"Quick, somebody tell al gore" Topic

link

"Do as I say, not as I do." Yes, that typifies all of the elites. Their very elitism is the exception to the rule for the masses.

Speaking, what a way to make a living…………

Do you think Mark Steyn needs a link?

Don't muddy the waters with the facts, the snowflakes can't tolerate it.

Mark Steyn? One skeptic among many.

He believes that Eurabia is inevitable. That rather transcends climate change as an in your face issue, imho……….

link

rationalwiki: unbaised – NOT, rational – NOT, accurate – NOT!

When you can't argue the evidence attack the messenger – typical immature response.

Unfortunately, the publication cited has a well documented track record of playing fast and loose with the facts. Therefore anything it prints is immediately suspect. Unfortunately this topic has become so politicized neither side seems to want to take a rational logical approach to the issue. It is a complex matter that can not be ignored but should not be a political issue either.

I don't care about the politics (Except for when politics blocks progress) I care about the science.
And the science is clear.
The other side has conspiracy theories and and deranged ideas.

GPG – That's no way to talk about Al Gore.

@ VCarter

What about Man Bear Pig??!!

the science is clear

Yes it is and one side has been using Fake or Made Up Data.

The science is clear.

In fact, the science is clear.

The article in question is a perfect example of cherry picking data in order to mislead anyone that does not take the time to look past the pretty picture. This really is not a discussion on climate change but rather a basic lesson in statistics and understanding charts.

Here's the chart that is the core of the article.

It describes the NOAA data as "flawed" by comparing it's data points with those of the supposedly more accurate MET data to argue that climate is not warming as fast as scientists say.

First, the chart displays only twenty years of temperature data. That is really not long enough to make a reasonable argument one way or the other about climate change data trends. Here's a chart with data stretching back to the 1800s.

Here's the link to the site.

link

I have highlighted the segment described by the article's chart with a magenta box in the upper right. What looked like a big gap between the MET and NOAA data in the article's chart looks much smaller here. The second chart also depicts data from NASA and a Japanese research group.

Intentionally selecting a tiny, nonrepresentational portion of a data set in order to cast doubt on the entire data set is called "cherry picking." Climate scientists refer to this depiction of climate data as "the Escalator."

link

Finally, keep in mind that each of the organizations depicted in the chart are using different methods to measure climate temperatures. NOAA measures ocean temperatures. NASA measures land temps by satellite. The MET office is the UK's national weather service and climate research agency that uses a range of methods. This from their site:

Recent work includes an Arctic sea-ice cover assessment, studies of climate change and extreme seasons around the world, new information about the decline of tropical forests and improved methods for projections of European climate.

The point is that each entity depicted in this chart uses different methodology and equipment to produce their data. They are each measuring different aspects of world climate trends. That considered it is actually impressive that they have all come up with results that support each other's findings so closely.

Still, with climate change you have to look at a range of data sets over a longer period of time (than 20 years) in order to see what's really happening.

Look, nobody wants climate change to be happening. I certainly don't. Every day I prowl the net looking for a bit of research from a recognized institution that suggests that maybe the earth is not getting warmer, that new methodology reveals aspects of climate measurement that we have not seen before.

I want current climate change theory to be wrong. Unfortunately, all of the real data continues to indicate otherwise.

The article linked to in the first post is intended to misrepresent the facts in favor of the author's ideology. The facts do not support his beliefs and so he twists the data to make a false argument seem real.

One thing about both charts they both use very small scales.

The first uses 0 to 1.2C so basically 1-2 degrees at most.

The same with the second chart.

They use very small scales because the results look more shocking than what they really are.

Evolutionary biologists debate whether evolution works by "gradualism" or by "punctuated equilibrium". I suppose some people will pretend that this debate is evidence that evolution doesn't exist either.

I actually read the original paper (it's linked in that poor excuse of a blog in to OP). The authors do not deny that AGW exists. What they dispute is the interpretation of the data. They may be correct, and they may be wrong. Only further study will tell. That's how science works. However you are deluding yourself if you think this study is a nail in the coffin of AGW. That is not what the authors suggest.

rationalwiki: unbaised – NOT, rational – NOT, accurate – NOT!

When you can't argue the evidence attack the messenger – typical immature response.

The "irony impairment" is strong in this one.

So the "MIT reasearchers" alluded to by Gateway Pundit seem to be somewhat else.

James P Wallace seems to own a consulting firm. He has a degree in mechanical engineering and a PhD in Economics. All from Brown.

Craig D Idso is the lead author of the NIPCC, which is an organ funded and published by the Heartland Institute.

Joseph s D'Aleo never finished his PhD and works as a meteorologist at the Weather channel and at the Old Farmers Almanac. He is funded by both the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute. He is a member of the Cornwall Alliance, a fundamentalist evangelical group that insist that mankind can have no effect on the Earth's divine Creation, such as climate. Same with overpopulation and species extinction, btw.

