Is global warming even real?

Sounds like Schmelzer could stand a review on how science conducts the business of research. The likelihood I can continue to believe he's a scientist is nil.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

At least there was one elected public servant who wasn't a self serving sociopath with respect to climate science. Al Gore was the first interview on the last Bill Maher show. If you need to find a public figure to lead an international project it's a good idea to pick the guy who never buckled under political pressure designed to make, so called, public servants buckle. To bad Bill thinks the crackpots should get equal time. Get sick of it. He should do a show discussing the oligarchy wish to institute 'crackpotism' as the new scientific method.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course, I pay attention, I have already spend a lot of time in the discussion with you, unfortunately the facts are rare, most of the text consists of "you are stupid" claims.

Why do you think I have declared people like Seitz do not exist? I have explained, now already several times, that the political correctness pressure is not everything, that this is a fight between different forces. If there is fight, there are also fighters, not?

These fighters may be scientists, who defend science against the political pressure, they may be also firms, who support research not supported by the political correct science bureaucracy. And, like in every fight, the fighters may have good intentions as well as purely selfish ones.

By the way, it is an open policy of the scientific administrations everywhere that the scientists should try to get grants from the industry as well. I do not think this is a good idea - it does not give scientists independence, which requires a permanent, safe job, which a grant from industry does not give you too. It may divert the pressure - if there are more players giving money to science, this gives more independence. And, as we see here, it can be used as an ad hominem against scientists who do not follow the politically correct line.

Mindreader iceaura in action.

Whatever I made there, quote it, if you think it is relevant, or forget it.

Summary: Yet another post without any content argument, and a lot of variants of "you are stupid".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

None of it. You are unable to register facts, therefore misled about implications, in this entire matter - including my posts.

Because Seitz is not on the side he would have to be on, to be part of your "political fight" between actual scientists. Also, he's not a scientist in the field.

Seitz is not defending science against political pressure, but bringing political pressure to bear on science. He is doing no research. And the firms involved do not support research other than that supported by everybody else - to the extent they support research, it's part of the general research effort. There is no conflict between the findings of different branches of research or different researchers with different funding sources, in this field. You are dealing with a physical reality that does not align with your ideological presumptions.

btw: There is such a conflict, in GMOs, but the allegiances are the opposite of your presumptions.

You have forgotten, once again, to obtain information.

Grants from the government do not provide permanent, safe jobs - at least, not in the US. Safety and permanence are had via tenure, and to a lesser extent via civil service regulations, but neither of these provide research money or support. Corporations do not provide "grants" - they fund grants, and fund research programs through universities, and so forth, but you have been referring to that powerful source of influence as "political pressure". The primary source of distortion in American research is this corporate funding.

Most of the political pressure actually brought to bear on climate researchers in the US - via politicians and government agencies threatening research scientists with funding cuts, dismissal from government service, media slander, even criminal investigations, say - has been from politicians opposed to any attempts to mitigate the CO2 boost currently underway.

The safest source of "scientific" employment in the US, beyond increasingly difficult tenure, is the well known wingnut welfare gravy boat of the various corporate funded think tanks and foundations and so forth. As with organized crime everywhere, the godfathers reward loyalty with loyalty.

And nobody has been posting "ad hominem" arguments here - the example of Seitz, et al, was to counter your contention that a researcher who produced analysis or findings counter to the requirements of what you assume to be the "political pressure" regarding AGW would be taking a risk, likely to lose funding and support. The contrary is the case - by the evidence posted, anyone willing to put their scientific credentials on the line in opposition to the IPCC can expect considerable rewards, including a life of personal wealth and comfort without any need to spend months freezing their asses off drilling holes in some god-forsaken glacier, or running 24 hour shifts in remote bases calibrating satellite readings with ground measurements. Seitz has received ample money for research, has been made wealthy and secure - that he has done no research is not for lack of support, but for lack of relevance in his role: the anti-AGW mitigation efforts are conflict with physical reality, and have no use for actual research into same.

 

It appears that I'm even too stupid to understand the "you are stupid" claims of iceaura, but so what.

Which is also not untypical for politicized sciences: Outsiders are often more courageous, because they do not depend on the inside establishment. Pure science, by the way, does not make a difference. It does not even matter if you have a formal education - if you are able to give valuable scientific arguments, fine.

I imagine the pure IPCC being afraid of Seitz's political pressure. But the guys from the IPCC are brave heroes, I imagine. LOL.

I'm dealing with your cheap propaganda, which can be easily seen from the repeated "you are stupid" claims. If you would be a person who really knows a lot more than I do, you would not repeat "you are stupid" claims but provide the arguments.

Mindreader iceaura knows even about presumptions I don't have.

As I would expect from you. Corporations are evil, the state is good.

And, nicely, as you have mentioned above, he is an outsider, thus, has other means of survival.

 

He's not an "outsider" in a politicized science - he's not a researcher at all - but an insider in an industry propaganda campaign of political influence, and he's gaining wealth and security without personal risk. There is little courage in gaining wealth and security (even prestige and status, in non-scientific areas) without personal risk.

Again: he and the others listed are not researchers, actual scientists, in the field. They are not able to give scientific arguments - they have done no research, and have nothing to contribute to the science in the field.

He has the backing of major political powers (courtesy of his corporate support) including central figures on the US government oversight committees that can influence research funding as well as public policy.

You posted it. I read and remember the presumptions in the post - it was a bit startling, because I hadn't realized until then how little you actually knew about the funding and pressures on serious scientific research in the West.

Once again: no reality. I have never posted that the State is good, or that corporations are evil. I have posted that commercial interest, not political interest, is the predominant outside influence on climate science in the West.

So does every other scientist willing to lend their credentials to the commercial agenda of the fossil fuel industry. So they have nothing to fear from opposing the mainstream scientific assessments of AGW, and millions in personal wealth and security to gain - including support for research, should they wish to perform any.

You denied the existence of that safety and security, above. You claimed that a scientist who opposed the IPCC assessments of AGW would suffer, personally and professionally. That is not true.

 

Fine, so why have you introduced irrelevant persons into the discussion? (Or is this simply cheap polemics against them, so that they are scientists if the question is if scientists have a chance to get paid, but not scientists else?)

I have described the general picture, typical for a politicized science. Of course, I see a lot of political influence in climate science, via IPCC as well as all the media propaganda as indicators. But I cannot exclude that there exists other forces which are financially strong enough to counter. You claim that some "fossil fuel industry" provides such a force, I doubt that this industry would be unified enough, and have supported this with one of the strongest players with fossil fuels, Russia, supporting AGW.

But, of course, American fossil fuel industry may have completely different interests. And, given that there exists some criticism of AGW, it is, indeed, plausible that there exists also some financial support for them. Without this, they would not have a real chance to be heard.

 

They have scientific credentials, and are scientists. That's why they are so useful, and highly paid, to help the fossil fuel industry provide political pressure on the AGW and other CO2 boost researchers.

No, you described a picture you were contending was of the sciences currently involved in the IPCC assessments of AGW. You specifically applied that "general picture". And you got it wrong, because you don't know anything about the reality of the situation.

No, you don't. If you could see it, you would not get its degree and direction wrong, as you do.

They don't "counter", they finance and support. Above you were handed examples - names, amounts, specific instances. - from at least three different posters.

You really don't know anything about the Western economies and politics, do you. Google is your friend. Try typing "fossil fuel industry" into your browser, follow the hyperlinks, come back in a couple of weeks when you have obtained clues.

 

After deleting some new "you are stupid" variants and some things which do not require an answer, it remains to answer the following:

 

And on we go, post after post, in science and politics....conspiracies here, conspiracies there, excuses here, excuses there, just a continuation of the usual attempted indoctrination.

 

And on we go

You know that the IPCC had e-mails leaked in I think 2007 ; or there abouts ; on the fraud of CO2 being the basis of climate change ; based on Human consummption of fossil fuels.

 

Lead author of the new study was Michael Mann, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University. He told Reuters that the group's computer simulations indicated those odds including 2015 had widened to between one in 1,250 and one in 13,000."
(Study did not originally include 2015 data as published before end of 2015.)

Study will have little effect on deniers, as most have closed minds on the subject.

 

What makes me sad is we are going to take so much beauty down with us. We are nature's greatest mistake.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The area lies at the northwest side of the Greater Khingan Mountains in North China's Inner Mongolia autonomous region.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In South China's Guangdong province, the park is the nation's first nature reserve and one of the world's natural life preservation areas.
There are 45 red-crown cranes in the park. Global Warming will get them all and others that depend on there being wet lands, not rushing rivers.

Eight more photos of Chinese wetlands at the link.
Be sure to see a few photos of the just opened annual Harbin China ice festible at:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/travel/2016-02/09/content_23437964.htm

 

Which is politicized because . . . .

Why not follow the actual science rather than the political and commercial interests paying for climate change denial?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

2015's claim to hotest year ever, will soon fall if this keeps up.

 

If this keeps up, we're in trouble.

 

"Hottest year ever"
Gee what a silly(ignorant) claim.
Hottest year ever---------EXCEPT for almost every preceding interglacial ...eg: Mis 5, mis 9 mis 11, mis 25, 31, 37, 47, 77,81, 87, and all preceding interglacials, and all years before this ice age going back to the last ice age 260 million years ago.

Do not fear the warmth, embrace it.
Fear the glaciers--------------they kill all in their paths-------and(a particular complaint of mine) the damned things erase almost all archaeological evidence as they progress.

.....................
IMHO Michael Mann is a con man, far too much in love with hyperbole to let a little thing like truth or honesty get in his way.

 

I certainly do. My place definetely is shaping up, and I like the fact that I can grow more warmth-loving plants these years.

But I'm worried about those whose places become dry and deserted and who will want to migrate to better places. Or those islands wich will be flooded. We need plans to help those people or relocate them to more fertile places.

PS: Usually the "warmest year" claims are attributed with "since 1850" or so, depending which data was used. I think we safely assume that if the reference is not given, 1850 will be the begin of the data set.

Earth was way warmer in the past as today, but also way colder. We still live in a fairly cold period, if we take the last 2 billion years of earth as reference. It most often was warmer, until plants had used up all CO2, and earth became arctic for a while - for some time all of earth was covered by ice and snow all the time. That also killed all the plants on land, so the CO2 sink was gone, and volcanoes could build up CO2 in the atmosphere again.

 

Yes and that was given on the graph I posted. - Going back to periods when no records exist is speculative but if you go back far enough, the earth's surface was still liquid. sculptor is missing the point: There has been an accelerating warming trend that if continued, will be difficult to adjust too. It probably is caused at least in part by the ever increasing amounts of CO2 being released (and amplified greatly by up to 24 positive feed back that are known.*). Sure for a while there are positive aspect - for example growing crops above the Arctic Circle where now there is frozen tundra, etc. but on net man and animals are adapted to the current climate.

* Strongest recorded El Nina is one, but greatly increased release of methane is more serious in the long run as self accelerating by itself as the tundra melts. CH4's life time in theatmosphere is increased as now the rate of release is greater than the harsh UV can produce the -OH radical which is the main remover of CH4. For the 800,000 year we have data on the opposite was true. I. e. the CH4 release rate was less than the -OH radical production rate so the CH4 concentration was less than 1/3 what it is now. Now the CH4 concentration is rapidly increasing.