It IS all about the money!!!

YEP!!!!

BOTH sides.

Very sad.

Oh by the way. How do you explain the graphs?

What exactly are your proposing your data about the English climate shows?

What do you think it shows ?

The slope over 400 yrs is + .25 Deg C per hundred years. The data looks scattered around the linear fit.

---

I am a Skeptic regarding motivations of people. Having no special regard for person's with many letters after their name, or wearing a white collar, in high positions, etc.

Then why aren't you skeptic about the motivation of evolution scientists? Or Quantum mechanics experts. Or basically any other kind of scientist and scientific theory?

Simple, evolution works. It has been proven through repeatable controlled experiment. Even I have done an experiment on it in the way back when at a bacteriology lab. Sure there is some disagreement among some evolutionary biologists, but it is on a few very MINOR points. Adaptation by populations of organisms to changing environmental conditions through the process of genetic mutation is the central tenant of evolution, and it is *not* in question.

Quantum mechanics (oh gawd, that stuff makes my head hurt -- I can do some of the very hairy math, but it is complicated. I am much more comfortable with classical mechanics, statistical & thermal physics, and even E&M, but QM is both highly complex and bizarre.) has been proven through repeatable controlled experiment. Sure, QM is an incomplete theory. Sure, we don't really understand *why* it works the way it does. But it does work. Want proof? That electronic device that you are reading/posting to this thread on... If QM was wrong, said electronic device would NOT work, since it depends on QM to function.

AGW (global climate change caused by human emission of CO2 on an industrial scale) has its problems. The global climate is both a highly complex and chaotic system. We can't really do controlled repeatable experiment on it. About all we can do is try to model it on computers. And these computer models have a number of glaring issues. Some of these models' predictions about atmospheric behavior are not happening. With other predictions, the exact opposite is happening. All the models are not accurate enough to base any predictions on.. yet. They need a LOT more work. One test of how accurate these models are would be to start one at some point in the past, feed it the data for a few decades into the more recent past. Then compare their model's predictions about what would happen with what actually did happen. The models can not even do THAT with any degree of accuracy... yet.


Furthermore, the data being fed into these models is suspect. Quite a number of 'climate scientists' have been caught 'adjusting' the data in an effort to make their models give predictions that are, shall we say, politically correct.

I am not even going to get into serious questions some research has raised about the actual behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it might not do what many think it does.

Looking back through the record, both human recorded and natural, we can see that the one constant about this planet's climate (ever since it has had one) is *change*. For hundreds of millions of years, if not billions of years, well before humanity came on the scene, the climate has varied according to a number of natural cycles. Sometimes the climate is warmer, sometimes it is colder. Sometimes the CO2 concentration in the air was some lower than it currently is, sometimes it was MUCH higher (10x to 15x current concentration). Guess what? Life adapted and went on.

Now since the dawn of 'recorded human history', these natural cycles have continued, well BEFORE humanity's rather recent penchant for spewing HUGE quantities of CO2 into the air through industrial processes, and power generation. About 1000 years ago we had a rather warm period (the MCO). A few hundred years ago, we had a rather cold period (the Little Ice Age). Looking at the average temperature over the last 2000 years, the MCO was about 2C warmer than the average, and the Little Ice Age was about 2C colder. Looking at the temperature record, we are still ramping up from the Little Ice Age, being approximately at the 2000-year average temperature right now. The temperature graph is VERY roughly shaped like a sine wave. It goes up, then it goes down, then it goes back up again, and so on and so forth.

So, how much of the oft-quoted recent 0.8C temperature rise is due to the natural cycle, and how much is due to humanity spewing CO2 into the air. VERY good question. We don't know enough yet about what is happening to know with ANY sort of certainty. All ANYONE can do now is *make a guess*.

Is the climate changing? Yes it is. I've seen it. Parts of west Texas that were sand and cactus 50 years ago are now grasslands. Why? A large increase in rainfall in those areas.

Is humanity influencing the climate? Without a doubt. Urbanization and deforestation come to mind.

Is large-scale emission of CO2 influencing the climate? It just very well could be.

How much of the recent climate change is due to large-scale emission of CO2 and how much due to other factors? Nobody knows for *sure*.

Does it make sense to conserve our natural resources, through increased efficiencies in energy use and just plain old using less? Yes it does.

Does it make sense to develop power sources of a more green and renewable nature? It sure does! Oil/gas/coal have a number of uses other than just transportation and power generation.

Does it make sense to stop destroying our environment? It sure does. Here in the USA, we have made great strides during my lifetime in stopping air and water pollution. Are we there yet? No, but we have made great progress. As martin/ML1 is fond of pointing out, we all gotta live here.