So this awesome paragon of journalistic integrity has all of them "MIT researchers". Instead they are funded by infamous climate denier institutes that originally gained notoriety for denying smoking risks decades ago.

Why don't we wait for this study to be published in a proper, peer reviewed climatology journal and see how it holds up to scientific scrutiny, before we get too carried away? In the meantime, I'll point out that Gateway Pundit won the "prestigious" Breitbart Award for Excellence in Journalism and the Reed Irvine Award from the oddly named "Accuracy in Media" group. To put this in perspective, Marc Moreno from Climatedepot is also a recipient of this award.

I guess getting all three authors wrong in their nonexistent MIT affiliations consists of excellence in media nowadays.

Whistles past this graveyard -we have been round and round and nobody convinces anyone else.

FWIW – the Science is not clear or settled – it should never be. We still debate how exactly gravity works. Good and proper science is a process of debate and hashing out seeming contradictory evidence to come closer to the truth. Merely stating that the science is clear shuts down that debate.

The Greenhouse effect is essentially understood, but how it interacts with climate is still a work in progress. No climate model to date has come close to matching our observed temperature trends.

FWIW – the Science is not clear or settled – it should never be. We still debate how exactly gravity works

That is true, but the debate about gravity has moved beyond whether gravity exists or not. There are no billionaires that fund institutes to hire physicists simply to state gravity is nonexistent. There are no former speech writers for James Inhofe who set themselves up on websites as "experts", claiming gravity is a fraud. Imagine if the Chair of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology didn't believe gravity existed. It's really a false equivalency.

Merely stating that the science is clear shuts down that debate.

I'll disagree.

While the nature of how gravity occurs is still under debate, the understanding of the effects of gravity is very clear. If it wasn't, we couldn't land the rovers on Mars. We couldn't accelerate spacescrft using gravitational slingshot manoeuvres. And we couldn't figure out how to drop a mortar round accurately on an enemy position.

As I stated above, there is still debate on how evolution behaves. The scientists basically fall into a "gradualism" or "punctuated equilibrium" camp and debate continues. But the fact that evolution does occur is also very clear. Most debate to the contrary exists for theological reasons and not scientific ones.

The Greenhouse effect is essentially understood, but how it interacts with climate is still a work in progress. No climate model to date has come close to matching our observed temperature trends.

Sure, if you happen to follow the Pat Michaels of CATO Institute school of selective graph editing.

link
link

I just love how excited he can get.

Dan

Great pic. "BELIEVE!"

No climate model to date has come close to matching our observed temperature trends.

So true.

Though there are dozens that show what the want to have happen.

But when you fix the model to give you what you want or fudge the numbers just a bit…

They are not very good models at all.

Great pic. "BELIEVE!"

You know he does comes off as one of those Religious Con-men.

You know like Benny Hinn

What's with the obsession with former next President of the USA? When we do a thought experiment and imagine a world in which Al Gore never existed, not one iota of data on the overwhelming consensus on the topic of anthropogenic climate change changes.

At best, Al Gore's name is a dogwhistle tuned to the truly partisan and proudly ignorant on the topic of climate change.

Let be bring back the list. I've yet to see a satisfactory answer, but hey I haven't done this in 2017.

Anyways, let's start from the top, and you can point at the number that makes you uncomfortable.

1. The Earth's atmosphere keeps the planet much warmer than it would be without it. If it wasn't for the greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be that of the moon: Too hot for human habitation in the sun and too cold in the shade.
   
2. The principle components to the warming effect (AKA. Greenhouse Gases) are CO2, CH4 and H2O.
   
3. The ability of the above gases are empirically proven to contribute to the greenhouse effect in the laboratory, in a manner that is consistent with the predictions of particle physics. (See John Tyndall who was the first to measure the infra-red absorption of gases in 1860 when working off of Fourier's [Yes, that guy from Math and Physics] first notions about the greenhouse effect way back in the 1820s)
   
4. The quantity of these gases in the atmosphere has grown sharply since the start of the industrial revolution
   
5. We know that the increase is principally due to human action via isotope ratios. As predicted by particle physics and verified by empirical research, Carbon14 is created by the high energy bombardment of Nitrogen13. However the half-life of Carbon14 is short on a geological timescale and would be non-existent for all practical purposes in fossil fuels, and thus if the fossil fuel produced carbon is added to the atmosphere, the C14 share of atmospheric CO2 should decrease over time… and it has.
   
6. The average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere has shown a trend consistent with an increasing temperature and continues to increase.
   
7. This increase in temperature significantly correlates with greenhouse gas increases on a multi-year scale. Unfortunately the temperature data is too noisy for year to year correlations due to outside effects such as air pollution and ocean currents to name 2.

   The above is agreed by virtually scientist, however it's the next logical conclusion that attracts the ire of so called "skeptics"

8. The observed heating has been caused by increased greenhouse gases.
   Anyways, here's a plot idea:
   97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

What's with the obsession with former next President of the USA?

Cuz that's all they got. Oh, and Pseudo-scientific reports from the Heartland Institute, that are "peer reviewed" by other members of the Heartland Institute. I'm not holding my breath that this gets published in a proper Journal.

At best, Al Gore's name is a dogwhistle tuned to the truly partisan and proudly ignorant on the topic of climate change. …………..97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

Lol! Have to remember the "dog whistle" comment.

All Al Gore is doing is riding this to gain millions.

He like Benny Hinn is nothing more than a conman.

The first uses 0 to 1.2C so basically 1-2 degrees at most.

You really don't have a clue (or, more likely, don't care) as to what that REALLY means, do you? Well, here its all laid out:

link

Put that chart on a 20-25 degree scale and see what you get.

They are attempting to mislead by using a very small scale so that what little change is happening looks far bigger than it actually is.

Plus they are tracking a short period of time as well.

First chart 1997 – 2017 so 20 years.

Second chart is a bit better going with 1880 – 2012 but that is still only 132 years.

How about doing these charts from 1500BC to 2017AD so that you would have 3517 years?

As for your link it has been more than likely been warmer sometime in the past.

Los Angles just recently set a new heat record.

link

The old record was set back in 1886 so a 131 year record finally broken.

Was the last record due to Climate Change or was it just warmer that day.

I am going to go with it was just warmer that day and very likely it has been even hotter before.

You can either buy into the con for see it for what it actually is.

Why bring up Gore?

Hmm, let's see.

- As a private citizen he has become the preeminent poster child for the Global Warming cause and its greatest celebrity believer/disciple.

- He is so overly passionate and so hilarious in his claims and predicted doom dates.

Dan

And because the denier side can't bring up any science. Same thing with the anti-evolutionists and their lame Darwin bashing. It's an old, tiresome technique, Dan.

Bowman, deniers are not a bloc. I don't deny science one iota. Am I a scientist? No. Do I read? Yes, all the time. Do I comprehend the science behind the dominant (I hesitate to use the word "consensus") theories? Not much. Do I trust scientists? As much as I trust human beings as a species. Do I believe the assertions that humans causing climate change, this time around, somehow makes this changing earth in trouble? No. Because I don't read an overwhelming cry in support of that assertion. Will the earth change rapidly? Comparatively, yes. Is that rapidity a problem? Maybe only for the "dinosaurs". Are we analogous to the dinosaurs? Possibly. Will anything we do really stop the rapidity of the changes already in motion? Probably not enough to prevent the required adaptation. So, do we just feed the beast of climate change? Why would we do that, when we know that clean, renewable energy, and limiting our population are smart decisions?

Wow, 11/11.

Dan

Why bring up Gore?

Hmm, let's see.

- As a private citizen he has become the preeminent poster child for the Global Warming cause and its greatest celebrity believer/disciple.

- He is so overly passionate and so hilarious in his claims and predicted doom dates.

Dan

I've got nothing.

Thankfully Wolfgang Pauli has a great line that's relevant here.
Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch! – Wolfgang Pauli (1900 – 1958)

Cute!

Just ask anyone what name comes to mind when they hear the phrase global warming awareness.

Dan

And? The existence of global warming has nothing to do with Al Gore just as the fact of evolution has nothing to do with Darwin. That the average person on the street (American street) associate Gore with Climate change. Has no bearing on it's reality.

And Gore is more a poster boy for the deniers than normal people. Normal people don't associate Climate change with Gore.

Heartland Institute "reviews" should come out in comic form they are that believable.

Just ask anyone what name comes to mind when they hear the phrase global warming awareness.

Martin and his Charts

Sorry boys, you got b-slapped again by your own lies.

From The Hill, a left-wing source:
link

Sorry boys, you got b-slapped again by your own lies.

From The Hill, a left-wing source:
link

By ROSS MCKITRICK…… HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You mean the Dr. Ross Mckitrick who got eviscerated in the Mckitrick and McIntyre paper that "tried" to discredit Mike Mann's et all's hockey stick?
You mean the Dr. Ross Mckitrick that published a paper that tried to disprove global warming by showing that the 59 million people in West Antarctica produced near 0 CO2 emissions as well as cramming the entire population of France as well as Frances CO2 emissions into French Polynesia and then complaining that climate models don't work anymore?

Thirdly, the Hill is more washington-centric than anything that properly fits on the left-right spectrum. Hell, if you think the citing The Hill as a left-leaning source is a checkmate, my reply is that a unpromoted pons don't move like knights.

Ross Mckitrick? Seriously? An economist who is a paid shill for the Cato Institute? And he is commenting from a Rick Perry interview?

StoneMtnMinis, no one's getting bitchslapped here, but those who have no evidence for their biases.

And while you are on a roll, invoking the Heartland and Cato institutes, why not go for the perfect trifecta and channel Marc Morano from ClimateDepot? Bitch slap us again!