot is a right wing christian nutbag whose conservative party is funded by the mining industry amongst others in Australia. He has no credentials to even comment on climate change and is talking out of his twenty-third arsehole for a political agenda.

Originally Posted by ENT

The daftest suggestion made this century is that humans are the sole cause of climate change.

I know you know what an equilibrium point is.

Originally Posted by ENT

Climate change is an ongoing geophysical cycle, originating long before any life even existed on this planet.

Human emissions of carbon compounds into the atmosphere and oceans have induced positive reinforcement in the system of the already increasing temperature control mechanisms of the planet. Our emissions are speeding up the geological cycle of glacial/interglacial turnover by a factor of 8 according to the last paper I looked at on the matter which was several years ago now. That means that the oncoming inter-glacial change is going to occur in approximately 100 years instead of 800 (as an example, past analogues have been from 1,000 - 10,000 years at different points) with the rest of the 700 years of 'normal' warming to come. The problem we face is not the temperature, we will adapt and cope to it and we would have to in 1000 or so years anyway, but the effect such rapid change will have on the environment and therefore plant and animal species that we depend on.

**Rainfall** · 27-10-2013, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Originally Posted by ENT

Humans are part and parcel of climate change, but not the cause.

And like other deniers I bet you don't believe this warning either.

The daftest suggestion made this century is that humans are the sole cause of climate change.

Climate change is an ongoing geophysical cycle, originating long before any life even existed on this planet.

Interesting, an ueber truther is a climate change denier, an unusual combination. Since life is on Earth, it's the major factor changing the atmosphere, climate, even geology of the planet. That was before humans. We move more soil each year than the continental drift. We trapped five times as much water in reservoirs than is in all rivers on earth combined, and turned natural lakes the size of Belgium to deserts. The great extinction events of the deep past took place over hundreds of thousands, even millions of years. We managed to kill off 40% of all plant and animal species in a little over one century. Nothing nature can throw at the planet compares to the onslaught of technology. Climate change is the easiest human achievement of them all.

**ENT** · 28-10-2013, 03:31 AM

^ Rainfall.

Both you and S Landreth are apparently unable to read and comprehend simple English.

Far from denying climate change, I affirm its existence in my post # 1278, quoted below.

Originally Posted by ENT

Humans are part and parcel of climate change, but not the cause.

Where do I say and how do you two construe the meaning of my above statement to imply that I am a climate change denier?

Answer me that.

Our planet's climate has been changing cyclically for millions of years before life started on earth as I've stated in post #1286.

Anthropogenic effects on climate are undeniable, they are dramatic and immediately observable in the short term.

Solar, geophysical, geochemical and biological factors are also co-causative of climate change.

Now, where in this post do I deny climate change?

I find your knee-jerk reaction by quoting S Landreth's misguided view of my post ridiculously blinkered.

**ENT** · 28-10-2013, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by Umbuku

.... the oncoming inter-glacial change is going to occur in approximately 100 years instead of 800 (as an example, past analogues have been from 1,000 - 10,000 years at different points) with the rest of the 700 years of 'normal' warming to come. The problem we face is not the temperature, we will adapt and cope to it and we would have to in 1000 or so years anyway, but the effect such rapid change will have on the environment and therefore plant and animal species that we depend on.

My own "guesstimate" is that we're heading for a runaway climate change scenario of rapidly changing and extreme weather patterns along with increased surface temperatures, desertification, extinction of several species of life, especially botanical as they can't migrate rapidly, all this change of course exacerbated by anthropogenic activity,.......but probably within 20 years from now.

**Boon Mee** · 28-10-2013, 09:31 AM

Old & Busted: John Kerry Predicts An "Ice-Free Arctic" By Summer 2013.

The New & Hot: Arctic Ice Highest Since 2007

John Kerry Ice Free Arctic Update | Real Science

Think you Al Gore-worshippers have to find a new scam. This one ain't working and the web site of the other one isn't either...

**TonyBKK** · 28-10-2013, 10:19 AM

^ Unlike Boontard who likes to get his "news" from no-name denialist blogs and "Faux news" I prefer to rely on FACTS from scientists in the field to shape my opinions.

Eastern Arctic temperatures likely at 120,000-year high

Gifford Miller collects long-dead tundra plants exposed by melting of an Arctic ice cap on Baffin Island, Canada. (Gifford Miller/University of Colorado, Boulder)

Melting ice caps on Baffin Island have exposed evidence suggesting that average summertime temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic are higher than they’ve been since the beginning of the last ice age 120,000 years ago.
The study shows current temperatures are “well outside the range of natural variability now,” said Gifford Miller, from the University of Colorado, Boulder, who led the study, in an interview with CBC News Friday.
“And so… there’s really nothing left but greenhouse gases to explain why the warming is occurring.”
Previously, some scientists thought it was possible that current Arctic warming might be within the range of natural variability, and that the Arctic may in fact have been warmer than it is now during the Early Holocene, shortly after the end of the last ice age 11,700 ago. At that time variations in the Earth’s orbit meant the amount of solar energy reaching the Northern Hemisphere was about nine per cent higher than it is now, leading to a 5,000-year warm period that peaked around 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, Miller said.
However, the analysis by Miller and his colleagues suggests that average temperatures never got as high as they are now in the area of Baffin Island that they studied. The study was published this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

As ice caps today recede, like this one nicknamed Sputnik, they expose dead plants killed long ago when the ice cap formed and encased in the ice ever since. (Gifford Miller/University of Colorado, Boulder)

The researchers gathered dead moss that had been exposed by melting of the ice caps, and used radiocarbon dating in an effort to find out how long the moss had been buried in the ice before that. Radiocarbon dating can only be used to determine when an organism had been alive within the past 50,000 years. In the case of the moss, the researchers hit the 50,000-year limit, which meant that the moss had been buried since the middle of the last ice age. And since the ice almost certainly didn't melt during the ice age, it had probably been there since the beginning of the ice age, 120,000 years ago.
Miller said he and his colleagues had specifically chosen a flat area for their study so that any ice loss would have to be due to melting and not erosion. The researchers were also able to calculate maximum thickness of the ice based on the local topography. With that information, they calculated that had it been as warm at any point during the Early Holocene as it is today, within 100 years, the ice would have melted enough to expose the moss. The fact that this never happened suggested that it never got that warm.
Ice core evidence

In fact, evidence from ice cores collected in nearby Greenland suggest that summer temperatures in the region haven’t been as warm as they are now for 120,000 years.
Another interesting finding of the new study was that from 5,000 to 500 years ago, average summer temperatures in the region cooled about 2.7 C — about double what most climate models show.
Miller said that suggests the models may underestimate the huge temperature swings in the Arctic relative to other parts of the world when the average global temperature changes. The Arctic is thought to respond more strongly because effects of warming are amplified by the large-scale melting of Arctic ice in forms such as sea ice and ice caps.
“Maybe the future warming estimates for the Arctic are still underestimated,” Miller added.

Eastern Arctic temperatures likely at 120,000-year high - Technology & Science - CBC News

**S Landreth** · 28-10-2013, 09:02 PM

The damage climate change will do to the oceans could be disastrous for the world’s poorest, according to a new study.

Humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions will alter the oceans in several ways, including shifts in ocean temperature, reduced oxygen concentrations, and higher acidity as they absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. To track how, a group of researchers lead by Camilo Mora, a geography professor at the University of Hawaii, ran 32 marine habitats around the world through a series of modeled simulations. They looked at what would happen to these areas until 2100, under both a “business as usual” scenario — in which carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere rises to 900 parts per million — and an alternative scenario in which humanity takes drastic action to cut those emissions.

