Test Your Knowledge of Global Warming

[moonshadow]

The correct answer is ZERO degrees.

Furthermore, from 1880 to the present, global temperature has increased only 0.75 deg. C.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

[NIHILIST]

And now this hits the news.......

A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.

The report -- which is not scheduled for publication until 2014 -- was leaked by someone involved in the IPCC's review process, and is available for download online. Bloggers combing through the report discovered a chart comparing the four temperature models the group has published since 1990. Each has overstated the rise in temperature that Earth actually experienced.

"Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted," Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.

"Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row... what that means is that it's time for them to re-evaluate," Spencer said.

"It is evidence that CO2 is not nearly as strong a climate driver as the IPCC has been assuming. This is the possibility they do not allow to be considered, because it would end all of their policy-changing goals," he said.

Bob

[dorbel]

Simplistic beyond belief, which broadly sums up Daily Mail reportage actually! To cherry-pick a 14 year segment to support the "global warming has stopped" argument is statistically nonsense. Global temperatures vary all the time in natural cycles, notably solar activity and the El Niño/La Niña cycles and these will, over short periods, mask long term trends.
I recommend http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4#t=2m07s , where leading climate denier Dr Pat Michaels speaks to a climate sceptic conference and debunks this particular argument.

[NIHILIST]

Dorbel responds as he usually does, by shooting the messenger.

Bob

[dorbel]

Actually not, the Daily Mail is indeed a risible paper, but the message is the target. It is statistical nonsense!  Jeering at me by obvious misrepresentation is cheap. Address the issues.

[ah_clem]

The oldest trick in the book for misrepresenting data is cherry-picking the endpoints.  the late 90's had a historically high temperatures, so if you put your starting point there, you get no increase.  Of course this is dishonest, but par for the course for "skeptics".

[NIHILIST]

Dorbel admonishes

Address the issues.

I believe I have done this with my post about the latest nonsense out of the UN's oft-discredited climate committee.

and now this.........  A leaked report by a United Nations' group dedicated to climate studies says that heat from the sun may play a larger role than previously thought.


Duhhhhhhhhhh, the sun causing warming ? What a concept !

Bob

[stiefnu]

Imagine for a moment that you are driving along a road.  With you are your nearest and dearest friends and family, and all the possessions you love the most - a case of the most expensive vintage wines, your favourite backgammon board, whatever.  As you come to a bridge, you are confronted by a hundred structural engineers.  Ninety nine of them say "Don't cross that bridge, it isn't safe."  Just one of them holds a different opinion and advises "You'll be fine, don't listen to them, they're just scaremongers".  What, based on a rational assessment of the risks, do you decide to do?

Steve

[NIHILIST]

A bridge is a physical structure, made of concrete and steel. You can touch it, drive on it, and engineers can examine it from all aspects with the most current technology. If 99% of them say the bridge is unsound you'd best take an alternate route. Perhaps most important of all, that community of 99 structural engineers hasn't falsified any of its data to enhance its claims.

Global warming, on the other hand, has no physical, tangible properties of its own. You can't touch it, you can't crate it up, and you can't physically take it into a lab to analyze it at your leisure. The best you can do is look at the results of changing climate and guess what the cause is and what the remedies might be.

The most recent articles quoted in this thread confirm that AGW is NOT an exact science. The fact that 20+ years after the movement started, the Nobel Prize winning UN IPCC grudgingly admits that the sun might exert a greater influence than they earlier calculated. In fact, over the last decade the scientific community and its shills tell us that nothing they, or the rest of the human population, can do  will REVERSE the warming that so terrifies them, but the best they can hope for is to stabilize temperature gains to within 1-3 degrees centigrade.

Bob

[stog]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/25/how-talk-climate-sceptic

is an interesting article US focussed with interesting links

for newcomers see also http://www.fibsboard.com/campaigns/ozone-map-1979-2008/

[NIHILIST]

Stiefnu was good enough to offer up a global warming hypothetical situation, now I'd like to repay the courtesy by offering up one for his consideration.

You have a good career, paying you a six-figure salary. You married your high school sweetheart and have three children. Ten years ago you built your dream home on 3 acres of pristine beachfront property on Florida's Atlantic coast. You employ 3 negro servants and 2 security guards who patrol your property carrying assault rifles with 50 round magazines.

One day you answer a knock on your door. You are greeted by 100 climate scientists, 99 of whom tell you that the Earth is warming faster than they anticipated and that within 5 years your property will be at least 50 feet under water as a result of melting glaciers, polar ice, and sno-cones, and you must begin evacuation and relocation plans as soon as possible. One scientist tells you the other 99 are full of sh** and there's no reason for you to follow their advice.

The question is, which moving company do you call, Mayflower or United Van Lines ?


Bob

[stiefnu]

Stiefnu was good enough to offer up a global warming hypothetical situation, now I'd like to repay the courtesy by offering up one for his consideration.

Too bonkers a 'hypothesis' to even begin to answer.  Just two observations; firstly it's probably best to think in terms of climate change, rather than global warming, and secondly that pristine beachfront is really not the place to build.  So much better to leave it pristine, for others to enjoy.

Steve

[NIHILIST]

Actually its not bonkers at all. The global warming movement has been stunningly unsuccessful in its overarching goal of slowing or reversing global warming. Assuming their track record continues and their most dire predictions come to pass, including rising sea levels, coastal areas will be threatened and evacuation and relocation becomes a very real issue.

The hypothetical is no less valid than your bridge example.

Bob

[moonshadow]

I posted the latest global warming data released by the Met  (the UK national weather service) with little commentary except for noting the fact that global temperatures over the last 130 years has increased 0.75 degrees Celsius.

The linked Daily Mail article accurately reported and covered that story, correctly making the observation that the latest global temperatures released by the Met, and which many thought would show a steady increase from the last 6 months, in fact showed a dramatic cooling, so much so that when global warming temperatures were averaged out over the last 16 years, it is factually correct to state that there has been no increase in global warming during that period.

Like Pavlov's dogs,  dorbel and ah_clem reacted in a conditioned reflex to my post and the ringing of the "global warming" bell, mindlessly running around in a frenzy and salivating over food that was not there.

Neither I nor the Daily Mail have claimed global warming has stopped and I intentionally noted in my original post here it is a fact that in the last 130 years, the earth has warmed 0.75 degrees Celsius.  So what part of this do not dorbel and ah_clem understand?

Being true scientists (sarcasm intended) dorbel and ah_clem have a hypothesis that global warming will increase at a certain point in the future and  when it does not increase at that certain point as predicted, rather than develop a new hypothesis or question their "global warming is always increasing" they lie and smear anyone who challenges those assumptions by mischaracterizing them.

dorbel confidently barks in all directions:

Simplistic beyond belief, which broadly sums up Daily Mail reportage actually!To cherry-pick a 14 year segment to support the "global warming has stopped" argument is statistically nonsense.

And Ah_clem joins the Pavlovian yapping:

The oldest trick in the book for misrepresenting data is cherry-picking the endpoints. the late 90's had a historically high temperatures, so if you put your starting point there, you get no increase.  Of course this is dishonest, but par for the course for "skeptics".

This following concluding quote from the Daily Mail article shows just how poor dorbel's and ah_clem's English reading comprehension ability actually is or perhaps like Pavlov's dogs they are salivating over food that is not there because their brains are so conditioned to do so when the bell rings: 

"The most depressing feature  of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change 'denier', and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.

So let's be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications."

This should suffice to show dorbel and ah_clem are not quite telling the truth and that they are greatly disappointed that the last reading of global temperatures did not show an alarming increase.

As dorbel and ah_clem are unhappy that the latest global warming data is so low and temperatures did not rise as many had predicted they have attempted to smear the Daily Mail by accusing them of dishonesty and in dorbel's grandiose and foolish words,  label their reporting "simplistic beyond belief."

Remember, both dorbel and ah_clem have claimed the Daily Mail, as well as myself, have said that global warming has stopped and that we are, to use ah_clems slur, "dishonest skeptics", when in matter of fact I acknowledge global temperatures have risen 0.75 degrees Celsius in the last 130 years and the Daily Mail reporter actually goes a step further and states "global warming is real."

So dorbel and ah_clem are not telling the truth.

