Bloomberg: What's really warming the world?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fnr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If it is politicized, that politicization is due at least as much to the activity of the skeptics as it is to the proponents of AGW theory.
No way!

When the whole AGW hoax was started it was aimed at politicians, governments and the United Nations for the sole purpose of passing laws, regulations and controlling our lifestyle.

If the alarmists had a convincing argument or PROOF of their claim the world population would have joined them without government FORCE.

But, knowing that “you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”…the alarmists turned to political influence.
Stating it and supporting that statement with facts are two different things.
In my position, I don’t have to support anything. YOU are telling ME that the sky is falling, it’s my fault and I have to do something about it. I am skeptical…the burden of proof rests on you.
The term “consensus” is much broader than politics or science. It applies any time a group of people substantially agree about anything.
As for consensus having no bearing on real science, that is true when applied to the strict method of scientific investigation. But are you doing real science? Yourself? Personally? Or are you trying to determine what is true based on what various other people say? If you are weighing the opinion of various experts, then recognizing a consensus gives you the best chance of getting it right. A lot better than flipping a coin, or going with your own personally non-scientific pre-conceptions. Not even real scientists should do that. If they do, they are not acting like scientists.
The latest polls show that the American people have less concern about AGW than they did 10 years ago. That is a consensus. “a group of people substantially agree about anything.” Does that make it “settled science”? Does that mean that the alarmist community will accept the fact that their scare tactics didn’t work and admit their hoax?

In REAL science **consensus **is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
 
The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
…broke with consensus when the data did not support the consensus view. Instead of arguing with or manipulating the data, they investigated why the hypothesis didn’t agree with the actual data.
 
That might be a valid argument if the messenger was asking you to take their word as an authority. But that is not the case. The claims made by the OP are independently verifiable. Therefore the supposed bias of the messenger is no argument against the message. It is a common logical fallacy, more formally called "ad hominem". In the case of the OP article, the authority is not Bloomberg, but NASA Goddard Institute. But I guess they are all leftists too.
I am glad you brought up “the messenger”.

You are so right to state that “the authority is not Bloomberg, but NASA Goddard Institute.”

We (general public) have to hope that Bloomberg accurately reports the scientific facts without “spin” or omission. Something the news media is very good at. There have been countless incidents where legitimate scientists have tried to correct or refute claims reported to be made by them in the media. The reports usually focus on a small fraction of the scientific paper and are blown up to terrifying proportions.

A peer reviewed paper could state, in part: “…based on these projections and natural climate patterns, it is conceivable that most of California could possibly be underwater. Of course this condition would take centuries to occur.”

What we see in the NY Times: “World famous scientist warns that California will sink into the Pacific if Global Warming is not stopped now.”

Most people stop right there…a few will take time to look up what the poor schmuck really said. In the mean time his reputation is on the line. The Times does not print many retractions.
 
When the whole AGW hoax was started it was aimed at politicians, governments and the United Nations for the sole purpose of passing laws, regulations and controlling our lifestyle.
That is clearly not true. It is an established fact that Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. Are you seriously claiming that Svante in 1896 advanced his theory with the goal of influencing the United Nations (which would not exist for nearly a century) into passing regulations?
The latest polls show that the American people have less concern about AGW than they did 10 years ago. That is a consensus.
No, it is only a consensus if they are in substantial agreement. The American people are not in substantial agreement about global warming. But they are closer to being in consensus for it then in consensus against it, the trend you cited notwithstanding.
“a group of people substantially agree about anything.” Does that make it “settled science”?
No, it is not settled science. But when more scientists agree with it than disagree with it, an intelligent gambler will side with the scientists, even if he doesn’t know anything himself.
In REAL science **consensus **is irrelevant.
Yes, but you and I are not doing real science, or are you? Are you doing original work in the field? For the rest of us, consensus of scientists is very relevant.
 
I am glad you brought up “the messenger”.

You are so right to state that “the authority is not Bloomberg, but NASA Goddard Institute.”

We (general public) have to hope that Bloomberg accurately reports the scientific facts without “spin” or omission. Something the news media is very good at. There have been countless incidents where legitimate scientists have tried to correct or refute claims reported to be made by them in the media. The reports usually focus on a small fraction of the scientific paper and are blown up to terrifying proportions.

A peer reviewed paper could state, in part: “…based on these projections and natural climate patterns, it is conceivable that most of California could possibly be underwater. Of course this condition would take centuries to occur.”

What we see in the NY Times: “World famous scientist warns that California will sink into the Pacific if Global Warming is not stopped now.”

Most people stop right there…a few will take time to look up what the poor schmuck really said. In the mean time his reputation is on the line. The Times does not print many retractions.
Given all the climate skeptics running around today, you can be quite certain that hundreds of these skeptics have already researched the original NASA Goddard data to see if Bloomberg misrepresented it. A few hours later there are blogs, and then those blogs are indexed by Google. If anyone is the least bit curious about the truth of the Bloomberg article, it takes very little effort to find out.
 
That is clearly not true. It is an established fact that Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. Are you seriously claiming that Svante in 1896 advanced his theory with the goal of influencing the United Nations (which would not exist for nearly a century) into passing regulations?
I should have been more specific and referenced James Hansen’s doomsday rant to the United Nations back in 1988.

Compliments on your use of the words “may eventually…” while stating Arrhenius’ THEORY
No, it is only a consensus if they are in substantial agreement. The American people are not in substantial agreement about global warming. But they are closer to being in consensus for it then in consensus against it, the trend you cited notwithstanding.
Hmmm…does not a majority equal a consensus?
No, it is not settled science. But when more scientists agree with it than disagree with it, an intelligent gambler will side with the scientists, even if he doesn’t know anything himself.
An intelligent gambler considers the odds. The gambler who bets on “7” just because everyone at the table has bet on “7”…is not a gambler. He is a sucker.
Yes, but you and I are not doing real science, or are you? Are you doing original work in the field? For the rest of us, consensus of scientists is very relevant.
True…I am not doing ANY science. As I said before, that is not up to me. I am waiting to be convinced by real science. If the rest of you want to rely on a consensus and bet on “7”
…good luck! :rolleyes:
 
Given all the climate skeptics running around today, you can be quite certain that hundreds of these skeptics have already researched the original NASA Goddard data to see if Bloomberg misrepresented it. A few hours later there are blogs, and then those blogs are indexed by Google. If anyone is the least bit curious about the truth of the Bloomberg article, it takes very little effort to find out.
Some of us skeptics would not waste our time with anything supported by NASA. I am waiting for a good reason why NASA “adjusted” historical temperature readings to show a warming trend when actually things are cooling. Until then…they have a serious credibility problem.

I wonder when Bloomberg will publish an equally graphic article from the “other side”.
That would be fair and balanced.
 
I should have been more specific and referenced James Hansen’s doomsday rant to the United Nations back in 1988.
Yes, you can attribute political motives to certain modern individuals and their actions. But the entire set of people stating the AGW view cannot all be colored with the same brush. There are too many of them for that to be believable.
Compliments on your use of the words “may eventually…” while stating Arrhenius’ THEORY
There is nothing deprecating about using the scientific term, “theory”. And you can hardly expect Arrhenius in 1896 to have had enough data to be sure that AGW was going to happen. Thus the words “may eventually” is as much as you could expect from him. I cite him not as evidence that AGW is real, but as evidence against your claim that the whole movement was political from the beginning.
Hmmm…does not a majority equal a consensus?
No, but a majority against your position puts the claim of consensus for you opinion much further out of reach.
True…I am not doing ANY science. As I said before, that is not up to me. I am waiting to be convinced by real science. If the rest of you want to rely on a consensus and bet on “7”
…good luck! :rolleyes:
On the issue of pro-AGW, you are waiting to be convinced. But on the issue of anti-AGW, you believe that claim with no objections. Why are your standards so much higher when it comes to the pro-AGW position?
 
And does anyone seriously think the earth was cooler
Seriously?

The AGW theory (and that’s all it is, an unprovable theory) can pretty much be summarized as, “-]The sky is falling!/-] We’re destroying the earth, and we’re doing it by all the CO2 we’re pumping into the atmosphere due to our use of fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial Revolution.”

*“You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There’s been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away – all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It’s powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that’s happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn’t have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try. We’ve been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we’re gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.” *
― Michael Crichton
 
This might help: skepticalscience.com/understanding-adjustments-to-temp-data.html
Make sure you read the lot before commenting.
I did…

Here is my rebuttal: stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/

Make sure you read it. No need to comment. It is pretty straightforward: The alarmist community has been trying to explain why the Earth has been cooling ever since “global warming” became “climate change”.
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
Hide the decline??? They knew way back in 1999 that there was no warming.
From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
How very scientific…They don’t want the IPCC to see anything that refutes their claims.
From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t… Our observing system is inadequate”
So…they fixed the travesty by having government agencies and government grant supported organizations “adjust” history to support their claims.

Sorry Hans…it’s a scam.
 
What concerns me is that they ignore gasses expelled from the hind ends of cattle all together.:confused:😃
 
Seriously?

The AGW theory (and that’s all it is, an unprovable theory) can pretty much be summarized as, “-]The sky is falling!/-] We’re destroying the earth, and we’re doing it by all the CO2 we’re pumping into the atmosphere due to our use of fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial Revolution.”

*“You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There’s been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away – all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It’s powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that’s happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn’t have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try. We’ve been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we’re gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.” *
― Michael Crichton
What has any of this to do with my post, which you quoted, as if this was in answer to that post? The Strawman argument I pointed out is still a Strawman argument.

I especially don’t see the relevance of the Michael Crichton quote. It too is a Strawman argument because it pretends that the AGW argument claims we will destroy the world. And then he proceeds to show how the world will go on without us. On this point Michael Crichton and AGW proponents are in total agreement. They never said the world was going to blow up like Alderaan. They just said life may get very bad for many many people. To that Michael Crichton’s quote says nothing.
 
Yes, you can attribute political motives to certain modern individuals and their actions. But the entire set of people stating the AGW view cannot all be colored with the same brush. There are too many of them for that to be believable.
You are right to state: that “…the entire set of people stating the AGW view cannot all be colored with the same brush.”

Because…as I recall there was a “set” of people stating the AGC ( Anthropogenic Global Cooling) view. Quite the opposite.
There is nothing deprecating about using the scientific term, “theory”. And you can hardly expect Arrhenius in 1896 to have had enough data to be sure that AGW was going to happen. Thus the words “may eventually” is as much as you could expect from him. I cite him not as evidence that AGW is real, but as evidence against your claim that the whole movement was political from the beginning.
It is not about “Data” past or present. Where is the PROOF? Science has come a long way since 1896 (We have cars now…we have been to the moon) Yet no one has proven old Arrhenius’ theory.

You know I had never heard of Arrhenius until you brought him up. I wonder how many ordinary folks would relate that name to the climate discussion…as opposed to “Al Gore.”
No, but a majority against your position puts the claim of consensus for you opinion much further out of reach.
That’s true about politics…but in science you only need one person to be right.
On the issue of pro-AGW, you are waiting to be convinced. But on the issue of anti-AGW, you believe that claim with no objections. Why are your standards so much higher when it comes to the pro-AGW position?
Because it is up to the pro-AGW theory folks to do the footwork. I remain skeptical and accept the natural course that our planet takes.
 
I did…

Here is my rebuttal: stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/

Make sure you read it. No need to comment. It is pretty straightforward: The alarmist community has been trying to explain why the Earth has been cooling ever since “global warming” became “climate change”.
And why should we believe a Mr Goddard. Even Anthony Watts, a fellow climate science denier, criticizes him.
Judy Curry who is one of the 3% of “sceptic” climate scientists calls his work “bogus”.

Finally, why should anyone take this fellow seriously who claims that 1934 was the hottest year in the US?
Sorry Hans…it’s a scam.
Yep, I agree. Goddard’s drivel is a scam. (He is good at making graphs, I have to admit)
 
Hans, why do you constantly misrepresent the facts?!?!

Goddard, Watts and Curry are not DENIERS, they all believe in AGW but are SKEPTICS of the more catastrophic projections.
And why should we believe a Mr Goddard. Even Anthony Watts, a fellow climate science denier, criticizes him.
Judy Curry who is one of the 3% of “sceptic” climate scientists calls his work “bogus”.

Finally, why should anyone take this fellow seriously who claims that 1934 was the hottest year in the US?

Yep, I agree. Goddard’s drivel is a scam. (He is good at making graphs, I have to admit)
 
the-american-interest.com/2015/08/25/carbon-offsets-may-have-dramatically-increased-emissions/

You know, it’s almost as if these carbon trading programs aren’t about lowering emissions at all, but about lining people’s pockets. I would take the claims a bit more seriously if the endorsed solutions addressed the supposed problem as opposed to being simply crony capitalism mechanisms.
What’s really odd is that we have a track record of successfully reducing ‘pollutants’ without resorting to such a tax scheme. Lead and other legitimate pollutants were reduced significantly through education and appropriate regulation. Cap & Trade is a tax scam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top