73 replies to this topic

[*JB*]

I repeat -

"It's just weird on a board that is not only about expertise in reading actual data and graphs but about the discipline of not allowing extraneous noise interfere with cold hard logic and avoiding what your emotions know as certainty. Its really off-key to what the dominate thought-processes that this forum seems to be about and wants to convey."

What is weirder is you think you're the one talking sense...with your appeal for sticking to rational thought and facts.

"Actual data" argues that CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming, but the result of warming.

There have been MANY times the CO2 in the atmosphere in the past than now -- including during ice ages.

There is "actual data" that strongly supports the premise that SUN CYCLES and SOLAR ACTIVITY produces warming/cooling....on this planet (and the rest in the solar system that warmed at the same time) -- not .0038ths of the earth's atmosphere (CO2).

Yes we have had warming, coming our of a mini ice age ending about 1870 or so.

The rest here is a discussion of the false religion of AGW and the dishonesty of it's prophets -- plus how badly the models have proven to be.

The e-mail attack is against Michael Mann, best known for his "hockey stick" which is representative of global warming; some would say unprecedented rapid global warming (an issue put to bed by former skeptic Richard Muller's BEST study - one of those very rare skeptics that actually has a PhD and does research in a field of inquiry relevant to the issue; not some non-credential former TV weatherman).

But that's not what you addressed.

Instead, you retreat to the "it's not CO2." One would think that after being so obviously wrong about the presence of rapid global warming, you all would be a little bit more humble in now making your certain assertions about its cause. That is, however, not so much off key here on this forum - folks irrationally wedded to market positions are pretty much a dime a dozen.

"retreat to it's not CO2"??? That has been the foundation to most respected skeptics all along. Why, because EVERY action by the AGW crowd -- governments especially -- to stall/fix global warming has been about CO2 -- PERIOD.

I didn't retreat, I never left. The point IS that ALL AGW "campaigns" are not based on Methane and water vapor -- or any combination of the "potent" greenhouse gases -- just CO2.

As for the disdain for the Hockey Stick being put to bed by Muller, and the BEST study, that is absolutely false. He NEVER recanted his criticism of Mann's Hockey Stick.

In fact -- in no way -- did BEST include ANY consideration of "proxy data" (the basis for the Hockey Stick) -- at all. He did not include ocean, ice, tree rings, et al, in any way.

BEST was all about modern surface data -- (again, period). Yes, Muller changed from someone who thought there was NO global warming (something I never believed). In BEST, he came to believe the SURFACE TEMP studies that showed .8 C increase over 50 years. He also -- with the disclaimer that sensor data was very scant -- concluded that it has risen 1.2 C over 250 years.

Muller -- outside of the BEST study -- has said he believes that it is AGW.

BUT -- Muller makes no claim (I ever saw) that focuses on any specific gas...including C02. The "to come" extension of the BEST study may get into the examination of specific CAUSES since looking at potential mitigation is a stated focus for the further work. I do know that Muller has stated that the focus needs to be on the true polluters, like China and India -- concluding that any pointed focus on the US (THE focus all AGW attacks) would have little effect.

It is important to note that Muller clearly stated -- SINCE the latest release of BEST -- ""Much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerate, or just plain wrong"".

[*JB*]

The e-mail attack is against Michael Mann, best known for his "hockey stick" which is representative of global warming; some would say unprecedented rapid global warming (an issue put to bed by former skeptic Richard Muller's BEST study - one of those very rare skeptics that actually has a PhD and does research in a field of inquiry relevant to the issue; not some non-credential former TV weatherman).

BTW -- Michael Mann -- as of January 2014 -- SLAMS Muller as a "Koch Brother's Hack". He REALLY does not feel vindicated by him.

Might want to read Mann's article -- after the part where he rags on the New York Times for printing Muller -- in the Huffington Post --> LINK

[Rogerdodger]

Just as Al Gore said:
Number of hurricanes reaches 30-year low...

Edited by Rogerdodger, 20 March 2014 - 07:38 PM.

[stocks]

Prof Richard Muller is an honest guy doing the best he can. He's not one of the climate cretins like Al Gore or Michael Mann

Muller speaks:

On Climategate – “What they did was, I think, shameful - it was scientific malpractice - if they had done this at Berkeley or Stanford, I think they would have been shamed. The standards held over there at the University of East Anglia are just not up to what we consider standard scientific methods.

Richard Muller: “right after Katrina, 2005, people said “We can now expect a whole bunch of more storms”. In the next year, not a single hurricane hit the U.S.”

When people exaggerate, they try to come up with dramatic examples to convince the public. That’s the wrong way to go. People now feel as if they’ve been misled.”

Richard Muller: “The NOAA announced that this is the warmest year on record for the United States – that immediately surprised me because I’ve been looking at the world record, and I’d seen that the temperature had actually gone down, compared to the last five years.

So I looked it up, and sure enough, the 2% of the world that happens to be the United States is a record warm, the 98% of the world, the rest of it, was actually cool.

To call that “global warming” – and the globe isn’t warming - is just an attempt to grab headlines .. to get the public interested in this important issue.”

Vice President Al Gore had so many exaggerations in his movie, that I think there’s a backlash now.



http://wattsupwithth...ic-malpractice/

[diogenes227]

WASHINGTON STATE -- MUDSLIDE BURIES A VILLAGE

Why climate change will make mudslides more common

[salsabob]

Prof Richard Muller is an honest guy doing the best he can. He's not one of the climate cretins like Al Gore or Michael Mann

Muller speaks:

On Climategate – “What they did was, I think, shameful - it was scientific malpractice - if they had done this at Berkeley or Stanford, I think they would have been shamed. The standards held over there at the University of East Anglia are just not up to what we consider standard scientific methods.

Richard Muller: “right after Katrina, 2005, people said “We can now expect a whole bunch of more storms”. In the next year, not a single hurricane hit the U.S.”

When people exaggerate, they try to come up with dramatic examples to convince the public. That’s the wrong way to go. People now feel as if they’ve been misled.”

Richard Muller: “The NOAA announced that this is the warmest year on record for the United States – that immediately surprised me because I’ve been looking at the world record, and I’d seen that the temperature had actually gone down, compared to the last five years.

So I looked it up, and sure enough, the 2% of the world that happens to be the United States is a record warm, the 98% of the world, the rest of it, was actually cool.

To call that “global warming” – and the globe isn’t warming - is just an attempt to grab headlines .. to get the public interested in this important issue.”

Vice President Al Gore had so many exaggerations in his movie, that I think there’s a backlash now.



http://wattsupwithth...ic-malpractice/

And do note that Professor Muller does not change his status of one-time skeptic to now being an advocate of his science-based conclusion by the BEST study of undeniable global warming as laid out famously here -

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

The Conversion of a Climate Change Sceptic” in the New York Times (28th July 2012).

His willingness to step into the scientific meaningless poo of East Anglia should give credibility to his own position that global warming is real - except, of course, to the most closed-minded dead-enders on the planet. The latter are easily discerned by their posting the rantings of a non-credential former TV weatherman WattsUp dead-ender who's even less credible than Faux News, Rush-to-Judgement Limbaugh, tiny angry man Rich Santelli or the Krotch Brothers.

Simply -



http://www.washingto...ill-heating-up/

Sick of the winter chill? New research shows why the planet is still heating up

It seems like a new report on climate change is coming out every month. Not only did the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change release its latest state of the science assessment last fall. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society, has also put out a report, albeit a much shorter one, that seeks to educate the public on "what we know" about climate change. Additionally, each year the World Meteorological Organization — a U.N. agency like the IPCC — releases a report summing up the state of the world's climate. Here's a roundup of key findings from this year's report, which came out just today:
1) 2013 tied with 2007 for the sixth-warmest year on record. The global temperature, averaged over the surface of our planet, was 0.5 degrees Celsius (or 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it was on average between 1961 and 1990. Only 2010, 2005, 1998, 2003 and 2002 were hotter. 2013 was just slightly warmer than it was between 2001 and 2010, the hottest decade on record. WMO arrives at this ranking by combining information from three temperature datasets: two from the U.S. and one from the United Kingdom.
2) Thirteen of the 14 warmest years on record have occurred in the 21st century. The only year outside the 2000s that is in the top 14 is 1998, which was unusually warm because a strong El Niño occurred that year. Still, individual years don't matter as much as the long-term trend. To that end, this chart, which assigns each decade a color, shows how the warmest 50 years stack up against one another. Notice that the years don't line up in perfect chronological order, but years of the same color (and thus decade) are clustered closely together, with years from the most recent decade topping the chart.

[more at the link]

All your soap opera pooy about e-mails, Stocks, doesn't change the science.

Duh.

Edited by salsabob, 25 March 2014 - 11:22 AM.

[Rogerdodger]

"Climate Myopia" = Ignoring history.


Did you notice that even the Aztecs had a bit climate change?
Too much carbon?


"The upturned figures literally represent an inversion of the natural order,
when people died as a result of nature's failure to function in a predictable way."
See: http://mexicauprisin...and_Drought.pdf


1332-1336-Fours years without any rain.
1447- Year of the fatal blizzard
1450-54-Great famine and drought. "One Rabbit"
1503-Year of great rains, flooding of Tenochtitlan.
1512-Series of three great earthquakes rocks the valley of Mexico, seen as a bad omen. (Too much fracking by Cortez?)
1514-Cold weather causes extensive crop failures, Famine occurred.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 25 March 2014 - 07:21 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

It's funny how the Aztecs understood cycles, but today's "experts" profit by ignoring them.

"nature's failure to function in a predictable way." 500 years ago?

THE CURSE OF "ONE RABBIT."
Aztec cosmology placed great emphasis on the prophetic nature of their calendar. The year One Rabbit begins each 52-yr calendar cycle and was strongly associated with the occurrence of catastrophic events such as famine. In reference to the famine in the first One Rabbit year of the Colonial Era (1558), the annotation in the Codex Telleriano-Remensis states that "In this year one rabbit [1 Rabbit], if one looks carefully at this count, it will always be seen that in this year [Rabbit] there was famine and death. . . . And thus they consider this year as a great omen, for it always falls on one rabbit."
See: http://mexicauprisin...and_Drought.pdf

Coldest October-March in 102 Years... 102 years? That's almost 2 rabbit years apart.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 25 March 2014 - 09:29 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

Global Warming...Err Climate Change...or Climate Myopia ignorance?

Scientist warned of Washington mudslide danger 15 years ago
"I knew it would fail catastrophically in a large-magnitude event," though not when it would happen, said Daniel Miller, a geomorphologist who was hired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to do the study. "I was not surprised."
The 1999 report raised questions about why residents were allowed to build homes on the hill and whether officials had taken proper precautions.
The area has long been known as the "Hazel Landslide" because of known landslides over the past half-century.

"Geomorphologist?" Yes, the earth has been "morphing" since day one.
The climate has been changing since day one.

But the real deniers think it all just began the day they were born, a few decades ago.
Looks like another case of "Climate Myopia"

Edited by Rogerdodger, 26 March 2014 - 08:48 AM.

[salsabob]

I repeat -

"It's just weird on a board that is not only about expertise in reading actual data and graphs but about the discipline of not allowing extraneous noise interfere with cold hard logic and avoiding what your emotions know as certainty. Its really off-key to what the dominate thought-processes that this forum seems to be about and wants to convey."

What is weirder is you think you're the one talking sense...with your appeal for sticking to rational thought and facts.

"Actual data" argues that CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming, but the result of warming.

There have been MANY times the CO2 in the atmosphere in the past than now -- including during ice ages.

There is "actual data" that strongly supports the premise that SUN CYCLES and SOLAR ACTIVITY produces warming/cooling....on this planet (and the rest in the solar system that warmed at the same time) -- not .0038ths of the earth's atmosphere (CO2).

Yes we have had warming, coming our of a mini ice age ending about 1870 or so.

The rest here is a discussion of the false religion of AGW and the dishonesty of it's prophets -- plus how badly the models have proven to be.

The e-mail attack is against Michael Mann, best known for his "hockey stick" which is representative of global warming; some would say unprecedented rapid global warming (an issue put to bed by former skeptic Richard Muller's BEST study - one of those very rare skeptics that actually has a PhD and does research in a field of inquiry relevant to the issue; not some non-credential former TV weatherman).

But that's not what you addressed.

Instead, you retreat to the "it's not CO2." One would think that after being so obviously wrong about the presence of rapid global warming, you all would be a little bit more humble in now making your certain assertions about its cause. That is, however, not so much off key here on this forum - folks irrationally wedded to market positions are pretty much a dime a dozen.

"retreat to it's not CO2"??? That has been the foundation to most respected skeptics all along. Why, because EVERY action by the AGW crowd -- governments especially -- to stall/fix global warming has been about CO2 -- PERIOD.

I didn't retreat, I never left. The point IS that ALL AGW "campaigns" are not based on Methane and water vapor -- or any combination of the "potent" greenhouse gases -- just CO2.

As for the disdain for the Hockey Stick being put to bed by Muller, and the BEST study, that is absolutely false. He NEVER recanted his criticism of Mann's Hockey Stick.

In fact -- in no way -- did BEST include ANY consideration of "proxy data" (the basis for the Hockey Stick) -- at all. He did not include ocean, ice, tree rings, et al, in any way.

BEST was all about modern surface data -- (again, period). Yes, Muller changed from someone who thought there was NO global warming (something I never believed). In BEST, he came to believe the SURFACE TEMP studies that showed .8 C increase over 50 years. He also -- with the disclaimer that sensor data was very scant -- concluded that it has risen 1.2 C over 250 years.

Muller -- outside of the BEST study -- has said he believes that it is AGW.

BUT -- Muller makes no claim (I ever saw) that focuses on any specific gas...including C02. The "to come" extension of the BEST study may get into the examination of specific CAUSES since looking at potential mitigation is a stated focus for the further work. I do know that Muller has stated that the focus needs to be on the true polluters, like China and India -- concluding that any pointed focus on the US (THE focus all AGW attacks) would have little effect.

It is important to note that Muller clearly stated -- SINCE the latest release of BEST -- ""Much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerate, or just plain wrong"".

You're still conflating the issue of global warming as a now widely-recognized occurrence (except for truly hopeless deadenders - my primary point about Stock's continuing foolishness) with the cause for such warming - the latter was your point, not mine and not the original.

My secondary point is that since (a) the science is not there yet to either attribute or NOT attribute the unprecedented rise in historical temperature records nor can it yet establish impacts on regional/local weather, and ( the skeptics have been proven so very embarrassingly wrong about the unprecedented rise (as validated by Muller), that one might expect that they would be a little bit more humble about their ideological-driven certitude on these current scientific questions - at least those with 1/2 a brain that don't worship at the feet of the Krotch Brothers. Even after decades of life, I find it truly amazing how ideological blindness can make obviously intelligent people completely stupid when it comes to certain issues.

Edited by salsabob, 26 March 2014 - 12:15 PM.