Your daily dose of climate, well, really, alarmism just doesn’t seem to be a strong enough word. How about “scaremongering?” Na. How about doomsayerism? (yes, I know, not a word)
Labeling climate change “a serious public health issue,” more than 100 leading health advocates called on Washington policymakers this week to allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
The advocates — including 18 national public health organizations, 66 state-based groups and dozens of individual medical experts — urged lawmakers to “recognize the threat to public health posed by climate change and to support measures that will reduce these risks.”
Mother Nature laughs at your puny attempt to change her ways,
“In order to prepare for changes already under way, it is essential to strengthen our public health system so it is able to protect our communities from the health effects of heat waves, wildfires, floods, droughts, infectious diseases, and other events,” the advocates wrote Tuesday to House, Senate and White House policymakers. “But we must also address the root of the problem, which means reducing the emissions that contribute to climate change.”
Hmmm, the root of the problem? I wonder what the actual climate has looked like since year 1
Interesting that the un-revised temperature readings look nothing like the fabled (and discredited) hockey stick.
On the bright side, apparently human caused global climate disruption is causing the 6th mass extinction. Just think of those poor polar bears which are going extinct…..wait, what? They aren’t? The data is heavily flawed? They’re actually thriving? Of course, as Marc Morano has pointed out numerous times, the UN is pushing its biodiversity meme in place of climate doomsaying as of late, and here comes some more. All in an attempt to control people and get money.
Teach that graph was not prepared by a climatologist was it ? Nor was it made by a paleoclimatologist, it was prepared by a single Czech PHYSICIST who has no degree in what he is talking about. As far as the “hockey stick” being discredited ALL PEER REVIEWED publications have agreed with some MINOR corrections that the warmest period is occuring now check out the Soon and Baliunas controversy and you can see what climatologists thought about their findings that “discredited” the hockey stick shape
Teach this graph proves nothing, except that if you look hard and long enough on the internet you can find some “proof” of whatever it is you want. Just like Inhofe, the leading climate change denier in the Senate, has “proof” that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Teach what do you believe caused the medieval warm period ? most scientists attribute it to the Earth’s tilt at that time? do you think that is what is causing the planet to now be warmer than it was THEN? because peer reviewed publications say that the last decade was hotter than during the MWP
john,
Once again you have stepped in it. One of the significant revelations of the leaked emails was the fact that the AGW crowd have taken control of the peer review process and will not allow contrary opinions. Making a graph does not require anything more than a high school education or less. The fact that a physicist is doing this is all the better as they are experts at handling numbers. In fact, they would have more ability than the climate people. All you do is take the raw data and churn it out. There is no mystery there.
David, David, David. You silly boy. You can’t just make a graph like that. I was taught long ago by a learned psychoanalytical-paleoclimatological professor, raw data is never meant to be used to produce data.
Raw data must be massaged. It must be ran through numerous statistical\analytical models. Then outliers and starting and endpoints must be thrown out. Then you are left with some of the data that you need. But then, you must adjust that data based on OTHER temperature data sets that you had previously adjusted. You can then adjust this data with the adjusted data.
That outcome is what you can then begin to put through your mapping software. At this point, you are only half-way done.
(/snark)
I like this part:
““In order to prepare for changes already under way, it is essential to strengthen our public health system so it is able to protect our communities from the health effects of heat waves, wildfires, floods, droughts, infectious diseases, and other events,—
please oh please tell me how we can stop wildfires, heat waves, floods, droughts, and the presence of infectious diseases and… OTHER EVENTS!!??? Even if you believe Earth is inly 6,000 years old, have we been able to stop any of those things in the last 6K years?
If Earth is 4.3 Qadrupleqajillionquark years old, then shouldn’t we have figured out how to do that by now? I mean, if it has taken us 4.3 Qadrupleqajillionquark years to develop an iPAD, then surely we could have stopped a heat wave by now. Or even a flood….. or other event.
Captainfish is right.
cf,
Absolutely agree, the first time I preped a paper for publication I was told that the presentation of the data needed to be stronger to reflect the predetermined outcome. In order to get the presentation correct we had to find outlying data to dismiss.
Interestingly, the data has over time become reliant on fewer and fewer monitoring stations, and, as Anthony Watts has shown again and again, so many of those stations are in improper or sub-optimal locations.
Looking at the Raleigh area, I find temps ranging between 68 and 75. The 75 is from the Franklin County Airport. The 68 is from a gauge outside of Zebulon. A buddy of mine lives out in the country south of Raleigh, and his electronic gauge says 69.
What the alarmist would do would be to throw out the low temps, and go with the 75
Most assuredly Teach. Especially as that station located at the airport is probably the official station.
OKC does the same thing. OKC can have rain galore. But if no rain falls at the airport which is west of town, then according to the records, no rain fell on OKC that day.
I am kind of a weather nut (and yes john, a nut in general) and know that my own station at my house (which is in the woods) is much lower than the airport which is in the middle of a heat sink.
Many hear are missing the forest for the tress, so to speak.
And, there is so much misinformation here that’s its difficult to focus on just one piece (like polar bears “thriving”).
As for this comment: “fact that the AGW crowd have taken control of the peer review process and will not allow contrary opinions.”
It is complete rubbish. No one “has taken over” the peer review process (and to which PRP are you referring, anyways?). The PRP is a general standard of qualifying review that most reputable scientific journals use.
Prior to this putative climate-gate flap with the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia U, most folks here had never heard of East Anglia. I had heard of them, however, because I had at that time read some 40 scientific papers on climate change. Their name would pop up occasionally. but only occasionally; they were a middling player in the climate change science “game”.
Date “smoothing” is a common, ubiquitous practice throughout the sciences–sciences that we use in our everyday lives and depend upon for survival. You can’t validly dismiss the data-smoothed results of the CRU, without dismissing all results, including those that define processes that you require for survival.
