Dr. Tim Ball:
“It occurred to me….” When somebody says “let me be honest with you” does it mean they haven’t been previously?
Two videos reveal important information about why and how the global warming/climate change deception was, and continues to be, successful. The major reason is because only 20 percent of the population is comfortable with science. Even among scientists the degree of specialization makes most of them unfamiliar with climate science or climatology. Everyone else was vulnerable to the deception that occurred, especially because it was deliberately conceived and exploited.
A presentation by Professor Murray Salby illustrates what is wrong with climate science and the climate models and why people don’t understand and were easily fooled. A presentation by Simon Buckle tries to justify the models and define the terms skeptic and denier central to public misunderstanding. He gets it wrong and only underscores the effectiveness of the deception.
Official climate science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is disintegrating from self-inflicted wounds. They did not carry out proper scientific testing of the hypothesis that human CO2 is causing global warming and latterly climate change, known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW). They worked to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis, but failed. Despite the failures they made false claims now exposed by actual events.
Several years ago I gave a separate public presentation in Washington DC after appearing before a Congressional hearing on global warming. The theme of the presentation paralleled earlier publications and presentations on the inadequacy of the computer models. It is covered in many articles on this web site including a general concern about their application in society. In one article I quote Pierre Gallois’ comment that,
“If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no one dares criticize it.”
As I wrote in one article, GIGO which stood for Garbage In Garbage Out for models in general in climate science of the IPCC became Gospel In Gospel Out.
Sufficient data from the IPCC computer model projections has accumulated to analyze what was wrong and why it occurred. None of it is a surprise, but we could only speculate because we had insufficient information about the computer codes, that are the programming instructions. Now Salby, working backward dissembles the models showing they were knowingly designed to produce a desired result.
This concept of premeditated results was the theme of my presentation to the Heartland conference on Climate Change in Washington, a couple of years ago. One slide from that presentation said,
“The computer results were predetermined.” “They set out to prove the hypothesis contrary to the scientific method.” “They did not entertain the null hypothesis.” “Despite this they convinced the world that CO2 is a serious problem.”
I ran across a statement today in a Discovery News article that actually came out last November: Best estimates are that human activity—primarily the burning of fossil fuels—releases approximately 135 times as much CO2 into the atmosphere each year as all volcanic activity.
Volcanic activity is the single largest natural source of CO2.
The interesting thing about burning fossil fuels and volcanic activity is that both introduce CO2 into the atmosphere that is new, in a sense; that is, it’s CO2 that has not been part of normal climate cycles for many millions of years. It was locked away below the surface of the Earth and not previously a factor having any bearing on global climate.
If it’s a relevant climate variable, as most scientists suspect, it’s one that we’re rapidly altering.
Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect according to S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research.
And many other experts.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif
If mankind disappeared tomorrow the earth would show no change in climate at all.
How much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not.
Not factoring in water vapor makes the difference between humans being called a significant contributor to climate change versus being recognized as a negligible contributor to it.
My questions to the President are pretty straight forward. If we do everything you want to combat rising temperatures and rising sea levels you say man is causing, please answer the following. How much will the sea level recede and in what time frame? How much will the temperature drop and in what timeframe?
I only interested in results.
I doubt he could answer that honestly with 10 thousand climate scientists beside him.
@Greg:
Then if we stipulate your supposition is correct (which is not true…but for the sake of argument I will play along) how on earth could the average global temperatures have been going DOWN since 1997 if the main thrust of the AGW cult….that human produced CO2 increasing the overall atmospheric concentration of CO2 was THE CAUSE of rising temperatures that threaten to doom us all…was “settled science”?
@Pete:
As a layman, I’d point out that CO2 is only one of many variables that are part of a very complex, dynamic system having many interrelated components. I don’t believe it’s logical for critics to highlight a very short term cooling trend, and flaunt it as evidence disproving the significance of the one particular variable that they’d much rather people not worry about.
No one has claimed that CO2 is the only global warming gas, or that it’s the most abundant global warming gas. What many scientists believe is that CO2 represents a variable that plays a much more significant role in climate than its relative abundance would indicate, and a variable having numerical value that human activity has recently been altering very, very quickly. They point out that there’s a sound theoretical mechanism that would account for CO2’s disproportionate importance in the climate system as compared with other greenhouse gases, and that there’s data indicating a long term global warming trend that corresponds with the inexorable rise of CO2 levels.
Many scientists, who tend to take a somewhat longer view of the human endeavor than most of us, find this correlation very alarming—particularly in light of accelerating ice losses in Greenland, pervasive permafrost melt across the northern hemisphere, a progressive measured rise in sea level, expanding oceanic dead zones, expanding areas of desertification, obvious disturbances in the biosphere involving obvious ecosystem disturbances and accelerating species losses, etc. They view all of those things—all of which are undeniable realities—in the context of a very rapid expansion of those very human activities that they believe are most likely to be the force driving the problem.
Don’t worry, it’s all a plot cooked up by scientists seeking grants and socialist politicians making a power grab somehow doesn’t do it for me. Particularly when I know for a fact that those advancing that argument have a monetary interest in maintaining the status quo, and generally don’t look much further ahead than the next few annual earnings reports.
In my checkered career I’ve worked with the Navier Stokes equation. It governs the atmosphere. We can’t solve it (In 3 dimensions, flows go to smaller and smaller scales, so no resolution is adequate). Climate scientists substitute another equation and solve that. That isn’t science, and it doesn’t work.
So there’s no theory.
I’ve worked in signal processing. You can’t distinguish a trend from cycles with data that’s short compared to the cycles. The eigenvalues of the distinguishing matrix explode, making the observations useless, and not just a little bit useless.
So there’s no data.
Those are two mistakes just from points of contact with my career. How many thousand other mistakes are there?
The conclusion is that the scientists don’t know what they claim to know.
Greg, the problem surely is that there is no correlation. I look at a graph of temperature, and then I look at a graph of CO2 ppm, and I see no correlation. I find it astounding that despite the massive forcing of CO2 in the past decade or two, temperature remains flat (or even a dip since 2002). How can that be so? This is quite incredible, isn’t it? Do we have the physics of CO2 wrong? Could it be that there are negative forcings that we’re not taking into account? Or could it just be that CO2 hasn’t raised temperature at all? I find the temperature hikes in the graphs odd. The Central England Temperature being a prime example. Why a very sudden hike in 1980? What on earth happened to England around 1980? Is this really how the physics of CO2 works? If we still get no rise in temperature (or even a fall) by 2020, what then Greg? And I’m willing to bet that’s exactly what will happen. I hate the idea that scientists are cooking the books, and looking out for grants, but if you listen to some of them, if you read their blogs, it makes you feel really uneasy about science itself. Some won’t entertain the thought that the temp anomaly is flattened or falling – despite the fact that they could use woodfortrees just as well as me.
@The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley, #7:
As I mentioned, CO2 is not the only variable. There are other variables that people who deny any relationship between CO2 concentrations and climate readily admit to, and use in their arguments. Variations in solar energy output could have an effect on climate, for example. Why would it not be possible for the effect of one variable to temporarily mask the effect of another? This doesn’t seem merely possible; it seems likely.
The possible extent of some masking effects can occasionally become apparent rather quickly. For example, during the mass grounding of nearly all commercial aviation immediately following 9/11, measurable increases in solar energy reaching ground level were noted all across the United States within the week. This was attributed to the near-immediate disappearance of high altitude vapor trails, which are essentially artificial cloud seeding operations that normally take place around the clock, all over the globe. It has been suggested that commercial jet air traffic normally masks the full extent of warming attributable to CO2 by creating an artificial reflective layer of high altitude clouds.
I have no trouble believing this. During that week or so, the sky where I live became clearer than it’s been since my childhood. The September sky was once again full of stars at night. I could actually see the Milky Way from the outlying greater Chicago area.
It seems to me that climate change deniers routinely focus on one fact or another to support their argument, while totally ignoring any inconsistencies that arise when all things are considered in a single context.
The really major problem with ”fighting AGW” is that we have no idea what the optimal temperatures should be at any one part of the planet.
No idea whatsoever!
Greenland USED to grow enough crops for both people and their herd animals.
England USED to grow grapes in easy abundance.
California USED to have the water to support our entire country’s green veggies, fruits and grains like rice.
Should it be Africa’s turn to be able to grow earth’s produce?
The Middle East’s?
(OOPS! Israel manages to be quite lush!)
Central America’s turn?
And WHY????
Greg @ June 26, 2013 at 11:53 pm
“Volcanic activity is the single largest natural source of CO2.”
Poppycock. Ocean circulation is the single largest natural source of CO2. When CO2 rich waters upwell, they create a temperature dependent pump of CO2 into the atmosphere. It follows that the rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere should closely follow an affine function of temperature. And, voila! It does.
There is no way that plot could arise if Anthropogenic inputs were in the driver’s seat. They are negligible in comparison to the natural forcing, and rapidly sequestered by a system which shrugs them off with no difficulty.
I am a retired chemist (little old lady) with no kids. To put it bluntly I have no Dog in this fight except respect for the scientific method.
This is a clear statement of the thinking of a warmist by a Physical Chemist.
Two of the most important drivers of the earth’s climate are the sun and water, yet the backa$$wards thinking of these modelers is that a miniscule amount of CO2 (400ppm) in the atmosphere is DRIVING 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers (332,519,000 cubic miles) of water.
From NOAA:
I guess none of these people ever heard of Henry’s Law.
In other words the temperature of the oceans DRIVES the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by outgassing as the oceans warm up.
The Warmists think that the downwelling radiation from CO2 is ‘Warming’ the oceans. Aside from the 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers vs 400ppm problem you have the fact that IR wavelengths from CO2 can not penetrate the ocean beyond a few microns while the visible to extreme ultra violet wavelengths from the sun, which have a lot more ‘energy’ penetrate to depths of 100 meters
Graph of Sunlight at Top of Atmosphere, surface and 10 meters below ocean surface
Graph of Solar Radiation Intensity and Wavelengths at specific Ocean depths
This graph is the clincher: Relative Energy of incoming solar radiation and out going terrestrial radiation Note the exponential scale so it is like comparing billions of dollar (solar energy) to nickels and dimes (terrestrial energy) However the warmists much prefer to use this Graph
This graph gives where CO2 vs water, O3, N2O absorption bands are with relation to the incoming solar radiation and out going terrestrial radiation. (Note H2O is a much more significant GHG and CO2 is not absorbing at the peak radiation wave lengths as H2O does.)
Of course the warmists had to also get rid of this older article from NOAA showing Sunlight has varied from 1950 to 2000. (This is the rewrite without a date change).
Unfortunately for the warmists, new data is showing the visible to extreme UV varies a lot more than originally thought even though the total insolation may remain more or less constant. NASA link and NASA: UV Exposure Has Increased Over the Last 30 Years, but Stabilized Since the Mid-1990s
UV and Ozone and its effect on climate is another entire subject and worth your while looking up.
To put it bluntly the warmists do not have a scientific leg to stand on but that doesn’t keep them from saying CO2 is the ‘Control Knob’ and then calling the effects of water on the climate a ‘Feedback’ and therefore part of ‘the forcing in anthropogenic warming’. That was the only way they could show increases in CO2 are ‘Catastrophic’. Mother Nature of course is now calling them liars.
@Nan G:
Actually, so far as I’ve ever read, that’s never been the case. There were coastal settlements in paleolithic times, and again much later during the Norse era, but they were primarily hunting, fishing, and herding cultures, not agriculturally based. Herd animals were able to subsist on what people couldn’t eat. People back then didn’t commonly grow crops to feed to animals. It was too inefficient. I suppose people might have scratched out meager harvests of grain and vegetables to supplement their diets.
If global warming trends continue, Greenland could become a much better place for human settlement. There’s already some agriculture underway there, owing to warmer weather and dryer summers. I suppose there might be all manner of unexploited resources hidden away under the ice sheets.
@GAI:
Welcome to this on-going conversation Gai. Unfortunately, Greg is a completely clueless parrot for the “climate change” croud,
@Greg:
OK, Greg. Name these other gasses that you also think lead to global warming and cite evidence to support your claim.
The absence of contrails resulted in a rise of solar energy? ROTFLMAO!!! That’s the funniest thing you’ve said to date Greg! Digging up the aluminum foil hat conspiracy theory of chemical seeding to explain a rise in solar energy?
ROTFLMAO!!!
You kill me.
@Ditto, #13:
I believe someone just cited water vapor? We could add a few more. Would you care for a list? Try this one, conveniently compiled on Wikipedia. No one who has a clue disputes the existence of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately a lot of people seem to have slept through their Earth Science classes.
No. The absence of contrails reduced the level of high altitude reflective clouds, thus allowing a higher percentage of a constant level of solar radiation to reach the ground. Solar radiation that bounces off into space doesn’t have the warming effect of that which reaches the ground.
This effect was fully documented. The observations were summarized in a short scientific article that appeared in Nature, Volume 418, on August 8, 2002.
I would suggest less time ROTFLYAO with a bit more time and attention being paid to what’s actually being said—at least before making public claims that the other guy doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.
@The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley:
Ghost of, the important thing about Science is that it is ‘science’. The itty bitty problems you mention with the correlation is just that. A problem. If it doesn’t correlate, then it isn’t true. That’s science. Physics is physics. How much money a scientist needs to live correlating with how big the problem is, is not science. The strongest correlation to global warming is politics. The more liberal you are, the greater the problem. That correlates much more than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
It must hurt to be so stupid. (this is for those that think we have a global warming prob, not you Ghost of.)
@Greg:
You are obviously reading only Lib material. Maybe you should try some factual material. As GAI said just above, this is a science, you’re talking politics. Science is factual and politics is, well, politics. Do you just insist on remaining ignorant?
@Greg: .
In your case, I think you were playing hooky. I don’t believe you have ever been within shouting distance of a class in earth science. Maybe Lib Science.
@Greg:
you left off: by the global warming crowd. Ha Ha, you are so funny Greg.
Hey, I just noticed you live in Chicago. That explains a lot.
@Redteam:
So the guy who believes all the wild Obama conspiracy theories also believes climate change is some world wide liberal hoax. Shocking.
@Tom: Yep, you got that right……
@Redteam, #16:
I’d be interested in seeing any credible source you can find citing evidence that Greenland’s climate once supported a level of agriculture sufficient to feed both its human inhabitants and their herd animals. Agriculture there was never better than marginal. When it was warm enough for coastal settlement, the populations were relying chiefly on fishing, whaling, and herding. If they’d tried to rely on agriculture, they would have quickly starved. I’m afraid you’ve got Liberal vs. Conservative on the brain.
@Redteam, #18:
The article isn’t based on theory. It’s based on actual temperature measurements. It’s reporting verified facts, not someone’s opinion.
Soon after commercial aviation was grounded, high altitude contrails disappeared. Natural, much clearer skies returned. (People who occasionally look up saw that change with their own eyes.) More solar radiation reached the ground, because there was less cloud cover in the way. When more solar radiation reached the ground, average temperatures predictably got higher.
This should be easy enough for nearly anyone to understand.
I don’t live in Chicago. I live in the outlying greater Chicago region. That extends eastward, far into northwest Indiana, and north all the way to the border of Wisconsin. Maybe some people slept through Geography as well as Science classes.
Chicago itself is the third-largest city in the nation. It’s economy is larger than that of the entire nation of Switzerland—and that’s just the city proper. I don’t know where people get the idea that it’s some sort of backward, underachieving place.
@Greg:
At no point does the City of Chicago go into Indiana. If you are within the city limits and you go eastward, very far, you will find yourself in Lake Michigan. (maybe you should do a refresher yourself on geography.
I guess they were ‘ice fishing’ wonder what they used to cut through all that ice.
As far as that ‘fairy tale’ about the ‘clear skies’ over the US because of not flying, I could only suggest you read a little about how the oceans, water vapor and heat from the sun interact, but I know it would be a waste of time because you are only interested in Libs points of view and not the truth.
@Redteam, #22:
Your generally hostile attitude and inflexible thinking remind me so much of a couple of other posters around here that I occasionally find myself wondering if you might not all be the same person.
Have it your way. There’s no such thing as the Greater Chicago Region, or The Greater Chicago Area, or Chicagoland—despite the fact that anyone living in it will have a good idea what the term refers to, including those in northwest Indiana—and early Greenland inhabitants had to saw holes in the ocean in order to conduct their whaling and fishing, while most stayed ashore cultivating vast fields of grain. Just be aware that your accepted body of information appears to apply to some alternate universe, rather than to this one.
@Greg: Greg, you may be assured that I don’t comment as anyone other than Redteam. I don’t even know who else you might think.
You certainly think you recognize your traits in others, but I think that’s just your mentality. It’s not there, you’re just daydreaming.
Only to the mobsters that control the area. While you’re talking about how the Repubs cause deficits in Washington, which party do you think has controlled Chi town forever and has totally bankrupted it? You may have more than one guess, if you need it.
You must be back in Dreamland, or is that Chicagoland, oh well, same thing. Where and when did I say that they grew vast fields of grain in Greenland? You have a strange habit of commenting on what you imagine someone said, rather than what they actually said. Sounds like a Lib.
I suppose it’s possible that people can just have similar dysfunctional personalities, or whatever it is that predisposes them to trollish, deliberately disrespectful behavior. I will suggest that behaving like a angry, ill mannered child in the context of every discussion you enter into doesn’t actually do the cause you imagine you’re supporting any good. Not that it’s likely to actually matter to you.
@Greg: Well, perhaps if you actually acted as if you had a brain in your head, you wouldn’t have to be condescended to . There is a possibility of more than one side to an issue and it’s not always the Libs that are correct, although according to you, that’s the only possibility. I can’t understand your propensity for childish behavior.
Greg. I take your point about contrail masking, but there are swings and roundabouts with regard to variables. Warmists are bewildered as to the LACK of an increase in the temperature anomaly, but we haven’t had any volcanoes going off. A few are overdue, and when they finally go we can expect to see a real DROP in the temperature anomaly. So to reiterate, although we have CO2 forcing we also have contrail masking, as you say, but these have coexisted for quite some time now, and we haven’t had a decent-sized volcano going pop.
And it’s not just sceptics who change focus! I used to be on a well-known global warming forum, and it was amusing that warmists changed their favourite metric as GISS and HadCRUt changed. One British warmist used to quote the Met Office, then changed to GISS when GISS showed a rise and the Met Office’s graph didn’t. And I was constantly informed that tropical tropospheric temps would “prove” global warming. When they didn’t, the warmists suddenly found the Arctic temps to play with instead! It’s human nature to find something to support one’s own argument amongst a sea of alternate evidence, but I say again, the principle forcing here is meant to be CO2…and yet the temps are flattened or even falling (depending on your date picking) for well over a decade now DESPITE that massive forcing. No amount of contrails is meant to overcome such a powerful forcing as CO2, and as I said, wait and see what happens when some volcanoes go pop. If you cannot see that something very peculiar has happened with the idea of CO2=higher temp then it is you who are denying, Greg.
Redteam, you’re right, I should have said, “…about the understanding of science itself”. I love science, that’s why I have contributed here about climate science, but I am deeply saddened about what has happened to our understanding of it and the way it is now carried out. At tech college I was taught that if your idea (hypothesis) isn’t confirmed by your experiment’s results then your idea is wrong. It seems we can now fudge! In 20 years time science will be looked on more dimly than of now – as the idea of global warming will have been proved to be incorrect by the global temperatures. It will be a bad day for the ‘fight’ between faith and science.
what an interesting POST AND FOLLOWED BY VERY INTELLIGENT COMMENTS,
I will mention the thought i have and believe in very much.
human produce co2, ? they eat and aspire co2? they dig to build the building they need to live,
and to work in, that is more co2?now her is my question:
how about anyone calculating the amount of co2, in this population as oppose to let say ten years ago
population of humans all active in this AMERICA to use what they each need,
and when is too many HUMANS IN THIS COUNTRY CALCULATED AS OVERLOAD FOR THE WELL BEING OF THIS COUNTRY BE DETERMINE AND DEALT WITH BY CLOSING THE BORDERS FROM ILLEGALS COMING BY MILLIONS THOUSANDS TO FILL THIS LAND AND ROB THE CO2 WHICH IS RIGHTFULLY OWN BY THE ROOTED GENERATIONS ALL THE ON THE LADDER STEP UP TILL TODAY, they come to claim and take posesion of the space they want,
impose AND POLLUTE THE EARTH THE AIR AND WATERWAY FOR THEIR NEEDS,
and and bring their own virus to mix with the local citizens, all that is overload leave their trash, on the land to rot,
DO WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FUTURE GENERATIONS COMING TO CLAIM THEIR RIGHTFULLY LAND SPACE AND CO2 DEMANDS
TO BREATH AND EXHALED ?
NO WE DON’T BECAUSE A SELFISH OR NEFARIOUS PORPOUSE TO WIN ELECTION, WE DON’T LOOK FURTHER AND THINK OF THE AMERICA’S FUTURE CITIZENS,
NOT BY THE LEADER OF THIS NATION, THEY ARE FAILING BIG TIME AND
THEY THINK GREEN ,IRONIC IS IN IT? THE TRUTH IS THE LEADER IS GREEN WITH ENVY of AMERICA WITH HIS CROWD OF CORRUPT ELECTED IN HIS TAIL
@ilovebeeswarzone: So true, bees.
One thing about science, as I said before, is that it is science and not fiction. Plants consume CO2 and produce O2. People consume O2 and produce CO2. It stays in balance. If more CO2 is produced, more plants will grow to consume it. If too much heat is generated on Earth, it will be radiated into the atmosphere and be consumed in the cold vast space. The earth has been undergoing these activities for millions of years. It’s not gonna change in the next 1000 years, it won’t even be a pimple on the butt of the earth. Humans have a huge ego to think that their activities are going to change the long term for the earth. The Earth will be here millions of years after the persons now inhabiting it.
Redteam
hi,
but we see migration from outside the USA COMING BY THE BORDERS
MILLIONS OF THEM IN A SHORT TIME AND UN-INTERRUPTED THEY COME BECAUSE THEIR NATION,
IS SHRINKING UNDER OVER CROWDING,
why does AMERICA BE THE ONE TO BECOME THE NEW OVERLOAD NATION,
THE TRASH CAN OF THE WORLD
WITH A MIX OF HATERS WHO WILL KILL THE ROOTED AMERICANS,
BYE
Redteam,
how about another thought,
how about the ASTRONOMICAL SLAUGHTER OF THE OCEAN BIG MAMMALS,
BY JAPAN EVERY YEAR BY THE THOUSANDS,
HOW DO WE CALCULATE THE LOST OF CO2, OR IS IT THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE CO2
into another gas human that is,
how would it affect the climate by altering the ocean temperature,
and I was not even counting the other ocean living being being kill yearlong to feed the humans,
it has to affect the whole nature,
Redteam
I had made another idea for you to check it, it’s gone after the laptop close on my comment,
so here it is again,
it was about the thousands of mammals in the ocean being caught and slaughter right there on the spot where they are catch and process by the JAPAN BOATS EVERY YEAR,
I THINK THEY MUST AFFECT THE CLIMATE OF THE OCEAN AND BY ASSOCIATION AFFECT THE PLANET CLIMATE, AND WE COULD ADD ALL THE OTHER LIVING BEING OF THE OCEAN, BEING KILLED,
THE SAME WAY IN ASTRONOMICAL NUMBER,
SURELY HAVE A EFFECT.
WHAT DO YOU SAY?
TRYING AGAIN TO ASK A QUESTION,
HOW ABOUT THE OCEAN WHALES BEING CAUGHT AND PROCESS BY THE THOUSANDS,
EVERY YEAR BY FOREIGNERS
IT SURELY MUST AFFECT THE OCEAN CLIMATE AND BY ASSOCIATION THE WHOLE CLIMATE ON THIS EARTH
@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, the CO2 temp does not affect the ocean temp. The ocean is much too big for that and the amount of CO2 way too small. (the ocean temp is affected more by underwater seismic activity than it is the atmosphere) Basically, when the number of Ocean mammals get down to a number small enough to not be cost effective to hunt them, the hunting will stop and the number of mammals will begin to increase again. By that time, the people that hunt them will be somewhere else, doing something else and likely won’t return until the numbers get large enough again to make it worth while. That’s like cutting trees, when trees are cut down in large numbers, more will grow in their place, but it takes them years to get large enough to cut. If the number that was of a size to cut were small enough, there would be no one there to cut them. Mother Nature has always been able to strike a good balance. Just when everyone started thinking the US was getting low on Oil and Natural gas, new ways to mine them was discovered and now the US has the largest reserves in the world, enough that we can be self dependent on those resources.
From New Study: Climate Scientists Overwhelmingly Agree Global Warming Is Real and Our Fault:
I have little doubt that a climate change deception is being perpetrated. I just have a totally different opinion about who’s being deceived and who’s responsible for the deception.
I really don’t know whether a competent science teacher would be more likely to laugh or cry. . .
From an article that appeared in Skeptical Science, May 16, 2013:
Among the people who know most about the issue, 97% believe that global warming is a fact, and that human activity is responsible for it.
The only thing that has changed is public perception, as a result of a well-funded special interest media campaign designed to have precisely that effect.
Redteam
geez I found my other comments, oops
Greg is that you who brought them back?
you are at the right place for me to find it suspicious,
I thank you both for giving me so much info,
Redteam what do you think of that fire so big so wide and a killer of 19 BRAVES FIREFIGHTERS,
IT IS SUSPICIOUS I FEEL, WITH THE ILLEGALS SENT FREE TO MINGLE WITH THE CITIZENS OF
ARIZONA, COULD THEY HAVE MADE A FIRE WHICH TURNED INTO A HELL KILLER,
WHY SO MUCH FIRE THIS YEAR? OKAY THE HIGH TEMPERATURE BUT IT’S NOT THE FIRST HOT TEMPERATURE, ANOTHER QUESTION , I find something’s not right in those monster fires.
@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, no, I think the fire was Mother Nature at it’s worst. It was a terrible event.
@Greg: Greggie, it’s nice to know that you get your facts from surveys, rather than science. Can you believe some polls actually indicate some people like Obama? Unbelievable…. You’re not one of them, are you?
@Redteam:
Because your such a scientific expert on climate. Let’s look at a small sample of the scientific organizations on record who disagree with you on what the “consensus scientific view” is on global warming:
Feel free to post some more Exxon/Mobil funded “research” to refute the scientific consensus.
Greggie? Maybe you ought to check your socks for holes.
Tom
bring them on,
only what is coming from the FLOPPING ACES POSTS,
AND THE COMMENTS FROM THE CONSERVATIVES ARE LEGITIMATE
TO TAKE AS TRUTH.
MR PRESIDENT BUSH FORGIVE ME FOR STEALING YOU WORDS HERE
@Tom: Tom, posting meaningless stuff as you did is just that, meaningless. I could put up a list at least as long as yours of people, organizations, etc that have proven global warming is not a factor, but you wouldn’t believe them any more than I believe yours. Just let me quote one bit in info for you. The average global temp today is within one tenth of one degree of what it was one hundred years ago. If the world is warming so much, why isn’t it measurable? There is no ‘scientific consensus’.
@Redteam:
No, actually you couldn’t. You could never find a list of organizations of that caliber, recognized leaders in their respective fields, willing to go on the record to refute global warming. All you can find is individuals who are in the minority. In the scientific community this is a consensus opinion. Like everything in science, there are differences in opinion on the particulars, but there is no controversy over whether broadly-speaking global warming is real and whether man-made emissions have contributed. It’s only a controversy on the American political right.
I find the entire thing silly actually, how many people on the Right feel compelled from some misguided sense of solidarity to take stances that fly in the face of expert scientific opinion. I have asked multiple times on this blog why this is, why the hostility to science, and no one ever responds. I have three theories. One, the evangelical strain of the contemporary American Right is, at its very core, anti-science, as they view science a threat to religion (see “Creationism”). Two, the paranoid reactionary strain of the contemporary American Right finds the idea of a world-wide conspiracy impossible to resist, considering the players involved (Universities, government, Al Gore) and the stakes. The more far-fetched, the more it pulls those susceptible to magical conspiracy thinking. Three, the big business strain of the contemporary American Right has identified this as a business loser and have thus funded a PR war against global warming (see Big Oil funding of groups pushing anti-global warming research). Or perhaps it’s a combination. Whatever the reason, it’s incredibly damaging to our nation, as every level, from primary education up to national policy.
Archeologists beg to differ, Greg.
http://archaeology.about.com/od/vikings/qt/eastern_settlement.htm
My point is that neither you, nor anyone else, can make a claim for any ”optimal temperature” for the earth.
Let the earth warm and cool.
Let different areas of it have their day as breadbasket of the world.
Who says it has to be as it is or as it was a few years ago?
Certainly California’s Central Valley could feed tens of millions more than it does today……but the reasons it doesn’t is EPA regulation, not inability to grow stuff!
@Tom:
I know what you mean. Your argument is as silly as any of them. You will note that the organizations you listed consist almost solely of companies/organizations that would cease to exist if there were no global warming. Without government money, they would die. I notice you didn’t notice any elements of the Federal government itself, as all the info they have been able to put together disproves global warming. You failed to answer my question about why the average global temp is still the same as it was a hundred years ago, and of course, this is even with the fact that most temp measurements today are in more urban areas than they were a hundred years ago. Average urban temps are higher than more remote areas, and even with that anomalie, temps are still no higher.
My rejection of the claim of global warming has nothing to do with any of the three you mentioned. It is solely based on the numbers available. Purely scientific. Has nothing to do with politics or religion. Just plain facts. I notice you don’t attempt to use facts in your arguments, just opinions.
Redteam
however, I’m really glad you give us so much of your knowledge,
which is vast, as we all notice,
carry on, you are so interesting in any POSTS you get in.
bye
@Redteam:
You really are a silly little fool aren’t you. This is less a debate than a massacre. You habitually make blustery statements that are easily disproven, unwittingly lobbing softballs to your adversaries. Unfortunately, it appears being proven wrong has no discernible impact upon you. I theorize this is due to conditioning through repetition.
So these groups would ‘cease to exist” without global warming? Are you questioning their longevity, their legitimacy? Let’s take a look. We’ll start at the top. American Association for the Advancement of Science: founded 1848; the world’s largest general scientific society, with 126,995 individual and institutional members. Hmmm, was there global warming in 1848? American Chemical Society: Founded 1876. 163,000 members at all degree levels and in all fields of chemistry, chemical engineering, and related fields. Do you see where this is going? American Geophysical Union: Founded 1919. 61,000 members from over 146 countries. American Institute of Biological Sciences: Founded 1947. Today, AIBS has nearly 160 member organizations . Keep going, you think? American Meteorological Society: Founded 1919. a membership of more than 14,000 professionals, professors, students, and weather enthusiasts.
Get the picture, my dull-witted friend. Do these really sound like fly by night political shell organizations desperate for global warming dollars? Feel free to google the rest if you’re not convinced, or just divorce your ‘intellect’ from talk radio for an afternoon.