Test Your Knowledge of Global Warming

[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