Humanity is causing Global Warming, for sure.

[Ziggy Stardust]

You're projecting mate.

Thank you Ziggy.

"Those who want to believe a lie will believe a liar." -Me, just now. (Actually it was some years ago)

Actually that was from Ziggy's link. Think how many times in history people have been mislead because they wanted to believe something? So why do people cling to their guilt? Why blame yourself for global warming because of driving your car down the road or heating your house? Maybe its just changes in the sun? Maybe you're being led down the garden path? Yet people cling to this stuff and get angry at those who do not.

Missing the point that I pointed out Climate Gate was no big deal, and it was actually you who believed in the lie.

And now you go:

Of course there was climategate but supposedly that was looked into and found to be innocent stuff.

So Cavvie, I was right about Climate Gate and your oh so witty saying came back to bite you in the arse. And you are right in a way. You had been mislead thinking that Climate Gate was a big deal. You were believing in the lie and liars. And were so convinced of this. So sorry if I take the word of actual scientists who study this stuff over you and a couple of youtube videos.

 

[Borachio]

Then we will be hated for having been right all along. Its not an appealing position to take but I have to call em as I see em, as they say.

Ah, but you belie yourself here. You're really convinced that you'll be proved to have been right all along, aren't you?

Such much for being open-minded!

What will you do when you've been proved wrong?

 

[peter grimes]

I see it all the time but I look in different places than many here I'm sure. Just day to day stuff, I'll try to find a few.

Its been quite a while since I formed my opinions so I'm out of touch with where I saw quite a bit of intentionally misleading stuff. However I daily watch this guy for his solar science and when he started on climate I started following his journey. He sees the sun as the primary driver of climate change, and in the process when things appear skewed to create a result that is outside actual events he isn't afraid to say so. At the same time he isn't a rabble rouser. So I'll look through a few of his vids and see what I can find but as far as going back through the years... Of course there was climategate but supposedly that was looked into and found to be innocent stuff. Which might be a whitewash because years ago I read some of those emails to satisfy myself on the matter. My opinion of science as a pure thing, as pure as the reality it describes suffered from them as well as the obvious bias continuously encountered. Then I heard of something called climategate II, but did not look into it. Anyway I recommend these vids highly.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xfi940PyCo&index=8&list=PLHSoxioQtwZcqdt3LK6d66tMreI4gqIC-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un8kQ7oY87s&list=PLHSoxioQtwZcqdt3LK6d66tMreI4gqIC-&index=4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c4XPVPJwBY&list=PLHSoxioQtwZcqdt3LK6d66tMreI4gqIC-&index=2

Do you expect me to sit through hours of youtubes to find your evidence of fraud for you? If there is so much obvious fraud that AGW is wrong, then you should be able to copy paste from some well-sourced print sites. I don't have time to sit through videos like that, unfortunately.

 

[Kyriakos]

Indeed. Some people will even overlook mountains of evidence from thousands of eminent scientists in order to stick with a more comfortable falsehood.

Depends on what field those 'thousands of eminent scientists' are in, and what work they are known by, etc, but personally if the matter is not either something quite tied to scientific study which has a historical progress and is deemed as trivial knowledge in the current field (eg if one wonders if he can use X bacterian isotope so as to produce Y things out of Z substrate, etc), i am not really keen on taking sides on any subject i only have some layman knowledge in. Even less when the whole thing is a nightmare infested with politicians and media. Those two terms have seldom any positive relation with actual science..

 

[CavLancer]

Do you expect me to sit through hours of youtubes to find your evidence of fraud for you? If there is so much obvious fraud that AGW is wrong, then you should be able to copy paste from some well-sourced print sites. I don't have time to sit through videos like that, unfortunately.

You might just learn something. Besides, most of his vids move along, maybe 5-6 minutes though I'm not sure these are good examples of that.

 

[Truronian]

Depends on what field those 'thousands of eminent scientists' are in, and what work they are known by, etc, but personally if the matter is not either something quite tied to scientific study which has a historical progress and is deemed as trivial knowledge in the current field (eg if one wonders if he can use X bacterian isotope so as to produce Y things out of Z substrate, etc), i am not really keen on taking sides on any subject i only have some layman knowledge in. Even less when the whole thing is a nightmare infested with politicians and media. Those two terms have seldom any positive relation with actual science..

The actual science of it isn't too hard to follow. Take CO₂ for instance.

1) Human activity since the industrial revolution has increased the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere by about 40%.
2) CO₂ is a greenhouse gas.
3) Calculating the expected temperature rise from such an increase of CO₂ levels gives an expected temperature rise of around 0.5°C. (This link goes through the mathematics of (3) is a fairly digestable manner.)
4) We have observed an average global temperature increase of around 0.8°C.

While I'm not entirely sure what you mean with your 'trivial knowledge' sentence, it would be a shame if you avoided climate science simply because it's a haven for armchair science: it really is quite interesting.

 

[tokala]

While I'm not entirely sure what you mean with your 'trivial knowledge' sentence, it would be a shame if you avoided climate science simply because it's a haven for armchair science: it really is quite interesting.

Indeed, if you are truly interested in the science, there is an incredible amount of good information easily available for the interested layman. From Skeptical Science "basic" myth-debunking all the way up to the actual scientific literature.

At least one thing those pseudo-skeptics are good for, a lot of people who know their stuff spend a lot of effort to explain what we know about the climate (and why the "skeptics" are overwhelmingly wrong).

 

[peter grimes]

You might just learn something. Besides, most of his vids move along, maybe 5-6 minutes though I'm not sure these are good examples of that.

Since the wife and kiddo are napping, here's what I've got so far:

Video 1: "C(lie)mate Update August 2014"
less than a minute in and I've already spent over 10 minutes trying to substantiate the claims made by Mr. Ian R G Wilson, who's basically - as far as I can tell - only "published" in a non-peer reviewed online "journal" called the General Science Journal. Not being admitted into the ivory tower is certainly not an a priori reason for dismissal, but it should certainly temper any analysis with severe skepticism. Remember, scientists have ego and enemies. If you have good data that show your rival is wrong, you have every incentive to publicize that. The few cases of the guy who's right being vindicated years after the establishment cast him aside are total outliers - NOT the way most advancements in understanding happen. So now I'm a minute in and I'm hoping your videoguy has something more substantial to offer than a guy who publishes on a site that doesn't critique the submissions.

OK, the second minute of the video makes claims of things they've covered in the past. Whatever. This is seriously a waste of my time...

After 3:00 he looks at record breaking measurements - correctly noting that Antarctic sea ice extent is definitely above average, but when it comes to North American surface temperatures he cherry picks the records in such a way as to make you think things are cooling rather than warming overall. He notes that there have been more "cold" records than "warm" records. This is a crap way of evaluating whether or not AGW is happening, since it's a basic prediction that both warm AND cold, both dry AND wet records will be set more frequently. If Global Climate Cooling were happening we shouldn't expect to see this - we'd expect to see more droughts and less flooding (on average) and more cold records as well as fewer heat records (on average), since Global Cooling by definition means less energy in the ocean-atmosphere system. This guy hasn't taken an entry level climatology course.

After 4:00 your man puts up an abstract of Study of the Influence of Solar Variability on a regional (Indian) Climate, 1900-2007. Can't get at the paper, but the abstract merely notes that solar variability MAY be contributing to ongoing climate investigation and FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS SUGGESTED. This is not at all inconsistent with AGW. AGW doesn't say that there is not effect on our present situation from solar variability - just that the extent of our present climate regime from what's to be expected can't be explained by non-anthropogenic causes alone. It's only when we factor in deforestation, fossil fuel burning, and our fetish for eating meat that the models accurately reflect historical variability.

OK, that's one video. This has taken me nearly 90 minutes to evaluate a 5 minute video clip.

You can't simply watch something like this passively and assume that everything presented is accurate. This is why I complained that you make claims of fraud, and when asked to present something, you reply with a 1-hour long youtube.

As I said before, if there's genuine fraud that should be readily apparent in print articles or document which you could copy/paste here in less than a third of the time it took me to get through a single 5 minute youtube.

Resorting to youtube for validation is akin to a Gish Gallop. Screw that. Either back up your claims like the rest of us or we'll simply wind up ignoring you.

 

[CavLancer]

Okay then Peter, thanks for taking the time. I was simply suggesting you watch it, didn't mean foy you to take so much time.

Could you watch something on AGW and assume its accurate? Do you go to Greenland and get in the way of guys messing with ice cores? At some point when one believes something credulity comes into play. So, after years at WPC I became convinced. Being convinced and watching those vids is much different, but I certainly wasn't convinced by them. That's something you could do if you wanted to put in a lot more time, go to WePlayCiv, dig up the old threads on the subject, follow the links etc. However I spent months doing just that back when those threads were active. I doubt I'd have the time to do so just now and it sounds like your time is tight as well. Life takes precedence, and my being ignored won't be necessary.

Btw there is lots of interesting discussion on subjects not related to warming on the SO site that you might enjoy more. There may be a correlation between coronal holes and earthquakes for instance and daily vids which tell when Earth facing coronal holes increase risk. Also in these vids discuss whether quakes actually occurred as predicted. Having been through the 7.2 on Bohol I'm more than a little curious how this works out.

Here's one where Davidson interviews Dr. Robert Schoch, great stuff on the Sphinx weathering and date of its construction. Rather long however.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqBuUD0f2HU

 

[peter grimes]

So nothing to back up your claims of fraud.

Noted.

Please provide those, as that's a seriously important issue and would very likely sway my opinion on the scientific basis of AGW.

 

[CavLancer]

If you're truly interested go find it.

With your previous post, I'm done. I had thought you were considering the videos, searching the names, and reading the papers and basically you were the only one I thought might be truly interested in what I had to say. However, I stand corrected and will invest no further time.

Check out those Climategate emails personally if you are interested, good place to start. Find them, read them yourself and don't take the whitewashed excuses. Start your googling there, if you have any serious interest.

Good luck.

 

[Dale]

Happy 18th Birthday to The Pause!

 

[Kyriakos]

^The Pause seems to have quite the Kyphosis there. Would it even be able to place its back on a driving seat?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Happy Birthday!

Spoiler :

 

[brennan]

Think how many times in history people have been mislead because they wanted to believe something?

People don't believe in Climate Change because 'they want to', they believe it because that's what the data shows is happening and that's what climate models say aught to be happening given what we know.

People want to avoid climate change because throwing a system into disorder could have catastrophic consequences when you and every life form on the planet depends upon that system for their existence.

The pause is a myth. Global average temperatures have increased by 0.08 degrees per decade since 1998.

 

[Bootstoots]

People don't believe in Climate Change because 'they want to', they believe it because that's what the data shows is happening and that's what climate models say aught to be happening given what we know.

People want to avoid climate change because throwing a system into disorder could have catastrophic consequences when you and every life form on the planet depends upon that system for their existence.

The pause is a myth. Global average temperatures have increased by 0.08 degrees per decade since 1998.

This. Anthropogenic climate change is not a thing I want to believe in at all. I mean, I find it interesting to study, but my ideal world would feature no anthropogenic warming, this not being a field at all, and me finding something else interesting. That way we'd have much more room to transition away from fossil fuels. An even better would would feature infinite fossil fuels with no negative effects of any sort from use at any level.

As it is, we're caught in a double-bind. If the ultimate extractable fossil fuel supply (and extraction rate) is quite limited, and we fail to get off fossil fuels quickly, the world economy suffers serious consequences as energy supplies dwindle, along with fairly significant climate change. If supplies are higher, we don't see this effect until later, but climate change becomes truly catastrophic in the long run; at the infinite-fossil fuel limit, climate change and other related effects alone cause global economic growth to shudder to a halt and probably reverse.

The only way out is to decarbonize as quickly as possible, even if it requires incurring significant costs in the short run. And that's not compatible with a free market that doesn't limit or charge a hefty price for carbon emissions, and subsidize renewables heavily, at least during the transition period. If you want out of this trap while retaining a free-market ideology, it becomes necessary to minimize or deny climate change.

I say this as somebody who tried to be a libertarian for a couple of years, only to find that this ideology is incompatible with reality. Negative externalities are not only real but actually structural to how the present economy operates, and this is a very bitter pill to swallow if your worldview is based on free-market capitalism.

 

[peter grimes]

Okay then Peter, thanks for taking the time. I was simply suggesting you watch it, didn't mean foy you to take so much time.

Could you watch something on AGW and assume its accurate? Do you go to Greenland and get in the way of guys messing with ice cores? At some point when one believes something credulity comes into play.

But that's how much time it takes to critically evaluate just about anything. Of course, if you don't take the time, you will be easily persuaded by seemingly complete presentations. If you don't go looking under the hood, you'll likely miss that the head gaskets are leaking badly and so you might not want to buy that particular used car.

For what it's worth, I generally don't get my info from videos since it's so very difficult to fact check. Print pages are a lot more convenient to validate.

As for the ice core guys, no I don't need to get in their way. I used to hang out with them in college I went to UNH which is a major ice core research facility

With your previous post, I'm done. I had thought you were considering the videos, searching the names, and reading the papers and basically you were the only one I thought might be truly interested in what I had to say. However, I stand corrected and will invest no further time.

but I *was* looking into things, and simply asked you to back up your claims about fraud. You insist the East Anglia emails are proof of fraud contrary to analyses, you post videos (I've still only watched one, to be fair), I go through that video at great time expense on my part, ask you yet again for print references for the fraud claim, and now you're taking your ball and going home? I don't understand.

If that's that, then so be it. I'm always up for learning more but there are only so many minutes in the day.

 

[CavLancer]

Missing heat in the deep oceans?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/...is-awol-deep-ocean-has-not-warmed-since-2005/

The pause has to last 17 years before it is to be believed? -or something like that.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/...f-climate-scientists-have-egg-on-their-faces/

"50 million climate refuges by 2010"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/

Climategate

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

Pause list of excuses (52 so far) With links to their debunking if anyone bothered

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/

...and that's just a few things from WUWT.

 

[Dale]

WUWT is to Climate Alarmists,

As

SkS is to Climate Sceptics.

 

[Dale]

Happy Birthday!

Spoiler :

An interesting analysis of the hiatus from RSS lead scientist Dr Carl Mears. Probably one of the most sensible responses to the hiatus I've read.

The pause is real in the observations. It's the "why" that's important.

http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures