Climate ‘warming’ should be ‘change’

Global warming is over. It is a tired and trite phrase and presents a poor picture of reality.

It is time for a new paradigm: global climate change. The greenhouse effect, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere warming the land and the oceans, is only one aspect of global climate change.

Heat-powered high and low pressure systems such as the “arctic vortex” that pulled freezing air into Fayette County recently are another.

Rising ocean levels from thermal expansion and melting ice are another.

Warming is, however, at the root of these. Based on multiple independent lines of investigation it is certain that Earth is warming, slowly and over a long period of time. But it is warming.

The last two decades of the 20th century were, on average, warmer than any decade since 1850. The first decade of the 21st century was even warmer. The CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 40 percent since pre-industrial times, and is higher than in the past 800,000 years.

Since about 1960, the rise in temperature and the rise in CO2 are closely correlated (however, correlation does not prove causation). Ice sheets and glaciers, worldwide, are melting. Ocean temperatures are rising. Sea level has risen by about 7.5 inches over the past 110 years.

These are facts. To deny them would be perverse. It would be equivalent to denying that the earth is a sphere, that the sun is a star and that the stars are suns, and that the force of gravity acts on every body that has mass.

We can draw conclusions from these and other facts and from computer models and simulations. The models, simulations, and conclusions may be debated — by those who understand them. They may be denied by those who choose not to understand them or who are unable to think for themselves.

Here are some of the conclusions: there is a significant human-caused component in the level of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The atmosphere will continue to warm. Sea level will continue to rise. Weather will continue to become more extreme.

Why should anyone living in Fayette County, Ga., care? We’re not in Bangladesh or on a Pacific atoll where rising sea levels have displaced many people and threaten the existence of some islands. We don’t live on the coast of this country, so the devastation of a Katrina or a Sandy is only a tale of the tragedy of others.

We should care because global climate change will likely mean that our droughts will get dryer, our rainy seasons more prone to flooding, our summers hotter and our winters colder. At some point, this will become more than a nuisance.

We must learn to think for ourselves, and disregard the propaganda from pundits and those who would deny the facts. We must not denigrate, but must teach all science, including evolution and cosmology. We must acknowledge the facts.

Or, we can rear an ignorant generation and leave them to suffer the consequences.

Paul Lentz
Peachtree City, Ga.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Cyclist - LA

Just arrived from LA last night, get ready for a shock pal! BTW, stayed at the LAX Marriott.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Hey PTC - O

It's a large but yet small world. Were you transiting through LA or did you stay long enough to enjoy the warm weather?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Cyclist - Saturday

Saturday through last night, weather was terrific but everyone was complaining about the lack of rain up North. The whole state will be suffering if they don't get some rain/snow up there.

Spent some time down in San Diego too. If it wasn't for the government of California it would be a great place to live, great town.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
PTC O

Yup it's a bit dry. This drought is going to be a bit problematic out here soon. No longer can the LA region rely on the water from Colorado and Owens Rivers or the water sheds of the San Joaquin Valley and Mono Basin. Available water is what put this place on the "map". Without it and this area reverts back its original dry form.

It looks like we are only in for more cold temperatures at least through next Thursday. So far, no overrunning moisture from the gulf is forecasted at least through Thursday. Keep your fingers crossed.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
MLC & Cyclist

Not sure where Cy is right now but blv most of his flights are to overseas locations. Otherwise, he'll be freezing his buns off along with the rest of us here in FC! Already 27 degrees at 2120!

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Cyclist's Location

I'm at the LAX Hilton. I drove around today with the moon roof opened on my POS rental and letting both of my hairs on my head flow in the breeze. Living the life. I hope y'all stay warm!!!!!!

Citizen_Steve
Citizen_Steve's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/20/2005
Cyclist

Cyclist, good to hear you are out and about, but your aimless driving around is adding to the already significant human-caused component in the level of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Thanks in part to you, the atmosphere will continue to warm. Sea level will continue to rise. Weather will continue to become more extreme. To deny these facts would be perverse. Almost as perverse as performing the "arctic vortex" out in public for all to see.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Hey Citizen_Steve

I was feeling real bad about contributing to the global warming phenomenon until I remembered that Obama and family flew from Andrews Air Force base to Honolulu on Air force One for vacation. That’s one B747 for a family of four. Oh, but it gets better; Air Force "two" - another B747 - flies along as back up.

