RSS

Crisis Meeting

09 Sep

Well lo and behold, the global alarmists may have exaggerated their claims as I and many skeptics have been trying to point out, and receiving a lot of personal attacks in the process. This report out yesterday now has scientists beginning to back track on their earlier assessments of oceans rising and calamity ensuing:

A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century. If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013.

I never contested the warming trend, nor did I ever contest the notion of climate change, or man’s contribution, although I do believe man plays a much smaller role in the warming then the vaunted IPCC “consensus” would have us believe. I also am in strong disagreement with the IPCC conclusion that to resolve the current warming trend, developed nations must buy “carbon credits”, restrict their output, and essentially transfer wealth to undeveloped nations, of course all through the channels of the world elite. That never made sense to me and smacked of corruption.

I have also never understood how so many people could ignore the fact that our planet is a living organism that is tens of millions of years old, has survived calamities far worse, and has an amazing ability to regulate itself. To think that man could irreversibly harm the planet that is millions of years old in just a short 100 years of emitting greenhouse gases simply defies logic – at least in my opinion, and I believe my opinion will now be confirmed within the next year. This doesn’t mean that we can ignore the harm that our current way of life does to the planet. We do need to be more eco conscious, find a mass produceable, cleaner energy base, and wean ourselves from coal and fossil fuel, but that day will come.

Advertisements
 
29 Comments

Posted by on September 9, 2013 in Global Warming

 

29 responses to “Crisis Meeting

  1. GMB

    September 9, 2013 at 10:06 am

    Here is one ironclad non political fact. Our planet was warmer during the medieval warm period than it is now. There were no internal combustion engines, no smoke stacks spewing carbon monoxide, and there definitely was not nearly six and a half billion people on this planet exhaling carbon dioxide which has been declared by ” the science is settled” crowd as a green house gas.

    You can make fun of Sarah Palin all you want by calling her $arah Payme. Why has billionaire Al Gore gotten a pass by the same crowd? Who is richer? Gore or Palin and why is the way they have made their money any different? Because one is a leftist and the other is on the right?

    That makes more difference than anything else?

    Please come and get me when I can move my farm to Greenland, Until then, happy DOOOMMMMMSDAY to you catastrophic, human caused, global warmists.

    I hope this wasn’t a political topic. 😛

     
  2. mitchethekid

    September 9, 2013 at 10:51 am

    To compare Palin to Al Gore is like comparing cheeze wiz to Ortolan’s .Palin is a pathological liar, a delusional fantasist and a shameless self-promoter. She is hyper sensitive to any criticism and snipes from the sidelines. There is an on going investigation into allegations that her husband is a pimp and these investigations dovetail with the SS prostitute scandal. She opportunistically shoves her “children” the majority of whom are adults, into the lime light and then acts horrified that they are getting attention.
    I am also convinced that she faked her pregnancy. Who on earth would name a downs-syndrome child the medical shorthand for downs? Tri-g. Where is his BC? Where are her medical records?
    But it doesn’t matter any more. She isn’t interested in public office. She sold her “servants heart” for a pocketful of gold.

    http://litbrit.blogspot.com/2010/07/sarah-palin-chose-b-ten-questions-for.html

     
    • GMB

      September 9, 2013 at 11:31 am

      “She sold her “servants heart” for a pocketful of gold.

      And Gore sold his for a hundred pockets full of gold. Talk about opportunistic? Gore saw his and millions jumped on his bandwagon and filled those pockets with couple of hundred million dollars.
      Some sources claim a personal net worth of 300 million. Companies Gore invested in received over 500 million dollars in government subsidies.

      When he left office in 2001 his net worth was about 2 million.

      Sarah Palin has a net worth of about 12 million.

      Al Gore is a hero and Sarah Palin is a huckster?

      Any chance you might want to rethink your position here?

      Wheres my chakra dammit!!!!!

       
  3. mitchethekid

    September 9, 2013 at 11:49 am

    Your Chakra? I don’t know you that well!
    I don’t measure a person by their net worth and Gore is far more accomplished than Caribou Barbie. I never said that he was someone I emulated either. In fact, I never saw the movie but climate change is a fact and I am convinced that human activity is a contributing factor to the rise in temps. You guys can argue about the money part.
    You know there aren’t to many rules here so I’m making one. I get to ridicule Palin and you have to listen! Did you glance at the links I provided? I can substantiate my crazy!

