AGW is myth- its all for the money!
- Thread starter mello
- Start date
Germans have these guys littering their political landscape too? I'm shocked, shocked I say. At least he didn't blame AGW on the global Jewish banking cabal - they do learn, burned often and badly enough.
But why is Tea Party ranting - in German or any other language - being posted in a science thread?
What that politician hasn't thought about too closely is that a prediction does have a possibility of ... not happening!
And a decade isn't much of a sample. But who's talking about statistics?
Oh right, the IPCC is.
And a decade isn't much of a sample. But who's talking about statistics?
Oh right, the IPCC is.
but then again, there is the scientific method
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
So if you build in the contingency of your prediction not happening, you have shielded it from falsification, which implies it's not science, which can be falsified, but more like religion that cannot be falsified regardless of evidence.
In the news article, the German politician whoever he is, states his belief that the IPCC predicted a 0.2[sup]o[/sup]C rise per decade.
So (1) Did the IPCC in fact predict that global average temp. would increase linearly each decade, or is Mr politician showing his lack of understanding of the science and in particular, what statistics is? And (2) how "untrue" is the IPCC global temp. prediction, if the supposed 0.2[sup]o[/sup]C rise per decade hasn't occured in the last decade?
So (1) Did the IPCC in fact predict that global average temp. would increase linearly each decade, or is Mr politician showing his lack of understanding of the science and in particular, what statistics is? And (2) how "untrue" is the IPCC global temp. prediction, if the supposed 0.2[sup]o[/sup]C rise per decade hasn't occured in the last decade?
What are the optical mitigators of the dramatic images of ice cliffs crashing into the sea, and of polar bears being trapped as their habitats disappear? Are these to be ignored then? Ignorance mitigates knowledge, but nothing more. And similarly we are supposed to ignore the rise in atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] -- or do you wish this to be labeled as non-anthropogenic also? And I suppose we are expected to ignore the satellite imagery that measures the decline in global ice. Then there is the rest of the data that shows the temperature trends over the past century -- let's shitcan that, too.
When we get though shredding all of this evidence, erasing it from our collective memory, what's next? How does civilization move forward from a position of deliberate indifference? Indeed, what's worth saving at that point?
It's about as cynical a view as anyone can think of. All kinds of holocausts can go on right under our noses and nobody needs to get involved. Live and let die. That seems to be the AGW mantra -- and that of all the rest of the anti-science cynics.
Fortunately it's just another useless ideology which has no basis in real human behavior. No matter how many ways Big Money tries to bend public opinion, enough people will never buy it. They'll continue to react to the evidence of ice melt without even having to understand statistics and the meaning of the term "local minimum".
Of course if the data you're pretending to usher in has any merit, the ice caps are currently re-freezing, the glaciers are being replenished, and the polar bears are reclaiming lost ground. Any day now we should see new satellite imagery that reflects the reversal you are claiming. In fact, I suppose it should have already reversed. I guess you can pick a year in which it reversed and tell us when to expect to see the ice restored.
Oh, I forgot. That's non-anthropogenic. So how about distilling this for us. Is the ice melting or not? Then we can treat this a two layers of denial. It's either progressing or not, and if it's progressing it's either influenced by anthopogenic emissions or not. Even with all the blinders on, with the stubbornest of willful indifference, and most elaborate forays into oversimplification, reduction, and ignorance of science -- not to mention the darkest of phobias of academia -- we're still left with the most flagrant violations of logic. You simply can't force a result by pretending that geometry never existed, that we never had the simplest of tools to hold us to the grindstone when we're slogging through facts in search of a conclusion.
That leaves us with no recourse but to jump to conclusions you've jumped to, based on all of the awful violations of common sense that rail against it. So yeah, when pigs fly out of my butt some of what you're saying will surely come to pass. But until then, no. You're simply wrong in the worst way. Egregiously wrong, seriously in denial, and completely removed from the field of knowledge that owns the technology to give you right answers. That leaves us wondering if you're actually on the Koch Bros. payroll, or whether you're a fundamentalist fan of Faux News and Republican talk-radio programming, or what? What is your actual motivation? It certainly isn't the health of the planet. I mean, I don't suppose you think polar bears are a threat to the environment. I guess canaries are a threat to the coal industry, but no one would suggest bringing them into extinction as an "optical mitigator".
