Climate Change Deaths

[Dave-W]

After 17 years of cooling they are still talking about global warming. I

I think you are using old data there. Here is the corrected story from the guys next door:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/0...qD9wXezpHIyU8orUPjrzJJT1BHmjKOvsYbBoCSfTw_wcB

The National Weather Service headquarters is in the building immediately to our northwest.

 

[Eudaimonist]

After 17 years of cooling they are still talking about global warming.

I'm a lukewarmist, and am sympathetic to the idea that there has been a 17 year slow-down of global warming (the pause we hear about), but there hasn't been 17 years of cooling.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave-W]

I'm a lukewarmist, and am sympathetic to the idea that there has been a 17 year slow-down of global warming

Current data shows no slow down.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Current data shows no slow down.

I have doubts about the "new analysis".

http://www.cato.org/blog/there-no-hiatus-global-warming-after-all


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[abysmul]

There has been two runs of a show called Cosmos, one hosted by Carl Sagan, the other by Neil deGrasse Tyson, cool shows, both.
In them they talk about the Cosmic Calendar: which is the 13.8 billion year history of the universe mapped onto a single year, as popularized by Carl Sagan. At this scale the Big Bang takes place on January 1 at midnight, the current time is December 31 at midnight, and the longest human life is a blink of an eye (about 1/4th of a second).
It amazes me that people believe that in that tiny fraction of a blink of an eye, humanity is so destructive and powerful we have changed the global climate. The universe sure must be fragile.

 

[Strathos]

Funny how leftist sights are called scholarly articles and publications that allow for dissenting opinions are called wingnut sites. I believe the stupidity of man has reached new heights. Now instead of seeking different viewpoints and making up their minds people prefer to follow the propaganda sources and attack anyone who tries to bring news instead of rhetoric.

I guess I'm done talking politics with the willingly indoctrinated. Their minds are closed and inoperative. They believe only what Big Brother tells them. Orwell was right. The only thing he had wrong was the date.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. These "dissenting opinions" are inevitably based on either ignorance of the facts or mendacity. Show me a scientific paper that passed peer review to support your position.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. These "dissenting opinions" are inevitably based on either ignorance of the facts or mendacity. Show me a scientific paper that passed peer review to support your position.

Are you saying all the cardinals agree that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra?

 

[Strathos]

Are you saying all the cardinals agree that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra?

Do you understand how the peer review process works?

Science is a constant struggle to discover new things, and scientists are always more excited when their ideas are proven wrong than when they are proven right. Scientists who discover things that change the overall picture and issue revolutions in thinking by overturning the old paradigm are lauded and praised, not oppressed by some conspiracy. Proof: Albert Einstein whose theory of relativity overturned Newton's laws of universal gravitation.

 

[loveofourlord]

I'm a lukewarmist, and am sympathetic to the idea that there has been a 17 year slow-down of global warming (the pause we hear about), but there hasn't been 17 years of cooling.


eudaimonia,

Mark

the pause was in some areas, but it's still growing in others, like the oceans hve been warming at a alarming rate and such, it's one of those all lies of omission, they say X is happening, but ignore that X is 1 part while the other 30 show oposite. There will be natural ups and down, why you can't take a 15 year period alone and just one part you have to take everything as a whole.

It's like the sea ice lie, they say the surface area is larger, ignoring that the bigger issue, DEPTH is shrinking more then that surface area effects and that the surface is is thinner and goes away faster.

Or the it's cold in new york lie, "It's cold here so global warming is false." while thats one area where it's colder, while rest of the planet is uniformy hotter.

It's facinating to see these people cherry pick parts of the data that fit their agenda.

 

[loveofourlord]

There has been two runs of a show called Cosmos, one hosted by Carl Sagan, the other by Neil deGrasse Tyson, cool shows, both.
In them they talk about the Cosmic Calendar: which is the 13.8 billion year history of the universe mapped onto a single year, as popularized by Carl Sagan. At this scale the Big Bang takes place on January 1 at midnight, the current time is December 31 at midnight, and the longest human life is a blink of an eye (about 1/4th of a second).
It amazes me that people believe that in that tiny fraction of a blink of an eye, humanity is so destructive and powerful we have changed the global climate. The universe sure must be fragile.

really? So because the universe is 13.8 billion years old we can't screw up our little section of the universe? thats good to know, just drop billions of nukes on the planet, it will still survive.

This is a strawman, no one is saying the earth or the universe will go away, or even humans will die off. But many will, you see unlike thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago when we had climate change *that didn't go at anywhere near the speed it is now* where we moved around alot, had small comunities, now a days we have countries, and cities in the areas that are going to be hit hardest by global warming. Interesting fact, the areas that will likly be hit by droughts and such due to global warming are also the areas the united states grows most of it's food. WHat happens when the areas that humans have built our civilizations around no longer can support us, Canada will probably do great if the fires don't kill it, but the US is going to be in trouble.

And humans will adapt, we likly won't die off, but there will be a transition period when we go from this relativly stable period, to the next stable period when climates will shift alot, and many areas humans live will no longer be livable, or least sustain the same populations they used too.

 

[Dave-W]

It's like the sea ice lie, they say the surface area is larger, ignoring that the bigger issue, DEPTH is shrinking more then that surface area effects and that the surface is is thinner and goes away faster.