Some data analysis programs allow different types of data compression (such as time compression) to scrunch data points together and so as to get nice images that can be easily translated for public education/information.
The fact is, that more and more precise measurements and data analyses are being made and accrued every day. And yes, sometimes there are aberrant results, or results that don’t conform to the majority of findings. Those need to be looked at and assessed, but never to the exclusion or dismissal of the vast majority of studies and their data sets.
I urge readers to take some time each month to read one or two such studies or papers. You can start with the International Polar Year Studies (2007-09), which will give you a good idea of the types and extent or research/analysis going on.
Climate change deniers cry “alarmism!” and then use this to dismiss the facts are the core of the alarm.
But acceptors of climate change need to be cautious as well. Natural warming and cooling periods do indeed occur. These can augment or mitigate human induced changes. The key concept–the key finding of these studies–is that climate change impacts are accelerating in certain regions (more than in others, such as at the poles), and, that in many ways (through many contributions) humans are helping to accelerate these impacts (through poor resource use, GHG pollution, ecosystem destruction, etc.).
The danger lies in how much “acceleration” can be absorbed before the climate system gets pushed into a “positive feedback loop”, and thus it becomes more difficult to stop a runaway climate effect.
This is a more nuanced understanding of climate change, more accurate. But climate change is happening. And we can indeed do things to remediate, or mitigate, its impacts.
To use the previous commentator’s logic–if we can do nothing to alter/stop Nature–then why bother with public vaccination programs for children? Nature creates a multitude of pathogenic microbes and viral packets to plague us with. Science, the very notion of knowledge, is to alter, or mitigate, the impacts of Nature.
If we are accelerating warming and other impacts, then it is within our power to take our collective foot off the accelerator.
This too may be part of Nature.
Holey Moley. So much here. So much in naivety.
Sir, I take it from your writing style that you are a scientist or a professor. I used to work in the field of fisheries myself. Working in that field, I learned there are two ways of looking at data. There’s the cautious\alarmist way. There is also the selfish way.
While you may not see any issue with the peer-review process in your neck-of-the-woods, I assure you sir, that it is around. And, based on the evidence, it is incestuous within the global climate community. When one problematic author confirms another problematic author and they both refuse to recognize or allow dissenting data or opinions, then this has to be evidence of corruption.
And I assure you sir, that many people that have an interest in global warming issues have heard of CRU even though you had a passing fancy with it. People, like me do read and read. We don’t just read the biased and blatant AGW papers. We read the dissenters to those papers. We read output from non-professionals as well who are also looking, or trying to look, at the data. It is our sound and reasoned judgment that allows us to discern what is real and true from all the hype.
Quote:
“You can’t validly dismiss the data-smoothed results of the CRU, without dismissing all results, including those that define processes that you require for survival.”
Talk about alarmism!! Grand-stand much? Not every data is smoothed. And my life does not depend on every single bit of data being “smoothed”. If the morning weather guy doesn’t tell me that the temperature will be an average of 80 degrees based on the average temperatures over the last 10 years, then I am not going to drop dead or become stranded on the side of the highway due to false information.
Quote:
“The fact is, that more and more precise measurements and data analyses are being made and accrued every day. And yes, sometimes there are aberrant results…”
I am sure you are aware of the distinction between precision and accuracy. Data can be very precise, but not very accurate. I think you will find, if you do some of that requested research yourself, that much of the data being collected for global climate research is not accurate.
Quote:
“or results that don’t conform to the majority of findings. Those need to be looked at and assessed, but never to the exclusion or dismissal of the vast majority of studies and their data sets.”
This again shows your inherent, unwavering, and unwarranted belief in the system. Just because the majority believe something does not make it right. There was supposedly a “consensus” that the world was warming and it was man’s fault. Yet, we keep coming up with more and more data and research that proves that false. If hypothesis A can be proved false with results B, then hypothesis A must be rejected or revised.
Quote:
“Climate change deniers cry “alarmism!” and then use this to dismiss the facts are the core of the alarm.”
Sorry, but this shows you have an agenda. This shows whose side you have chosen and are defending. The “deniers” as you call them, do not cry alarmism. That battlecry comes from those who believe we only have 10-20 years left to live unless man gives up all his money to third world nations and returns to living in caves. It is those who cry “The Sky Is Falling” who are the alarmists, not those who point out their errors and fear-mongering.
From this point on you ventured in to loony-land and it completely deflates any attempt you had at appearing reasoned.
Quote:
“Natural warming and cooling periods do indeed occur. These can augment or mitigate human induced changes.”
Are you stating that man is the reason for weather and mother nature only augments or mitigates what we do??? How large is your ego sir? Do you truly believe that man is greater than our global ecological system? Do you truly, astoundingly, believe that nature’s existence is only secondary to our actions?
Quote:
“The key concept–the key finding of these studies–is that climate change impacts are accelerating in certain regions (more than in others, such as at the poles), and, that in many ways (through many contributions) humans are helping to accelerate these impacts”
While I assume that you can provide proof of this, I can provide the opposing truth. Thus, if there are studies that support both sides of an argument, can you truly say everything that happens with the climate is man’s fault? Can you truly say our climate warming is “accelerating” when we are in fact cooling? Can you truly say that our climate is warming at an “accelerating” rate when the last warming and cooling periods warmed and cooled at a much faster rate than temperatures are now?
But now you are saying that man is augmenting or mitigating the world’s temperature. Earlier you said the Earth augments or mitigates what man does……
Quote:
“The danger lies in how much “acceleration” can be absorbed before the climate system gets pushed into a “positive feedback loop”, and thus it becomes more difficult to stop a runaway climate effect.”
