As with any estimates, providing a low and high value is useful to understand the scope of what may or may not happen in various scenarios.
While I agree the “worst case” scenario is unlikely to occur (5* C increase), let’s all remember that “If renewable technologies continue to surprise on the upside, warming could be limited to 2.5 degrees” and “Even just 2 degrees of warming, which will be exceeded in any business-as-usual scenario, will have very serious global repercussions.”
Well, the author is almost correct. There are no “man made” climate change scenarios that are correct. Because, the climate has always changed. Before humans inhabited this planet and after we are all extinguished from this mortal coil, the climate will change. What exactly anyone thinks they can do about it is really beyond imaging. No human has ever controlled the climate and, I safely predict without computer models, that no human EVER WILL.
Provide evidence of your statement, because last I checked Tiger88 is not a renowned climate scientist. I can quickly google and verify that a LOT of people with their PhD believe man made climate change is a reality, so I’m sorry if I trust them more than you.
You are making a whole lot of assumptions without the evidence to support them. Maybe do some research on this subject before you present yourself as an authority?
Many scientists believe climate change is a hoax.
Al Gore and Barack Obama bought seaside properties.
Lenard DeCaprio flies on private jets, as do almost all other hoaxers.
Check.
Your move.
My advice: Read the latest IPCC, written by actual climate scientists. Refrain from making silly comments that only make you seem ill-informed and hopelessly biased. Open your eyes – the impacts of global warming are already being felt. And don’t politicize science.
Jim, please refrain from trying to prevent 1st amendment privileges here. Just because someone has an opinion or viewpoint different than yours doesn’t give you the right to shut them down.
Science got politicized by the left a long time ago.
January 3, 2020 at 4:02 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Let me help you Consultant.
Science was politicized a long time ago. Both sides have done it for a long time, but you just blaming it on one is problematic and it shows your 1. lack of honesty and 2. understanding of the history of science.
Thanks!
December 30, 2019 at 2:35 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
8
4
It’s not about the who, it’s about the equation on the matter, almost all scientists combine NOAA’s data, which combines 4 different testing methods and creates an equation to create water temperatures from anywhere 1980 and prior. They had no monitoring locations, no consistent monitoring depths or methodology, their surface temps have paused in terms of land temperatures, and the only way to say warming is happening is with oceanic data that is clearly flawed.
Most majors agree humans contribute to warming. However, the media blatantly lies about how much. When the media twists the truth, and politicians have a goal, I am not apt to trust them. It’s time for some healthy skepticism of something on the left Jon.
“and the only way to say warming is happening is with oceanic data that is clearly flawed.”
I’m going to have to respectfully ask you for your source on this comment, bob.
Based on what I could find, it’s actually land air temperatures that are increasing FASTER than sea surface temperatures, according to various sources.
I picked that link because it also provides its own links to other sources which support that land areas are experiencing faster warming than the oceans.
If you like numbers — “On average in 2017, land areas show more than twice as much warming as the ocean. When compared to 1951-1980 averages, the land average has increased 1.24 ± 0.05 °C (2.32 ± 0.09 °F) and the ocean average excluding sea ice regions has increased 0.52 ± 0.07 °C (0.94 ± 0.13 °F)”
Berkeley Earth examined 16 million monthly average temperature observations from 43,000 weather stations, so there’s no small sample size issue here.
So please – answer my request for sourcing your “the only way to say warming is happening is with oceanic data” argument.
Don’t ghost me.
Don’t deflect.
Don’t write how I didn’t understand your argument and my question is irrelevant.
Don’t attack me, call me names or attack how I worded my question.
Just be direct — can you back up that argument with actual data or not?
My “don’t ghost me” to “don’t attack me” lines were not 100% respectful. They were written with frustration because that’s how you’ve recently responded to all my requests for you to prove your argument with data or when I tried to get you to acknowledge that what you claimed something said (e.g. what a law did) was not written in the law at all.
So I apologize for writing “respectfully ask you” then adding those 4 sentences at the end.
I should not have done that.
Please do not let that distract you from proving your argument that “the only way to say warming is happening is with oceanic data”
December 30, 2019 at 2:36 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
6
Also, numerous scientists said that consensus studies did not represent accurately what their papers said. Consensus studies are flawed. You never quote the science, you only quote the consensus. It’s absurd.
Tiger88,
Has man caused damage to the ozone? Has man polluted the planet, poisoned the air, earth, and waters? Is Earth a living organism? Do you believe it won’t react in a way to try and rid itself of the poisoning? If you drank too much alcohol (you are a living thing and alcohol is a poison), might your body vomit in attempts to rid itself of that poison? Finally, don’t you believe it is our duty to be good stewards of our home?
Hi Captain, I think “living ecosystem” would be more accurate than “living organism.” The earth is definitely not a living organism, while it surely is a living ecosystem. Being a good steward of our planet is very important–I agree.
Obviously, much more updates, but I don’t dare post anything from the NY Post or NPR or any other website some of my conservative friends quickly dismiss. We all should agree about the stewardship.
I think fans of science fiction are a lot more open to stuff like this, because we realize that a lot of science fiction has become science reality in our lifetime. The idea that you would have a handheld device that could access all the libraries in the world’s-levels of information that could also instantly put you in contact with anyone in the world instantly would have been laughable 50 years ago, and we are living in that world today. A lot of us remember a world where if you wanted to call someone in another state it was a big deal. The possibility of our planet being a living organism is very real, but also there are probably a lot of people who just don’t even want to consider that because we have made poisoning and harming that potential living thing a very profitable business.
Science fiction fans are also very familiar with the concepts of Dystopian and Utopian societies, and they tend to lean towards more liberal policies. Have you noticed the end result of capitalism in pretty much any science fiction story leads to a Dystopia? Where do you think we’re headed right now? I love this stuff, but I imagine right-wing sci fi fans are like right-wing black people or gay people. Rare and not anyone I will ever understand.
December 27, 2019 at 3:52 pm
CC says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19
2
Jon – Not all science fiction fans are fans of Dystopian or Utopian stories. They are also just that – stories. They present interesting ideas and can challenge your beliefs, but are not visions of the future. You are treating them as such and accusing anyone right of you on the political spectrum of some kind of intellectual dishonesty or hypocrisy. I personally think we are headed toward something closer to 1984.
People are more complex than you make them out to be. “All black people should be liberals” is borderline racist. You think because someone’s skin is a certain color, they should act, think, and vote in a certain way.
Have you ever tried to understand people who believe different things than you do?
December 27, 2019 at 5:31 pm
CC says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12
1
You are right. I apologize for misinterpreting your comment.
Also, very insightful of you. Yes, I was defensive because of your usual aggressive/attacking tone.
There is a fine line between “I don’t understand why you think that way” and “You shouldn’t think that way”. Unfortunately, my past experience has me a little jaded. Many people who say the former, believe the latter.
As a former republican, I can tell you a couple things they preached that was attractive to me when I was younger that might help you understand why others, regardless of their race or sexual orientation, would be attracted to the right side of the spectrum.
First is individual responsibility. “You are responsible for your own actions” was drilled into me as a kid and that carried over into my political beliefs. If you want to be successful, you have to work at it. Many do and get frustrated when they see others receive free handouts from the government (minimum wage, bloated food stamp program, etc.)
Second is fiscal responsibility. I have always been responsible with my finances, other than student loans (groan), and felt that it was nonsense that our government couldn’t figure it out and have a balanced budget with how much of my money they took each year.
Hopefully that helps. I disagree with the vast majority of people on their political beliefs but can usually understand their thought process.
December 27, 2019 at 12:18 pm
ObaMartha's Vineyard Home says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
16
23
‘Good stewardship’ involves an opinion of degree of action.
‘Silly Capitalism-Hating Lemming Activism’ involves a cult-like following of hypocrite ‘leaders’ and brainwashing by Communist – Socialist teachers infesting our education system.
Mother Earth decides on our fate, and there’s been nothing scientifically proven that can be done about it.
Were humans able to get the ozone hole under control in the past 30+ years? If so, how can you honestly say “there’s nothing scientifically proven” regarding what we can do to influence how this planet is trending?
In my last post the ‘does not equal sign’ did not appear.
Last post should read:
Ozone layer {does not equal sign} climate
website software culpa
December 30, 2019 at 6:10 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
5
6
hey Polar, how come you keep ignoring Rosen’s legitimate question about marijuana vaping? We see you posting on other articles left and right, why don’t you own up to your mistake?
December 27, 2019 at 4:33 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
So the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the World Meteorological Organization AND the United Nations Environment Programme are all Progressive Democrats?
They are all Progressive Globalists and should not be believed. Part of the elitists who think they know more than anyone else. The President was right to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord. Saved us 3 or 4 Trillion to do absolutely no good. You should travel to Beijing and see if you can talk them into stopping pollution. Our air and water is just fine.
Please cite ONE international group that you do not think is a Progressive Globalist. Do ANY exist or do you not just like when countries work together and reach agreements?
Also, your ignorance of the topic is showing. The Paris Accord was basically a gentleman’s agreement on what to do.
There were ZERO mechanisms in place to penalize countries who failed to meet their own arbitrary goal.
We could’ve stayed in the Paris Accord, did nothing, and it would have cost us $00.00.
$00.00 is a lot less than $3,000,000,000 – $4,000,000,000.
I see … since you have nothing to say about the article, you’re just attacking the source. The source does not automatically invalidate its content. That’s specious reasoning at best, intentional deflection at worst.
Do you agree you can vape marijuana flowers alone, WITHOUT the use of a cutting agent?
If you agree with that (which you should, otherwise your ignorance on the topic is showing), do you agree you were wrong when you said “using it in vaping devices apparently requires the use of a toxic diluting (‘cutting’) agent….”?
First he was an ‘R’. Then he became an ‘I’, like Bernie. Now he is a ‘D’. Can’t trust anything about him; he’s a chameleon for the sake of power, and will use his media company like his personal Pravda.
I see … since you have nothing to say about the article, you’re just attacking the source. The source does not automatically invalidate its content. That’s specious reasoning at best, intentional deflection at worst.
So more cowardice from the right: You’ve been point blank asked a question on two different articles now, and instead of manning up and answering you just ghost the conversation or respond to the things you don’t like. Why can’t members of the right ever own up to their crap?
Want to talk about the study from yesterday showing that the top 3 presidents tied to convictions are all republicans, and the lowest 3 presidents tied to convictions are all democrats? Looks like you guys are a bunch of corrupt liars, pretty clearly. Maybe try telling the truth, own up to being wrong about something for once Polar.
I like this tactic, since Polar ghosts a conversation immediately once proven wrong, do you think he’s going to ghost here or is he just going to double down on his lie? Maybe use a complicated example that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand to try and obfuscate the truth? He’s certainly not going to admit to being wrong, which he clearly is. That would require some shred of introspective thinking, and if he did that he might explode.
The radicals had Greta fooled and that is all it is, trying to intimidating people into believing something that is not possible. Sadly our kids are being brainwashed with this garbage. The end goal is to control the people and our freedoms because that empowers people at the top.
I like that you think we’re all brainwashed, we all think the same of you. The difference is we have the science, the facts and evidence on our side. You have Fox News and Trump on yours. I think I’ll take my chances with Greta bro.
Agent,
Maybe you can make a similar assertion without trying to insult Jon? I’m pretty sure calling someone else a pot user doesn’t fit Andrew’s rules. Or, do you only care about those when they are directed at you and others you side with? No need to reply, that was rhetorical.
A NOAA official presented a 420,000 yr. Ice Core graph, saying the facts were Proof Positive that rising CO2 forces anthropogenic Global warming, BUT the NOAA GRAPH was PRESENTED BACKWARD.
REVERSED to read correctly, the Ice Core GRAPH SHOWS :
(a) temperature was higher in four previous natural cycles than now,
(b) CO2 rose naturally in past three cycles as in the current cycle, but temp has stalled 3 degrees C lower for the past 12,000 yr.,
(c) Natural Climate Cycles seem to be slowing from 90,000y to 130,000y, and
(d) we appear to be at the end of a Climate Cycle.
With Magnetic North moving rapidly and NASA forecasts of Sun Spots to be lowest in 200 yrs, PERHAPS we are heading for Global Cooling,, and should consider increase of energy production from all possible sources, or freeze and starve.
In reality, Climate Zealots have only computer model theories with no factual evidence. Sadly, various government agencies pay hundreds of millions every year for more promotion of the CO2 driven Climate Change scam.
Why won’t scientists study the Facts, before it’s too late?
Link to your source for that information. Prove it, instead of just making wild claims. Cite your sources, and let’s see ones not from republican opinion websites.
BP, since we are discussing evidence, care to present your source? I have found nothing about the NOAA graph being presented backwards. Also, the world has changed quite a bit when it comes to population and the dispersion of such in the last 12,000 years. Let us not pretend that coastal cities sinking underwater would not be a much different event now than it would have been with about 6.5 billion fewer people on the earth and no industrial system to speak of.
The graph was presented to a big meeting of Local Government Officials, and Scientists at University of North Carolina – Institute of Marine Sciences Morehead City NC by a NOAA official in Oct 2016.
( Email UNC- IMS and ask them. Copy me with responses.)
When it was pointed out the graph was backward, the Moderator said ” they didn’t have time to discuss that.”
I got a copy as a email from the Director.
Since then , Web postings have been shown correctly ( Read left to right). but they often add Atmospheric CO2 and Temp beyond the margins , or change the time, or scale to confuse. ( Atmospheric readings can’t be indexed with Ice Core data, until +/- 100 yrs of compression.)
Maybe you can tell me how to post the original here, or I’ll be glad to send it to you?
It has been posted in the Local Paper ( Carteret News Times.) Call the Editor > Walter Phillips.
I posted it on Facebook , but it gets lost or scrubbed.
I just got a Website this week, and plan to post all of it.
Here’s my email Address. BillPrice2112@gmail.com
Of Interest, Carteret County has one of the Largest Clusters of Marine Scientists in the US.
The local EDC estimates that this MarSi cluster in funded over $60,000,000 / yr, by Fed and NC pols.
There are number of Climate Study facilities in many universities funded by NOAA.
The FED money is still flowing.
There don’t seem to be any news articles about this online. I searched both left-wing and right-wing sources. I really would think something like this would have been reported on at least by those sources who generally argue against anthropomorphic climate change.
Rosenblatt ,
Following link to the Corrected Graph I found on the web ( Reads Left to Right) . I believe you will agree it supports my observations ( if read inside the margins) . http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation_to_2004.jpg
The Graph presented by NOAA to support the assertion of proof that CO2 forces temperature rise, read right to left.
Note that the corrected graph presents atmospheric CO2 and Temp beyond the right margin on a much distorted time scale ( looks to be exaggerated over 10 times) with no Source cited.
Further, if you do some research, you’ll find Ice Core data requires +/- 100yrs to “cure” under pressure of natural snow/ ice fall.
Send me an email address to and I’ll send you a PDF of the original NOAA graph, or, you can call or email and ask the Director of the University of North Carolina- Institute of Marine Sciences., Morehead City, NC for a copy ,, if he’ll send it to you.
Notice also, that methane fits the CO2 curve better than Temperature, but there is no anthropogenic cause to be blamed.
There was no real media at the meeting, and with $60,000,000 per year [ sic] Fed and State budget to the Local MarSI cluster ( including NOAA), they are hell bent on keeping that CO2 – AGW promotion funding flowing.
Thank you for your interest. BP
January 3, 2020 at 9:37 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
I appreciate the link and the response, Bill. As you know, that link shows the data presented the correct way, and isn’t the one that started this discussion where you claimed NOAA said they didn’t have time to discuss the backwards graph they apparently presented. I’m hesitant to provide anyone online with my email address, even not just posted on this site but through a direct email conversation, so I’m going to settle on this response which I hope you think is fair and justified….
It appears you’re very confident that you have the data to support your initial argument. I am not willing to divulge my personal information, but you seem more than willing to provide evidence over email which you think supports your post. While I cannot confirm or deny the accuracy of your argument, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that what you say is true because you’ve been very forthright about how I could get the data, be it from you or from UNC.
December 27, 2019 at 4:10 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
6
5
BP – I, too, would love to see a source on your NOAA backwards-graph argument. As an aside, I’m not sure you’re adequately familiar with how the Scientific Method works evidenced by your statement that there are only “computer model theories with no factual evidence.”
Everything in science is based on current evidence, but is always in flux because “Evidence from other scientists and experience are frequently incorporated at any stage in the process”.
I cannot prove with factual evidence that dark energy and dark matter exist, but the models incorporating all we know now currently support this theory.
I cannot prove with factual evidence that gravity exists, but the models incorporating all we know now currently support this theory.
Asking “Why won’t scientists study the Facts” seems to ignore how one is supposed to apply the Scientific Method when analyzing what’s happening around us.
Seems to me a fat Democratic politician said many years ago that the polar cap would be completely melted by 2014. I didn’t notice any of your Progressive friends questioning his totally untrue science.
“I didn’t notice any of your Progressive friends questioning his totally untrue science.”
That’s a YOU problem.
You clearly didn’t listen to the scientific community who came out and questioned the validity of Gore’s suspect statement as well as which sources he was using to base his comment off on when he said it.
If you only heard the soundbite from your favorite news sources and didn’t do any research into it on your own or from the other side, it does not surprise me you didn’t hear anyone questioning him.
Since 1992 an annual average of 83 gigatons (91.5 billion tons) of West Antarctic glacier has dripped into the sea. That’s the rough equivalent of losing a Mt. Everest’s worth of ice every two years, according to a new study (pdf) by University of California, Irvine, and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Do you have evidence that he said it WOULD be completely melted as opposed to COULD be completely melted? Doubt it since you never provide evidence. Troll elsewhere, troll.
IMO science should seek to determine:
1) the Cause of past Climate Cycles.
2) if higher CO2 didn’t cause Temp rise before, why does it now?
3) why are the Cycles getting longer?
4) if we are at end of a cycle, why, what’s next, and what should we do?
BP
Bill,
I don’t know that anyone can answer your questions, at least not with actual data. The closest thing that we have to actual data is gleaned from letters and journal entries about daily life that happens to have reference to weather, and some pretty limited actual weather related recordings. But not nearly enough to be able to say that the cycles are getting longer or shorter or hotter or colder.
From what I gather, and I read as much as I can on the subject, we know that our planet undergoes periodic warming and cooling. We know that when it does that it can have catastrophic effects on humans and animals alike. A few of the most recent climate change periods offer us a glimpse, but just a very, very brief one into the fact that these climate changes happen, but almost nothing on the “why they happen”.
We are entering unchartered scientific territory. I find it to be exciting and a little frightening all at the same time.
I just wanted to make sure no one missed this quote from the article, “Even Trump, despite his promise to restore the coal industry to its former glory, has managed to do nothing of the kind.”
That’s the problem at it’s root though isn’t it, Agent? You still think we were a problem country under Obama when the reverse by every conceivable metric is true. Why exactly do you think Trump is so much better, can you name a single verifiable talking point?
Absolutely agree, Agent, it will happen again. And if Dr. Hartwig was still touring, one of his too many to count slides would show you why. The worldwide joke will continue to be about us.
January 2, 2020 at 11:11 am
JaxAgent says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
President Trump hasn’t done anything to hurt the coal industry and he does what he can to help them. The coal workers know that and will vote for him again in 2020.
The President has managed to keep many of his campaign promises and will do what he can to keep this one.
I find it pretty entertaining to see the liberals scrounging around trying to find the things that President Trump hasn’t accomplished while ignoring everything that he has accomplished. Despite the controversy he creates with his twitter account, he has had a very successful presidency !!
I’m a former Republican who changed to Independent once Trump became the face of the Republican party. I won’t vote for him (or most likely anyone in 2020, for that matter), but you can’t ignore the results. The economy has never been better and that’s usually what determines elections.
Unfortunately, he’s a morally bankrupt, disgusting excuse for a human being. If he put down the Twitter account and started actually acting like a President instead of a reality TV star, he could truly be great. Luckily for him, the Dems have absolutely nobody that can beat him and he’ll end up winning in a landslide.
I’ve been away but am so happy that I was able to stir up the conversation. First, I never said that humans don’t do things to the planet nor that we cannot do better in that regard. Nor do I disregard scientific evidence. However, I merely point out that before humans lived on this planet the climate changed and long, long after our species is extinguished the climate will change (colder, hotter, wetter, drier, you name it). We can assert very, very little control over the climate change process.
While I obviously agree that the climate has changed before humans and will continue long after we’re gone, I disagree with you saying “We can assert very, very little control over the climate change process.” To me – rampant deforestation coupled with significantly increasing the amount of CO2 humans are pumping into the atmosphere year over year (be it from various sources – power, emissions from transportation, etc) has a big impact on how FAST the climate changes. Sure, the climate will always change, but I do think it’s happening much faster than it would if we took the human variable out of the equation.
I would like to see you provide evidence of your assertion that we assert “very, very little control over the climate change process” because as Rosen stated, the opposition of your statement has some troubling evidence on their side. I don’t see the same from your side Tiger.
God, can the right-wing start a movement where they deny the science that says smoking is bad for you and members of the right smoking becomes a thing? That would be THE BEST.
Yeah, if all your opponents died it would be grrrreeaatt.
Those on the right don’t deny science. They engage in debate on the other side, that is more than can be said for the left.
The don’t debate science, they state consensus, call everyone stupid for not agreeing, and shame them. They don’t debate the numbers or flaws at all. It’s such a great way to debate.
“Those on the right don’t deny science. They engage in debate on the other side,”
WONDERFUL NEWS! So let’s test that out right now!
You previously wrote “and the only way to say warming is happening is with oceanic data that is clearly flawed.”
I’m going to have to respectfully ask you for your source on this comment, bob.
Based on what I could find, it’s actually land air temperatures that are increasing FASTER than sea surface temperatures, according to various sources.
I picked that link because it also provides its own links to other sources which support that land areas are experiencing faster warming than the oceans.
If you like numbers — “On average in 2017, land areas show more than twice as much warming as the ocean. When compared to 1951-1980 averages, the land average has increased 1.24 ± 0.05 °C (2.32 ± 0.09 °F) and the ocean average excluding sea ice regions has increased 0.52 ± 0.07 °C (0.94 ± 0.13 °F)”
Berkeley Earth examined 16 million monthly average temperature observations from 43,000 weather stations, so there’s no small sample size issue here.
So please – engage me in my request to debate the science with you by sourcing your “the only way to say warming is happening is with oceanic data” argument.
The ball is in your court. Please return the volley with sources, data and a debate in the science to support your previous statement.
Don’t expect a legitimate reply, Rosen. You’ve been shutting down the right-wing misinformation brigade left and right, but when they can’t respond with garbage they just lock up and go post their garbage on another board. Like Polar, Craig and Agent have all done just in the last couple of weeks.
Great debate bob — end sarcasm! Excellent job pretending you actually want to debate science yet you decide to ghost me again.
This is one reason why it’s literally impossible to debate you … you make an apparently false statement (“the only way to say warming is happening is with oceanic data….”), I call you out on it and provide evidence to support my argument, ask you to support yours, but then you’re nowhere to be found until the next article when the cycle repeats itself.
If my attempted debates with you only end up causing you to post less on this site, I’ll take that as a win.
As with any estimates, providing a low and high value is useful to understand the scope of what may or may not happen in various scenarios.
While I agree the “worst case” scenario is unlikely to occur (5* C increase), let’s all remember that “If renewable technologies continue to surprise on the upside, warming could be limited to 2.5 degrees” and “Even just 2 degrees of warming, which will be exceeded in any business-as-usual scenario, will have very serious global repercussions.”
Well, the author is almost correct. There are no “man made” climate change scenarios that are correct. Because, the climate has always changed. Before humans inhabited this planet and after we are all extinguished from this mortal coil, the climate will change. What exactly anyone thinks they can do about it is really beyond imaging. No human has ever controlled the climate and, I safely predict without computer models, that no human EVER WILL.
Provide evidence of your statement, because last I checked Tiger88 is not a renowned climate scientist. I can quickly google and verify that a LOT of people with their PhD believe man made climate change is a reality, so I’m sorry if I trust them more than you.
You are making a whole lot of assumptions without the evidence to support them. Maybe do some research on this subject before you present yourself as an authority?
Many scientists believe climate change is a hoax.
Al Gore and Barack Obama bought seaside properties.
Lenard DeCaprio flies on private jets, as do almost all other hoaxers.
Check.
Your move.
My advice: Read the latest IPCC, written by actual climate scientists. Refrain from making silly comments that only make you seem ill-informed and hopelessly biased. Open your eyes – the impacts of global warming are already being felt. And don’t politicize science.
Jim, please refrain from trying to prevent 1st amendment privileges here. Just because someone has an opinion or viewpoint different than yours doesn’t give you the right to shut them down.
Science got politicized by the left a long time ago.
Let me help you Consultant.
Science was politicized a long time ago. Both sides have done it for a long time, but you just blaming it on one is problematic and it shows your 1. lack of honesty and 2. understanding of the history of science.
Thanks!
It’s not about the who, it’s about the equation on the matter, almost all scientists combine NOAA’s data, which combines 4 different testing methods and creates an equation to create water temperatures from anywhere 1980 and prior. They had no monitoring locations, no consistent monitoring depths or methodology, their surface temps have paused in terms of land temperatures, and the only way to say warming is happening is with oceanic data that is clearly flawed.
Most majors agree humans contribute to warming. However, the media blatantly lies about how much. When the media twists the truth, and politicians have a goal, I am not apt to trust them. It’s time for some healthy skepticism of something on the left Jon.
“and the only way to say warming is happening is with oceanic data that is clearly flawed.”
I’m going to have to respectfully ask you for your source on this comment, bob.
Based on what I could find, it’s actually land air temperatures that are increasing FASTER than sea surface temperatures, according to various sources.
Here’s one source from me: http://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperatures-2017/
I picked that link because it also provides its own links to other sources which support that land areas are experiencing faster warming than the oceans.
If you like numbers — “On average in 2017, land areas show more than twice as much warming as the ocean. When compared to 1951-1980 averages, the land average has increased 1.24 ± 0.05 °C (2.32 ± 0.09 °F) and the ocean average excluding sea ice regions has increased 0.52 ± 0.07 °C (0.94 ± 0.13 °F)”
Berkeley Earth examined 16 million monthly average temperature observations from 43,000 weather stations, so there’s no small sample size issue here.
So please – answer my request for sourcing your “the only way to say warming is happening is with oceanic data” argument.
Don’t ghost me.
Don’t deflect.
Don’t write how I didn’t understand your argument and my question is irrelevant.
Don’t attack me, call me names or attack how I worded my question.
Just be direct — can you back up that argument with actual data or not?
Let me apologize right now…
My “don’t ghost me” to “don’t attack me” lines were not 100% respectful. They were written with frustration because that’s how you’ve recently responded to all my requests for you to prove your argument with data or when I tried to get you to acknowledge that what you claimed something said (e.g. what a law did) was not written in the law at all.
So I apologize for writing “respectfully ask you” then adding those 4 sentences at the end.
I should not have done that.
Please do not let that distract you from proving your argument that “the only way to say warming is happening is with oceanic data”
Also, numerous scientists said that consensus studies did not represent accurately what their papers said. Consensus studies are flawed. You never quote the science, you only quote the consensus. It’s absurd.
Tiger88,
Has man caused damage to the ozone? Has man polluted the planet, poisoned the air, earth, and waters? Is Earth a living organism? Do you believe it won’t react in a way to try and rid itself of the poisoning? If you drank too much alcohol (you are a living thing and alcohol is a poison), might your body vomit in attempts to rid itself of that poison? Finally, don’t you believe it is our duty to be good stewards of our home?
Hi Captain, I think “living ecosystem” would be more accurate than “living organism.” The earth is definitely not a living organism, while it surely is a living ecosystem. Being a good steward of our planet is very important–I agree.
It definitely is that. But, I am a proponent of the following hypothesis, which is still being researched and debated, I know.
https://www.universetoday.com/13939/gaia-hypothesis-could-earth-really-be-a-single-organism/
Obviously, much more updates, but I don’t dare post anything from the NY Post or NPR or any other website some of my conservative friends quickly dismiss. We all should agree about the stewardship.
I think fans of science fiction are a lot more open to stuff like this, because we realize that a lot of science fiction has become science reality in our lifetime. The idea that you would have a handheld device that could access all the libraries in the world’s-levels of information that could also instantly put you in contact with anyone in the world instantly would have been laughable 50 years ago, and we are living in that world today. A lot of us remember a world where if you wanted to call someone in another state it was a big deal. The possibility of our planet being a living organism is very real, but also there are probably a lot of people who just don’t even want to consider that because we have made poisoning and harming that potential living thing a very profitable business.
Science fiction fans are also very familiar with the concepts of Dystopian and Utopian societies, and they tend to lean towards more liberal policies. Have you noticed the end result of capitalism in pretty much any science fiction story leads to a Dystopia? Where do you think we’re headed right now? I love this stuff, but I imagine right-wing sci fi fans are like right-wing black people or gay people. Rare and not anyone I will ever understand.
Jon – Not all science fiction fans are fans of Dystopian or Utopian stories. They are also just that – stories. They present interesting ideas and can challenge your beliefs, but are not visions of the future. You are treating them as such and accusing anyone right of you on the political spectrum of some kind of intellectual dishonesty or hypocrisy. I personally think we are headed toward something closer to 1984.
People are more complex than you make them out to be. “All black people should be liberals” is borderline racist. You think because someone’s skin is a certain color, they should act, think, and vote in a certain way.
Have you ever tried to understand people who believe different things than you do?
You are right. I apologize for misinterpreting your comment.
Also, very insightful of you. Yes, I was defensive because of your usual aggressive/attacking tone.
There is a fine line between “I don’t understand why you think that way” and “You shouldn’t think that way”. Unfortunately, my past experience has me a little jaded. Many people who say the former, believe the latter.
As a former republican, I can tell you a couple things they preached that was attractive to me when I was younger that might help you understand why others, regardless of their race or sexual orientation, would be attracted to the right side of the spectrum.
First is individual responsibility. “You are responsible for your own actions” was drilled into me as a kid and that carried over into my political beliefs. If you want to be successful, you have to work at it. Many do and get frustrated when they see others receive free handouts from the government (minimum wage, bloated food stamp program, etc.)
Second is fiscal responsibility. I have always been responsible with my finances, other than student loans (groan), and felt that it was nonsense that our government couldn’t figure it out and have a balanced budget with how much of my money they took each year.
Hopefully that helps. I disagree with the vast majority of people on their political beliefs but can usually understand their thought process.
‘Good stewardship’ involves an opinion of degree of action.
‘Silly Capitalism-Hating Lemming Activism’ involves a cult-like following of hypocrite ‘leaders’ and brainwashing by Communist – Socialist teachers infesting our education system.
Mother Earth decides on our fate, and there’s been nothing scientifically proven that can be done about it.
Were humans able to get the ozone hole under control in the past 30+ years? If so, how can you honestly say “there’s nothing scientifically proven” regarding what we can do to influence how this planet is trending?
Ozone layer climate
In my last post the ‘does not equal sign’ did not appear.
Last post should read:
Ozone layer {does not equal sign} climate
website software culpa
hey Polar, how come you keep ignoring Rosen’s legitimate question about marijuana vaping? We see you posting on other articles left and right, why don’t you own up to your mistake?
So the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the World Meteorological Organization AND the United Nations Environment Programme are all Progressive Democrats?
They are all Progressive Globalists and should not be believed. Part of the elitists who think they know more than anyone else. The President was right to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord. Saved us 3 or 4 Trillion to do absolutely no good. You should travel to Beijing and see if you can talk them into stopping pollution. Our air and water is just fine.
Please cite ONE international group that you do not think is a Progressive Globalist. Do ANY exist or do you not just like when countries work together and reach agreements?
Also, your ignorance of the topic is showing. The Paris Accord was basically a gentleman’s agreement on what to do.
There were ZERO mechanisms in place to penalize countries who failed to meet their own arbitrary goal.
We could’ve stayed in the Paris Accord, did nothing, and it would have cost us $00.00.
$00.00 is a lot less than $3,000,000,000 – $4,000,000,000.
Source: ‘Bloomberg View’.
Well, that’s the last straw!
I see … since you have nothing to say about the article, you’re just attacking the source. The source does not automatically invalidate its content. That’s specious reasoning at best, intentional deflection at worst.
Since you apparently ghosted the conversation over at https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/12/24/552850.htm?comments – let me ask you again:
Do you agree you can vape marijuana flowers alone, WITHOUT the use of a cutting agent?
If you agree with that (which you should, otherwise your ignorance on the topic is showing), do you agree you were wrong when you said “using it in vaping devices apparently requires the use of a toxic diluting (‘cutting’) agent….”?
Bloomberg = Doomberg.
First he was an ‘R’. Then he became an ‘I’, like Bernie. Now he is a ‘D’. Can’t trust anything about him; he’s a chameleon for the sake of power, and will use his media company like his personal Pravda.
I see … since you have nothing to say about the article, you’re just attacking the source. The source does not automatically invalidate its content. That’s specious reasoning at best, intentional deflection at worst.
So more cowardice from the right: You’ve been point blank asked a question on two different articles now, and instead of manning up and answering you just ghost the conversation or respond to the things you don’t like. Why can’t members of the right ever own up to their crap?
Want to talk about the study from yesterday showing that the top 3 presidents tied to convictions are all republicans, and the lowest 3 presidents tied to convictions are all democrats? Looks like you guys are a bunch of corrupt liars, pretty clearly. Maybe try telling the truth, own up to being wrong about something for once Polar.
I like this tactic, since Polar ghosts a conversation immediately once proven wrong, do you think he’s going to ghost here or is he just going to double down on his lie? Maybe use a complicated example that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand to try and obfuscate the truth? He’s certainly not going to admit to being wrong, which he clearly is. That would require some shred of introspective thinking, and if he did that he might explode.
The radicals had Greta fooled and that is all it is, trying to intimidating people into believing something that is not possible. Sadly our kids are being brainwashed with this garbage. The end goal is to control the people and our freedoms because that empowers people at the top.
What **exactly** do you think is not possible – that temp’s could increase between 2* C and 5* C by 2100?
I like that you think we’re all brainwashed, we all think the same of you. The difference is we have the science, the facts and evidence on our side. You have Fox News and Trump on yours. I think I’ll take my chances with Greta bro.
How dare you!
Keep on vaping that THC. Your settled science is not settled and the scientists were thoroughly discredited.
Agent,
Maybe you can make a similar assertion without trying to insult Jon? I’m pretty sure calling someone else a pot user doesn’t fit Andrew’s rules. Or, do you only care about those when they are directed at you and others you side with? No need to reply, that was rhetorical.
A NOAA official presented a 420,000 yr. Ice Core graph, saying the facts were Proof Positive that rising CO2 forces anthropogenic Global warming, BUT the NOAA GRAPH was PRESENTED BACKWARD.
REVERSED to read correctly, the Ice Core GRAPH SHOWS :
(a) temperature was higher in four previous natural cycles than now,
(b) CO2 rose naturally in past three cycles as in the current cycle, but temp has stalled 3 degrees C lower for the past 12,000 yr.,
(c) Natural Climate Cycles seem to be slowing from 90,000y to 130,000y, and
(d) we appear to be at the end of a Climate Cycle.
With Magnetic North moving rapidly and NASA forecasts of Sun Spots to be lowest in 200 yrs, PERHAPS we are heading for Global Cooling,, and should consider increase of energy production from all possible sources, or freeze and starve.
In reality, Climate Zealots have only computer model theories with no factual evidence. Sadly, various government agencies pay hundreds of millions every year for more promotion of the CO2 driven Climate Change scam.
Why won’t scientists study the Facts, before it’s too late?
Link to your source for that information. Prove it, instead of just making wild claims. Cite your sources, and let’s see ones not from republican opinion websites.
BP, since we are discussing evidence, care to present your source? I have found nothing about the NOAA graph being presented backwards. Also, the world has changed quite a bit when it comes to population and the dispersion of such in the last 12,000 years. Let us not pretend that coastal cities sinking underwater would not be a much different event now than it would have been with about 6.5 billion fewer people on the earth and no industrial system to speak of.
The graph was presented to a big meeting of Local Government Officials, and Scientists at University of North Carolina – Institute of Marine Sciences Morehead City NC by a NOAA official in Oct 2016.
( Email UNC- IMS and ask them. Copy me with responses.)
When it was pointed out the graph was backward, the Moderator said ” they didn’t have time to discuss that.”
I got a copy as a email from the Director.
Since then , Web postings have been shown correctly ( Read left to right). but they often add Atmospheric CO2 and Temp beyond the margins , or change the time, or scale to confuse. ( Atmospheric readings can’t be indexed with Ice Core data, until +/- 100 yrs of compression.)
Maybe you can tell me how to post the original here, or I’ll be glad to send it to you?
It has been posted in the Local Paper ( Carteret News Times.) Call the Editor > Walter Phillips.
I posted it on Facebook , but it gets lost or scrubbed.
I just got a Website this week, and plan to post all of it.
Here’s my email Address. BillPrice2112@gmail.com
Of Interest, Carteret County has one of the Largest Clusters of Marine Scientists in the US.
The local EDC estimates that this MarSi cluster in funded over $60,000,000 / yr, by Fed and NC pols.
There are number of Climate Study facilities in many universities funded by NOAA.
The FED money is still flowing.
There don’t seem to be any news articles about this online. I searched both left-wing and right-wing sources. I really would think something like this would have been reported on at least by those sources who generally argue against anthropomorphic climate change.
Rosenblatt ,
Following link to the Corrected Graph I found on the web ( Reads Left to Right) . I believe you will agree it supports my observations ( if read inside the margins) .
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation_to_2004.jpg
The Graph presented by NOAA to support the assertion of proof that CO2 forces temperature rise, read right to left.
Note that the corrected graph presents atmospheric CO2 and Temp beyond the right margin on a much distorted time scale ( looks to be exaggerated over 10 times) with no Source cited.
Further, if you do some research, you’ll find Ice Core data requires +/- 100yrs to “cure” under pressure of natural snow/ ice fall.
Send me an email address to and I’ll send you a PDF of the original NOAA graph, or, you can call or email and ask the Director of the University of North Carolina- Institute of Marine Sciences., Morehead City, NC for a copy ,, if he’ll send it to you.
Notice also, that methane fits the CO2 curve better than Temperature, but there is no anthropogenic cause to be blamed.
There was no real media at the meeting, and with $60,000,000 per year [ sic] Fed and State budget to the Local MarSI cluster ( including NOAA), they are hell bent on keeping that CO2 – AGW promotion funding flowing.
Thank you for your interest. BP
I appreciate the link and the response, Bill. As you know, that link shows the data presented the correct way, and isn’t the one that started this discussion where you claimed NOAA said they didn’t have time to discuss the backwards graph they apparently presented. I’m hesitant to provide anyone online with my email address, even not just posted on this site but through a direct email conversation, so I’m going to settle on this response which I hope you think is fair and justified….
It appears you’re very confident that you have the data to support your initial argument. I am not willing to divulge my personal information, but you seem more than willing to provide evidence over email which you think supports your post. While I cannot confirm or deny the accuracy of your argument, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that what you say is true because you’ve been very forthright about how I could get the data, be it from you or from UNC.
BP – I, too, would love to see a source on your NOAA backwards-graph argument. As an aside, I’m not sure you’re adequately familiar with how the Scientific Method works evidenced by your statement that there are only “computer model theories with no factual evidence.”
Everything in science is based on current evidence, but is always in flux because “Evidence from other scientists and experience are frequently incorporated at any stage in the process”.
I cannot prove with factual evidence that dark energy and dark matter exist, but the models incorporating all we know now currently support this theory.
I cannot prove with factual evidence that gravity exists, but the models incorporating all we know now currently support this theory.
Asking “Why won’t scientists study the Facts” seems to ignore how one is supposed to apply the Scientific Method when analyzing what’s happening around us.
Seems to me a fat Democratic politician said many years ago that the polar cap would be completely melted by 2014. I didn’t notice any of your Progressive friends questioning his totally untrue science.
“I didn’t notice any of your Progressive friends questioning his totally untrue science.”
That’s a YOU problem.
You clearly didn’t listen to the scientific community who came out and questioned the validity of Gore’s suspect statement as well as which sources he was using to base his comment off on when he said it.
If you only heard the soundbite from your favorite news sources and didn’t do any research into it on your own or from the other side, it does not surprise me you didn’t hear anyone questioning him.
Classic example of an echo chamber right here.
Since 1992 an annual average of 83 gigatons (91.5 billion tons) of West Antarctic glacier has dripped into the sea. That’s the rough equivalent of losing a Mt. Everest’s worth of ice every two years, according to a new study (pdf) by University of California, Irvine, and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Do you have evidence that he said it WOULD be completely melted as opposed to COULD be completely melted? Doubt it since you never provide evidence. Troll elsewhere, troll.
IMO science should seek to determine:
1) the Cause of past Climate Cycles.
2) if higher CO2 didn’t cause Temp rise before, why does it now?
3) why are the Cycles getting longer?
4) if we are at end of a cycle, why, what’s next, and what should we do?
BP
Bill,
I don’t know that anyone can answer your questions, at least not with actual data. The closest thing that we have to actual data is gleaned from letters and journal entries about daily life that happens to have reference to weather, and some pretty limited actual weather related recordings. But not nearly enough to be able to say that the cycles are getting longer or shorter or hotter or colder.
From what I gather, and I read as much as I can on the subject, we know that our planet undergoes periodic warming and cooling. We know that when it does that it can have catastrophic effects on humans and animals alike. A few of the most recent climate change periods offer us a glimpse, but just a very, very brief one into the fact that these climate changes happen, but almost nothing on the “why they happen”.
We are entering unchartered scientific territory. I find it to be exciting and a little frightening all at the same time.
I just wanted to make sure no one missed this quote from the article, “Even Trump, despite his promise to restore the coal industry to its former glory, has managed to do nothing of the kind.”
Coal Industry would have been gone for 3 years had she won along with the economy of several states..
Let me translate this Agent reply…”I don’t care that Trump has failed to fulfill one of his promises”
That’s the problem at it’s root though isn’t it, Agent? You still think we were a problem country under Obama when the reverse by every conceivable metric is true. Why exactly do you think Trump is so much better, can you name a single verifiable talking point?
Pretty plain you haven’t got over 11-8-16, Got news for you. It is going to happen again next November.
Absolutely agree, Agent, it will happen again. And if Dr. Hartwig was still touring, one of his too many to count slides would show you why. The worldwide joke will continue to be about us.
President Trump hasn’t done anything to hurt the coal industry and he does what he can to help them. The coal workers know that and will vote for him again in 2020.
The President has managed to keep many of his campaign promises and will do what he can to keep this one.
I find it pretty entertaining to see the liberals scrounging around trying to find the things that President Trump hasn’t accomplished while ignoring everything that he has accomplished. Despite the controversy he creates with his twitter account, he has had a very successful presidency !!
4 more years !!
I’m a former Republican who changed to Independent once Trump became the face of the Republican party. I won’t vote for him (or most likely anyone in 2020, for that matter), but you can’t ignore the results. The economy has never been better and that’s usually what determines elections.
Unfortunately, he’s a morally bankrupt, disgusting excuse for a human being. If he put down the Twitter account and started actually acting like a President instead of a reality TV star, he could truly be great. Luckily for him, the Dems have absolutely nobody that can beat him and he’ll end up winning in a landslide.
I’ve been away but am so happy that I was able to stir up the conversation. First, I never said that humans don’t do things to the planet nor that we cannot do better in that regard. Nor do I disregard scientific evidence. However, I merely point out that before humans lived on this planet the climate changed and long, long after our species is extinguished the climate will change (colder, hotter, wetter, drier, you name it). We can assert very, very little control over the climate change process.
While I obviously agree that the climate has changed before humans and will continue long after we’re gone, I disagree with you saying “We can assert very, very little control over the climate change process.” To me – rampant deforestation coupled with significantly increasing the amount of CO2 humans are pumping into the atmosphere year over year (be it from various sources – power, emissions from transportation, etc) has a big impact on how FAST the climate changes. Sure, the climate will always change, but I do think it’s happening much faster than it would if we took the human variable out of the equation.
I would like to see you provide evidence of your assertion that we assert “very, very little control over the climate change process” because as Rosen stated, the opposition of your statement has some troubling evidence on their side. I don’t see the same from your side Tiger.
Sure…climate change, is a fake threat just like lead paint, asbestos and the big one… cigarettes… Keep smoking fools.
God, can the right-wing start a movement where they deny the science that says smoking is bad for you and members of the right smoking becomes a thing? That would be THE BEST.
Yeah, if all your opponents died it would be grrrreeaatt.
Those on the right don’t deny science. They engage in debate on the other side, that is more than can be said for the left.
The don’t debate science, they state consensus, call everyone stupid for not agreeing, and shame them. They don’t debate the numbers or flaws at all. It’s such a great way to debate.
“Those on the right don’t deny science. They engage in debate on the other side,”
WONDERFUL NEWS! So let’s test that out right now!
You previously wrote “and the only way to say warming is happening is with oceanic data that is clearly flawed.”
I’m going to have to respectfully ask you for your source on this comment, bob.
Based on what I could find, it’s actually land air temperatures that are increasing FASTER than sea surface temperatures, according to various sources.
Here’s one source from me: http://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperatures-2017/
I picked that link because it also provides its own links to other sources which support that land areas are experiencing faster warming than the oceans.
If you like numbers — “On average in 2017, land areas show more than twice as much warming as the ocean. When compared to 1951-1980 averages, the land average has increased 1.24 ± 0.05 °C (2.32 ± 0.09 °F) and the ocean average excluding sea ice regions has increased 0.52 ± 0.07 °C (0.94 ± 0.13 °F)”
Berkeley Earth examined 16 million monthly average temperature observations from 43,000 weather stations, so there’s no small sample size issue here.
So please – engage me in my request to debate the science with you by sourcing your “the only way to say warming is happening is with oceanic data” argument.
The ball is in your court. Please return the volley with sources, data and a debate in the science to support your previous statement.
Don’t expect a legitimate reply, Rosen. You’ve been shutting down the right-wing misinformation brigade left and right, but when they can’t respond with garbage they just lock up and go post their garbage on another board. Like Polar, Craig and Agent have all done just in the last couple of weeks.
Great debate bob — end sarcasm! Excellent job pretending you actually want to debate science yet you decide to ghost me again.
This is one reason why it’s literally impossible to debate you … you make an apparently false statement (“the only way to say warming is happening is with oceanic data….”), I call you out on it and provide evidence to support my argument, ask you to support yours, but then you’re nowhere to be found until the next article when the cycle repeats itself.
If my attempted debates with you only end up causing you to post less on this site, I’ll take that as a win.
Rosenblatt, you hoaxers lost this debate many years ago, but continue to worship your religion. Pitiful.