It's fascinating to see these people cherry pick parts of the data that fit their agenda.

Actually the surface area of Arctic ice is WAY smaller than it was just 10 years ago. I know. I work in the marine chart division of NOAA mapping those waters. We have had to come up with several new charts for the north side of Alaska where it now is open water and 10-20 years ago was locked in with ice all year long.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130226_arcticcharting.html

 

[loveofourlord]

Actually the surface area of Arctic ice is WAY smaller than it was just 10 years ago. I know. I work in the marine chart division of NOAA mapping those waters. We have had to come up with several new charts for the north side of Alaska where it now is open water and 10-20 years ago was locked in with ice all year long.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130226_arcticcharting.html

oh I know, I'm talking about how last year it was popular to post pictures showing a rebound of sea ice by like 80% in one year, but like I said the sea ice was thinner and went away quicker, so it created the illusion of it not being so bad, but it wasn't the same kind of ice as we lost.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Do you understand how the peer review process works?

Science is a constant struggle to discover new things, and scientists are always more excited when their ideas are proven wrong than when they are proven right. Scientists who discover things that change the overall picture and issue revolutions in thinking by overturning the old paradigm are lauded and praised, not oppressed by some conspiracy. Proof: Albert Einstein whose theory of relativity overturned Newton's laws of universal gravitation.

Yes I understand how peer review works and i also understand the power of peer pressure.

 

[Strathos]

You also apparently buy into the idea of vast international conspiracies.

 

[loveofourlord]

Yes I understand how peer review works and i also understand the power of peer pressure.

What you call peer pressure, is the strength of science, if you want to make your claims heard in science you need heavy evidence, everything in science that has changed had to fight tooth and nail to prove itself, but if someone could prove that global warming was false, they be famous, as there is nothing in science that requires global warming despite what many if the crazy conspiracies seem to think. No scientist is going to get rich and famous propping up global warming if it was false, not sure about rich, but they definetly be famous if they could prove it wrong.

You get famous in science disproving things, not propping up the status quo,.

 

[grasping the after wind]

What you call peer pressure, is the strength of science, if you want to make your claims heard in science you need heavy evidence, everything in science that has changed had to fight tooth and nail to prove itself, but if someone could prove that global warming was false, they be famous, as there is nothing in science that requires global warming despite what many if the crazy conspiracies seem to think. No scientist is going to get rich and famous propping up global warming if it was false, not sure about rich, but they definetly be famous if they could prove it wrong.

You get famous in science disproving things, not propping up the status quo,.

You get grants by propping up the status quo.

 

[loveofourlord]

You get grants by propping up the status quo.

wich most of it goes towards doing studies...and barly pays them for their jobs, who wants to do that? Who is going to prop a lie for barly minimum wage and still have to work? They are going to look for evidence. This idea that scientists get rich off of grants is stupid, because we know how many hedge fund and wallstreet bankers and such leaving their jobs to work as a scientist getting grant money because it's so much better paying.

 

[KWCrazy]

You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. These "dissenting opinions" are inevitably based on either ignorance of the facts or mendacity. Show me a scientific paper that passed peer review to support your position.

You mean that got published in mainstream publications which don't publish dissenting opinions? Can you show me pro-Obama articles on conservative websites?
I can show you what a Nobel Prize winner for physics thinks.

Or the founder of the Weather Channel. "There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years."

As The Wall Street Journal reported, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.”
When further review was done, it was discovered that a mere 1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change.
In outrage, a petition was signed by more than 31,000 scientists that states “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
source

The global warming hoax is a $22 Billion per year business. Al Gore alon has made over $100 million convincing the gullible that your SUV is going to destroy the planet. Now if you're a part of the $22 billion hoax, are you going to kill the golden goose? It's nothing but fodder for the gullible who are pre-disposed to blame America for everything. We'd all be laughing at you if you weren't doing so much damage to our economy.

 

[Strathos]

We're not talking about politics here, we're talking about peer review in the scientific literature. You need to have facts and evidence to back your positions.

 

[loveofourlord]

You mean that got published in mainstream publications which don't publish dissenting opinions? Can you show me pro-Obama articles on conservative websites?
I can show you what a Nobel Prize winner for physics thinks.

Or the founder of the Weather Channel. "There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years."

As The Wall Street Journal reported, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.”
When further review was done, it was discovered that a mere 1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change.
In outrage, a petition was signed by more than 31,000 scientists that states “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
source

The global warming hoax is a $22 Billion per year business. Al Gore alon has made over $100 million convincing the gullible that your SUV is going to destroy the planet. Now if you're a part of the $22 billion hoax, are you going to kill the golden goose? It's nothing but fodder for the gullible who are pre-disposed to blame America for everything. We'd all be laughing at you if you weren't doing so much damage to our economy.

Maybe they don't accept disenting papers because they are flawed, thats the thing, you have to have hard evidence, and provide real evidence. They will post papers *how do you think we get this data that shows changes in climate up and down?* that disent, but they arn't going to overturn a entire field and knowledge on one paper, you need alot more then that, and many of those that are disenting as I pointed out above are flawed, they want to point at one small thing ignoring all the other data that says another.