Nice try though. A lot of your Republican cronies are probably thanking you right now, and maybe a prayer circle or two is saying "Can I get an Amen?" but no one with even a high school level of science is buying what you're selling.
See, here's the thing...
The current 'hiatus' in warming isn't actually that unusual. I've never understood why people put so much stock in it.
1. It is the third such hiatus on record. If one examines the temperature record since 1850, one finds three similar examples of a hiatus within it, and they are present in GISTEMP, NOAA, and HADCRUT4.
The first was from 1880ish to 1910ish, the second was from 1940ish to 1970ish, and then there's the modern 'hiatus' which some people would have us believe started in 1998.
2. The previous two have lasted around 30 years, so this one could continue for another 20 and it still wouldn't be problematic.
3. The trend in the first one was somewhat strongly negative, the trend in the second one was less strongly negative, the trend in this one is very weakly positive.
4. Based on thelinear regression of the data since 1850, the residual anomaly of the temperature (Actual temp - predicted temp) is positive, it looks to me like it sits between 0.1 and 0.3k. This means that the current hiatus would need to continue for something like a century just for the residual anomaly to get back down to zero.
5. Models predict three more between now and 2100.
But that's not the case in this instance. There are observations that would falsify the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, this current hiatus just happens to be not one of them. Do you know anything about the autocorrelation within the temperature record? Ten years worth of temperature data isn't worth spit.
That's not actually true. I followed the link you provided, and went back through two or three blogs, one of which used language such as 'The green sharia' which makes anything they have to say hard to take seriously, and found the 'original' posting on the 'Watts up with that' blog.
The superimposed 5 year average - hadcrut 4 has been superimposed by a third party, which means we're forced to rely on their credibility for its veracity. As I said, I have diffculty in attributing credibility to anyone who uses language like 'the IPCC green-sharia scientists'. It's also a lie to say that the grey area doesn't signify anything and is an optical mitigator, because according to the Watt's up with that blog the caption on the image in the report says:
So the grey area is more than 'just an optical mitigator' it is the IPCC's projected 90% uncertainty band - they're 90% confident that the temperature will fall within the bounds of the grey band. The Watts up with the blog is of the opinion that the grey bands are irrelevant because they are of the opinion that the IPCC flubbed them.
What exactly is not true? That it's not fig 1.4 of the second draft here on page I-39
But indeed I trusted a source about the grey area, which turned out to be wrong. Sorry about that.
But indeed I trusted a source about the grey area, which turned out to be wrong. Sorry about that.
Last edited:
I thought I was fairly explicitly clear about what was untrue.
1. The Image as presented does not appear in AR5 - at least not according to the cited image source. The blue line has been superimposed by a third party, presumably the blog writer. We have only their word that it has been done accurately and I have trouble attributing credibility to anyone who uses language like 'IPCC green sharia'.
2. Your assertion that the grey area was an optical mitigator was demonstrably false, which you have subsequently admitted.
True, NOAA talks about 15 year (pp 24)
This graph depicts 15 years (decadal) trends for a few temp series in bold (left of the verical blue line). So any value at a particular point is the slope of the linear regression of the 15 years before that.
With this graph we avoid the begin and end point bias which is irrelevant anyway since NOAA accepts any interval
We see that RSS has already shown minimal negative trends. The current uptick is the result of the big 1998 El Nino spike leaving the 15 years regression, so now we see increased positive values from the begin point in the cold -La Nina- dip around 1999. Right of the blue line we see the projection of hypothetical trendless random noise. It would not take too long before all series hover around zero.
source
Last edited:
Can I stick my big fat head in here and make a comment???
Firstly, I am only attuned to the very basics of global warming science, so my comments are based on very little knowledge...
Please correct me if I'm wrong......
I often cringe when someone uses an isolated weather event such as the hurricane that has just torn through the Phillipines as an example of global warming.
What I would ask is, is there scientific evidence or data to show that extreme weather events are increasing?
The increase of greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4 could have many natural causes.including of course, increases in human activity with regards to operations such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.
Do we have any scientific data that points to human activity as a "major cause" and the prime reason for global warming and secondly is there any data that says we can reverse that situation?
Or would it be far more wise to adapt as best as we can to the inevitable warming, taking into account that our Earth does go through natural climate changes periodically...ice ages for example.
OK, in asking all that I will now give my opinion on what little I do know.
If there is any doubt, any doubt at all, as to the amount that human activity contributes to global warming, or whether we could slow down, stop, or even reverse the situation, then we are 100% obligated to " ËRR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION "
So if our global warming denial friends are not 100% sure that human induced global warming is a myth, they should not stand in the way of preventive actions being taken around the world.
That much we owe to our Grand Sons and Grand Daughters, and there Sons and Daughters, and there Sons and Daughters and to all our future descendants.
That much I am fairly sure of.
Firstly, I am only attuned to the very basics of global warming science, so my comments are based on very little knowledge...
Please correct me if I'm wrong......
I often cringe when someone uses an isolated weather event such as the hurricane that has just torn through the Phillipines as an example of global warming.
What I would ask is, is there scientific evidence or data to show that extreme weather events are increasing?
The increase of greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4 could have many natural causes.including of course, increases in human activity with regards to operations such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.
Do we have any scientific data that points to human activity as a "major cause" and the prime reason for global warming and secondly is there any data that says we can reverse that situation?
Or would it be far more wise to adapt as best as we can to the inevitable warming, taking into account that our Earth does go through natural climate changes periodically...ice ages for example.
OK, in asking all that I will now give my opinion on what little I do know.
If there is any doubt, any doubt at all, as to the amount that human activity contributes to global warming, or whether we could slow down, stop, or even reverse the situation, then we are 100% obligated to " ËRR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION "
So if our global warming denial friends are not 100% sure that human induced global warming is a myth, they should not stand in the way of preventive actions being taken around the world.
That much we owe to our Grand Sons and Grand Daughters, and there Sons and Daughters, and there Sons and Daughters and to all our future descendants.
That much I am fairly sure of.
Well, I hope that some day somebody would show that.
I believe there is a contradiction there, if we have periodic ice ages how does that compare to inevitable warming. Also what good would it do to destroy the economy, restore the greenhouse gas levels to preindustrial and then have the tornado's and typhoons that also happened in the preinduistrial time. But now you don't have the power to mitigate the results, because you wrecked the economy.
Meet my grandson Dinand and his sister Myrthe:
I babysit them every week so their parents can work. There is a third one expected next January.
What I intend to say is that I will defend with everything in my capability for them to live in a scaremongering free world, them not being convicted to a crisis life in (fuel) poverty because it was found necesary to ruin the economy just to pursue a myth
Last edited:
Yes, you kind of did, when you claim it appears in the second draft your claiming that it appears as shown at some point, I'm saying that at no point does the image as presented appear in any AR5 draft.
Unless there is an appendix with all of the figures in it which I have missed, the pdf you linked to has none.
Meanwhile, according to Anthony Watt of the Watts up with that blog, the source your blog sites for the image, the image as it appears in the AR5 second draft, according to his December 2012 post is this:
And so your claim is false and my assertion stands proven.
I really don't get it. Isn't that exactly the same graph, without HADCrut4 superimposed. That had nothing to do with it. I just went for the first copy of the graph I could find in th hurry. It was only later that I saw the superimposement of HADCRut4 which I thought was irrelevant since it neither added nor subtracted anything to or from the main message.
Anyway here is the graph in the basic source.
Anyway here is the graph in the basic source.
Last edited:
I did say climate change, and also any ice age will eventually come to an end with gradual warming.
Like I said, if any doubt remains, we are obligated to err on the side of caution. Better to have some economic instability in a livable world, then no livable world at all.
The extremes people will go to, to get across a particular view, does astound me.
There is too much at stake to disregard what evidence there is for global warming, and while any doubt remains, to chose to do nothing, [and possibly even increase our greenhouse output for the sake of the almighty dollar] is wrong and uncaring.
PS: Beautiful grand kids by the way.
If I gave that impression, it was wrong. I hope to get some time to demonstrate that the original assumptioms about ice age climate can be considered falsified. These were the basis of the catastrophic global warming scare.
Also it might be revealing to listen to some of the presentations during the Senate Climate Change Hearing. And before demonizing the opposite party, please note that several of them are also father and grandfather, all wishing to leave a liveable world to their offspring.
I don't see that, as there is no trace of a non liveable world in the future. But living in poverty certainly does not help to face the problems and disasters that nature keeps presenting to us even in a global warming free world.
Thanks
What!? Seriously, what are you trying to say there?andre said:
No wonder you post links to wingnut politicians ranting, in a science forum.
You claimed it was scientific, that the little blue line there belonged in the same image and the same context as the modeler's efforts.andre said:
And after a betrayal of that kind, you would of course avoid that source from now on, and never post anything from it ever again other than to mock and disparage it. Right? I mean, you got lied to - your gullibility was taken advantage of, big time. What else have they lied to you about?andre said:
But that's not the overshadowing problem here with your stuff - the problem is you aren't posting your argument. And there is a reason - it doesn't look too good, when it's laid out clearly, does it. What you are trying to argue at the bottom is that if the extra heat energy captured by the anthropogenic CO2 does not raise the atmospheric temps as much or as fast as predicted by these modelers it's harmless - perhaps even nonexistent.
That is not "science". If you were attempting a scientific argument, you would address the question of if and if so where the models went wrong. If the atmosphere is staying cooler (step one), and that is so because the glaciers or the oceans are absorbing and sequestering more heat faster than predicted (possible step two) for example, that would be an indication that AGW (global, not merely atmospheric, warming) was more serious than predicted, not less. Even if your graphs were not bs, that is, they would still need a role in your argument - which means you would have to be making one, rather than throwing chaff around.
Because this time it's accompanied by a rise in anthopogenic greenouse gas emissions.
That presumes alternative energy sources are destroying the economy, which is malarky.
The choice is whether to pour gasoline onto the fire or not. If the earth is naturally headed toward higher incidence of superstorms then so be it. But who in their right mind wants to add to the list of causes?
You seem to think there is nothing but a downside to this. Yet alternative energy sources are going up all over the world as we speak. It's not just the result of climate concerns but as a matter of practicality, as oil becomes scarcer. One industry replaces another, not one kind of economy becomes lost to a broken one. That's about as fatalistic as it gets.
That identifies you as a person who is old enough to have recognized the data earlier in your life. There is nothing particularly new here. You've been sitting on the facts for decades. So what generated your recent consternation over this?
If you mean as an alternative to getting an education, you're going to ensure they spend their formative years under a rock, then it's hard to see how that benefits them.
I suppose it depends on how they view the comforts of excess fossil fuel consumption vs. the impoverishment of making do with alternative sources. Who knows? Maybe they'll end up seeking their fortunes as alt-energy moguls. Of course you're presuming that they will not be convicted to a vocation in life, one that intends to save their grandchildren from the harm of anthropogenic emissions. That's a pretty big assumption although if you've got them on the weekends I suppose you can try programming them now.
That presumes that you've mastered the science of economics as well as climatology which I'll wager is not the case. As you recall the recent ruination of global economies had to do with massive corruption in the mortgage banking industry. Notice how that keeps being swept under the carpet. Talk about scaremongering. Sounds like you're planning to convict your progeny to a life of cynical impoverishment over the way economies work. Of course if you (your children) send them to school they'll learn about supply and demand and they'll probably be teaching them that, as costs of alternative/renewable energy supplies fall against rising fossil fuel costs, the markets will naturally gravitate towards an optimal solution. So unless you're planning to feed them propaganda from within an underground bunker cut off from the world I expect they'll face the challenges of economics and planet science with a keen eye to learn and understand. That leaves nothing to be cynical about. Sounds like there is real hope there -- hope that they will seize the day, not become so seriously jaded as their grand(father?) has.
Then stop spinning myth and get down brass tacks. I think it boils down to a few basic questions: (1) is global ice receding (2) is atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] rising (3) is there a greenhouse effect or not and (4) does anthropogenic CO[sub]2[/sub] add to the risk or not? If you say 'no' to any of these, then something highly mythical is driving your logic. Perhaps superstitious is a better characterization. It's certainly cynical, evidently rooted in decades of economic scaremongering, and emblematic of some kind of phobic reaction to scientific study of the climate. I suppose if your intent is to label science as myth then you're really out there dangling in the breeze.