And they are not upset that for the last 16 years global warming has not increased, they are upset that the last set of numbers show no increase and so are desperately hoping the next global warming numbers show a dramatic increase. Of course this is probably not true, but the obvious question I have is how many billions in government funding will they lose for their pet projects if their is no increase in the coming years?

Both dorbel and ah_clem, in a typical Pavlovian conditioned response to the stimuli of "global warming",  also salivated and ran barking around looking for the purported but not existent cherry picking of global warming data. 

From dorbel this nonsensical gem:

. . . . To cherry-pick a 14 year segment to support the "global warming has stopped" argument is statistically nonsense.

And ah_clem opines:

The oldest trick in the book for misrepresenting data is cherry-picking the endpoints.

In this particular instance where for the past 16 years there has been no increase in global warming and these comprise the last 2 endpoints, the last endpoint being still open ended, it is impossible, by definition, to cherry pick anything because the last end point is still open.

If in the next 10 or 20 years there still has been no increase in global warming, dorbel and ah_clem will still be barking about cherry picking endpoints while praying every year for a record global heat wave so they can finally get lucky and claim there actually is an endpoint.

Global warming alarmist ah_clem, in a spectacular display of self-evisceration, is determined to throw himself upon his sword:

. . . the late 90's had a historically high temperatures, so if you put your starting point there, you get no increase.  Of course this is dishonest, but par for the course for "skeptics".

ah_clem suffers from the same reading comprehension disorder that has affected dorbel and snidely tells us the Daily Mail article, and ostensibly myself as well, are being dishonest because of the high temperatures in the 90's which he thinks are not being mentioned, while all along the Daily Mail has been straightforward with the data, taking into account the high temperatures in the late 1990's,  explaining precisely what has transpired:

"The new figures mean that the 'pause' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
This stands in sharp contrast  to the release of the previous  figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.
Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased."

Since ah_clem charges that being dishonest is par for the course for "skeptics", which presumably means anyone that is not a Pavlovian salivating global warming alarmist dog, it is only fitting that he now commit intellectual seppukku after issue a formal apology for besmirching the honor of the Daily Mail and myself.

What is baffling to me is how does a 1900 backgammon player suddenly start thinking like a 1300 novice.

[moonshadow]

This is an interesting illustration, but it has flaws that render it false and inapplicable.

Imagine for a moment that you are driving along a road.  With you are your nearest and dearest friends and family, and all the possessions you love the most - a case of the most expensive vintage wines, your favourite backgammon board, whatever.  As you come to a bridge, you are confronted by a hundred structural engineers.  Ninety nine of them say "Don't cross that bridge, it isn't safe."  Just one of them holds a different opinion and advises "You'll be fine, don't listen to them, they're just scaremongers".  What, based on a rational assessment of the risks, do you decide to do?

Steve

This is a false equivalency because the science of structural engineering is well established, the variables are farily well known, understood and extremely predictable. On the other hand,  climate science, which is extremely complex, there are many variables that interact in ways we do not yet fully understand and it is highly unpredictable.

The fact is the computer models used to predict future global warming are greatly flawed, as evidenced by the recent Met Office global temperature data that many of the scientists had predicted would be much higher.
From the Daily Mail article:

Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America's prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were 'deeply flawed'.

Current climate computer models are not reliable. They are deeply flawed.

[NIHILIST]

I just stumbled on this article at realclearpolitics.com. Very timely considering the current thread.

James Lovelock is most famous for coming up with the Gaia Theory, which like Global Warming, emerged as a mistaken observation based on surveys of other planets, but he has also been a peculiarly rational figure at times.

Lovelock has warned about Global Warming, but he has also advocated against Green Energy and for nuclear power and fracking, arguing that only nuclear power could provide an alternative energy source that would stop Global Warming. This is a somewhat rational position that doesn't sit well with the fanatical Green Movement which hates nuclear power for reasons of dogma, not science.

And he has even questioned Global Warming, "The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened. The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now."

Most of all James Lovelock hates green energy wind towers and now finds himself battling one in his own backyard and has written, "I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We need take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation."

Those are words that the Greens might want to begin taking to heart.

[stog]

Gaia is a wonderful short book i would recommend to all; it is certainly much much more than

a mistaken observation based on surveys of other planets

. if you want to paraphrase it, i would suggest that Gaia is a book that alerted us to the fact that our earth is governed by the same laws of homeostasis that govern the living creatures that reside on the planet, but that this earth's reactions, including climate change, may not suit life for us humans, if severe homeostatic change is enforced on it (for example by external meteor strike or by man's increased industrial/chemical activity on the planet). The book reminds us that this planet does not exist solely for humans....

it is as i said a short book and one well worth reading for the detail.

Mr Lovelock is indeed a worthy, honest and truly learned fellow and many people agree with his stance against wind turbines, and if more alternate energy sources can't be found in time (or consumption reduced), then nuclear is a true option, but it is a flawed energy source at present, as we do not know how to safely 'contain' it or deal with its waste.

we are faced with pressure on creating storage for spent fuel in our own Lakeland area at present, and it is a terribly vexed question.

[NIHILIST]

I believe it was in the wake of the Japanese nuclear disaster that I first learned of Thorium. It is apparently abundant in nature, and can be used as a nuclear fuel without the waste implications of uranium. It has been known about for decades except, apparently, by me, but has only recently been considered for use by some nations. India's is apparently the best known.

With so many aging nukes facing de-commission it would seem that thorium replacements or retrofits should move front and center in the dialog.

One of the power companies in the Tampa bay area is facing massive repairs and a $ 3 billion cost that is currently being paid for by its customers even though the plant is currently out of commission and wont come online for years.

I don't recall any public discussion of thorium as a replacement which should piss off the rate-payers enormously.

If nukes are, in fact, the only major power source that doesn't contribute to global warming, and there is no waste issue, it should be front and center in all energy considerations.

Bob

[NIHILIST]

I was very impressed with Mr. Lovelock's eloquence and open-mindedness on the issue.

In two sentences he sums up my attitudes, suspicions, and skepticism of the entire Global Warming industry.

"I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs.

Bob

[stog]

He also reminds us that this Planet will continue with or without humans (whereas we humans cannot continue without our Earth)
Our careful and considered stewardship of environment for our future generations is paramount, if we wish to avoid the Earth having to massively re-balance in homeostatic terms, that results in an inclement and hostile environment

[stiefnu]

The global warming movement has been stunningly unsuccessful in its overarching goal of slowing or reversing global warming. Assuming their track record continues and their most dire predictions come to pass, including rising sea levels, coastal areas will be threatened and evacuation and relocation becomes a very real issue.

But it hasn't been for want of trying to raise awareness of what the great majority of climate scientists have been saying, that our climate is changing.  I think we have found some common ground here, Bob, because I for one believe that we have reached the stage where our emphasis should now be on how to cope with what seems likely to happen (rising sea levels, for example, and the consequent inundation of low lying land already being experienced in Bangladesh, the Maldives and elsewhere), rather than fruitlessly fighting against the inevitable.

I don't recall any public discussion of thorium as a replacement

The development of nuclear power took place through the Cold War.  Depressingly, it seems that the reason thorium was overlooked was because uranium fueled reactors had one major advantage.  They could produce weapons-grade plutonium as a by-product...

Steve

[NIHILIST]

it hasn't been for want of trying to raise awareness

I spent 35 years in the advertising business as a media specialist and account manager. One of the first lessons I learned is that RAISING AWARENESS doesn't accomplish jackshit. The real goal should be raising levels of CONSIDERATION.

I think there's plenty of awareness of the GLOBAL WARMING BRAND. I don't think that there will be much in the way of consideration increase until the charlatans, self-serving shills, fast-buck artists and manipulators of data are weeded out.

On the other subject I certainly agree that weapons grade plutonium was the by-product that has fueled ( pun certainly intended ) the nuclear power industry from day 1.

THIS JUST IN:  Today Duke Power Co. , the owner of the nuke that I referred to, has thrown in the towel and will not restore the plant. It is currently considering replacing it with a natural gas plant at about 40% of the $ 3 billion that was budgeted for the nuke's repair.

Great news for the anti-nuke gang, but the downside is that the small county where the nuke is located will be decimated. Current estimate is 600 lost jobs and a decrease in Duke's property tax bill from $ 30 million to about $ 13 million. This of course will have a disastrous effect on county services.

But, hey, WTF, one less nuke to worry about.

Bob

[stiefnu]

A bridge is a physical structure, made of concrete and steel. You can touch it, drive on it, and engineers can examine it from all aspects with the most current technology.

...an interesting illustration, but it has flaws that render it false and inapplicable...

Let me try rewording the 99 engineers' warning to:  "We are very concerned about the stability of this bridge.  It's not behaving in a predictable way, we believe it's showing signs of unusual stress and we strongly advise you not to cross it."  Happier with that?

Steve

[NIHILIST]

If it was the old Tacoma Narrows Bridge I'd have found an alternate route.

Bob

[stiefnu]

If it was the old Tacoma Narrows Bridge I'd have found an alternate route.

Good decision!   

[Zorba]

How many years did NIHILIST spent on academic education in the natural sciences, and how many years did he work as a scientist?

Just because you spent your life in the advertising business mostly misleading people, does not mean everybody else does. You're projecting your own mindset onto climate scientists.

[Zorba]

Here's what the tens of thousands of highly educated scientists from all over the world, all sorts of religions, all sorts of political backgrounds, have to say about it:

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

    An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

The main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:

    The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.
    "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
    If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

Wow, that's interesting. American petroleum geologists were the longest lasting deniers. Gee I wonder how that happened.

The tobacco industry was also the last to admit that smoking greatly increases the risk of cancer, and back then you had all these (smoking) people tell you they had an uncle that lived until 95 smoking every day. Some still try to tell you smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. Denial is a b#t#h!

[NIHILIST]

Let's suppose I agree with every dire prediction and warning offered up by the global warming industry.

Polar ice and massive inland glaciers will melt raising the ocean's levels to heights that would put major coastal areas underwater. This would wipe out cities like New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Seattle, etc. Maybe even Al Gore's new $ 5 million mansion on the California coast. Since, as I stated earlier, the global warming industry has been stunningly ineffective in getting the nations of the world to either accept their findings, act on them, or both, this scenario now seems likely, especially since this same group has admitted there's no immediate hope of REVERSING global warming, but that the best the world can hope for is to STABILIZE the current warming and hold it to an overall increase of about 2.5 degrees C.

I accept all of it, but..................... I have one troubling concern.

Armed with the certain knowledge of all these acclaimed scientists that this scenario WILL occur, what is their PLAN B ?

Where is the master plan out of the UN, the USA, Germany, Russia, The Netherlands, The Vatican or Albania that deals with evacuation and relocation of these populations soon to be underwater ?

The scenes of New Orleans underwater from Katrina and the ramifications of botched evacuation efforts are still all too fresh in our memories.

Am I the only one who thinks it's irresponsible that no such plan has been offered up in the face of the global warming industry's overwhelming consensus of rising sea levels and the unconscionable inaction of the nations of the world ?

When has the global warming industry ever put forth the OR ELSE scenario ? NEVER.

Why haven't they ? Because, IMHO, they DON'T BELIEVE THEIR OWN BULLSHIT !

The Kyoto protocol was agreed to in 1997, that's 16 effing years ago and basically nothing to show for it, certainly not enough in those  16 years to reverse the warming trend, so, we're all doomed to watery graves.

_{removed unrelated personal attack as per forum guidelines - Zorba}

Bob

[Zorba]

• There is no "global warming industry". There is a huge oil industry in the USA, however, and the USA produces an awful lot of greenhouse gases
• Whether major areas of land will flood depends of course on the actions taken against that. Apparently you are completely unaware that governments all over the world have already started programs for flood control, heightening and strengthening coastal defences, etc.
• The prediction (IPCC 2007)of the ocean level rise for this century is between 18-59cm (7 inches to 2 feet), so your remarks about "wiping out Los Angeles" etc. are just the ramblings of an apparently completely uninformed person.
• The findings in the reports of the IPCC have been generally accepted all over the world, by all sorts of scientists and scientific organizations but also by governments, and actions have been taken and plans are made on all continents. The IPCC reports have been very effective. Once again you seem to be completely uninformed about this, even though you could have learned this from my previous post.
• The predictions in the IPCC reports are indeed very certain that global warming will not be reversed any time soon, this is the first point in your post that you are right about. IPCC 2007 says "Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere."
• Asking climatologists for a "plan B" shows once again that you don't understand science. Climatologists are not politicians. They just study the climate, try to make the best measurements possible, try to understand their findings, create the best climate models possible, and based on that try to make the best predictions. It is up to mankind as a whole to respond to this, and this is where the realm of politics start, which is not science.
• There is no need for the kind of masterplan you ask for, as the populations you mention are not "soon to be underwater". Once again you seem terribly misinformed.
• Hurricanes like Katrina are not new and have always caused mass flooding when they hit low-lying coastal areas. The IPCC 2007 report calls it "likely" that the intensity of hurricanes might increase though, and a sea level rise will also increase chances of this happening, and increase the area that's flooded and the amount of flooding if nothing is done to prevent that.
• There is no "global warming industry"
• There is a lot of action taken, everywhere. Where it is enough action or not, is up for debate, and at least partly a political question, not a scientifical one.
• As pointed out above in various items, the bullshit is coming from you, as you are obviously uninformed and uneducated about this matter.
• The Kyoto protocol, although agreed on in 1997, only entered into force on 16 february 2005.
• Whether the Kyoto protocol has "basically nothing to show for" is debatable, since we can't be sure what would've happened without it. I would say, it is at least encouraging that Russia, the EU and the USA have more or less stabilised their anthropogenic carbon emissions over the last 2 decades.

Interesting reads for people that like to inform themselves:

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2218 The Case Against the Skeptics
Stirring Up the Warming Debate
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/02/u_s_shale_oil_are_we_headed_to_a_new_era_of_oil_abundance.html The Myth of "Saudi America"

and of course there's always wikipedia, a much more valuable source of information than the bubonic plague of extremist right wing american blogs where some  people seem to spend their time.

[NIHILIST]

There is no global warming industry

Jesus, now who's being naïve ?

Billions of dollars in research grants, the UN's own propaganda machine, the potential to make billions of dollars in carbon trading schemes. That, my friend, is an INDUSTRY.

I think your comments about water damage to coastal areas are a bit naïve also also. Did Dutch tv not carry footage of the massive flooding of New York City and the coastal areas of New Jersey ? If Superstorm Sandy is a result of global warming, and similar and even more severe storms are to follow, it only buttresses my point.

But my key point, unanswered by you or the global warming industry, remains WHERE IS THE BACKUP PLAN ? During Sandy those areas most affected were under evacuation orders. At what point does this become more permanent ? If ocean levels continue to rise and water encroachment in Manhattan only increases by an inch or 2 every year, then the writing is on the wall, isn't it ?

There is no need for the kind of masterplan you ask for, as the populations you mention are not "soon to be underwater".

Has the UN begun evacuation and relocation of the peoples of island nations that are even now threatened by rising sea levels ? I believe representatives of these island nations have been asking for just such a plan at the last two unproductive world climate summit meetings.

As for my being uninformed, that's why I rely on you. You were good enough to point out that I lack a formal education in science. Perhaps you can share with the group your curriculum vitae and numerous degrees you have received in science or climate study.

It's one thing to be uneducated in science and question issues based on common sense. It's quite another to be similarly uneducated and blindly accept everything you read like  nodding, drooling sheep. 

Bob

[stog]

it's a pity that people confuse Weather with Climate. The global average temperature is increasing. How else does ice melt? More heat in the atmosphere means more energy, more water bearing capacity, more evaporation and therefore more rain. Stalling jet streams and other large scale oscillations are being disrupted by decreasing ocean salinity, and that is making snow in winter. Basic physics.

this is a reader comment from an interesting bbc article "Are public attitudes to climate change as fickle as the weather?" 7/2/13

[moonshadow]

Let me try rewording the 99 engineers' warning to:  "We are very concerned about the stability of this bridge.  It's not behaving in a predictable way, we believe it's showing signs of unusual stress and we strongly advise you not to cross it."  Happier with that?

Steve

How can I be happier with that when you completely ignored the specific reasons I gave to show your illustration is completely invalid? What part of why your illustration fails do you not understand?

If you had understood why the basis of your illustration was a false equivalency and therefore completely irrelevant, you would have come up with another way of trying to make your point. (And exactly what is your point? How many billions of dollars of tax payer money are you wanting to spend?)

Structural engineering is HIGHLY predictable, climate science is HIGHLY UNPREDICTABLE.

Climate science is not snake oil, but compared to the science of structural engineering, its a lot closer to reading the entrails of a goat in terms of making reliable predictions.

[stiefnu]

moonshadow,

My reworded analogy seems a fair one.  The great majority of climate scientists (I have heard the figure of 99% mentioned) are concerned that the climate is changing and the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere is widely regarded as a major cause of this.  The skeptics are in a very significant minority.  My point is, quite obviously, that we ignore the considered advice of the majority at our peril.  I did not mention money.  However, I for one believe that investment (by individuals, not just by 'Big Government', though that would undoubtedly help) into alternative Green energy systems, transport systems, agriculture and the rest - would be a Good Thing.

As to your contention that structural engineering is highly predictable, this is usually so but, as an architect that worked with various engineers for many years, I can assure you that it is not always the case, especially when working with complex systems, using natural materials; for example, ancient timber structures.  This is why engineers routinely build in (sometimes to the annoyance of my profession) large safety factors into their designs.

For the last century or more humankind has been effectively carrying out a massive experiment on the planet, by incautiously altering its ecological balance, without any regard to its future.  Listening to people whose job it is to study these things seems quite sensible, if only for the sake of our children and their descendants.  Refusing to listen would be simply crass.

Steve

[NIHILIST]

The great majority of climate scientists (I have heard the figure of 99% mentioned) are concerned that the climate is changing

Only 99% ? I'd venture to say if you walked into any ghetto poolhall or urban Mc Donalds and asked those present " IS THE CLIMATE CHANGING " ? you'd get a 100% response. It's what the climate does, and the climate WILL change whether man burns coal or simply farts a lot to heat his home. What I find incredibly nonsensical and arrogant is that some scientists think humankind can somehow buy the weather by throwing billions of dollars at it.

At one time, only a few years ago, the opinion was that by spending enough money warming temperatures could be reversed. Now the global warming industry's mantra is that we need to spend all that money to stabilize temperatures and keep the increase to about 2-3 degrees C.

Listening to people whose job it is to study these things seems quite sensible, if only for the sake of our children and their descendants.  Refusing to listen would be simply crass.

Back in 1968 millions of people listened to an eminent scientist named Paul Ehrlich. His best-selling book, THE POPULATION BOMB, scared the crap out of people, made a talk-show and cocktail party guru out of Ehrlich and made him the global warming guru of his day.

Ehrlich's book contended that population growth had rendered the Earth incapable of feeding its people and that huge famines and mass starvations were in our near future.

Early editions of The Population Bomb began with this cheery statement:

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..

Jesus, at least the global warming industry gave humankind a few years. Ehrlich waited til we were all fucked before he published his book.

One of Ehrlich's more elegant ideas regarding how to mitigate the coming misery stated, " Countries with sufficient programmes in place to limit population growth, and the ability to become self-sufficient in the future would continue to receive food aid. Countries, for example India, which "were far behind in the population-food game that there is no hope that our food aid will see them through to self-sufficiency" would have their food aid eliminated.

Bye Bye, India.

Course, Ehrlich turned out to be just the latest nude emperor. His horror scenario never unfolded, India has a population of about 1.2 billion and is one of the world's most vibrant, growing economies.

As a final footnote, with more than a smidgen of irony, to the question put to him in 2004, "Were your predictions in The Population Bomb right?", Ehrlich responded, "I have always followed UN population projections as modified by the Population Reference Bureau -- so we never made "predictions," even though idiots think we have. When I wrote The Population Bomb in 1968, there were 3.5 billion people. Since then we've added another 2.8 billion -- many more than the total population (2 billion) when I was born in 1932. If that's not a population explosion, what is? My basic claims (and those of the many scientific colleagues who reviewed my work) were that population growth was a major problem. Fifty-eight academies of science said that same thing in 1994, as did the world scientists' warning to humanity in the same year.

Population projections from a UN bureaucracy, peer review of his work, and the "consensus" of 58 academies of science and untold scientists. Doesn't that part sound just a bit too familiar ?

Bob

[moonshadow]

moonshadow,

My reworded analogy seems a fair one.  The great majority of climate scientists (I have heard the figure of 99% mentioned) are concerned that the climate is changing and the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere is widely regarded as a major cause of this.  The skeptics are in a very significant minority.  My point is, quite obviously, that we ignore the considered advice of the majority at our peril.  I did not mention money.  However, I for one believe that investment (by individuals, not just by 'Big Government', though that would undoubtedly help) into alternative Green energy systems, transport systems, agriculture and the rest - would be a Good Thing.

As to your contention that structural engineering is highly predictable, this is usually so but, as an architect that worked with various engineers for many years, I can assure you that it is not always the case, especially when working with complex systems, using natural materials; for example, ancient timber structures.  This is why engineers routinely build in (sometimes to the annoyance of my profession) large safety factors into their designs.

For the last century or more humankind has been effectively carrying out a massive experiment on the planet, by incautiously altering its ecological balance, without any regard to its future.  Listening to people whose job it is to study these things seems quite sensible, if only for the sake of our children and their descendants.  Refusing to listen would be simply crass.

Steve

I am not making a blanket statement that structural engineering is highly predictable, which as you have pointed out is not always the case, but I am claiming that when compared to climate science it is highly predictable by several orders of magnitude, so much so that to equate the predictability of structural engineering in general with the predictability of climate science is not only a false equivalency, but quite ludicrous as the difference is so great.

As you suggest, let's listen to "people (climate scientists} whose job it is to study these things"

In response to the Met office release in December showing the latest global temperatures showing no change in the last 16 years, Prof Judith Curry, head of the the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America's Georgia Tech university stated the computer  models used to predict future global warming are deeply flawed. To reiterate, DEEPLY FLAWED:

'Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability  [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.
'It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.'

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the 'Climategate' scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.
The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – 'it could go on for a while'.
Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: 'We don't fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don't fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don't know what natural variability is doing.'

So the people who study these things really don't know what to predict. It doesn't matter why, its just they don't know a great many things and by their own admission their computer models are not just flawed, but deeply so.

And also perhaps natural forces within nature are mitigating against anthropogenic Co2 emissions so as to re-establish equilibrium?

As you suggest, we should listen to these scientists and take them at their word. They don't know. They really don't.

Thank goodness structural engineers have a bit more confidence in being able to predict how to build bridges that won't come crashing down. 

Since you are determined to use this illustration, lets further reword it to be more closely aligned with the facts:

"We are very concerned about the reliability of our data about the reliability of this bridge.  Our computer models are deeply flawed and not behaving in a predictable way, so even though we believe the bridge will show signs of unusual stress in the future, its safe to use now so go ahead and cross, just keep in mind a maximum load limit of 5000 kilos per axle. " 

[diane]

And also perhaps natural forces within nature are mitigating against anthropogenic Co2 emissions so as to re-establish equilibrium?

As you suggest, we should listen to these scientists and take them at their word. They don't know. They really don't.

On the first comment, I really think it is...the ice will melt, the land will disappear, and the greatest plague to ever hit this planet will be wiped off the face of it. Then equilibrium will gradually return. Lets hope something more compassionate gets the upper hand next time. Hell, it might even spend long hours hypothesising about what wiped out the previously most successful species to dwell on this planet...maybe it was a meteor??

On the second - watch this...and particularly the last section...you can argue about the last 10 years, 16 years whatever...you need to look at a much bigger picture than that. Even this is small scale..but if it does this over the next 100 years, it will all be over for land dwellers.

This planet is changing so much now, that it may not be suitable for us any more - probably not too far into the future, maybe even your children's lifetime. You put as many Billion dollars into that as you think it is worth. Face it, you will have nothing to spend those Billions on when the stock exchange is under water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hC3VTgIPoGU

You can also get started on doing something that doesn't cost anything, and may even benefit your household budget - if every single over consumer of energy slowed it down a bit - well we could perhaps slow the march forward.

[Zorba]

Billions of dollars in research grants, the UN's own propaganda machine, the potential to make billions of dollars in carbon trading schemes. That, my friend, is an INDUSTRY.

If Superstorm Sandy is a result of global warming, and similar and even more severe storms are to follow, it only buttresses my point.

If ocean levels continue to rise and water encroachment in Manhattan only increases by an inch or 2 every year, then the writing is on the wall, isn't it ?

Has the UN begun evacuation and relocation of the peoples of island nations that are even now threatened by rising sea levels ?

It's one thing to be uneducated in science and question issues based on common sense.

• 
  I googled "global warming industry" and couldn't find one reference to it, other than those extremist right-wing blogs I mentioned earlier and a reference to this very thread, with your post. Nobody seems to use the term, outside lobbyists from the oil industry, an industry that is very real. If you want to lump scientists from all over the world together with politicians from all over the world and the UN, you're free to do so but it doesn't make your point any clearer.
  
• Individual weather events cannot be attributed to "global warming", as climate is by definition about long term. Science can at best try to determine whether such storms are more likely to occur as a result of global warming.
• The writing is indeed on the wall, that's why I mentioned in my previous post that all over the world actions is taken and plans are made to deal with sea level rise, that includes Manhattan, the Jersey Shore and many other parts of the USA, and also the Netherlands of course.
• The Maldives is considering buying land on the continent (f.i. India) for a feature (permanent) mass evacuation, as large parts of this country lie less than 2 metres above sea level. As sea level rise is a slow, gradual process, there is no reason to do this right away.
• You are not questioning issues about climate change, you just present your own personal right wing extremist "gut feelings" on the subject without properly informing yourself and get discredited for that.

[Zorba]

What I find incredibly nonsensical and arrogant is that some scientists think humankind can somehow buy the weather by throwing billions of dollars at it.

Can  you tell us which scientists have said such a thing and where and when?

At one time, only a few years ago, the opinion was that by spending enough money warming temperatures could be reversed.

Again, in which scientific report did you read this?

[Zorba]

moonshadow conveniently left out the following, and I even directly quote these from the article in his favourite newspaper The Daily Mail:

"Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions."

and

"...However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two."

Here's the real graph of world temperatures, rather than the hodge-podge the daily mail made out of it:



The green area represents the uncertainty margin.

But ah_clem already tackled this with his very clear example and explanation of what cherry picking in data sets lead to. I guess moonshadow missed that post.

[NIHILIST]

Good Lord, what do you think is the purpose of spending billions of dollars on climate research ? We know the sun warms things and the wind blows, and we learned that for free.

But if you want specific examples, I offer this..........

An international panel of scientists presented the United Nations with a sweeping, detailed plan on Tuesday to combat climate change — a challenge, it said, "to which civilization must rise."

After a two-year study, the 18-member group, representing 11 nations, offered scores of recommendations: from pouring billions more dollars into research and development of cleaner energy sources, to mobilizing U.N. and other agencies to help affected people,( do you think this might mean evacuation and relocation ? ) to winning political agreement on a global temperature "ceiling."

Tuesday's report said such research budgets worldwide are badly underfunded, and require a tripling or quadrupling, to $45 billion or $60 billion a year.

The end goal of all this is, of course, to change the climate, or, as I put it, to BUY THE CLIMATE.

This from UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon at the Recent Doha climate summit:

"Climate change is happening much, much faster than one would understand," he added. "The science has plainly made it clear: it is the human beings' behavior which caused climate change, therefore the solution must come from us."

Therefore, a global transfer of wealth is vital.  He stopped short of explicitly demanding a de-industrialization of the West, though.

Jesus, that was damned nice of him !

Dangerous climate effects could include flooding of coastal cities and island nations, ( still no evacuation plans ? ) disruptions to agriculture and drinking water, the spread of diseases and the extinction of species, according to the United Nations.

What's interesting about Ban's comment is that he doesn't talk about spending all those billions on additional climate research and solutions, he talks of a GLOBAL TRANSFER OF WEALTH. Who will this wealth be transferred to and for what purposes ?

What is it intended to accomplish ? Are there better climate scientists in Somalia than in Britain ? Better research facilities in Chad than in the USA ?

The deeper one digs, the more apparent the fraud becomes.

Bob

PS Zorba, with your advanced degrees in science and climatology the time seems ripe for you to file a grant application with the UN. You could do a massive report on how global warming will affect backgammon in the Netherlands.

[Zorba]

But if you want specific examples, I offer this..........

I didn't ask you for examples. I asked you to back up some of the statements you so furiously made in your previous post.

You failed, so far.

Here's one more chance for you to redeem yourself:

What I find incredibly nonsensical and arrogant is that some scientists think humankind can somehow buy the weather by throwing billions of dollars at it.

Can  you tell us which scientists have said such a thing and where and when?

At one time, only a few years ago, the opinion was that by spending enough money warming temperatures could be reversed.

Again, in which scientific report did you read this?

[NIHILIST]

I don't need to redeem myself. The actions of the global warming industry speak for themselves. They don't like the current direction they see the climate taking so they've spent billions of dollars looking for ways to create a climate more suitable to them, to BUY THE WEATHER they have determined the world needs to survive.

You've heard of DESIGNER DRUGS, this is DESIGNER CLIMATE.

And when their efforts to REVERSE the alleged warming trend failed, they moved the goalposts to STABILIZING temperatures at 2-3 degrees C. You yourself acknowledged this strategic shift in one of your posts.

BTW, you can redeem yourself by providing your curriculum vitae to demonstrate your expertise in science and climatology to the rest of us uninformed masses.


Bob

[moonshadow]

moonshadow conveniently left out the following, and I even directly quote these from the article in his favourite newspaper The Daily Mail:

"Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions."
and

"...However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two."

What zorba is tacitly accusing me of is that I am being intentionally deceptive and dishonest in ostensibly leaving out some important information from the Daily Mail article that I would find in some way damaging to my position, though I suspect  this will fool only those that are either exceedingly dim witted, or others like Zorba himself who actually know better but have no qualms about distorting, misrepresenting and lying about what I have stated  because they can't effectively attack or reason with what I actually have said. Zorba's smear is rather simple to defend against. 

First, if I post a link to an article, I have actually read the article with a fair degree of comprehension and I assume that those so inclined are also capable of reading the posted link, even though it is apparent some in this thread have made the blunder I would not take them to task for outright misrepresenting or lying about what the article stated. Unlike Zorba, who is given to lengthy wikipedia cut and pasteI posts under the illusion that this is a substitute for critical thinking or original thought, I find it neither necessary nor impressive to waste space doing so.

The fact that I posted the Daily Mail link in the first post of this thread is evidence zorba is outright lying by accusing me of selectively leaving out certain quotes in the article, as I fully expected one to read and comprehend everything in the article, including the above quote zorba has fixated upon.  Zorba's failed diversionary lies and smears do not detract from the interesting fact I first offered for discussion in the thread, which is that for the last 16 years there has been no increase in global warming, even though most climatologists expected the latest Met office December 2012 data to show a dramatic increase.

And do not forget that in light of the latest data, scientists think their global warming computer models are deeply flawed, perhaps as flawed as zorba's intellectual or moral integrity.

Second, the reason I cited direct article quotes from Prof. Jones and Prof. Curry earlier in the thread, and which would be readily apparent to any reasonable person of average intelligence, was to show how highly unpredictable climate science is when compared to the highly predictable science of structural engineering, thus disproving stiefu's alarmist bridge illustration. I was not using those direct quotes to argue for anything else. The Prof. Jones quote Zorba pulls from the article is completely irrelevant to the point I was addressing  but it does show the extent to which Zorba will go in order to smear, lie and cast aspersions on what has been said.

Here's the real graph of world temperatures, rather than the hodge-podge the daily mail made out of it:

I'm surprised that zorba, after seeing how dorbel's and ah_clem's foolhardy attempts to distort and mischaracterize the Daily Mail article were exposed and demolished, has now willingly laid bare his neck on the chopping block of truth, awaiting the sword of reason that will soon come slicing down.

This is essentially the same smear that dorbel and ah_clem first attempted in this thread, which was the Daily Mail article was biased, ridiculous, distorting the facts and making false claims.  I thoroughly and effectively rebutted that earlier, but evidently the Pavlovian global warming alarmist conditioned response stimulus is so imbedded in Zorba's brain that he cannot help but mindlessly bark and salivate when the bell rings. As the Daily Mail smear has already been clearly exposed to be a naked assertion and zorba has completely failed to address that, it can now be accurately called a stupid assertion.

The green area represents the uncertainty margin.

But ah_clem already tackled this with his very clear example and explanation of what cherry picking in data sets lead to. I guess moonshadow missed that post.

Both dorbel and ah_clem falsely accused the Daily Mail article of cherry picking and I showed why that smear was false in considerable detail. Though zorba sarcastically opines that I missed ah_clems post, I can simply and correctly state zorba is lying because a few posts up in the thread, there is my fairly detailed response to the cherry picking accusations which to date have not been refuted.

[stog]

 

The train was quite crowded and a U.S. Marine walked the entire
length looking for a seat,
But the only seat left was taken by a well-dressed, middle-aged,
French woman's poodle.
The war-weary Marine asked, 'Ma'am, may I have that seat?'
The French woman just sniffed and said to no one in particular,
'Americans are so rude. My little Fifi is using that seat.'
The Marine walked the entire train again, but the only seat left was
under that dog.
'Please, ma'am. May I sit down? I'm very tired ......'
She snorted, 'Not only are you Americans rude,
you are also arrogant!'
This time the Marine didn't say a word,
he just picked up the little dog, tossed it out the train window,
and sat down.
The woman shrieked, 'Someone must defend my honour!
'This American should be put in his place!'
An English gentleman sitting nearby spoke up,
'Sir, you Americans seem to have a penchant for doing the wrong thing.
'You hold the fork in the wrong hand.
'You drive your cars on the wrong side of the road.
'And now, sir, you seem to have thrown the wrong b#t#h out the window.'

[socksey]

   Good one, stog!

I'm currently reading a book "Luce and His Empire" by W.W. Swanberg about the life of Henry Luce, founder of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines.

I mention this book here is because it is an exposé, especially of Time, to distort the truth to the extent of politically influencing the entire country with his own, not completely honest, ideas.  The writers employed by these magazines would write articles as they observed the news, then either Luce or his editors would rewrite, and distort them to there own agenda.

I'm seeing this practice may well apply to 'global warming' in some instances.

Knowing human nature as we do, it's difficult to distinguish what is and is not factual.   

I would prefer the conversation continue with personal opinions without the personal references to others who may not agree with you.   

socksey



Never take anything for granted. - Benjamin Disraeli

[NIHILIST]

A minor correction. Luce founded LIFE magazine, not LOOK.

Luce was a child of missionaries and grew up in China. he felt the "loss" of China in 1949 very deeply and used his magazines to editorialize about the liberals in the state department who he held responsible.

He found a soul mate in Senator Joseph McCarthy who shared Luce's opinion of the China episode and tried to purge the state department of Communist fellow travelers.

In another bit of historical irony, Luce employed Whittaker Chambers as an editor. Chambers later outed Alger Hiss, an official in FDR's state department, as a Communist Party member. This led to Hiss's conviction for perjury and made the career of Richard Nixon.

Bob

[socksey]

Right you are!  It's a riveting read, for sure.  This guy seemed to be everywhere on the globe and met with everyone who was anyone.  His wife was no slouch either.  She was elected to congress and did an enormous amount of traveling/socializing, too. 

Luce's day began in the office at 6 am, and often ended very late at night.  Even so, it's amazing he could fit so much in.   

Eventually some of his crew moved on because of the twisted way their copy was edited.

My apologies to Look!   

socksey



Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have. Make the Now the primary focus of your life. - Eckhart Tolle

[NIHILIST]

You have to remember the times men like Luce lived in. There was no cable tv and probably less than ten major magazines. Also, Luce and his contemporaries originally owned their media companies outright, no stockholders.

Men like Luce, William Paley, who owned CBS, and General David Sarnoff who owned NBC and was the key player at parent company RCA, wielded considerable power in shaping the events of the day and the politics of the time.

Bob

[stog]

Cryosat spots Arctic sea-ice loss in autumn

The dramatic recent decline in Arctic sea-ice cover is illustrated in new data from Europe's Cryosat mission.

The spacecraft, which uses radar to estimate the thickness of marine floes, has observed a deep reduction in the volume of ice during autumn months.

For the years 2010-2012, this is down a third compared with data for 2003-2008.

For winter months, the fall in volume is not so great - down 9% over the same period.

A lot of thicker ice appears to have been lost from a region to the north of Greenland, the Canadian archipelago, and to a lesser extent the northeast of Svalbard.

read more at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21437680

[NIHILIST]

And still no pictures of hundreds of polar bears, tits-up in the open ocean after being deprived of their sea ice ?

Bob

[NIHILIST]

This is really going from the ridiculous to the sublime, as this exchange on CNN attests:

The threat of global warming may stretch so far beyond Earth that it affects meteorites millions of miles away in space -- at least according to one CNN anchor.

"Talk about something else that's falling from the sky and that is an asteroid. What's coming our way? Is this an effect of, perhaps, of global warming, or is this just some meteoric occasion?" CNN's Deborah Feyerick asked Bill "The Science Guy" Nye, head of the Planetary Society, in a Saturday segment.

"No, no, no, no," Nye replied to the spaced-out question, before gracefully extending Feyerick a lifeline by saying "except it's all science. The word meteorology and the word meteor come from the same root, so, uhh..."

Several of Nye's fellow scientists were less diplomatic.

"Nye was good enough to respond with what sounded like a non-sequitur ... instead of saying, 'No, dummy,'" noted Popular Science's website.

"Dinosaurs unavailable for comment," one person slyly commented on Twitter.


Bob

[stiefnu]

Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that the secret funding of climate change deniers is "just the tip of a very large iceberg".  "Not for long, I guess" is some wag's response in the letters page today.

Steve

[NIHILIST]

What about the overt funding, by taxpayers, of global warming shills who distort and manipulate data, hide their involvement in companies that stand to profit if actions they recommend are taken, deny FOI requests and then gloat about it in emails to the rest of the global warming industry ?

IMHO they're every bit as venal and duplicitous as the energy companies that issue their own propaganda to protect their interests.

BTW, how "secret" can the funding of "climate change deniers" be if THE GUARDIAN is reporting it ?


Bob

[stiefnu]

how "secret" can the funding of "climate change deniers" be if THE GUARDIAN is reporting it ?

Well, Bob - that's what investigative reporting aims to do; uncover murky secrets and lay them before an astonished / uncaring / bored (take your pick) world.

Steve

[NIHILIST]

Well, I'm regularly called a climate change denier ( untrue, since I've always maintained the climate changes ), how do I apply for some of that secret funding ?

Bob

PS Once again climate change is being used interchangeably with ( man made ) GLOBAL WARMING. The two are different animals. I think we can all agree that billions of dollars in research grants aren't necessary to determine if the climate changes. Try to be more precise in your usage of the two.

[stog]

Joel Sternfeld's best photographs – when climate change sinks in

'I tried to capture the moment these delegates woke up to the full horror of what they were hearing'


article comments & links with more photos.. http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2013/feb/20/joel-sternfeld-best-photographs-climate-change

many good links in Comments eg http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/

[stog]

Latest Australian Government Climate Report
The Critical Decade: Extreme Weather
just released and available to view at http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/extreme-weather/

When extreme weather events occur the Climate Commission is consistently asked questions about the link to climate change. This report unpacks our current knowledge about different types of extreme weather events: extreme temperatures, rainfall, drought, bushfires, storm surges, cyclones and storms.

[Zorba]

I see the global warming deniers spreading yet more disinformation.

When Bob could still shout on FIBS he liked to shout about fraudulent climate scientists, and how they had been exposed by leaked emails. His evidence consisted of a few quotes without any context. Just as with his claim that "the USA would never vote for a black president", and "he will never be re-elected" four years later, he turned out to be completely wrong.

These are the facts:

In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth's mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway...it is a growing threat to society."[14]

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

So once again, we see Bob busy with the act of defamation.

These eight committees were not composed of self-proclaimed experts on the blogs some here like to read: The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US).

[moonshadow]

I see the global warming deniers spreading yet more disinformation.

zorba, in February you yourself spouted quite a bit if disinformation in this thread about what I have posted. see http://www.fibsboard.com/campaigns/test-your-knowledge-of-global-warming/msg33280/#msg33280

I responded in considerable detail to show just how dishonest you are and you neither refuted, retracted, nor challenged my accusations.

So you are not only a spreader of disinformation yourself, you are an intellectual coward.

[stog]

writing to a 'denier' today, who questioned the standing of the Aus Gov't, and that Australia has always had extremes, i replied

"extreme weather has always occurred agreed, but there are undoubted changes happening worldwide, and it is admirable that the Aussies have at least setup a climate commission.

here is a letter sent in Feb 2013 to B. Obama from the AMS and others requesting the US at least setup a national summit
http://www.conbio.org/images/content_policy/2013-2-8_Presidential_Climate_Science-Policy_Summit_Letter.pdf
________

the shifting of hitherto relatively predictable weather patterns has meant that many are experiencing 'extremes' at different times, from our own experiences here in the UK with the shifting Gulf Stream and its effects on our weather, to the trade wind passages of Atlantic seafarers, who for years have prepared in early autumn, for westerly crossings avoiding the hurricanes, and are now not as certain as to timings.

we have unprecedented Arctic melt well documented now, and now the newly discovered Antarctic build up.

whatever the causes, it is for sure that change has come, and quickly, and while the ramifications are not always fully understood, it is important that if, as most suspect, certain human activities are responsible for a percentage of this change, we progress to 'start doing something about it now' for future generations, and that is why the Australia Climate Commission Report is important, as it recognises that this coming Decade is vital.

Certainly the debates can continue, but there is already enough evidence to suggest that we at least attempt to gauge the extent of probable effects, and prepare accordingly to manage and budget our resources.

this must take place of course within and around  a framework of many 'declining or suspect governments and individuals', such are governments the world over, and such is humankind, but it is imperative that something is started and soon.

we cannot wait for a definitive answer as to the causes, nor can we await perfect governments or scientists.

we must as always muddle through with what we have; and what we have now is a lot more information than we used to, as well as better communication, and it is not beyond the wit of this generation to at least begin to prepare for what is already understood to be greater and more prolific extremes of weather happening at different times to what we have known.. etc

kind regards

[diane]

I was just reading back through this thread and stumbled upon this astounding post from NIHI....I quote bits, it was quite long - yu can always go back and read the rest 

Back in 1968 millions of people listened to an eminent scientist named Paul Ehrlich. His best-selling book, THE POPULATION BOMB, scared the crap out of people, made a talk-show and cocktail party guru out of Ehrlich and made him the global warming guru of his day.

Ehrlich's book contended that population growth had rendered the Earth incapable of feeding its people and that huge famines and mass starvations were in our near future.

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..

His horror scenario never unfolded, India has a population of about 1.2 billion and is one of the world's most vibrant, growing economies.

hmmmm...vibrant and growing economy? Certainly in parts...but the following is still true..

Hunger Facts - the number one cause of death in India is hunger...and that is only India..it is happening elsewhere too.

 
1.  Hunger remains the No.1 cause of death in the world. Aids, Cancer etc. follow.  

2. There are 820 million chronically hungry people in the world.  

3. 1/3rd of the worldÂ's hungry live in India.

4. 836 million Indians survive on less than Rs. 20 (less than half-a-dollar) a day.

5. Over 20 crore Indians will sleep hungry tonight.

6. 10 million people die every year of chronic hunger and hunger-related diseases. Only eight percent are the victims of hunger caused by high-profile earthquakes, floods, droughts and wars.  

7. India has 212 million undernourished people – only marginally below the 215 million estimated for 1990–92.


8. 99% of the 1000 Adivasi households from 40 villages in the two states, who comprised the total sample, experienced chronic hunger (unable to get two square meals, or at least one square meal and one poor/partial meal, on even one day in the week prior to the survey). Almost as many (24.1 per cent) had lived in conditions of semi-starvation during the previous month.

9. Over 7000 Indians die of hunger every day.

10. Over 25 lakh Indians die of hunger every year.

11. Despite substantial improvement in health since independence and a growth rate of 8 percent in recent years, under-nutrition remains a silent emergency in India, with almost 50 percent of Indian children underweight and more than 70 percent of the women and children with serious nutritional deficiencies as anemia.

12. The 1998 – 99 Indian survey shows 57 percent of the children aged 0 – 3 years to be either severely or moderately stunted and/or underweight.

13. During 2006 – 2007, malnutrition contributed to seven million Indian children dying, nearly two million before the age of one.

14. 30% of newborn are of low birth weight, 56% of married women are anaemic and 79% of children age 6-35 months are anaemic.

15. The number of hungry people in India is always more than the number of people below official poverty line (while around 37% of rural households were below the poverty line in 1993-94, 80% of households suffered under nutrition).


Sources :  
 
UN World Food Programme
UN World Health Organization: Global Database on Child Growth and Malnutrition, 2006
UN Food and Agriculture Organization: SOFI 2006 Report
National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector (India)  
National Family Health Survey 2005 – 06 (NFHS-3) (India)  
Centre for Environment and Food Security (India)  
Rural 21 (India)  

Lets hope the Climate doesnt do as much damage as that 'fulfilled prediction'...and what was it Nihi said about raising the care factor, not the awareness - seems we just got so used to tuning out starving people, we think it isn't happening...how long before we feel the same about drowning people?

[dorbel]

Diane just doesn't understand economics. The economy in India is booming, so everything is ok! Of course it will take time for the benefits of this to "trickle down" as we fans like to say. Only the namby pamby liberals think that actually feeding the poor in the mean time is a good idea.

[Zorba]

Moonshadow, when I neither refute, retract, nor challenge your accusations, it's because your rhetoric is not worth responding to.

[NIHILIST]

So why'd you respond ?

Bob

[NIHILIST]

As part of this thread I made reference to a Chicken Little fraud of the 60s perpetrated by scientist Paul Erlich in his book THE POPULATION BOMB. One of Erlich's great ideas to mitigate the coming famines and starvation was to create food banks to distribute food to "worthy" nations. Since, in Erlich's opinion, India's agriculture policies had been irresponsible for decades, it would get no food and presumably starve itself to extinction.

I concluded by saying that, despite Erlich's scenario, India survived, grew and has one of the world's most vibrant economies.

To which dorbel replied " The economy in India is booming, so everything is ok! Of course it will take time for the benefits of this to "trickle down" as we fans like to say. Only the namby pamby liberals think that actually feeding the poor in the mean time is a good idea."

Diane responded by citing a laundry list of facts pointing out the miserable living conditions of many Indians despite the roaring economy.

It is amusing and not a little ironic that these two should suddenly display some semblance of conscience and no small amount of righteous indignation over India's plight.

These two stalwarts of the British Empire seem to have overlooked the role that their nation played in contributing to the conditions in India they now claim to deplore.

For nearly 100 years Britain ruled India as its own feudal state, referring to it as THE JEWEL IN THE CROWN. Basically, Britain looted India, keeping its millions in virtual slavery, exerting near-total control over India's economy, and only vacating the country, in 1947, when it became apparent that Britain could no longer afford to maintain control over its former empire.

It's a miracle that India emerged from its days as a British colony at all, let alone created the growing economy that exists only 67 years after independence.

Of course there are problems, as there are in China, another powerhouse current economy that suffered thru centuries of exploitation, both internal and external.

I suggest that before dorbel and Diane display their indignation ( and their ignorance of their own history ) they wash the blood off their own hands. In dorbel's case he might do some research into why the NAMBY PAMBY LIBERALS of the British Raj couldn't decide that feeding the poor was a good idea during its 100 year stewardship.

Bob

[vegasvic]

Does anyone recall the starving Armenians ?

I hear now they are living well and eating truffle stuffed chicken on sunday's.

One down side of India when i was there on a photo shoot ... NO TRUFFLES .

This is what i am talking about ... and stop polluting bob. Pick up after BUFFO

[NIHILIST]

Does anyone recall the starving Armenians ?

Name one.

Bob

[vegasvic]

Kardashian sisters ?

[dorbel]

Blood on my hands? I was born in 1947! Anyway, you can't have it both ways. Either India has millions of starving poor and likely to have them for all our lifetimes, or India is in fact a booming economy that is taking great care of its poor. You told us that Mr Erlich was entirely wrong in the sixties to suggest that the world was going to struggle to feed its populace. Looks to me like he nailed it.

[NIHILIST]

Anyway, you can't have it both ways. Either India has millions of starving poor and likely to have them for all our lifetimes, or India is in fact a booming economy that is taking great care of its poor. You told us that Mr Erlich was entirely wrong in the sixties to suggest that the world was going to struggle to feed its populace. Looks to me like he nailed it.

Actually, I can have it both ways. India is most certainly a booming economy, it has millions of starving poor, ( which I didn't include in my post ), and I never claimed it was taking great care of its poor.

I told you Mr. Erlich was wrong to predict famines killing millions, including 100 million in the USA. That never happened. The phrase STRUGGLE TO FEED ITS POPULACE is your own fanciful insertion into the dialog.

And if you really want to get into a genuine dialog about poverty, poor health and other social ills of India, you need to recognize your own country's shameful role in the situation.

I realize you were born after Britain left India but you're as much fair game for England's past sins as Inim is for Germany's insane, homicidal 20th century history and I've been made out to be for America's despicable slave past.

If you'd simply stick to the actual substance of posts without inserting your own snide insinuations and non-sequiturs, an accurate, on-point, truthful dialog might ensue.

Bob

[moonshadow]

Perhaps a new thread should be started to discuss "overpopulation" or "world hunger," as the link to 'global warming' is tenuous at best.

[garp_02]

Overpopulation - now there is a subject worth debating- rather than the usual economic-based drivel we usually hear.

[NIHILIST]

Why not start a thread entitled DORBEL'S DIGRESSIONS ? Every time he strays off-point, which is virtually every time he posts, a new topic would be created.

Bob

[NIHILIST]

Overpopulation - now there is a subject worth debating- rather than the usual economic-based drivel we usually hear.

Why don't you just post the video of WE ARE THE WORLD ? This was the entertainment industry's effort to attack world hunger. Course it too was economic-based drivel since the proceeds from record sales went to purchase food.

You might also offer up your thoughts on how many times we're going to have to feed the starving wretches of Africa who are hungry in no small measure to their own thuggish leaders confiscating the donated food for their own economic-based gain.

It's just a goddam shame how often economic-based drivel snakes its way in and ruins the noblest intentions of mankind.

Perhaps, garp, you could make righting this heinous wrong your new life's calling. Since you profess no interest in things economic, you'd be the perfect, un-corruptible person to head such an endeavor.

Bob

[garp_02]

I wouldn't expect you to have an honest and open debate about the global population crisis and the global misuse and overuse of the global resources.

Just stick to your abuse

I'm with North Korea

[NIHILIST]

There is no GLOBAL POPULATION CRISIS. There are certain countries which are overpopulated based on the countries' ability to feed its people, which is really the key issue.

The population density of the World, excluding Antarctica, is 135 people per square mile. Russia, Canada, USA, Brazil and Australia are 5 of the top 7 countries of the world in terms of land area. Their population densities are as follows:

Australia    8.0
Canada      8.8
Russia      21.0
Brazil       60.0
USA         83.0

I doubt even you would contend that ANY of these countries lacks the resources or abilities to feed themselves. So, where's the crisis ?

India      957.0
China     365.0

The other 2 of the 7 largest countries by land area. A bit scary in terms of population density but I'm not aware of any nascent famines brewing in either country.

It begins to get worrisome when you look at

Bangladesh    2497
El Salvador      759

As I told you before in a post on this topic: Beware of overarching generalizations, they generally lead to erroneous conclusions.

I don't know what you mean by OVERUSE of global resources. Burn a lump of coal or a gallon of gasoline, IT'S GONE ! It's been used, it can't be OVERUSED.

Perhaps you mean OVER-RELIANCE or OVER-DEPENDENCE, which is a different discussion.

I'm going to ask you to please come to these discussions armed with facts. I get tired of correcting you and you never seem to learn anyway. Back in the day, guys like you who were resistant to learning sat in the corner wearing a dunce cap. I don't find one in the group of Smileys, maybe this will suffice.   


Bob

[NIHILIST]

 

Sorry, I meant to include a bit of commentary on India's ability to feed its people, mainly based on data in Diane's post. My bad.

I couldn't find a Smiley smacking himself in the forehead, so the guy at the beginning will have to do.

Bob

[diane]

OMG *slaps self upside of head* [to avoid the need for an icon to do it]..its like debating with toddlers...and again, I wonder why I bother...

The hunger post was relevant to this debate as a consideration of the accuracy of scientific predictions..Nihi used it to claim the future is not predictable in this way, I pointed out that it exactly is.

Then suddenly I am personally responsible for the sh** choices of [not my] ancestors. Because trust me, I am not related to anyone in the ruling class who made those decisions. So let's just ignore that pointless, unsubtle attempt to derail the discussion again..

The question here is whether there is any possibility of predicting what climate change will mean to humanity, and therefore is it worth bothering spending any money to avoid it. You know, like we spend money wandering round in space, and building weapons of mass destruction while the ice caps melt and the sea levels rise [assuming you believe in all that]..talk about fiddling while Rome burns..

With this lot here, I am drawn to an analogy I am sure Moonshadow will love [kisses moonshadow  ]

Imagine, if you will...you are in Australia, in summer...some two towns away, a bushfire starts...the news tells you the fire is moving at 350Ks per hour and coming your way...what will you do?

Ignore it because YOU cant see any fire...and the news is all rubbish anyway
Ignore it, because the movements of bushfires are unpredictable, and it could go anywhere, or die out..
Ignore it, because you have a firebunker and will be alright anyway
Move to somewhere that will never have bushfires and adopt an 'I'm alright jack' stance
Stay, despite your fears, because your neighbours told you you are a moron to take any notice of the news, and THEY cant see any fire
Follow up on your carefully prepared fireplan and help your neighbours to get away too
Get your children to safety and go and help fight the fire....
wait until the last minute and then try and outrun the fire which is coming at you, now travelling at 500Kph....

So many die here from not believing that news, or predictions...as do so many elsewhere because they think weather and extreme events wont happen to them, or are a big fuss about nothing.

For sure, there is an element of unpredictability - and we dont know how bad it will or won't get..but as I have said so many times before..is the Earth not worth the benefit of the doubt - given it is the only habitable planet we have?

[NIHILIST]

Nihi used it to claim the future is not predictable in this way, I pointed out that it exactly is.

I absolutely made no such claim.

I made reference to a popular book of the '60s that was the same alarmist crap the global warming industry tries to sell today. That was the only parallel.

The author of THE POPULATION BOMB, Paul Erlich began, " The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate. "

JUST EFFING WRONG !!!

With specific regard to India:

" Famine has not been eliminated, but its root cause has been political instability, not global food shortage. The Indian economist and Nobel Prize winner, Amartya Sen, has argued that nations with democracy and a free press have virtually never suffered from extended famines. Nevertheless, in 2010 the UN reported that 925 million of the world's population of nearly seven billion people were in a constant state of hunger. The UN report notes that the percentage of the world's population who qualify as "undernourished" has fallen by more than half, from 33 percent to about 16 percent, since Ehrlich published The Population Bomb.

Ehrlich writes: "I don't see how India could possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980." This view was widely held at the time, as another statement of his, later in the book: "I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971." In the book's 1971 edition, the latter prediction was removed, as the food situation in India suddenly improved. ( You just gotta love that part )

As of 2010, India had almost 1.2 billion people, having nearly tripled its population from around 400 million in 1960. India's Total Fertility Rate in 2008 was calculated to be 2.6. While the absolute numbers of malnourished children in India is high, the rates of malnutrition and poverty in India have declined from approximately 90% at the time of India's independence, to less than 40% today. Ehrlich's prediction about famines were found to be false, although food security is an issue in India. However, most epidemiologists, public health physicians and demographers identify corruption as the chief cause of malnutrition, not "overpopulation". As Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen noted, India frequently had famines during British colonial rule. However, since India became a democracy, there have been no recorded famines. ( Another good reason to applaud the Brits' exit from India )

To return for a moment to garp's point, to really grasp the nuances of the entire World population/ Global hunger issue you must look at WHERE these things are truly occurring. You must consider land area, population densities, fertility rates by nation. As I have pointed out previously, the greatest danger is with countries that have high birth rates and lack the ability to feed their populations.

One size does NOT fit all.


Bob

[stog]

It is our great collective misfortune that the scientific community made its decisive diagnosis of the climate threat at the precise moment when an elite minority was enjoying more unfettered political, cultural, and intellectual power than at any point since the 1920s

Naomi Klein


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/08/how-will-everything-change-under-climate-change