“Our results suggest that the entire world’s ocean surface will be simultaneously impacted by varying intensities of ocean warming, acidification, oxygen depletion, or shortfalls in productivity,” the researchers reported. “Only a very small fraction of the oceans, mostly in polar regions, will face the opposing effects of increases in oxygen or productivity, and almost nowhere will there be cooling or [decrease in acidity].”

These changes could very well reduce the oceans’ biological productivity. In particular, the models suggested a four to ten percent cut in the production of phytoplankton, which form the lowest foundation of most of the oceanic food chains. That in turn would mean “massive and challenging” ramifications for the 470 to 870 million poor people around the world who rely on the seas for their food and livelihoods. Many of them live in the countries that will be the hardest hit by the changes the researchers tracked.

This work follows up on a growing body of evidence detailing the unique threat climate change poses to the global poor. The problems extend well beyond ocean changes, to extreme weather and crop disruptions. Southern and southeastern Asia are home to a large portion of the global poor, and face destabilizing climate shifts, altered monsoon patterns, and floods. The World Bank has warned that within two decades, drought and rising heat could leave 40 percent of sub-Saharan Africa’s farmland unsuitable for growing maize or for grazing livestock.

___________________

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Originally Posted by S Landreth

"The idea that opinion pieces should be based in the realm of facts is nothing new,"

Imagine how many posts would be deleted if TeakDoor were to put this policy into effect

From this incomplete list above, 52% of the posts on this thread could be removed because they are not science based (no credible information), misinformation and just out and out BS.

But a good way to look at their posts here is that it keeps these posters off the streets and every time they post on this thread it brings it to the front page of TD which in turn keeps the awareness up on the subject which was one intention of this thread.

________________________

Humans are part and parcel of climate change, but not the cause.

a fact: if you are a person who does not believe the science or that 97% of published climate papers hold the position that humans are the cause of global warming you are.......without a doubt......a climate change denier.

So light up that next cigarette; denier, and celebrate (if you're a smoker) because there's not a chance of you getting cancer from smoking. The science just isn't there.

**RickThai** · 28-10-2013, 10:59 PM

Just read a book that states how geological evidence shows that sea levels have been rising for the last 8000 years. I guess cave men drove gas guzzlers.

RickThai

**kingwilly** · 29-10-2013, 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

^ Unlike Boontard who likes to get his "news" from no-name denialist blogs and "Faux news" I prefer to rely on FACTS from scientists in the field to shape my opinions.

Eastern Arctic temperatures likely at 120,000-year high

Gifford Miller collects long-dead tundra plants exposed by melting of an Arctic ice cap on Baffin Island, Canada. (Gifford Miller/University of Colorado, Boulder)

Melting ice caps on Baffin Island have exposed evidence suggesting that average summertime temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic are higher than they’ve been since the beginning of the last ice age 120,000 years ago.
The study shows current temperatures are “well outside the range of natural variability now,” said Gifford Miller, from the University of Colorado, Boulder, who led the study, in an interview with CBC News Friday.
“And so… there’s really nothing left but greenhouse gases to explain why the warming is occurring.”
Previously, some scientists thought it was possible that current Arctic warming might be within the range of natural variability, and that the Arctic may in fact have been warmer than it is now during the Early Holocene, shortly after the end of the last ice age 11,700 ago. At that time variations in the Earth’s orbit meant the amount of solar energy reaching the Northern Hemisphere was about nine per cent higher than it is now, leading to a 5,000-year warm period that peaked around 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, Miller said.
However, the analysis by Miller and his colleagues suggests that average temperatures never got as high as they are now in the area of Baffin Island that they studied. The study was published this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

As ice caps today recede, like this one nicknamed Sputnik, they expose dead plants killed long ago when the ice cap formed and encased in the ice ever since. (Gifford Miller/University of Colorado, Boulder)

The researchers gathered dead moss that had been exposed by melting of the ice caps, and used radiocarbon dating in an effort to find out how long the moss had been buried in the ice before that. Radiocarbon dating can only be used to determine when an organism had been alive within the past 50,000 years. In the case of the moss, the researchers hit the 50,000-year limit, which meant that the moss had been buried since the middle of the last ice age. And since the ice almost certainly didn't melt during the ice age, it had probably been there since the beginning of the ice age, 120,000 years ago.
Miller said he and his colleagues had specifically chosen a flat area for their study so that any ice loss would have to be due to melting and not erosion. The researchers were also able to calculate maximum thickness of the ice based on the local topography. With that information, they calculated that had it been as warm at any point during the Early Holocene as it is today, within 100 years, the ice would have melted enough to expose the moss. The fact that this never happened suggested that it never got that warm.
Ice core evidence

In fact, evidence from ice cores collected in nearby Greenland suggest that summer temperatures in the region haven’t been as warm as they are now for 120,000 years.
Another interesting finding of the new study was that from 5,000 to 500 years ago, average summer temperatures in the region cooled about 2.7 C — about double what most climate models show.
Miller said that suggests the models may underestimate the huge temperature swings in the Arctic relative to other parts of the world when the average global temperature changes. The Arctic is thought to respond more strongly because effects of warming are amplified by the large-scale melting of Arctic ice in forms such as sea ice and ice caps.
“Maybe the future warming estimates for the Arctic are still underestimated,” Miller added.

Eastern Arctic temperatures likely at 120,000-year high - Technology & Science - CBC News

This article is typical of the quality of the science used for global warming hysteria. The study was one are, not the entire tundra or 'east artic'.

His results failed to show any results within the limits of carbon dating so from that failed data set he concludes that the east artic has rapidly rising temperatures and it's due to global warming????

That's some extrapolation.

**TonyBKK** · 29-10-2013, 09:14 AM

^ That's a pretty funny rant coming from a guy who believes, without a shred of evidence, that no aircraft hit the World Trade Towers on 9-11

10 Failed Climate Change Denial Arguments

If you think the climate isn’t changing, well, I've got some bad news for you. It is.

Of course the climate’s changing. It always does. The problem is on top of that incredibly slow natural variation, the climate is changing due to human influence, and it’s changing fast. Droughts, floods, ice caps melting, fires raging out of control, temperature records broken on a daily basis: This is the new normal.

That hasn’t stopped people from denying the change and in fact seems to stoke them like dry air and heat waves stoke wildfires. Rebutting the reality-challenged challenges to reality is a full-time job, but Hank Green makes it look easy. Green—one half of the Vlog Brothers—claims he loves simple, powerful ideas.

I believe him. I’ve watched a lot of his videos, and his ability to discuss complex ideas in bite-size pieces is manifest. But he recently put out one which simply slams the door shut on 10 climate change denial arguments, elegantly and with much alacrity:

10 Failed Climate Change Denial Arguments.

**ENT** · 29-10-2013, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

^ That's a pretty funny rant coming from a guy who believes, without a shred of evidence, that no aircraft hit the World Trade Towers on 9-11

I believe him. I’ve watched a lot of his videos, and his ability to discuss complex ideas in bite-size pieces is manifest. But he recently put out one which simply slams the door shut on 10 climate change denial arguments, elegantly and with much alacrity

I don't believe a thing chappy. I don't believe your US politicians, and without any evidence I don't believe any of that official 9/11 cr*p.

I don't believe any politicians, lawyers or used car salesmen.

I will accept reality as fact, belief is for the unknowing.

But, you believe him in the video,...all that that stuff in the video. No evaluation. Just a big suck of the cool-aid.

Not saying he's wrong,..

So where's the science,...believer?

Climate change is an experiential phenomenon, thus recordable, measurable and a fact.

**TonyBKK** · 29-10-2013, 12:52 PM

There will always be a lunatic fringe who believethe world is flat, smoking is good for you, Elvis is alive and well and that we never landed on the moon.

For the rest of us, we understand that the debate is over. Global warming is real. Burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming. Solutions are within reach and we need to take action NOW to reduce and mitigate the effects of global warming.

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions