Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Reality Check]

It's true of global warming because global warming is a fast enough change that 20 years of data is, indeed, usually enough to show it, but it's not true of all trends everywhere. This is the mistake r-j has been making all along.

Obviously I did not make myslf clear enough.
It is true that global temperatures have significant trends when looking at periods of > 20 years.
It is (AFAIK) also true that local temperatures should have significant trends when looking at periods of > 20 years.
As you know, in both cases it is the noise in the data that determines whether a trend is statistically significant. I suspect that local temperatures usually have less noise than global temperatures, especially over land where the effect of sea temperature oscillation may be less. However you are right - the significance of local trends will vary.

 

[batvette]

total GGE must decrease immediately?

and how will you do that? in Detail. how are you going to convince the INdian government that it cannot develop atm and Needs to reduce their CO2 emissions? and China?

You can't and in the end they won't, at least not in significant quantities.

also can you Point out how exactly the Kyoto protocoll was counterproductive?

Business, Industry and Capital tend to migrate to where there is less regulation and taxation. Doesn't everyone know this basic tenet of Capitalism?

 

[batvette]

So their we have it, yet another change of stance when somebody questions you. It's not a conspiracy to keep their jobs any more, they are simply following their beliefs and think it's noble. Debating with you is like trying to nail jelly (jello) to a wall.

Whatever it is IT'S NOT A CONSPIRACY, and what is so hard of a concept for you to grasp that they may have gotten into the field to promote a "save the planet" ideology and once they are in it need to keep food on their table?

I'm not changing any stance, you don't expect me to include every detail in every post, do you?

 

[batvette]

Here are your actual words.



You will notice that the words you accused me of not understanding are not your original post. If you want to accuse someone of misquoting you at least quote yourself accurately.

The phrases "above your head" and "back to kindergarten" don't serve to strengthen your argument.

You must want me to put you on ignore.

What makes people with similar ideologies a conspiracy? Can you point to me where I stated they got together and made an agreement to do something or anything of the sort? This is just asinine.

 

[DC]

You can't and in the end they won't, at least not in significant quantities.

So because you believe we cant and that they won't, we should not even try to. we should just keep going on despite the troubles ahead? That doesn't sound very wise to me. If we do so we can scrap sapiens.

Business, Industry and Capital tend to migrate to where there is less regulation and taxation. Doesn't everyone know this basic tenet of Capitalism?

oh that is your whole "evidence" for your claim? that is very weak.

 

[macdoc]

Getting the courts engaged...it was needed for S02 abatement and needed for C02 control

Climate Maverick to Retire From NASA
Michael Nagle for The New York Times

By JUSTIN GILLIS
Published: April 1, 2013

James E. Hansen, the climate scientist who issued the clearest warning of the 20th century about the dangers of global warming, will retire from NASA this week, giving himself more freedom to pursue political and legal efforts to limit greenhouse gases.

At the same time, retirement will allow Dr. Hansen to press his cause in court. He plans to take a more active role in lawsuits challenging the federal and state governments over their failure to limit emissions, for instance, as well as in fighting the development in Canada of a particularly dirty form of oil extracted from tar sands.

snip

His warnings and his scientific papers have drawn frequent attack from climate-change skeptics, to whom he gives no quarter. But Dr. Hansen is a maverick, just as likely to vex his allies in the environmental movement. He supports nuclear power and has taken stands that sometimes undercut their political strategy in Washington.

In the interview and in subsequent e-mails, Dr. Hansen made it clear that his new independence would allow him to take steps he could not have taken as a government employee. He plans to lobby European leaders — who are among the most concerned about climate change — to impose a tax on oil derived from tar sands. Its extraction results in greater greenhouse emissions than conventional oil.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/s...nasa-to-fight-global-warming.html?ref=science

 

[batvette]

Indeed I enjoy your self-inflicted wounds, but the fact that climate research reveals the earth’s climate is changing and how much it’s changing doesn’t support your contention that climate research only occurs because there is money to be made from faking the research.

I made no such contention, you're putting words in my mouth. What I said:

Climate CHANGE research seeks only to prove the climate is changing, and has only been funded because of scare tactics.

You however did state " First there is no such thing as climate CHANGE research only climate research"

Which I just proved is absurd.

More specificly you don’t seem to like the notion that individual CO2 emissions of people in China an the US be comparable and insist on comparing the total emissions of the two nations instead.

Is the problem not dire enough that there is the luxury to allow all the billions in the world to pollute as much per capita as industrialized nations?
If that is the case why are we being lied to that the world will end if we don't do something?