But thank you Мишель, for supporting my point that the Warmist 'movement' has become almost religious in nature by comparing it to the bruhaha over evolution.

With the anti-evolution mess, you had some preachers that saw an opportunity and took it. They started spreading a bunch of FUD among the mostly scientifically illiterate masses, gave preaching that 'believe evolution and you are going to "heck", but believe me and trust what *I* say, and you will be saved!' They increased church attendance, giving the preachers more power and prestige, and also more $$ in the offering plate. Follow the money and power.

With the Warmist mess, you had some politicians that saw an opportunity and took it. They started spreading a bunch of FUD among the mostly scientifically illiterate masses, gave speeches that 'if we don't do something, we are ALL gonna die!!! but believe me and trust what *I* tell you, and you will be saved!'. They increased their power and prestige, and are planning massive tax increases. Follow the money and power.

In the case of the anti-evolution mess, scientific progress in the area was greatly slowed down as biologist after biologist had to keep his/her head down to avoid being turned into an outcast over it. In the case of the Warmist mess, scientific progress is being slowed down as way too many scientists have to fudge their data and distort their conclusions into line with the 'politically correct' viewpoint so that they can continue to be employed. Unless they have a VERY secure position, those that have been brave enough to try to publish something that questions the Warmist dogma have all too often found themselves unable to get any further papers even considered for publication. I tell ya, I am expecting the Warmist version of the so-called "Scopes Monkey Trial", and its probably gonna be soon.

Мишель, you claim to trust the experts. The problem, WHICH experts? You have two sets of experts on AGW, both in opposing extreme positions. I have found that in any disagreement between two extreme positions, that the actual truth is *usually* somewhere in the middle. We need to know a LOT more about exactly what increased CO2 levels in the air does. About the best way to do so is to get rid of the politicians and rich guys that are pushing Warmism, stop frightening the public with FUD, stop the conspiracy pushing Warmism, and let the scientists get back to doing what they want to do, without interference.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

It IS all about the money!!!

YEP!!!!

BOTH sides.

Very sad.

Oh by the way. How do you explain the graphs?

What exactly are your proposing your data about the English climate shows?

What do you think it shows ?

The slope over 400 yrs is + .25 Deg C per hundred years. The data looks scattered around the linear fit.

It looks scattered around a linear fit until about 1950, then it looks to me like it starts to curve sharply upwards. I wouldn't agree with you line of best fit there.

Here are the met office graphs: Central England and global surface temperature

---

Reality Internet Personality

This post could be interpreted as saying that you do not have a clue about even basic physics, so, without question, you will follow the drum that is beaten the loudest.

I sincerely hope this is not what you mean, otherwise all your previous posts have just been invalidated.

T.A.

And you would be wrong. I follow whatever theory survives being scrutinized by the scientific community. And this theory has survived several decades of scrutinizing by the scientific community. Science, after carefully reviewing the data has concluded that global warming is real and man made and 97% of the scientific community agrees.

Its all nice being a skeptic, but you can only be one if you are informed of all the relevant data and knowledge we have on the climate. Otherwise your skepticism is simply an opinion based on ignorance or misinformation. Look, someone who just passed physics 101 is not enough of an expert in physics to say that he is skeptical about the Heisenberg principle. Or would you say that this guy has a just as valid opinion as the people who actually studied and work in the field of Physics? No of course you don't think the guy who just finished physics 101 has a valid opinion on things like the Heisenberg principle and of course you don't take him seriously.

Yet you expect that your 'skepticism' has some kind of validity. Most likely, your skepticism stems from a lack of understanding of what the experts in the field of climate change have discovered. You lack their knowledge, their expertise, you are like that guy that just finished physics 101. Your skepticism on climate change only becomes worth something after you studied and worked in the field of climate change for a number of years, after you have thoroughly reviewed all the evidence in its relevant theoretical and practical context. Only then becomes your skepticism something people should take seriously. And that applies to everyone in this thread that professes to be a climate skeptic and that is not actually an expert in the field.

Climate change: How do we know?

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat,

with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization.

Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture,

collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale.

Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples

contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements,

provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased

since the Industrial Revolution.

Source:

Source: NOAA

Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:
Read more here here
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Source:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Sincerely
Byron

Simple, evolution works. It has been proven through repeatable controlled experiment. Even I have done an experiment on it in the way back when at a bacteriology lab. Sure there is some disagreement among some evolutionary biologists, but it is on a few very MINOR points. Adaptation by populations of organisms to changing environmental conditions through the process of genetic mutation is the central tenant of evolution, and it is *not* in question.

And why is it not in question? Because everyone looked at it and saw it was true. Climate change and global warming are not in question either. Again, 97% of the scientists agree. I'd say that counts as scientific consensus.

Quantum mechanics (oh gawd, that stuff makes my head hurt -- I can do some of the very hairy math, but it is complicated. I am much more comfortable with classical mechanics, statistical & thermal physics, and even E&M, but QM is both highly complex and bizarre.) has been proven through repeatable controlled experiment. Sure, QM is an incomplete theory. Sure, we don't really understand *why* it works the way it does. But it does work. Want proof? That electronic device that you are reading/posting to this thread on... If QM was wrong, said electronic device would NOT work, since it depends on QM to function.

Eh, how exactly? As far as I'm aware quantum computing is different from 'normal' computing and is still in its infant stage.

But yes, some bits of Quantum Mechanics are proven. However, a lot of it is simply based on models or is basically drawn up because it makes sense given what we know. They are highly educated guesses (to put it bluntly).

But thank you Мишель, for supporting my point that the Warmist 'movement' has become almost religious in nature by comparing it to the bruhaha over evolution.

I suggest you read the book 'Merchants of Doubt'. It closely details how a group of scientists have derailed things like global warming with 'counter science'. You will find that this group of scientists has close links to the military and conservative think tanks, and how they managed to set back the discussion on various topics, including global warming by several decades, by simply creating doubt in the minds of the masses.

Мишель, you claim to trust the experts. The problem, WHICH experts? You have two sets of experts on AGW, both in opposing extreme positions. I have found that in any disagreement between two extreme positions, that the actual truth is *usually* somewhere in the middle. We need to know a LOT more about exactly what increased CO2 levels in the air does. About the best way to do so is to get rid of the politicians and rich guys that are pushing Warmism, stop frightening the public with FUD, stop the conspiracy pushing Warmism, and let the scientists get back to doing what they want to do, without interference.

Which experts? The ones that form the scientific consensus in this case. Again, you will find that there is not actually that much doubt, the real scientists all agree on climate change and global warming. There is just this small group of scientists, who are paid handsomely by certain economic and political interests to create the idea in the minds of the people that there are two sides in this debate. That there even is a debate.

mediamatters.org

Despite the overwhelming consensus among climate experts that human activity is contributing to rising global temperatures, 66 percent of humanity incorrectly believe there is "a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening."

The conservative media has fueled this confusion by distorting scientific research, hyping faux-scandals, and giving voice to groups funded by industries that have a financial interest in blocking action on climate change.

Meanwhile, mainstream media outlets have shied away from the "controversy" over climate change and have failed to press U.S. policymakers on how they will address this global threat.

When climate change is discussed, mainstream outlets sometimes strive for a false balance that elevates marginal voices and enables them to sow doubt about the science even in the face of mounting evidence

Here, Media Matters looks at how conservative media outlets give industry-funded "experts" a platform, creating a polarized misunderstanding of climate science.

Meet The Climate Denial Machine:

• Heartland Institute And James Taylor
  
  
• Competitive Enterprise Institute
  
  
• Chris Horner And The American Tradition Institute
  
  
• Manhattan Institute And Robert Bryce
  
  
• Heritage Foundation
  
  
• Cato Institute And Patrick Michaels
  
  
• American Enterprise Institute
  
  
• Marc Morano
  
  
• Anthony Watts
  
  
• Steve Milloy
  
  
• Joe Bastardi
  
  
• Matt Ridley
  
  
• Larry Bell
  

Sincerely
Byron

Is the climate changing? Yes it is. I've seen it. Parts of west Texas that were sand and cactus 50 years ago are now grasslands. Why? A large increase in rainfall in those areas.

Valley in eastern equatorial Africa. Rich with bio-diversity - turned into dustbowl. Why?

Cloud forests on slopes of adjacent valley - logged.

No trees - no condensed water vapour - no rain.

Reliable source of water for animals in hard times - gone.

Herd of elephants that took their young there? Pitiful.

Watch a mother mourn her dying calf. I did.

Couldn't watch any more though. Not pleasant.

Logs used to shore up coal mining operation 300 miles away.

"Small" changes everywhere you look. 1+1+1+...

New thread perhaps?

Seeing is what makes me believe. Hearing might, or might not be, just noise.

But if we all want a cleaner planet, does it REALLY matter why?

On Carl Sagan:

[quote]..., his predictions are often wrong. For example, ..., Sagan warned ... fire to Kuwait's oil wells, ... sunlight would be blocked and a variation of the "nuclear winter" scenario would occur.

...AHEM... IF they were left to burn... (you forgot that bit - oh sorry - so did The Environmental Policy Task Force)

Quick digression. Weren't all Americans rightly appalled by the BP Oil disaster right on their doorstep? (Must say I was ashamed to be British.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill

It was certainly the sort of thing Carl Sagan would have been appalled by too had he lived to see it. Wonder how The Environmental Policy Task Force might have "dossiered" that? Mention (again) that he believed drugs should be legalised? (Where is Colorado again?)

Perhaps instead of leaving the well to continue spilling oil as its believed to be doing - we should provide it with a conduit to the surface, ignite it and leave it to burn itself dry... Not on your doorstep? Wouldn't blame you. Not on ANYONE'S doorstep. But if the subsequent buildup of soot in the locale is of such little consequence...

Seriously - don't take potshots (excuse the pun) at a dead man who cared deeply about our small blue dot. After all, if it weren't for him - there'd probably have been no SETI. And I love SETI!

We Will Have A Cleaner Planet.

Evolution Sez So.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

On Media Matters:
They lie

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2002/03/david_brock_liar.html

It is a book review in a gossip column. Not exactly 'proof' that Media Matters lies.

cheat

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Some-Explosive-Revelations-About-Media-Matters

This link doesn't work.

and steal.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/benjamin-shapiro/the-desperation-of-media-matters-2/

Why believe anything they say about the climate?

This links to a site which proudly proclaims under its banner that "in every liberal there is an authoritarian screaming to get out". It is therefor biased to the point that any assertion they make cannot be taken serious. At least, not without a dozen of other more reliable sources backing their assertions.

So, two out of three sources are junk. You have given no reliable evidence to support that Media Matters is what you claim it is, but in the process you have nicely demonstrated the smear campaign tactics that Conservative groups, media outlets, think tanks and politicians have been using against issues such as Global Warming.

They lie:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/inside-media-matters-new-mission-179584.html

An article about the mission statement of Media Matters. In no way proof of how they lie.

They cheat:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89098113/Media-Matters-Form-1023-Attachments

A document asking for tax exempt status? How is that cheating? And how are they any different than the dozens of other organizations that have tax exempt status?

And they steal:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2011/08/04/Blood-Money--How-SEIU-and-Media-Matters-Stole-Justice-from-Kenneth-Gladney

And another right wing conservative news spin group who are again, in no way a reliable source due to their obvious bias.

That is six sources now, of which 3 are unreliable and of which 2 don't prove anything.

Media Matters is just another organization playing within the rules to destroy the foundation of this country.

Nothing they say about the climate is believable.

I was not aware that the United States was founded on denying scientific research. But, it does show your inherent bias. Indeed, many of the climate skeptics see climate change and its consequences as an attack on the foundation of the United States, namely environmental regulations that would bind the free market to some extend.

I was not aware that the United States was founded on denying scientific research.

This type of silly attack only undermines the Authors arguments.

Whenever I see either side resort to this type of unthinking statements/questions/attacks against Europeans/Americans: I automatically disregard the position of the author.

Ohh the irony. Or does it only undermine someones post if the author is sarcastic.

Yeah, alright, I'm done with this topic. The skeptics 'win'.

NASA’s Operation IceBridge Mission Statement

NASA’s Operation IceBridge images Earth's polar ice in unprecedented detail to better understand processes that connect the polar regions with the global climate system.

IceBridge utilizes a highly specialized fleet of research aircraft and the most sophisticated suite of innovative science instruments ever assembled

to characterize annual changes in thickness of sea ice, glaciers, and ice sheets. In addition, IceBridge collects critical data used to predict the response of earth’s polar ice

to climate change and resulting sea-level rise. IceBridge also helps bridge the gap in polar observations between NASA's ICESat satellite missions.

Source - NASA




Source - NASA

Greenland Ice

Was that around the time we were contemplating leaving the trees? Or had we already done so and started losing our body hair?

Perhaps all those factors combined, is how we also promoted the rise of the louse!

(apologies - link has a few rude words)
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/pubic-and-body-lice

With a few good parasites under our belt (sorry :)) could it be time for our next legacy - bye bye furries. Time to make way for the insects?

Greenland Ice

Was that around the time we were contemplating leaving the trees? Or had we already done so and started losing our body hair?

Perhaps all those factors combined, is how we also promoted the rise of the louse!

(apologies - link has a few rude words)
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/pubic-and-body-lice

With a few good parasites under our belt (sorry :)) could it be time for our next legacy - bye bye furries. Time to make way for the insects?

Um...don't actually have any @.@ (just thought I'd mention that :))