And now you have jumped with both feet, up to your head, in global climate lunacy. … a positive feedback loop?? Seriously? You are fearing a positive feedback loop when our temperatures are near what humans would like to consider normal? What kind of disastrous and unending feedback loop did we experience during the last warm period when our temps were at least 5C warmer? What kind of disastrous and unending feedback loop did we experience during the last cold period when our temps were at least 5C colder?
How in this world did we recover from those human-induced warm and cold periods? And what exactly did man do to cause those changes back then?
Quote:
“This is a more nuanced understanding of climate change, more accurate. But climate change is happening.”
Sir, yes indeed, climate change is happening. That is why it is called climate. That is why GOD is in charge and not us. And if you truly believe that this post of yours is “a more nuanced understanding of climate change, more accurate” then you need to quit looking down your nose at people. Just because a person is not in the science field, or even the global paleoclimatological field, does not mean they are ignorant boobs who would fall for that flagrantly bigoted statement of yours.
Quote:
“To use the previous commentator’s logic–if we can do nothing to alter/stop Nature–then why bother with public vaccination programs for children? Nature creates a multitude of pathogenic microbes and viral packets to plague us with.”
If you truly believe this then you are a bigger idiot than I had originally believed. Sir, if we as humans can not stop Nature, as in floods, droughts, meteor strikes, then please tell me how you would do it. The very nature and existence of vaccinations astoundingly tells everyone that we have fought against that part of Nature and are winning. Thus, since we have and are winning, then we keep up the fight.
We have tried to mitigate flooding, but so far, we haven’t. Please tell me how you would mitigate against droughts? If you come up with a plan that works sometimes, I will bow down at your feet and pay you millions to keep it up.
Quote:
“Science, the very notion of knowledge, is to alter, or mitigate, the impacts of Nature.”
Yeah, sorry. Science is the the notion of knowledge. I can know things and it not be science. Science is a class of research that tries to understand the physical world around us as it previously and currently exists. Its purpose is NOT, NOT, NOT to work against Nature. It is to understand Nature in a human way.
Quote:
“If we are accelerating warming and other impacts, then it is within our power to take our collective foot off the accelerator.”
And yet again, you show me your evidence and I’ll show you the opposing evidence that suggests alternate hypotheses. And, even if by chance we are adding to the warming, how would changing our lives to that of an agrarian society stop what Nature wants to do?
Well now, it’s been a while since I’ve been challenged by such a reactionary mind (alarmism here, reactionism there…goodness!)
Your blog page specifically says to keep things “respectful”, and yet, when you are challenged, you dive right into insults, put downs, ad hominum comments…none of which I did. You can try and distort what I said (and hope that others don’t re-read what I said) but that doesn’t make it true,and certainly not respectful (you should follow your own site’s advice).
There are so many distortions in your response it’s astounding. For example, no one that I know in the scientific community has ever said that we’re all going to die in 10 to 20 years unless we do something, etc. That is a gross mischaracterization.
Perhaps it’s accurate of the far, fringe Left, but it’s certainly not the common belief amongst those who accept CC.
But, these types of asserttions are common when dealing with reactionaries.
I could indeed provide you with a list of papers and studies and scholarly analyses supporting my assertions, But what would be the point? You would, I’m surmising, not believe any of them anyways. You’re mind is already made up. You “know” the “truth” and the truth is something other than what the vast majority of climate scientists now accept as true.
This situation reminds me of the 9/11 conspiracies folks (note that I don’t call them “idiots” or “lunatics” like some child). They “know” the government is lying to them; they don’t accept the official findings of the 9/11 commission. They have previously made up their minds that the “truth” is some vast conspiracy (“inside job”) and that is the only answer they will accept. These are both Left and Right folks. You can’t argue with them. They believe they know what’s really going on.
Same with the climate-change-is-a-hoax folks. Most have NOT read, or studied, or analyzed the data. At most, they have read a few articles, and read someone else research, which they quote. Most are not involved in Climate science research. Many are partially educated, or even self-educated (nothing wrong with that, but it can leave lots of gaps in your knowledge base).
Oh, and I am not a climate scientist. I am a naturalist (who has participated in ecosystem research / data collection, field studies, etc.), science teacher (semi-retired), writer, and independent media producer. The “research” that I do is secondary research (review/study of papers, etc.). I have also interviewed many scientists from many fields of study.
One might ask oneself: why does climate science, of all the sciences, garner so much controversy?
The short answer is: because its implications demand that we take action, curb our polluting ways, stop rampant destruction of ecosystems (you know, “good stewardship” of “god’s creation”)…and, heaven forbid, actually tax (gasp!) the heaviest polluters so as to created a disincentive for further polluting, and, to force private companies to pay a bit of their profits back that they made from exploiting the natural world in the first place. This is the only common sense (efficient) way to mitigate the increase in atmospheric CO2….
….And while we are at it (you’re gonna love this), we also fine every act of ecosystem destruction (an amount required to restore said ecosystem) so as to stop the trend of biodiversity loss, species declines, ecosystem service loss, resource depletion (e.g., fish stocks, forests, etc.)…and a host of other ills, that yes, we humans are responsible for.
It’s tough to acknowledge and accept that you, we, all of us, has to make certain modest but definitive changes to our consumption, manufacturing, processing, and resource utilization behaviors…in order to mitigate some of the damage that will fall hardest on the poorest nations (and which we, the rich/developed world, now THAT is selfish!).
I realize that you will react negatively to this comment. I expect that. But to answer one of your questions (how do we stop droughts?); we can begin by implementing (world wide) sound land management practices, for starters. We can stop deforesting at such an unquenchable pace (this is, thankfully, already happening a bit in Brazil)…oh, and it’s not drought per se, it’s the effects of drought, that we need to worry about such as crop failures, and water shortages, and the armed conflicts that they sometimes trigger. Prevention of soil erosion, and planting drought resistant crops can go a long way towards helping here (some might object as this involves genetic modification of plants)…
Oh, and it’s ironic that you bring up droughts, as more droughts will mean less vegetation and thus less carbon sequestration (biological draw down), and this will indeed accelerate warming.
If you have proof of the planet cooling, then show me it (list the citation and I will review it).
Here are two quick references:
The historically recent cooling period/trend (that lasted about 2000 years) in the Arctic reversed itself at around the turn of the century. Four of the five hottest decades in the past 2000 years have occurred between 1950 and 2000. (source: Kaufman et al, Recent Warming Reverses Long-term Arctic Cooling, Science, 4 Sept. 2009). This paper is a good illustration to self-taught types of the danger in incomplete data when make counter claims to “establishment” science (i.e., science that has more information than you do)
As for Milankovitch cycles (the “cosmic” cycles that modulate long-term Earth climate trends), only one (precession) currently favors glaciation, according to solar physicist W. Dean Pesnell of GSFC; source: my interview with him in 2008).
Another irony: I used to argue that excess heating would lad to more precipitation, more clouds, and thus general cooling (“white Earth’ syndrome). Now, this is still one possible scenario, but, as I have learned (as my knowledge has grown), precipitation cycles are more complex and are impacted by other factors (insolation, short and long wave radiative forcings, forests…more). I will readily admit the CC is complex stuff, and thus quick judgments (as you make) that reduce everything to a “no, you’re wrong” posture is woefully out of place.
Well I could go on, but again, you have most likely already made up your mind, and cleverly disguised yourself as a legitimate skeptic (which do exist, but they tend not to reject the obverse assertion immediately, as you have done)). I feel that nothing I could ever say or show or cite will change your mind. You know the “truth”.
Your false accusations (that I look down my nose at others, blah blah), is flat wrong, silly, and a superficial attempt to demonize me (set me up as a straw man), and thus buttress your (again) preconceived views about actual scientists doing actual science, and also the people who care about the planet enough to read “the hand-writing on the wall” (a phrase you might be familiar with), and do something positive (less wasteful and selfish) with their time besides trying to refute/dismiss/demonize those who are trying to change peoples’ destructive behaviors (that impact everyone).
It would take me days to weed through the spurious assertions and bald distortions in your reply.
Your last paragraph is telling:
“Sir, yes indeed, climate change is happening. That is why it is called climate. That is why GOD is in charge and not us. And if you truly believe that this post of yours is “a more nuanced understanding of climate change, more accurate” then you need to quit looking down your nose at people. Just because a person is not in the science field, or even the global paleoclimatological field, does not mean they are ignorant boobs who would fall for that flagrantly bigoted statement of yours.”
It’s not flagrantly bigoted, at all. Your assertion that “god” is in charge (prove that one for us) belies the agenda that you claim I have (mine is only for accurate information about climate trends, etc.). God gave man “dominion” over the Earth…surely that conveys some degree of “power to alter things” (as Albertus Magnus said)…that’s comes from your holy book (which I;’m sure you read just as much as the scientific papers you read)
The historical and archeological record is filled with examples of peoples who, through their ignorant actions, brought decline and ecological hardship and disaster onto themselves (the Khmer people of Angkor Wat, the Anastasi of the American Southwest, the Mayans, more….)
No doubt these ancient peoples had wise ones who foresaw the impending decimation of their societies/cultures…and no doubt they too encountered well-meaning but misguided people who refused to accept that they needed to change their ways, and instead insisted that “god” had ordained things the way that they were, and that we mere mortals have no right and no power to change things for ourselves…
History repeats itself. But I’m sure you’ll deny that too.
corection:
In the paragraph (last sentence) a phrase was left out:
It’s tough to acknowledge and accept that you, we, all of us, has to make certain modest but definitive changes to our consumption, manufacturing, processing, and resource utilization behaviors…in order to mitigate some of the damage that will fall hardest on the poorest nations (and which we, the rich/developed world,WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR… now THAT is selfish!).
Wow. So much here as well. And before I’ve had my coffee this morning. I refute what you say, call you out for NOT being a middle-grounder but in fact a member of the AGW crowd, expose your activist mentality and the best you can come up with is to compare me and my brethren to “9/11 truthers” and the Mayans.
I especially like your reference to the Mayans because it once again shows your mindset. It shows that you do not know that there is a large body of work that contradict each other. Some people find that it was those who predicted the impending decimation of their societies, as you say, that pushed their peoples in to further ruin through human sacrifices. Other research believes that aliens took them away because they knew too much about the future (It’s research, take it or leave it). While other lines of research believe that those “lost” civilizations just mixed in with the surrounding cultures, much like the American Indian tribes of today have.
Your use of Kaufman is intriguing. You do know that his research is flawed don’t you? You do know that his data was originally used by M. Mann in his 2008 paper. That proxy data was found to be in error back then. But as proud scientists who know they are right, they stated everyone else is wrong and they are right. They have yet to correct themselves or their data.
You tell us that you were once a believer in A (warm periods cause more rain) but how now flipped to the reverse based on more research and data. Yet, you make fun of those of us who have done the same with regards to human-caused climate destruction.
I too used to be on your team. I was a fervent believer. But after further research, self experience, and growing up and getting a job, I found that humans aren’t all that. Humans love their egos and believe that the worlds revolve around them. Sorry, it does not. And until you embrace humility and learn to sit back and enjoy what GOD has created for you, you will never be able to let others live as they desire.
You cite how you learned from more research and altered your belief system. Yet, you vex those on my side who hold similar beliefs that data that they have found have changed their belief systems. Isn’t that being hypocritical, sir?
And no, again, no, science is not about changing people’s lives. Science is just science. It is about learning and finding and sharing. Politics and Activism are about changing people’s lives. Oftentimes forcibly.
When science merged with politics and activism, science became for sale. It was cheapened. Results were sold to the highest bidders.
The statements that you believe science is there to save man, to push man into making changes, shows how you view science.
Please show me a drought, flood, meteor strike that we were able to stop from occurring. While you cite examples of things that man can do to prevent local land use changes, they are not a means to prevent drought. Would planting a few flowers or trees have prevented the extended droughts of the 80’s in Africa?
Please show me how we can eliminate flooding? And don’t cite the building of dams and dikes because all those do is attempt to contain the flood. They do nothing to prevent the flood in the first place.
If the earth and its ecosystem decides that it wants to get hot or cold, there is nothing that we puny humans can do about it. We can only use our science and intellect to try and survive through it.
Oh, and, another “fact” you have gotten wrong: This nice little blog is not mine. It is in fact William Teach’s blog. His name is all over it. That is not my picture at the top of the blog. That is not my name as the author of this particular post either.
In closing, let me also point you to other “established” scientific findings. Science thought we were a flat earth. Science thought we were due for a new glaciation period in the 1970s. Science thought that we would run out of oil in the 1970s. Science thought that hydrocarbons like oil and natural gas were made from long dead animals and buried organic matter. Science knew when animals went extinct. Science knew how the dinosaurs died.
I could go on. Science is about finding reasons, finding results, finding data, finding causes. It is not about finding the truth as we believe it to be. Or, telling people how to live their lives. We are finding out more and more that our previously held beliefs are being turned on their head because of more and more research. Research that proves, or provides, alternative theories for “established” dogmas.
Finally, our development into a “first” world country does not damage third world nations. Quite the contrary, we want to lift them out of being a third world situation. It is the AGW crowd who want to prevent them from using their natural resources, from building cheap energy sources, or from making their own decisions. It is the AGW crowd that has fostered the corrupt and bogus carbon-trading scheme upon them (and which China is making billions off of).
The AGW crowd do not propose modest changes in our lifestyles. They want massive ones. Imposing Carbon-Trading, Cap-and-Tax, regulations of the air we breathe out as pollution, locking up our necessary and vital natural energy resources, and even preventing energy production facilities from being built. When you are promised skyrocketing energy prices, that is not something that is modest.
This all leads to dramatic and dangerous changes. Not the least of which is a depressed or crashed economy. Which of course, fits the aims of the AGW crowd as well.
Your arguments are getting weaker.
But first, let me address your blanket dismissal of Kaufman’s work. You stated:
“Your use of Kaufman is intriguing. You do know that his research is flawed don’t you? You do know that his data was originally used by M. Mann in his 2008 paper. That proxy data was found to be in error back then. But as proud scientists who know they are right, they stated everyone else is wrong and they are right. They have yet to correct themselves or their data.”
Where did you read this? If you had bothered to read the actual paper yourself (and not rely on second hand analysis), you would have known that Kaufman et al acknowledge the limitations of one of their original proxies (tree rings), as specimens that encompass the 2 millennial span are rare. But you make a critical error: you dismiss all the proxies (ice cores, lake bed sediment isotope ratios) without any careful analysis) because one of them is limited (not “flawed” by the way).
If the paper stopped at “a two thousand year cooling period” no doubt you would have embraced it enthusiastically and maybe offered it here as a counter point to my warming claims.
But your claim that they have yet to correct themselves, etc. seems more applicable to your arguments than Kaufman’s research. That said, if there is a full refutation of Kaufman’s research, I’d be happy to review it, and, if it is a valid refutation, I will also happily admit it. I’m not some arrogant, can-never-be-wrong scholar. Show me the proof or the facts, make your case (thoroughly) and I will concede.
AS to this not being your site: by “your” I meant simply your use of, and presence on, said site. Sites/blogs that I contribute to are “mine” (in the public use sense), even though I don’t own them or maintain them. In either case, you are not abiding by the rules of the site. A trivial point really.
But this statement of yours is worth looking at:
“Humans love their egos and believe that the worlds revolve around them. Sorry, it does not. And until you embrace humility and learn to sit back and enjoy what GOD has created for you, you will never be able to let others live as they desire.”
What I find is typical of those who are not fully conscious of their own motives and behavioral patterns is that they frequently engage in projection, fully unaware of the irony of what they are saying.
What Nature has “provided” for me, for us, is being systematically destroyed (a few small success stories, but overall, not the trend). THAT is the whole point here, man. What profound blindness!
In an earlier comment you condemn certain scientific attitudes as “selfish” and yet, in the last sentence (“…let others live as they desire.”), you appear to be extolling/advocating nothing short of selfishness. I don’t know where you got your notions about “god” and religion and living a pious life, but you need some serious review of your sources.
I personally spent nearly 15 years studying world religions, including early Christian History and Helenistic religions. Most all of these, in some form, advocate living in harmony with the world and with one’s fellows. Too many individuals ‘living as they desire’ produces (very quickly) social discord, disorder, and disharmony.
‘Live as they desire’? You mean like the owners of so many corporations that have made themselves rich through polluting the air, soil and water, and/or flagrantly destroying resources (e.g., the timber industry, before regulations, and even still today) or ecosystems? No doubt you are anti-regulation as well (I advocate a dynamic regulatory response to a changing environment, by the way).
What is this but sheer selfishness on a global scale?
But on a more individual level, we’ve all met plenty of folks who think that the world would be better off without so many rules and laws that govern their behavior. But these ignorant folks seldom consider WHY said laws came about in the first place; too many people “doing as they desire”, causing inequities, injustices, damage, disorder, pain/suffering, etc. that impacted the rest of society (the folks who cooperate socially).
To live (completely) as one desires is perhaps possible if one is living on a deserted island. But to live as you desire in society means necessarily that you are fully aware of the impact (positive and negative) of your behaviors on others, and changing these (if necessary) in order for others to live as they desire; this is a form of social cooperation (also known as reciprocity” do unto others…?). It is rare, but possible.
However, on the scale of a mass society,it is clear that if everyone lived as they desired, mass chaos would ensue. Individual desires are commonly at odds with the needs of the society to which they belong, and in fact, depend on for their survival.
AS to your other comment:
“Finally, our development into a “first†world country does not damage third world nations. Quite the contrary, we want to lift them out of being a third world situation. It is the AGW crowd who want to prevent them from using their natural resources, from building cheap energy sources, or from making their own decisions. It is the AGW crowd that has fostered the corrupt and bogus carbon-trading scheme upon them (and which China is making billions off of). ”
This is completely and tragically wrong. Our rise and development into a (formerly called) ‘first world’ nation was indeed largely due to the the exploitation of ‘third world’ labor, instability, resources, etc. Dear Gawd, it’s called ‘colonialism’, man. Pick up a decent history book.
Another thing that I’ve noticed is that you have a scapegoat in the “AGW crowd” (your whipping boy). But like most scapegoaters, you are woefully ignorant of that which you speak of. Sure, some AGW’s are more activist than others (what’s wrong with activism? It’s what got minorities civil rights, right?). What many Climate change policy advocates DON’T want is for developing world nations to make the same mistakes that we made in the early years
of the industrial revolution (consider reading Toffler’s ‘The Third Wave for reference here).
AS to these countries “developing cheap energy resources”, where will the money come from? Let me guess–outside, private capital from the rich world? And this will never happen without the rich world making demands, and/or strangling the country with debt obligations (as it is now; despite the fact that the first world owes a huge debt to the thrid world; see above).
You are (unwittingly) advocating a status quo position (samo samo, business as usual).
Oh, and I didn’t advocate a cap and trade set up, but a straight carbon tax–they are not the same things at all. As for China “making billions” (presumably) from cap and trade credits, so what? China is heavily investing in green/renewable energy technologies (far ahead of our expenditures in the West) and is making huge investments in biodiversity preservation. What better use for all these “billions”?.
My guess is you’d have no problem with private companies making billions, even when historically, said private interests have caused the lion’s share of pollution, ecosystem destruction and resource depletion the world over. And, without taxation or this wealth. little of it would EVER go towards restoring what was destroyed in the profit-making process!
You concluding paragraph belies your political bias, as much as your economic/ecologic ignorance.
In case you missed the news, we (the global economy participants) were nearly brought to the brink of financial collapse, essentially due to a lack of regulations of derivative markets and activity (still not adequately regulated), that is, the re-packaging and re-selling (and betting against) of exotic instruments, CDOs and credit default swaps. This was the doing of financial (private) elites, in collusion with their servants in government (US congress). But hey, they were just “living as they desired”, unconcerned for the impact of their actions on the rest of the (much poorer) world. That’s the way “god” intended it, right…..?
The Climate Change policy experts/advocates are certainly far from perfect, but their goals are not economic ruin or collapse, but instead, they seek a revivification of societies, the preservation of ecosystems and resources for future use, and the transition to a sustainable energy future. This spells a more equitable, just and peaceful world (if we get it right) for the many, not just the few.
Surely, no just “god” could be against this, right?
So, we are doing “god’s work” even though his traditional followers can’t yet see it. Time to take off the fear-tinted blinders, roll up your sleeves, and get working for the betterment of the majority, not the selfish and ignorant (but rich) minority.
Oh, and if raising the price of (fossil fuel) energy usage gets people to conserve, and consume less (and thus pollute less) how is this a bad thing? The consumer saves money (not driving as much, for example), is reminded that energy use has a hidden price (as well as the obvious price), the oil companies (and cartels) lose some of their strangle hold on the world’s economy, and we all get less hydrocarbon pollution. plus, if the money made gets reinvested (assuming legislation isn’t blocked by anti-progress types), we actually grow jobs, which increases GDP,and enables long-term reduction in the dreaded “deficit”.
Good for all, in the long-run. A little hort-term sacrifice is not too much to ask for being so well off, for so long.
Michael,
I am afraid that cf bested you. You were the one who started a personal attack with a condescending, imperious attitude in your comments. I can truly believe that you are a producer due to the word craft used as you entwine arguments with metaphors and similes that are only meant to demean the individuals that do not accept the party line but chose to doubt the veracity of concern that has been the by word of the AGW crowd and the desire to use the government to destroy our wealth and economy.
Your last statement of sacrifice that we must make for the good of the economy summates the reason that conservatives do not accept any argument being made. You are obviously against an entire industry that does not deserve to be demonized in the manner that your crowd find so socially acceptable. You demand that the government makes major changes in our lives with little actualy knowledge of the benefit of these changes. If you study the concepts of the TEA party you will find that a large number of people have had enough of this imperious attitude. We want your kind out of our lives.
Climate change is happening. Whether it has an association with human activity is debatable as you have not produced adequate science to back the assertion. Then you have polluted the process with what appears to be subterfuge. It is clear the peer review process is fixed. I know this as in my own field on medicine we have similar fixes in place on such issues as mundane as cholesterol. The information that was revealed in the emails and other admissions of other groups has confirmed the biasis beyond challenge. Our own government has indicated that they desire the use the climate change concerns to redistribute wealth. It is readily apparent that the only way to truly diminish man’s influence on the environment (if there is any) is to reduce the number of humans on this earth. That is why many are calling on liberals and progressives to put their beliefs to the test and save the earth in the only manner that they truly can.
My I present this as possible evidence of things aren’t all rosey in the data-collection field?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/04/an-over-the-top-view-of-satellite-sensor-failure/#more-25834
Dear Captain Fish
First, I am not going to perpetuate the back and forth about who insulted whom (or put down/”demonized”). Any one who reads can re-read the comment thread and figure that out for themselves.
I would like to address the FACTS first, after that, I will address the personal comments.
1] The link that you sent was very interesting, thank you. It says nothing about Kaufman’s proxy data, however. Kaufaman used almost entirely ground-based measurements. I’m still waiting for that refutation of his work that you said was out there.
As to the link to the WUWT blog post
about flawed satellite data…you (seem to have) missed the most important part of the post: the data from these aging satellites (NOAA15-18, was never used in any of the global temperature calculation made by NOAA or NASA.
The data stream was bad, but the climate simulations were not using those data streams anyway. Unfortunately, because the data stream was never taken off line, it appears, one academic institution did make use of it (see the map of Lake Michigan surface temps), which brought the original issue to light.
I will here quote from it (the reader here can check it if thy care too; scroll far down the page to read the whole piece):
…the response comment from the editor of WUWT puts your fact (of satellite data flaws) into proper perspective…NOT to say that it proves the scientists right or wrong, but only to show that satellites have redundant systems, and different satellites have redundant monitors…often, it is for just this very reason, that is, that satellites age, and make errors. Eventually, errors will be caught, and, in the mean time, we replace old equipment (as with the new NOAA 19) as soon as is possible.
Old data (that is flawed, for instance) is always compared with new data from additional sources.
All data must be fit into its proper context, compared to other data (and data collection tools), assessed, and summarized. Raw data means nothing in isolation.
Putting all the data together in the most fitting way (a theoretical framework that BEST answers the most questions, matches best with observations and experiment, etc.) is the heart and soul of scientific work; it is what gives us such a powerful science that we all depend on for our very survival (a I referred to in my original post)…questions like:
Is Climate Change Happening? How rapidly is CC happening? Are humans contributing to it? If so, through what means are we doing it? How much are we doing it? Can this impact be quantified? Can these means or their effects be mitigated, altered, decreased or substituted? What is the best policy for achieving this?
You see, these are basic, questions of climate science, and of course, simulations and theoretical models are only as good as our data sets (which we are being amassed continuously).
As to your continuous personal comments:
I truly wished we were able to keep this on a scientific (truly skeptical) plane….but you force me to waste precious time responding (in brief) to your personal comments…to wit:
You said:
“We want your kind out of our lives. ”
Wow. Yes, all the “bad” people need to get out of another group’s lives…what you really mean is YOUR country, don’t you, really?
Well, my comrade (smiles), as a god of rock once sang: “You can’t always get what you want.”
Get used to it. What are you gonna do, if we don’t, shoot us?
Nawwww….that would make you terrorists or something.
I trust that you don’t mean taking up arms against people you just disagree with–even though they are for purely ideological reasons.
Also, I’m against putting people (those “others) in camps.
Just because I haven’t let you have the last word (accuracy forbids me to let that happen), or because I have put up decent counter points to your claims (most of which you ignore, so much for being a “skeptic”, wink wink)…doesn’t mean that I’m demeaning you or “your crowd” (whichever on you ID with–tea party-ers, whatever)….
Hell, up until I had this exchange with you, I didn’t know that I was part of a crowd. But I guess that sooner of later one has to take a stand (an informed one hopefully) and choose.
I have never called you an idiot, lunatic, etc.. I have described your comments or attitude as ignorant, in various ways (and I think also childish). I realize this may be insulting to you, but it is not the same as insulting a person directly, by calling them demeaning names, um, geez, like a (poorly raised) child.
Being ignorant doesn’t mean being stupid.
“imperious” ? Wow, again. Your complete misread of my emotional tone is telling to me.
I have been mostly respectful in this exchange. A few times I slipped (couldn’t resist the digg sometimes) but overall, you are, once again, mis-characterizing me and my words.
I believe that part of the reason for this is that you see yourself as part of some “culture war” against what you perceive as the Left (those people tht are trying to “destroy” the American “way of life”, etc.). No where do I here from any such folk any mention of responsibility and accountability for ones actions, or collective actions.
But, at least we agree on something: CC is happening. You can deny that humans are causing ANY of it. I can believe otherwise.
But there’s a difference:
If I and my “crowd” are wrong, and we all went to all the trouble of rectifying our air/water/soil, restoring ecosystems, taxing carbon usage, and developing alternative, renewable and clean energy sources…then, we will will still be far better off (our future grand kids, actually, remember them?)…
But, if you and your crowd are wrong, but you were persuasive enough to convince the people and our leaders not to adopt a climate change policy, and to not curb CO2 and other pollution, to not conserve forests and ecosystems, and not invest in good science (partly through discrediting it) and renewable/clean fuels,then…we are all imperiled—all of us: liberals, included.
Anyone who gives it careful thought can figure out what side it is best to error on.
Sorry if that sounds “alarmist”. It is what it is. Pick your side.
Good night and Good luck.
Michael R.
Michael, I think I can say this for most of us non believers, we all agree with the premise of keeping and caring for the earth.
What we do NOT agree on is the need to regulate, tax, spend and tax some more, the citizens of this country who are positioned the best to do the things it will take to be good caretakers. Take away our ability to give to charities and you’ve screwed the rest of the world. And make our lives impossible to lead, and you’re doing it again.
It’s not the Indians or the Chinese who are going to lead by example by the way, and their populations and their industrial might, is far more threatening to the environment than here in the US. And it’s certainly not third world countries who can do anything to end their Carbon output.
But if credibility is allowed, then you can persuade people to do all things in a more environmentally sound way. Like for instance, drilling for oil here. It makes far more sense that we do it, with the advanced technology and sound environmental practices, we can eliminate our need for foreign oil; where the process is a filthy mess and the clean up nearly non-existent!
Trish
Let me respond by breaking your comment into sections (first your comment, then mine, etc):
[you] Michael, I think I can say this for most of us non believers, we all agree with the premise of keeping and caring for the earth.
>I disagree. You do not all agree with this premise–not in terms of actions and policies; not locally, and certainly not globally. The ecological and environmental problems we (the whole world) face are far too big to be resolved or addressed simply by random individuals in one country, or the groups they identify with, being left to do whatever they please.
>Caring for the Earth requires a global effort, and, it begins with recognizing the ‘environmental history’ of this country, which has been astoundingly shameful (yes, I’m being critical of my country, wow.). What improvements that have been made, what steps taken to correct the damage, have come almost entirely from environmental laws (the result of informed people, scientists, and legislators working together).
[you] What we do NOT agree on is the need to regulate, tax, spend and tax some more, the citizens of this country who are positioned the best to do the things it will take to be good caretakers. Take away our ability to give to charities and you’ve screwed the rest of the world. And make our lives impossible to lead, and you’re doing it again.
>This barely makes sense to me. Regulation means laws (various kinds) that keep people/corporations from doing (or create a disincentive to do) the things that destroy the environment–and for which you, the taxpayer, have historically paid to clean up (see “super fund”. This is the great corporate con job.
>Taxing the heaviest polluting corporations, by the way, who have made billions off of exploiting our resources (and not cleaning up their “filth”), is a way that the people (through the agency of government) get back some of what was taken from them (and hopefully more of it will be used to restore and protect our resources for future generations).
>No one has ever taken away anyone’s ability to donate to charitable causes (where did you get this canard from?). And, as far as “screwing” the rest of the world…you seem to be under the impression that US citizens’ charity giving is all that keeps the rest of the world together, or something like that. This is absurd.
>We represent 1/20 of the world’s population, but consume one third of its energy resources (in terms of energy production/output per year). The average American consumes 32 times (that’s right) the energy and raw materials that a citizen living in Namibia does. And, we also generate that much more waste and pollution (and pollution does not obey national boundaries). Did you not know this?
[you] It’s not the Indians or the Chinese who are going to lead by example by the way, and their populations and their industrial might, is far more threatening to the environment than here in the US. And it’s certainly not third world countries who can do anything to end their Carbon output.
> I can partially agree with you here, China and India are going through their industrial phases the way WE did from the turn of the century to the 1970’s–before we had stricter environmental laws and a national environmental movement. China and India’s “threat” to the climate is precisely because there is little enviro regulation–justified in the name of “modernizing”, market forces, competition and creating jobs, but in fact, it’s the same old story: the rich want to get richer and more powerful, and so, they use their power in various ways to convince the people to work against their own interests! It is even more so the case in China, where the government is the main capital investor.
(by the way, there is a way to avoid this trap AND grow the economy, just ask me how).
>Actually, China and India can indeed do many things to reduce and mitigate their carbon contributions. Both are already beginning the slow process of doing so, but its far from perfect (like here) and faces opposition from radical capitalist interests (as opposed to benign capitalist ones).
>Further, China is leading the world in terms of government and private investment in clean/renewable and alternative energy and technology. Not India, though. However, India leads the world in its successful biodiversity preservation policies (its model for saving tigers is now being adopted by the GTI (Global Tiger Initiative).
[you] But if credibility is allowed, then you can persuade people to do all things in a more environmentally sound way. Like for instance, drilling for oil here. It makes far more sense that we do it, with the advanced technology and sound environmental practices, we can eliminate our need for foreign oil; where the process is a filthy mess and the clean up nearly non-existent!
>Are you already forgetting the BP oil spill? The news of fraud, bad management, malfeasance and non-compliance with (lax) enviro laws grows daily. The fact is, we already do drill for oil here, have been for a century almost. And for most of that time, enviro laws have been non-existent. Where there are such laws, they are often unenforced (no penalties for violations). BP had over 700 safety and enviro violations in one year! (compared to Exxon which had only one last year).
>Point is, leaving oil companies to regulate themselves NEVER works; drilling for oil off our shores in deep water should be prohibited UNTIL spill prevention and crisis mitigation strategies are worked out, vetted, tested and installed. We simply do not have “advanced technology” (to stop a well leak/clean up rapidly without “toxifying” the marine habitat) and certainly, we do not have “sound environmental practices”, at least no yet when it comes to oil-drilling in deep marine environs. But let’s suppose we do have these–where do you think they came from? People just doing what’s “right” without laws to back it up?
>There is another delusion going on here–one that has been promulgated by the corporate media for decades–that environmental laws hurt the economy. The truth is, they only cost the offending industry money (a little less profit that they’ve been getting away with for decades), but environmental laws actually protect/grow economies (like the fishing industry in the Gulf), and, enforcement of said laws means more jobs for businesses that monitor, maintain, and clean up after the (would be)polluting industry,thus adding to the GDP (again, that’s the only way to pare down the deficit in a real. lasting sense).
Doesn’t it make sense to tax polluters and use the money to clean up the mess AND create jobs for us folks at that same time? This is exactly what ultra-conservatives in congress DON’T want to happen
I summation, Trish, I ‘m not sure where you get/got your ideas from, but they simply do not reflect realistically the current situation that we face. You have perhaps borrowed some phrases or ideas that you’ve heard or read somewhere else, but, upon even a cursory examination, they simply don’t apply or show an accurate understanding of the issues brought up.
But, I believe that you do have the smarts to figure out what’s real and what’s not. But it will require taken off the ideological blinders.
Many good, caring folks have been “blinded by the right” in this country; they’ve been sold a bill of goods, and they are kept so afraid (through misinformation/disinformation) that they keep buying it, even though it is killing them, and life as we know it (biodiversity is declining, world wide).
I urge you to take a deeper, broader, global look at things.
Until that day.
best wishes,
Michael R.