When comparing the US to smaller nations like Australia or Canada, you want to do away with the national compositions. Your inability to stick to a single set of goalposts suggests you there is no real reason other than you think you are entitles and that everyone else in obliged to support your imagined entitlement.

Putting words in my mouth again, I never made such comparisons. My position is merely that if the problem is that serious you should freeze global GGE now. If you aren't doing that and are instead engaged in nonsense with the goal of having the have nots catch up to the haves first, you are in fact engaging in global socialism and you are making climate change WORSE.

 

[DC]

Whatever it is IT'S NOT A CONSPIRACY, and what is so hard of a concept for you to grasp that they may have gotten into the field to promote a "save the planet" ideology and once they are in it need to keep food on their table?

I'm not changing any stance, you don't expect me to include every detail in every post, do you?

so 10 000's of scientists from around the world in many different fields from many different backgrounds all invested alot of time and money to study and then go into research just to promote some "save the planet" idology?
and all the major universities around the globe having departments specialising in climate research just to promote some "save the planet" ideology? so their research results are faked? and by doing so with taxpayer money in many cases this would make it illegal and that would be the very definition of conspiracy... so why is it not a conspiracy?

 

[batvette]

So because you believe we cant and that they won't, we should not even try to. we should just keep going on despite the troubles ahead? That doesn't sound very wise to me. If we do so we can scrap sapiens.



oh that is your whole "evidence" for your claim? that is very weak.

Read your post again. The second point explains the fallacy of the first.

 

[macdoc]

Business, Industry and Capital tend to migrate to where there is less regulation and taxation. Doesn't everyone know this basic tenet of Capitalism?

No - it's a basic tenet of Predation. There are many ethical capitalists including me and Norway and Sweden have both high regulation and very very successful economies.
Sweden is dedicated to and on it's way to carbon neutral by 2050.

The world has seen how well unregulated activities work...see the financial sector.

China has stiffer automotive standards than North America amongst other initiatives.

Bill Gross who manages billions understands the opportunities in shifting the world's energy business away from fossil fuels....who's captains of industry are often the most predatory and unethical in modern history.

 

[quarky]

No - it's a basic tenet of Predation. There are many ethical capitalists including me and Norway and Sweden have both high regulation and very very successful economies.
Sweden is dedicated to and on it's way to carbon neutral by 2050.

The world has seen how well unregulated activities work...see the financial sector.

China has stiffer automotive standards than North America amongst other initiatives.

Bill Gross who manages billions understands the opportunities in shifting the world's energy business away from fossil fuels....who's captains of industry are often the most predatory and unethical in modern history.

Good retort.

We here in the dark ages depend upon sane countries to show us the way.
We aren't allowed to admit such things in public. It has been deemed an affront to freedom, and an encouragement to the freedom-haters, which are out to get us, constantly.

Stupid haters of freedom!

 

[macdoc]

Before wasting any further time on BV I suggest a google search on

batvette climate denier

Save your effort for someone who is an honest inquirer.

this is one of many

Author batvette (1 year)
Joke. Climate Change research is funded by corporations standing to make a killing off carbon trading schemes and doomsday fears.
Asking climate change scientists for an objective view on this is like going to a church and asking all the priests for an objective view on the existence of God.
If the earth is warming it's due to solar variation. If it's man then we're really **********. Your stupid Kyoto porotocol only served to industrialize more third world people, GGE have RISEN.

http://www.tvclip.biz/video/6JzK2mtqNdI/climate-change-deniers-will-be-marginalized.html

and many more....all you do is give him a venue for his nonsense..

get the whole enchilada here...

Climate Change MADNESS: Ideology Driven to Disaster!
Share: Email Story Twitter Facebook Stumbleupon Add to Any
by batvette | May 18, 2011 at 11:11 pm

Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Climate Change MADNESS: Ideology Driven to Disaster! | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/climate-change-madness-ideology-driven-disaster#ixzz2PXteT0tl

 

[quarky]

This may not sound patriotic:

The U.S.'s unwillingness to adopt successful models from other nations is a sad legacy.
I've heard all manner of reasons why those models can't work here.

So, we slowly turn into an obese football player, with huge tits, eating a monster-size burger, while watching reality tv and cleaning our guns.
Every day, I'm flooded with adds for ever more powerful cars. 500 hp; 900 hp; 2020 mph...500k; 1.2 million; whatever. What do you do with a 500 hp car in downtown Atlanta?

You idle a lot.

 

[bobwtfomg]

What makes people with similar ideologies a conspiracy?

Absolutely you're so right, no conspiracy neccesary, and these ideologically driven, grant motivated "scientists" have been not conspiring for a long time.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf

 

[CapelDodger]

Quite reasonable. The arctic is no doubt prime real estate for argument ...

But obviously not in every regard. We can agree that it's been warming faster than the rest of the planet, Arctic Sea Ice volume has decreased enormously since the 80's, and permafrost is melting in some regions.

... as well as exploitation.

You'd think so, wouldn't you, but perhaps not so much.
Lukoil VP “Wouldn’t Give A Kopek” To Invest In High-Risk Arctic Offshore Drilling
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...est-in-high-risk-arctic-offshore-drilling/The transit opportunities are another matter, of course.

Knowing what is causing the rapid changes would be very scientific. Discussing what it means would be most rewarding.

AGW is causing the rapid changes, obviously. There's nothing else going on.

What it means is a whole new climate regime in northern mid-latitudes, where, as it happens, most people live. In economic terms it brings Russia into the centre of things for the first time ever, the diplomatic and strategic effects of which are highly debatable.

All in all, a brand new world.

 

[CapelDodger]

Climate CHANGE research seeks only to prove the climate is changing, and has only been funded because of scare tactics.

Climate research was originally a sub-school of geology, its main object being to explain why ice-ages happen. It wasn't anything to do with the present or near future.

Climate science has only gained greater funding since the climate started changing. That was first fruit of the "more research is needed" policy that greets every IPCC report, and has been mirrored by more funding for oceanography and glaciology. Far from there being any scare tactics involved climate change predicitons have turned out to be conservative.

It's absurd to suggest that the world would be ignoring what's happening to the climate had it not been for some sort of campaign by scientists in search of grants. Or is that not what you meant?

 

[quarky]

But obviously not in every regard. We can agree that it's been warming faster than the rest of the planet, Arctic Sea Ice volume has decreased enormously since the 80's, and permafrost is melting in some regions.

You'd think so, wouldn't you, but perhaps not so much.
Lukoil VP “Wouldn’t Give A Kopek” To Invest In High-Risk Arctic Offshore Drilling
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...est-in-high-risk-arctic-offshore-drilling/The transit opportunities are another matter, of course.


AGW is causing the rapid changes, obviously. There's nothing else going on.

What it means is a whole new climate regime in northern mid-latitudes, where, as it happens, most people live. In economic terms it brings Russia into the centre of things for the first time ever, the diplomatic and strategic effects of which are highly debatable.

All in all, a brand new world.

yup

 

[CapelDodger]

Whatever it is IT'S NOT A CONSPIRACY, and what is so hard of a concept for you to grasp that they may have gotten into the field to promote a "save the planet" ideology and once they are in it need to keep food on their table?

Let's concede that they may have. Do you have any evidence that any did? And why would they expect it to promote a "save the planet" ideology before there was any evidence that the climate was changing? If climate hadn't changed they'd still be working on ice ages.

When the first ripples of concern about AGW became detectable there were already plenty of issues to get involved in - acid rain, the ozone hole, pesticides, deforestation, loads of stuff. Why invent one in the hope that the world would soon warm quite dramatically? It makes no sense.



Or is that not what you meant?

(By the way, the accusation that climate scientists were deiberately exaggerating the problem (if not inventing it wholesale) goes back at least twenty years. Twenty years of warming put that idea to sleep, you'll have noticed. Another twenty will put your suggestion to sleep as well, mark my words.)

 

[Dancing David]

Is there any one site that actually concentrates on just the science of the subject of AGW and does away with the politics, and alarmism? Most of the ones I have seen seem to be very polarized one way or the the other. Based on the little I have read so far it seems that there is more than a little room for doubt. I thought that plants would just take in the CO2 and make more Oxygen and the whole thing was self regulating.

This is silly without the sites you are claiming to base you opinion on. The IPCC report is hardly alarmist, it is rather dull and boring in fact.

Start here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and..._first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml#.UV4zwZPvsfU

 

[CapelDodger]

yup

I call precedent on predicting the First Russo-Canadian War, but leave open whether that's Russia v Canada or Russia and Canada v the US (perhaps over the secession of Alaska).

I find it amusing to consider how history might have differed with a navigable Arctic (even seasonally). It might now be a Scandinavian world, not an Anglo-American one, which is fading in the light of an Eastern resurgence. They'd have given the Japanese a heck of a surprise, and had a fine old time sacking Osaka. It's a huge canvas to doodle on .

Now, though, here it is, and we're all going to get more familiar with map-projections from the top, not the side.