I feel much better now. :-)

Update:

It was a family of four and their pets.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
LOL

Let's be fair!! Legislation must be introduced to prevent POTUS and family from flying home for December holidays!!. We taxpayers just can't afford it!! Future presidents are safe until we elect a Congress that can pass a bill!

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
Not to mention

this time, due to the big 50 party, Moochelle Antoinette got a free ride back on a C32A at an operating cost of $7,000. per hour according to the Air Force. So, flight time alone cost the taxpayers over $150,000.

For one Moochelle.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Moe

Hello from my favorite LAX lounge!!!!!

Anyways, for Obama and those political elite that have embraced global warmer....it's do as I say not as I do.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Oh Cy

Please bring a little of that warmth to FC!!! I love the blue sky today - but the COLD is unbearable to a gal from LA!!

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Hey Davids mom

I know what you mean. I got off the company bus and walked through the jetway and brrrrrrrrr.

I was thinking about a run/walk in the morning….that ain't going to happen.

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
Well, Cy

do as I say..now come on home..who would want to be in LALA land at 65 degrees when you could be back here just toasty in our balmy 28 degrees? Which, by the way, will be close to our high today. We could use a little global warmer right here.... Oh brrrrrother....

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Gee moe,

That avatar of yours says a lot!!!

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
Cy, Wishes..I'll let
Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Dup

Grrrrrrrr

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Citizen Steve

Grew up in LA - when man-made stuff contributed to seldom seeing blue sky . Last year, thanks to use of science and common sense, the sky was blue, I could see the Hollywood sign from LAX ! Someone paid attention - and driving in LA with the top down is once again enjoyable. Let's hope we keep it that way! Now about the water in Fayette County!

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
Cy & AHG

Well, I agree about freezing buns off. Used to go out wearing a lightweight jacket in this weather up north in my youth. No more, no sir. Crank that thermostat up and I'm ok till it passes now. Glad you aren't stuck in line on some list, Cy. You do seem to have some good routes to avoid the really bad weather. I guess that comes with the two hairs and living the life.

We will be on pins and needles (or is that icicles?) till we hear your next long range predictions. And if the words southeast and heat wave are part of it, well, you can just come on home early. We'll leave the light on for you. Tom Bodett says hey.

My cat just asked me for some Uggs. ugh.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Paul Lentz - why arent we hearing from you on any of this..

you started the ball rolling, or are you just a pot stirrer? lol

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
He sent a letter to the paper

Who knows if he even looks at the online edition.?

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Paul Lentz - why arent we hearing from you on any of this..

you started the ball rolling, or are you just a pot stirrer? lol

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Global Climate

Hey gang,

Remember that blast of cold air a couple of weeks ago? Well, according to some weather models we might experience another blast of cold air which could end up hanging around for a couple of weeks.

These models suggest a January 26-29th time frame. Of course, the atmosphere is dynamic so this could all change but if these models are correct it's going to get very cold for at least the eastern half of the nation and possibly down to the gulf. Oh, and it isn't going away soon.

Stay tuned.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
I sure hope that freezing...

rain stays south of us on Tuesday and Wednesday. Timing is everything.

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
Cyclist, calling Cyclist

ABC just reported almost 35000 flights have been cancelled this year already due to the weather. How you doing?

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
Cy

Oh joy. Thanks for the heads up.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Creditable scientists

At one time thought the world was flat! To use facts to protect the environment is creditable . Sometimes common sense trumps 'facts'.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
DM - Actually, they didnt.

The people who thought the Earth was flat were not scientists in any sense of the word. They decided what the answer was based on anecdotal data, much like those who believe in AGW do now. They often exclude data that doesn't fit their model, just like those who believe in AGW do now. The evidence that the earth is round was all around them (ahem), but they ignored it because it did not fit their preconceived notions, just like.......ah well you get it.

The people of the time that were actually scientists already new the earth was round, because they let the data lead them to conclusions, not the other way 'round. The Greeks have believed the Earth was round since the 6th century B.C. Pythagoras first proposed that the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C. He showed the Moon must be round by observing the shape of the terminator (the line between the part of the Moon in light and the part of the Moon in the dark) as it moved through its orbital cycle. Pythagoras reasoned that if the Moon was round, then the Earth must be round as well. After that, sometime between 500 B.C. and 430 B.C., a fellow called Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar eclipses - and then the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was also used as evidence that the Earth was round.

Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator) and during the next hundred years or so, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes actually measured the size of the Earth and got within 10% or so of the actual number.

When you look at the people who are pushing AGW, you need to be very careful about what you label as credible science.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Renault

The position and definition of Pluto. As the human mind advances, perceptions change and 'facts' may also be perceived differently. Perceptions changed even before the Greeks shared their 'truth'. In the meantime, it doesn't hurt to protect our home (earth). Common sense sometimes trumps opinions of 'scientists'. To base our position solely on finances and politics has not always been wise.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
DM - and thats my point precisely

Global warming alarmists don't use common sense and an apolitical agenda. The fudge data. They only ask for the opinions of people who already think like they do. They only solicit peer review from people in the same field, with the same financial motivation to keep screaming that the sky is falling. They actively suppress or ignore anyone with a different viewpoint. The ones they cant ignore they heckle as "deniers" as if AGW were a religion which cannot be questioned.

I pray for something as sweet as "common sense" to break out on this issue.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Renault

LOL! There are opinions on both sides of this issue that are presented as 'factual'. IMO. Interesting journey trying to act with common sense.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Dm -but only one set of "fact" can be correct.

AGW is all a lie perpetrated to redistribute wealth. I don't think it started that way, it was an innocent scientific question, but that's what it has evolved into. During the late 80's there were two radical groups left with nothing to believe in, no cause to take up the flag for. Hard-core anti capitalists had nothing to do when communism fell in Europe and hard-core environmentalists had nothing to protest when everyone basically go the idea that polluting rivers and filling in wetlands was a bad idea. Then along comes AGW theory and suddenly commies and hippies had something to be radical and in-your-face about again. It gives the anti-capitalist crowd a way to be anti-business. Environmentalists had to continue to adopt ever more radical positions to remain relevant, and AGW is manna from heaven for them.

Even the co-founder of greenpeace says the AGW movement is political, anti-capitalist and has nothing to do with environmentalism.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Renault 314
Quote:

AGW is all a lie perpetrated to redistribute wealth

Scientists conduct studies; develop theories; and share theories based on their studies. It is wisdom to use common sense to use the results of these studies to better protect our environment and our health. In my lifetime, Pluto was a planet. That was a 'fact'. To base actions solely on political and financial reasons IMO is not wisdom, but the tools used by those who seek power rather than salvation of our earth and our beings. With the current technology/information, we as individuals can inform ourselves of what we can do to protect our environment/health- and not adhere to the 'left' and 'right' protagonists who refuse to cooperate on any issue that is proposed for the betterment of our enviornment and our health. Yes, money is involved in decision making, but the American people are waking up to the actions of those who work for themselves and their private interests and those who work for the continued progress and greatness of our country. I appreciate the contribution of our scientists, and remain wary of the intent of some politicians and corporations . It seems difficult to practice that command: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Sending jobs abroad instead of investing in the American people is not redistributing wealth; refusing to upgrade public education is not redistributing wealth : continuing to refuse to get private and public support for the improvement of our countries infrastructure is not redistributing wealth. To refuse to acknowledge that some ideas from the left, some ideas from the right have merit and may lead to solutions to the problems that face our country today is not using common sense.. The youth of today see beyond the rhetoric of blame. The youth of today are looking for action regardless of political theories. The past can be instructive, but will not be used as a hinderance to progress. Stayed tuned.

Happy Birthday Dr. King!

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
DM - Think bigger
Davids mom wrote:

Sending jobs abroad instead of investing in the American people is not redistributing wealth; refusing to upgrade public education is not redistributing wealth : continuing to refuse to get private and public support for the improvement of our countries infrastructure is not redistributing wealth.

None of that has to do with the global warming lie. The mistake you're making is thinking to small in this case. I'm not talking about redistributing wealth from republicans to democrats or rich to poor in this country. Liberals don't need the global warming lie to keep doing that.

I'm talking about taking money from wealthy western nations and giving it to poor third world countries as "reparations" for the damage we've done to the environment as industrialized nations. Or at least, that's the nonsense they would have you believe.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/200-350-bn-needed-africa-un-200855245.html#WI3nJQe

http://news.yahoo.com/rich-nations-must-pay-u-n-climate-talks-161814230-...

The governor of the Philippines is demanding that the US pay them billions of dollars to pay for the damages of the hurricane that hit them. Seriously. They smell the blood in the water and want free cash.

I don't want to send jobs abroad. But sending billions more in tax dollars than we already do is not going to keep jobs at home. It will weaken our economy and strengthen theirs. If the democrats shut down all the coal plants and force a change to wind and solar, the most expensive forms of energy there is, energy cost in the US will skyrocket. Companies will be even more inclined to send manufacturing overseas, to places that are building up their infrastructure with our tax dollars.

Just blindly going along with global warming is not going to keep America strong and jobs here. It will do the opposite.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Renault

Hopefully those who make important decisions will not determine truth or lies based on political rhetoric . We could post contradictory statements on here forever. Our country went to war and American lives were lost on erroneous 'truth'. Read all you can about opinions - it is the action or inaction taken that is important. Our world is inhabited by humans, and hopefully the humans on the planet earth will not blindly ignore any need of insuring human/planet survival. My understanding from your words is that you consider anything labeled 'liberal' as a lie. IMO - that is limited thinking. I respect your opinion, just don't agree with it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-worlds-85-riches...

Another interesting article. The Gates prediction is noteworthy.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
DM- what in the world are you talking about...

War in Iraq or what bill gates opinions on poor nations are have nothing to do with global warming. you're always trying to change the subject. If you don't want to talk about global warming, why do you post in this section?

As far as "contradictory statements" goes, I am posting factual scientific data. I am posting links to news stories backing up my statements (about global warming). You have made some high minded statements about how you hope politicians make decision based on data and not on politics and I am trying to tell you that is exactly what is happening.

The fact that the liberals are the ones making political decisions not based on scientific evidence is not my fault. But pointing that out does not mean I think everything they think is a lie. I think its just politically convenient for them to plow ahead without checking to see if its the truth.

Get back to me when you want to talk about global warming.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Renault
Quote:

As far as "contradictory statements" goes, I am posting factual scientific data. I am posting links to news stories backing up my statements (about global warming). You have made some high minded statements about how you hope politicians make decision based on data and not on politics and I am trying to tell you that is exactly what is happening.

For generations we called Pluto a planet based on scientific 'fact'. Your dubious conclusions that global warming is some liberal conspiracy is not exactly leading anyone to the validity of your 'unbiased, knowledgeable opinion based on creditable 'facts'. It's when you bring in your conservative vs. liberal statements that some question if you know what you are talking about.
I don't think it's high-minded to be concerned about the survival of humankind or our planet. Wisdom might be to become knowledgeable of all theories that are being shared. Change in climate may or may not be caused by 'man'. However, if we learn through research that there may be some man made changes that benefit the life of humankind and the earth - should we ignore this because it 's liberal or conservative? I do believe that your thinking is limited to politics. Just my opinion.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
DM - I can explain it to you, I cant understand it for you.

I've tried to post many examples of the shortcomings of AGW science. You can question weather you think I know what I'm talking about or not....but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I'm the only person posting on this thread that actually has a degree in earth sciences. I assure you I know exactly what I'm talking about. Can Al Gore say the same? Can Paul Lentz? Can you?

Caring for the environment, being good stewards, and spending trillions of taxpayer dollars and wrecking the economy to force a conversion off of fossil fuels and onto wind and solar are NOT THE SAME THING!

I'm not the one who being political if the democrats are the ones trying to push this agenda with no science to back it up. But your refusal to acknowledge this obvious fact makes your political motivations very suspicious. I don't know why you wont admit it, the democratic politicians don't hide it, they brag about it. Its half of their re-election platforms.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Renault

When did you inform the creditable scientists about Pluto? Why aren't you using your scientific expertise and political wisdom to inform the decision makers where they are going wrong? In the search for truth in this debacle, some theories have been agreed upon by scientists who are not pushing or punishing a political agenda. You always seem to return to denigrating a liberal or Democrat point of view. My research has shown that non-political scientists are approaching a balanced use of energy sources - not dependent on fossil fuel. Has your expertise validated any of these efforts? I do know what I am talking about, what Al Gore has been credited with defining, and what Mr. Lentz shared. You are the one who has denigrated liberals and democrats. I hope creditable scientists are doing their research, utilizing their findings to benefit mankind and our planet. I hope our decision makers understand and base their decisions on researched facts rather than political theories. I don't think your arrogance will allow you to have the same hope. Thanks for sharing.

PS. I congratulate you on your academic achievement. Learning is a lifelong activity. There are many on this blog with advanced degrees. . .but continue to enjoy learning.

As a student of 'earth science ' - do you really believe that human activity has no impact on our planet? Do you know what AGW studies? Do you really believe all of their research is a 'lie'? Interesting. I would be interested in your answers.

I certainly don't have the expertise to challenge your answers.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
One word DM

One word describes "creditable scientists", money. That's the only fact you need to know. That's what it is all about.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Paul, just because YOU think it makes sense...

doesn't make it science. Just because you say it would be perverse to disagree with you doesn't make it so.But its interesting for you to say that we need to think for ourselves, yet you seem to parrot whatever you are told and accept it as unalterable fact.

I know you think its science, but its not.

The way the climate issue works is for the like-minded western bureaucracies to be the only employers or funders of climate scientists—which eliminates most of the competition that would otherwise keep them scrupulously honest. While peer review (like the IPCC process) is treated as equivalent to the bible, it’s more like a report of a committee meeting (one that dissenters were not invited to). The government climate scientists use the peer review process to block criticism or alternative theories from being officially heard—as they were caught doing in the Climategate scandal. The mainstream media go to the climate scientists as their ultimate source of authority, and propagate their opinions to the public. Very neat.

It is a loophole in the modern world. The process is called “science”, but works like a religion. The media repeat what the experts say, but are silent about much of the data, how it is collected, and what it means. The public wrongly assumes the conclusions were audited or checked by competing scientists and that journalists asked the scientists hard penetrating questions. It all gains the veneer of rigorous analysis. The public doesn't complain when they are asked to pay for it all because they think its a legitimate issue.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Interesting Conspiracy Theory

So university professors and scientists around the world have subverted the blind peer review process for publications in the most prestigious scientific journals in order to hoodwink the general population into believing a hoax. These professionals (who frequently disagree on many issues) band together, publish fake scientific research studies, and promulgate a theory that they know is false. The media play along because they so hate to expose a scandal.

Renault, you've overdosed on Fox "news."

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
STF - Environmental Industry

There's a lot of money at stake in this STF.

Those "professors and scientists around the world", live off the vast network of neo-capitalists created by the vast environmental network of laws and regulations. We're not talking about a conspiracy, we're talking something far more compelling. Money

To think otherwise is ...... naive.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
STF - it would only be interesting if everyone were in on it.

I know you think that there is some big consensus of scientists that agree about AGW, but there is not. The scientists weren't even asked what they thought. Yes, the peer review process is broken in this case.

The IPCC's famous pronunciation that 97% of scientists think man is causing global warming is a farce.

While there is a single study entitled "Expert Credibility in Climate Change” that did conclude that 97 - 98% of scientists support the tenets of Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) it did not conclude that they supported the tenets of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming such as Al Gore and all the other AGW alarmists.

The study was highly flawed because the authors did not survey a broad set of scientists and engineers conversant in climate issues; instead, they arrived at their dubious conclusions simply by reviewing a limited set of publications written by a select group of 1,372 researchers who often publish papers on the topic of climate change and global warming.

The authors of the study did not interview or poll these researchers; they concluded for themselves what the selected researchers support and what they don’t by reading their papers. The researchers included in the study were handpicked, were all funded to work in Climate Change and all had financial interests in furthering their research funding. Many of the journals from which the reviewed papers were drawn are known to be hostile to papers that criticize the quality of work done in the field.

None of the study’s authors had the educational background to be able to interpret all the papers they reviewed.

The authors consisted of a student of Ecology, Evolution, and Population Biology (Anderegg), a climate campaigner for the Rainforest Action Network with a Master’s degree in Business Administration and a summer-school certificate in "Complex Systems" from the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Harold), a computer programmer with a double-degree in Political Science and Philosophy (Prall), and a (now deceased) mechanical engineer working in “Environmental Biology and Global Change” (Schneider).

Each of these study authors also had severe conflicts of interest as the result of their study would influence how much funding they would receive to continue their work in climate change.

In short, this study and its conclusions are questionable at best and perhaps intentionally misleading at worst.

The 97-98% statistic is also challenged by the fact that over 31,000 degreed scientists and engineers have signed the Oregon Petition, a petition to the US Government disagreeing with the premise that manmade CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming. 31,000 scientists is over twenty times the number of scientists and engineers that were covered by the questionable 97-98% statistic study.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Don't allow Roger Ailes to mislead you

Even NASA (a most conservative group) realizes that the preponderance of evidence points to human-engineered climate change:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

And 18 scientific organizations have affirmed their findings to the Senate:

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/1021climate_lett...

You are correct that this is a very political issue, and Fox "news" has a great stake in its opposition.

Feel free to believe in a 6 day creation, a flat earth, or anything else that suits your politics and religion. You may deny any human affected gradual change in climate as well. However, do realize that a true majority of climate scientist affirm the human-caused climate change theory. If that majority is 90% instead of 98%, it is still an overwhelming majority.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
You act like Fox news is all there is.

It bothers you for sure. Me, tv news bores.

I will agree, lots of money to be made on both sides of this argument. The US can only do so much to help. In 50,000 years we may know more. Let's revisit it then when we have more data.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Some People rely on Myths

The issue isn’t whether human-caused climate change is a problem or not, but rather, it is the assertion that most climate scientist do not subscribe to the theory. These scientists may be dead wrong, but they overwhelmingly support the theory. Only the ultra-conservative news organizations dispute this support. Disagree vociferously with the scientific community’s conclusions, but please refrain from denying the reality of their support for the conclusions.

Roger Ailes operates the strongest conservative media organization in the world, and he is the poster child for manufacturing “facts” from thin air. He is on record denying that legitimate scientists support this theory. Renault seems to be repeating his blatant falsehood. Thus, my postings.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
STF - if it doesnt agree with your worldview, its a myth?

That seems like a pretty convenient position to take. I happen to think its a myth that most scientists think humans are causing global warming. I have data to back up this opinion, which I have provided. You do not provide counter data, you just think that calling it "myth" makes it all go away.

And you are wrong, ultimately this IS about weather humans are causing climate change.

You believe that 97 percent of climate experts say man-made global warming is a "major threat”
The correct response: “So? The satellites, ocean buoys, and weather balloons disagree.”
The alarmists may have “experts”, but the skeptics have the data.
How do you find the truth about some disputed point in science? You find the most authoritative source of information. The vital thing that makes science different to a religion is that there are no “Gods” of science. There is no expert who is infallible. The highest authority in science is the measurements and observations. Here is the hierarchy of authority in climate science:

1. Data (empirical evidence)
2. Climate scientists
3. Other scientists
4. Lay people.

For most of the last few centuries, science has been supreme over politics for settling the truth in matters pertaining to the physical world—empirical evidence beats anyone’s say-so.

But the modern political approach is to ignore that top level. To most warmists and the public who “believe in climate change” (as they so misleading say), the hierarchy is:

1. Climate scientists
2. Other scientists
3. Lay people.

Data doesn't even enter into the equation for modern politicians or people who give AGW quasi-religious status.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Thanks for clearing that up!

Thanks Renault. I think I understand your position. It is analogous to the executives of the seven largest tobacco companies testifying to Congress in 1994. After evaluating the data suggesting nicotine addiction, the scientific community overwhelmingly determined that nicotine was addictive. However, these executives who knew their product much more intimately than mere scientists could evaluate the data more accurately.

It is very clear to me now. Thanks a lot.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
STF - I can't tell if youre being sarcastic or not.

My instinct says youre trying to insult me but I cant be sure.

I do think its a lot like the tabacco hearings you mentioned. Im sure the tobacco companies trotted out their own scientists to say that nicotine was not addictive and that all the other scientist were wrong. The data doesnt lie. The lie comes from how people choose to interpret the data and what they are going to leave in or what they leave out.

“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” -- Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences...AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” -- Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino

"My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” -- Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid

“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” -- UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Science is of little consequence

Mr. Lentz doesn't appear to understand that when discussing science with people who believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, scientific facts are of little consequence.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
STF - we can talk science if you want

People assume that CO2 drives temp because that's what the media
reports, but it never has in the past. CO2 levels have lagged an
average of 800 years behind temp change for the last 600,000 years. The cultists cant have it both ways. When we say, climate changed in the past, but there were no humans, cultists complain that "oh dont worry about the past, this co2 is man made and increasing faster." When we ask, why should we care what the co2 levels are now, their answer is "oh, look at what co2 did in the past." Its a circular argument.

There is no evidence at all that co2 drove climate in the past. I don't mean disputed evidence, I mean no evidence. But for some reason, were supposed to base current energy policy on an assumption for which there is no evidence. No one is disputing that co2 levels are going up. no one is disputing that global temp is 0.6 deg C higher than it was 200 years ago. But if no one can say what the earths temp is supposed to be, and if there's no link between co2 levels in the past as a climate driver, you're not going to convince people to pay 3-5 times more for wind and solar now.

Now even NASA is saying the earth has not warmed since 1998, even though CO2 production is going through the roof. If their theory held true, so should temps. But temp and co2 levels have never correlated, not in a more precise look at the last 200 years and not on broader scales like for the last 600,000. However, if you look at a graph of temp and solar activity for the last 200 years, they correlate almost perfectly.

Now, if you want to talk science, can they explain the discrepancy please?

ptc87
ptc87's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/19/2011
The earth hasn't warmed since 1984.

renault314. Why do you pick 1984? Here is web site that will show the Earths temp since 1850. Do the math yourself.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Provisional-Statement-on-Status-of-Clima...

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
PTC87 - read more carefully

I said the earth hasn't warmed since 1989. No one mentioned 1984 except you.

I suppose I could have been a little more precise in saying that the earth hasn't gotten higher than when it hit its peak temp in 1989. Look at both of the first two graphs on the page you linked too. The earths temps just kind of flatten out.

Co2 levels, however, continue to go through the roof. Just because two measurements are higher after a certain period of time does not mean they are correlated. Average basketball game scores are higher now than they were in the 70's. Is that related to Co2 as well?

The earths climate is driven by the sun. Not carbon dioxide. If any scientist says it they are called a "denier." And the media ignores them as best it can.

Do you think its a coincidence that the Earth has not experienced any warming in 15 years and the current and previous solar cycles were below normal?

Lets look at the Vostok ice core data Gore uses in his inconvenient truth movie. The "real" inconvenient truth is that CO2 lagged behind temperature change by an average of 800 years for all of the last 600,000 years we have data for. When you try to present all the data at once, temp and co2 look like they are right on top of each other, which makes it look like they are closely related or even that co2 could be driving temperature. Which of course is why Al gore presents the data this way. But if you zoom in and look at a smaller section of the data, you will see that in all of the data we have , co2 lagged BEHIND temp by 800 years. Co2 has NEVER driven climate. There is NO PROOF of this in the historical record. At no point in history did co2 go up and then temp followed.

If co2 never drove climate in the past, there is no reason to think it does now. "Deniers" like myself are not saying the planet doesn't change. We aren't even saying that mankind might not be having an impact. The hole in the ozone is definitely mans fault, we recognized and did something about it by banning cfc's. When DDT was shown to be causing damage, we banned it. There was nothing to "deny" in those cases because the science was solid. This is not the case with co2.

As far as the earth not warming since hitting its peak temp in 1998, I don't know what to tell you. Prior to the 1970's the planet was on a 3O year cooling trend, even though human production of co2 was at an all time high and growing. Everyone was afraid of the coming ice age. All of the AGW hype is based on data collected from the 1970's to the 90's, a twenty year time span. So, when the data fits their theory, 15-20 years is plenty of data. But when it doesn't, the last 15 years is not enough time and it must be a glitch. Whatever. Please explain the discrepancies?

If you plot temperature and co2 levels on a graph they don't correlate at all, none of the peaks and valleys from one data set don't match up with the peaks and valleys from the other data set at all. This is true going all the way back for the last 600,000 years we have temp and co2 data for. But if you plot temp and sunspot activity on the same graph they correlate almost perfectly. Its the sun people. always has been.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rolling - Al

Al Gore has certainly followed the yellow bricked road, and he's not out there alone.

Sheepel, what can you say! Baaah.....?

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
Hippies, communists, and liberal scientists, oh my!

Follow the gold bricked road! Don't worry, increasing the soot in the air will help cool the earth. A whole bunch of CO2 will be absorbed by the oceans, they will become more acidic but hey, that's the diatom's, coral's and shellfishes' problem. I don't see the AGW deniers as being in denial as much as I see them as affirming that yes, we intend to keep cutting the same branch upon which we are sitting.

My personal favorite:

Quote:

Its the sun people. always has been.

Deny that, you denial deniers.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Rolling stone - The amount of co2 in the air

is so minute and the oceans are so much more massive than all the atmosphere combined that even if all the co2 were dissolved into the oceans today, it would barely have a measurable effect on the oceans acidity. And that acid would be gone by the end of next week. Its called the buffer effect.

You can pick out your favorite quotes all you want. but you wont find a single shred of evidence that says that Co2 drove climate in the past. And if it didn't then, or for the last 600,000 years, don't you think we owe it to ourselves to look into why it did, before we plunge the economy into more debt and chaos and depression spending trillions of dollars unnecessarily converting the grid to wind and solar, the least reliable, most expensive forms of electricity out there?

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
Debt, chaos, and depression, oh my!

You mean in addition to what the bankster gamblers and their ilk have not already done to the world economy? Slim pickins. The sources of solar and wind appear pretty reliable to me so I do fail to see your point there, and their cost keeps coming down as their scale increases while the costs of fossil fuel use rise. Reducing pollution is my focus, CO2 reduction will come along for the ride.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Stone - reliable? not even close

Wind can only generate power when its windy, obviously. Its not a viable solution for most of the country. Additionally it is a much more maintenance intensive form of production. Plus, look into the hundreds of thousands of bird deaths caused by wind farms every year.

Solar cells only produce peak power when in direct sunlight. tracking systems increase cost and complexity. What happens when you want to use electricity......at night?

There is a reason coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydro are used as base load power plants. They deliver consistent power, are inexpensive compared to the alternative, and are easy enough to operate. Wind and solar do not share these advantages, hence they are unreliable.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Stone - we can reduce pollution

without crippling the economy by forcing people to convert to solar and wind. The government doesn't need to spend tax dollars to cajole people into buying TV's and microwaves. People did that on their own, incrementally as market forces dictated.

Forcing people to spend upwards of 5 times more for electricity will put an enormous stranglehold on peoples buying power and further entice manufacturing to go overseas where energy is cheaper.

Additionally, I don't think you are aware of the enormous amount of haz waste associated with the mfg of solar panels.

http://news.yahoo.com/solar-industry-grapples-hazardous-wastes-184714679...

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/02/11/solar-panel-makers-grapple-...

Keep in mind that when they say, "oh but they still pollute less than coal or natural gas" the pollution they are comparing it to is co2 production, which is not a pollutant in any way shape or form.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
renault314

I am going to list you as "Doubtful" on my Supporters of AGW mailing list.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Rolling stone - dude

LOL!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
ptc87

Seems like 1984 is a logical starting point.