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200711_temptracker/

    And read the Human activity section. It was written by liberals who have their own weather channel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

     
  4. ricorun

    September 9, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    Cluster: This report out yesterday now has scientists beginning to back track on their earlier assessments of oceans rising and calamity ensuing…”

    This is a popular press article making vague claims about a “leaked report” (that no one gets to see) which presumably “led some scientists” (who were not identified) to apparently change their minds about something. Even that last part is suspect, because scientists of any stature are rarely swayed dramatically on the basis of one “report”. They would much more likely want to see the results of the report replicated before leaping to conclusions.

    As you recall Cluster, a few days ago I provided you with some guidelines on how to tell whether a popular press report is worth a damn. But yet again the article you feature here violates pretty much ALL of them. Do I need to reprint those here? By they way I should add one more guideline: just because one part of one sentence is accurate doesn’t mean the next part will be. Likewise, just because one sentence is accurate doesn’t mean the next one will be. That’s the old bait and switch tactic. It is, in fact, a tactic used in one form or another in just about every story the Daily Mail publishes. I mean come on dude, you’re a big boy. You shouldn’t need to be told this kind of stuff, certainly not over and over again.

     
  5. rustybrown2012

    September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm

    Ho Hum. Another day, another lame attempt to cast doubt on climate science. This canard will no doubt go the way of the revelatory “climategate” email scandal, where all parties were exonerated of wrongdoing in the end. That won’t stop the deniers from bringing up “climategate” to this very day.

    On another note, I’m puzzled by your skepticism over man’s ability to ruin our atmosphere. Between nuclear power, pollution (including greenhouse gases), man-made bio-hazards, etc., our ability to make the earth a much, much more hostile environment to life, if not inhabitable altogether, is beyond question. I think your mistake is in thinking that we are harming the PLANET. You’re right, the PLANET should be just fine – it’s the LIFE on the planet we may be irrevocably fucking over. The planet will just go on for eons like we were never here. Shake us of like a bad case of fleas. Carlin has a funny bit about that:

     
    • Cluster

      September 9, 2013 at 5:29 pm

      ….it’s the LIFE on the planet we may be irrevocably fucking over.

      Your liberal economic policies are doing a much better job of that than anything pollution could do.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        September 9, 2013 at 5:37 pm

        …I know you are, but what am I?

         
    • rustybrown2012

      September 9, 2013 at 6:47 pm

      Uninhabitable!

       
  6. ricorun

    September 9, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    Cluster: I have also never understood how so many people could ignore the fact that our planet is a living organism that is tens of millions of years old, has survived calamities far worse, and has an amazing ability to regulate itself.

    So, how many of those “far worse” calamities have humans survived?

    I’m guessing none. After all, humans weren’t around, right? However, some of those calamities were pretty darned bad — and very much demonstrate that the planet doesn’t always have the ability to regulate itself.

     
    • Cluster

      September 9, 2013 at 5:26 pm

      Humans have survived quite a few calamities; the summer that wasn’t in Europe centuries ago would be just one.

      But you know, I don’t expect you or Rusty to buy anything other than what you are fully vested in, and that is the consensus of global warming alarmists that have made people like Al Gore very rich. And has been the impetus for rewarding huge government grants to solar companies and their executives who happen to be large donors to the Obama campaign, which was very convenient, don’t ya think? So don’t let the pause in the warming trend, the record cool arctic summer, the growing arctic ice sheet, or even the crisis meeting being convened by the IPCC sway you one way or the other. You have too much to lose.

      All I ask is that you hang out here for another year or so to tell me that I was right. Deal?

       
      • rustybrown2012

        September 10, 2013 at 10:00 am

        Cluster,

        You’re making the same logical fallacies over and over again. You’re still confusing weather with climate. Here’s a nice article explaining why AGW denialists are jumping the gun yet again:

        “Another way to contextualize what has happened this summer is to compare it to recent years. Click on the thumbnail at left for a graph that does just that. It shows August sea ice extent for the past six years. Seen in this context, 2013 obviously doesn’t look anything like last year’s astonishingly low extent. But it is very much like recent years — all of which were below the long-term average.”

        “The bottom line is that the identification of human effects on climate is a signal-to-noise problem. A human-caused warming signal is embedded in the rich, year-to-year and decade-to-decade noise of natural internal climate variability. Scientifically, we never had the expectation that there would be some monotonic warming signal in response to slow, human-caused changes in greenhouse gases, with each year inexorably warmer than the previous year.”

        http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2013/09/09/with-climate-journalism-like-this-who-needs-fiction/

        Now that I’ve posted a detailed refutation to your alarmist article, from a major journal with citations from respected scientific bodies, what’s your response? If the past is any indicator, you will completely ignore the facts presented to you and post a link to some oil industry-funded clown like Mike Morano to bolster your position. Instead, here’s an idea: why don’t you carefully read the article I presented. Follow the links and try to understand the graphs. Then try explaining precisely what your objections are to the information, and provide credible links to support your opinion; you know, like I do. That’s what reasoned debate is all about, but I’m not holding my breath…

         
      • Cluster

        September 10, 2013 at 11:20 am

        Actually Rusty, that was a very reasoned response – so well done. And the article was interesting, but I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Not that I am refuting the nice little graphs and charts in the article you linked to (of course one will just to have believe they are true), but I base my skepticism on other authorities, and here are just a few:

        – US climate expert Professor Judith Curry has questioned how this can be true as that rather than increasing in confidence, “uncertainty is getting bigger” within the academic community. Long-term cycles in ocean temperature, she said, suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend.

        – Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, said: “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”

        – Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible:

        Not too mention the rising levels of CO2’s the flattening of temperatures, the discord within the IPCC consensus community, the lack of extreme weather events, etc., etc.. You see, I am not fully vested one way or the other – I am the one with the open mind on the subject and if I am wrong, I will admit it, but that determination has yet to be made. You on the other hand, are fully vested in one outcome and one outcome only. What I do find strange is that I agree with 95% of your argument, yet you seem to be not satisfied until you have 100% compliance. Why is that?

        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 10, 2013 at 2:49 pm

        Cluster,

        Well, we can agree to disagree if you like, but only one of us will be disagreeing with the scientific facts, and it ain’t me. You’re concern about the veracity of the data in my “nice little graphs” is misplaced – as should be apparent to you, they are plainly sourced from leading scientific organizations such as NSIDC, Polar Science Center, etc. Or are they in Al Gore’s back pocket too?

        Concerning the quoted “authorities” you esteem, and the accompanying article you link to – all I can say is you do not deviate from the debased level of discourse I predicted in my last post. The rebuttals to your ridiculous WSJ piece are many, but here’s a couple to get the ball rolling (note the first is from Forbes(!) – famous for printing plenty of AGW denial rubbish themselves):

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/

        And there’s this:

        “But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter, from more than 15 times as many top scientists. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because some so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for the nation.
        Science magazine – perhaps the nation’s most important journal on scientific issues – published the letter from the NAS members after the Journal turned it down.”

        http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/29/413961/panic-attack-murdoch-wall-street-journal-finds-16-scientists-long-debunked-climate-lies/

        To recap: You did not refute my well-sourced article in any way. You presented yet another easily debunked article from a AGW denialist publication (as I predicted) which is easily discredited with factual, credited information. Same old, same old, eh?
        So it appears you are not the one with the open mind. If you were, you would be swayed by the scientific evidence. I just follow the facts and the latest science. It is you, my friend, who is vested in denial.

        On a side note, I’m baffled by how you reach the conclusion that we are in 95% agreement with each other on this issue. Your propensity to equivocate and talk out of both sides of your mouth does not impress me or lead me to think you are truly in agreement, not when you keep enthusiastically promoting every latest bit of global cooling nonsense that slinks down the pike.

         
      • Cluster

        September 10, 2013 at 3:38 pm

        We are NOT arguing scientific facts. We ARE arguing subjective conclusions. And both you and Rico are completely incapable of figuring that out, so I have grown tired of both of you. There is plenty of valid scientific argument that refutes the “conclusions”based on the evidence.

        I have no idea why you and Rico can not understand that. It’s laughable that every source I mention, you attack. Remember when you said if you can’t debate the conclusions, you attack the source? You do that on a regular basis.

         
      • mitchethekid

        September 10, 2013 at 4:13 pm

        Uh, Cluster ole buddy and pal? Other than how it feels,there is nothing subjective about experiencing getting wet when it rains, heat when it’s hot and viewing photos of melting ice caps and glaciers.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 10, 2013 at 2:54 pm

        “your” in the second sentence. In a hurry.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 10, 2013 at 4:51 pm

        On the contrary, we ARE arguing scientific facts: The earth is warming, man’s activity plays a pivotal role, and the consequences of doing nothing are likely catastrophic. Do you disagree with any of that? If you do, you are arguing against the facts.

        It’s a baldfaced lie to claim I’m merely attacking your sources, as if that’s all I’ve been doing – this assertion shows how meager your attention and/or understanding has been in our discussion. Any casual reader glancing at our exchanges will see that I’m discrediting the INFORMATION within your sources, not primarily the sources themselves, although I’ve done that too on occasion because many of your sources have been laughably biased. You on the other hand, will not even ADDRESS the content of my sources, much less rebut them, because you can’t.

        I’m glad you admit you’ve grown tired of this; that explains the quality of your arguments, at least in part.

         
      • Cluster

        September 10, 2013 at 5:06 pm

        …… and the consequences of doing nothing are likely catastrophic

        Well first of all, I agree and have repeatedly said that we need to transition from carbon based fuels. BUT the “likely catastrophic” conclusion IS SUBJECTIVE.

        You are like arguing with a child rusty.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 10, 2013 at 5:58 pm

        Yeah, it’s subjective in that it’s the opinion of almost all of the leading climate scientists, yeah, that kind of subjective. You know, their word against Mike Morano.

        Your insistence on absolute certainty in the face of a complex, long-term, global phenomena is what’s really childish, Cluster.

        In other news, I see you haven’t even attempted to address the content of even one of my links…your inability to do so would would give an intelligent man pause…

         
    • Cluster

      September 9, 2013 at 5:43 pm

       
  7. ricorun

    September 10, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    As it turns out, there is a rather nice, point-by-point rebuttal available of the popular press article Cluster highlighted at the top of his post. And Cluster, notice how they provide links to document essentially every point they discuss. THAT’S the way it should be done.

     
    • Cluster

      September 10, 2013 at 3:56 pm

      Allow me to use the words of a Nobel Proze winner for my summation:

      But Prof Ivan Giaever, who shared the 1973 Nobel award for physics, told The Sunday Telegraph. “Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.”

      It’s the “conclusions” that are in question Rico, not the findings, and I just don’t understand why someone as self proclaimed “smart” as you, has trouble comprehending that. Besides, with temperatures leveling off as they are, our climate right now is ideal, wouldn’t you agree? We needed some global warming.

      Now feel free to personally attack Ivan Giaever.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

       
      • rustybrown2012

        September 10, 2013 at 5:11 pm

        “Besides, with temperatures leveling off as they are, our climate right now is ideal, wouldn’t you agree? We needed some global warming.”

        …now THERE’S an argument: “Hey! It feels great outside today! It’s such a pleasant day, global warming can’t POSSIBLY be a problem for our future!” …rebut THAT, you science nerds!

         
    • Cluster

      September 10, 2013 at 3:59 pm

      And Phil Plait is a left wing loon.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        September 10, 2013 at 5:03 pm

        And Phil Plait is a left wing loon.

        …this coming from a man complaining about the offhand dismissal of sources?

         
      • Cluster

        September 10, 2013 at 5:33 pm

        Irony Rusty, irony.

         
  8. ricorun

    September 10, 2013 at 8:03 pm

    Cluster: We are NOT arguing scientific facts. We ARE arguing subjective conclusions.

    Actually, your side of the “argument” on any level is decidedly Pythonesque

     
 
%d bloggers like this: