World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

[Ender]

You are basing your opinion on a mistake (could have been done purposely) magazine article…

The mistake was in using a magazine reference in a scientific paper; it wouldn’t matter if the article was correct or incorrect. Nor was this a single incident; I understand there were several references in the IPCC paper to other articles written by the WWF. As far as scientific protocol is concerned this is appalling.

… and a few emails from a couple of bad apples.

I referred to “senior staff” members. That is more significant than “a couple of bad apples.” The appropriate response is to refute the charge, not suggest that it is not relevant.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

Here’s the link to the study – “Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations” – to which the article refers: drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx

Was part of this conspiracy stopping warming dead for 15 years?

 

[lynnvinc]

It is disappointing to me that those who do not believe in MMGW disaster scenarios contribute so ($500 million according to this article) little to counter the propaganda campaigns of Soros, Buffett, Gore, Gates, Obama, etc. What’s the government spent so far? $100 billion is the last I saw. And, of course, that doesn’t count the enormous amount spent by the left wing media. If you counted their “MMGW commercials” as paid commercials, it would surely dwarf that $500 million.

And when someone writes an article “exposing” the “falsifying” of MMGW information, you know it’s just one more paid propaganda piece. Wonder what the “researcher” got paid for that?

I know I’ve spent my last 24 years and a lot of money and time away from family trying to get people to do the right thing and mitigate AGW. I would pour out my blood for the cause. It’s good there are a few people, like Soros, etc who promote an issue that is NOT going to help their business side of things. They are REAL heroes to me.

The so-called left wing media has been pretty neglectful of the AGW issue – in fact media coverage has plummeted acc to some media study – no wonder, MSNBC, etc are funded by big oil.

I just stumbled across Al Jazeera America, Link TV, and Free Speech TV, and at last I’ve found some media that are not afraid to cover AGW. It’s like a gentle quenching rain after a 25 year serious media drought.

Of course, people should read the top science journals, as well – at least their abstracts – to get a much better picture of AGW. The media, even when trying to be honest, don’t cover the issue in its depth, complexity, and myriad of ramifications.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Here’s how it works: Scientists, who are employed in universities or gov agencies, apply for grants to do research. Their proposals have to go through stringent peer-review and/or granting agency review, and only a small percentage are accepted. It is a very highly competitive field.

The money in the grants goes to pay for grant-related expenses:

• some to the institution/agency to compensate for their overhead re the grant portion of work the researcher does;
• some for research expenses, such as equipment, travel, lab assistants, etc.;
• some to off-set that portion of the researcher’s salary that he/she will be engaged in research.

The researcher earns no extra money beyond his/her salary, except perhaps a summer salary for university researchers, in cases where no summer courses may have been assigned otherwise (or summer course salaries are very low, not equal to the regular salary).

Note that climate science is very highly competitive, and there are plenty of top experts to pull down any bogus or inadequate research or research proposals. All bona fide climate research is under heavy scrutiny for any “i’s” not dotted or “t’s” not crossed.

OTOH the climate change skeptics who have “Dr.” attached to their name (whatever their field is – dentistry, philosophy, etc) or are weathermen, etc, are given very hefty sums by the denialist industry for spewing out half-truths and outright lies in non-peer-reviewed fora, such as the internet or public speaking engagements, etc., in order to deceive the public. That’s where the real money is.

Beyond no extra financial gain for bona fide climate scientists, they are also harassed mercilessly and receive death threats, including death threats to their small children. I’d say there is no really huge incentive to go into or stay in climate science. Climate scientists who stick to their guns, despite all these problems, are the true heroes of the world today.

Just because some don’t like the message is no reason to shoot the messenger.

Having been a party to “peer reviewed research” at the graduate level, and having written much of it myself, I know better than to think it’s purer than anything put out by commercial enterprises. In some cases, it’s less so. Commercial entities know they will be savagely attacked for defending their product or processes, so they’re pretty careful a good part of the time. I know too, that academics get paid. Sometimes it’s indirect, but they most definitely do quite well at it, financially. It’s only the grad students who do a lot of the yeoman work who don’t get paid. We did get credit hours, though. I’ll admit that.

Please identify the “climate scientists” who have received death threats to their children, and share their credentials with us. It would be handy to know, as well, which law enforcement agencies investigated it and what prosecutions have resulted from it. I have never heard this allegation even from the most ardent MMGW supporters before, and after thousands of hours of MMGW argument here on CAF alone, that’s really a new revelation.

Insults and name-calling add nothing to the discussion.

Some of the paid weather and climate prognosticators do get paid very well. But they live or die by their predictions, since a lot of their subscribers are people like farmers, commodity dealers, international traders, etc, who stand much to gain or lose by the accuracy or inaccuracy of their predictions. Unlike much of academia in which ideology very often reigns (everybody knows that), that’s a very serious business, and is not ideology-driven at all.

 

[lynnvinc]

Was part of this conspiracy stopping warming dead for 15 years?

As mentioned many times before, AGW has NOT stopped – your 15 year timeframe of analysis is way too short for such a phenomenon, you need to look at 30 years of data at the very least. Anyone can pick start points and end points within a 10 or 15 year period and purportedly show a halt or decline. Check out temps after 1990 and see if any are below the pre-70s level. Also notice that the global average temps go up and down, even their 5-year running mean. Look what happened between 1900 and 1910. However, the OVERALL pattern since about 1970 has been up, and it has not come down to the pattern we see btw 1880 and 1970:



There are explanations for why the global average temps goes up and down like that (while its underlying pattern since 1970 is slanted ever upward…which is the AGW part of it). There are many factors which impact the climate. Climate scientist are actually aware of these other factors.

For one thing the deep ocean (the temps of which are not factored in the above chart) has been absorbing more of the excess energy retained by the increasing GH effect, and for another the sun has been in a solar irradiance minimum for about 15 years, seemed to be climbing out last year, then went into another dip (it sometimes does that, a double dip or double peak). If there had been no AGW factor, then that solar minimum would have caused the climate to return back to pre-70s levels. So the remarkable thing is that the climate has been staying warm despite the solar minimum, during which time it should have become much cooler.

I do hope I wake up tomorrow and find out I’m totally wrong, that it was just a nightmare caused by bad food or something, but for today I trudge on trying to do whatever meager things I can.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I know I’ve spent my last 24 years and a lot of money and time away from family trying to get people to do the right thing and mitigate AGW. I would pour out my blood for the cause. It’s good there are a few people, like Soros, etc who promote an issue that is NOT going to help their business side of things. They are REAL heroes to me.

The so-called left wing media has been pretty neglectful of the AGW issue – in fact media coverage has plummeted acc to some media study – no wonder, MSNBC, etc are funded by big oil.

I just stumbled across Al Jazeera America, Link TV, and Free Speech TV, and at last I’ve found some media that are not afraid to cover AGW. It’s like a gentle quenching rain after a 25 year serious media drought.

Of course, people should read the top science journals, as well – at least their abstracts – to get a much better picture of AGW. The media, even when trying to be honest, don’t cover the issue in its depth, complexity, and myriad of ramifications.

Soros, Al Jazeera and MSNBC Oh my!

Soros is a businessman (paradoxically an ideological leftist) who bragged about crashing the Asian Tigers and the Bank of England (Britain’s Federal Reserve). As to the latter, and in his own book, he admitted that he caused a lot of suffering and knew he would, but he did not desist because that would have “ruined his business model”.

He simultaneously invests in “alternative energies” and in oil drilling in the ocean off Brazil.

Heroes should be made of better stuff.

Al Jazeera is, well I think we all know what it is.

MSNBC finally admitted that it’s a partisan organization, not a news organization. So we know what it is as well.

Nobody has a problem with anyone (metaphrorically, of course) “pouring out one’s blood” for the MMGW cause. But pouring out the “blood” of others by causing them to suffer needlessly for the sake of that cause is another thing entirely.

 

[lynnvinc]

Having been a party to “peer reviewed research” at the graduate level, and having written much of it myself, I know better than to think it’s purer than anything put out by commercial enterprises. In some cases, it’s less so. Commercial entities know they will be savagely attacked for defending their product or processes, so they’re pretty careful a good part of the time. I know too, that academics get paid. Sometimes it’s indirect, but they most definitely do quite well at it, financially. It’s only the grad students who do a lot of the yeoman work who don’t get paid. We did get credit hours, though. I’ll admit that.

Please identify the “climate scientists” who have received death threats to their children, and share their credentials with us.
Mike Mann (whom you all know and hate) and his 6-year old daughter. I know him and he is a decent person. At one point the harassment was so terrible he almost felt like committing suicide (and some others have also felt that way). Bloggers and death-threaters (even tho they probably are not serious) should understand the terrible repercussions of their meanness and hatred and walk a bit more gently with the Lord.

It would be handy to know, as well, which law enforcement agencies investigated it and what prosecutions have resulted from it. I have never heard this allegation even from the most ardent MMGW supporters before, and after thousands of hours of MMGW argument here on CAF alone, that’s really a new revelation.

Don’t know about the details. He probably did report it to the police, but they probably couldn’t find the culprit, so it became a cold case.

I’ve also received death threats (not for AGW, but re grades), and it is a very terrible thing. One has to assume the person may be serious. Because I don’t have dependent children, I told the Dean that I most certainly would not change the grade from an F to an A, and didn’t care if the anonymous “friend” killed me. Nevertheless I was constantly looking over my shoulder. It is very terrible and frightening.

Insults and name-calling add nothing to the discussion.

Some of the paid weather and climate prognosticators do get paid very well. But they live or die by their predictions, since a lot of their subscribers are people like farmers, commodity dealers, international traders, etc, who stand much to gain or lose by the accuracy or inaccuracy of their predictions. Unlike much of academia in which ideology very often reigns (everybody knows that), that’s a very serious business, and is not ideology-driven at all.

I didn’t anyone here any names. I just told the ugly truth about people on the denialist industry payroll who get paid to deceive people. If they don’t like being called climate change denialists or skeptics who are working for the denialist industry (which is a well-established fact) they should take a better look at the science and be more honest. We have to have some language with which to refer to them, and they do go well beyond “skeptic.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner;11619017:

Having been a party to “peer reviewed research” at the graduate level, and having written much of it myself, I know better than to think it’s purer than anything put out by commercial enterprises. In some cases, it’s less so. Commercial entities know they will be savagely attacked for defending their product or processes, so they’re pretty careful a good part of the time. I know too, that academics get paid. Sometimes it’s indirect, but they most definitely do quite well at it, financially. It’s only the grad students who do a lot of the yeoman work who don’t get paid. We did get credit hours, though. I’ll admit that.

So this Mike Mann person told you he had received threats. Law enforcement does investigate such things, but nothing is known about that. Okay.

You know, it’s actually hard to find studies from people whom you call 'denialists". It’s rare that anyone sees it. It certainly isn’t prevalent on television, which is absolutely pervaded with MMGW claims. If they’re getting paid to deceive people, they’re being awfully quiet about it.

Well, yes, I did post the clip from Alan Savory. Is he a “denialist” too? If he’s right, you know, then he actually tells a much more concerning story about MMGW of another sort, and is no longer persuaded that carbon emissions are much of the story.

I don’t mean to be rude here, but I do not call you names. Why do I not get the same courtesy from you? Why the ugly term “denialist”?

 

[estesbob]

As mentioned many times before, AGW has NOT stopped – your 15 year timeframe of analysis is way too short for such a phenomenon, you need to look at 30 years of data at the very least. Anyone can pick start points and end points within a 10 or 15 year period and purportedly show a halt or decline. Check out temps after 1990 and see if any are below the pre-70s level. Also notice that the global average temps go up and down, even their 5-year running mean. Look what happened between 1900 and 1910. However, the OVERALL pattern since about 1970 has been up, and it has not come down to the pattern we see btw 1880 and 1970:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped....svg/320px-Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg.png

There are explanations for why the global average temps goes up and down like that (while its underlying pattern since 1970 is slanted ever upward…which is the AGW part of it). There are many factors which impact the climate. Climate scientist are actually aware of these other factors.

For one thing the deep ocean (the temps of which are not factored in the above chart) has been absorbing more of the excess energy retained by the increasing GH effect, and for another the sun has been in a solar irradiance minimum for about 15 years, seemed to be climbing out last year, then went into another dip (it sometimes does that, a double dip or double peak). If there had been no AGW factor, then that solar minimum would have caused the climate to return back to pre-70s levels. So the remarkable thing is that the climate has been staying warm despite the solar minimum, during which time it should have become much cooler.

I do hope I wake up tomorrow and find out I’m totally wrong, that it was just a nightmare caused by bad food or something, but for today I trudge on trying to do whatever meager things I can.

Your chart shows there has been no warming for 15 years. But that is not what the alarmists told us was going to happen 15 years ago.They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

 

[estesbob]

lynnvinc;11619066:

So this Mike Mann person told you he had received threats. Law enforcement does investigate such things, but nothing is known about that. Okay.

You know, it’s actually hard to find studies from people whom you call 'denialists". It’s rare that anyone sees it. It certainly isn’t prevalent on television, which is absolutely pervaded with MMGW claims. If they’re getting paid to deceive people, they’re being awfully quiet about it.

Well, yes, I did post the clip from Alan Savory. Is he a “denialist” too? If he’s right, you know, then he actually tells a much more concerning story about MMGW of another sort, and is no longer persuaded that carbon emissions are much of the story.

I don’t mean to be rude here, but I do not call you names. Why do I not get the same courtesy from you? Why the ugly term “denialist”?

IRRC correctly Mann is the guy who fabricated the infamou s hockey stick graph and padded his resume by falsely claiming to be a Nobel laureate.Not a very credible guy.

 

[Ender]

As mentioned many times before, AGW has NOT stopped – your 15 year timeframe of analysis is way too short for such a phenomenon, you need to look at 30 years of data at the very least. Anyone can pick start points and end points within a 10 or 15 year period and purportedly show a halt or decline.

Actually this isn’t accurate. According to every single significant global warming model a hiatus of 15 years was considered outside of any reasonable possibility. NASA raised this very concern back in 2010.

There are many factors which impact the climate. Climate scientist are actually aware of these other factors.

Apparently not so aware of them that they were able to create realistic models.

For one thing the deep ocean (the temps of which are not factored in the above chart) has been absorbing more of the excess energy retained by the increasing GH effect…

Let’s go over this again: the greenhouse gas theory *requires *that warming occur in the troposphere. If there is no warming there then warming elsewhere cannot be due to the transfer of extra heat from an area that is in fact not itself warming.

Ender

 

[gilliam]

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl/from:1600/to:2014

Global Mean Temp
Plot your own graph
woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1600/to:2014

Little Ice Age, for what it is worth, ended around 1850

A cold period that lasted from about A.D. 1550 to about A.D. 1850 in Europe, North America, and Asia. This period was marked by rapid expansion of mountain glaciers, especially in the Alps, Norway, Ireland, and Alaska. There were three maxima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Glossary/?mode=alpha&seg=l&segend=n

 

[lynnvinc]

Soros, Al Jazeera and MSNBC Oh my!

Soros is a businessman (paradoxically an ideological leftist) who bragged about crashing the Asian Tigers and the Bank of England (Britain’s Federal Reserve). As to the latter, and in his own book, he admitted that he caused a lot of suffering and knew he would, but he did not desist because that would have “ruined his business model”.

He simultaneously invests in “alternative energies” and in oil drilling in the ocean off Brazil.

Heroes should be made of better stuff.

Al Jazeera is, well I think we all know what it is.

MSNBC finally admitted that it’s a partisan organization, not a news organization. So we know what it is as well.

Nobody has a problem with anyone (metaphrorically, of course) “pouring out one’s blood” for the MMGW cause. But pouring out the “blood” of others by causing them to suffer needlessly for the sake of that cause is another thing entirely.

I really don’t know anything about Soros and I don’t have time to study his life. IF he is doing good things to promote AGW knowledge and mitigation, then that is good…not necessarily all of his life and behavior. BTW there were lots of saints who were great sinners before converting, so there is always hope for everyone.

And as I mentioned MSNBC is NOT much better than ABC, CNN etc in giving media coverage to climate change. I would NOT recommend watching MSNBC for finding out about AGW. And I’d recommend totally shunning FOX altogether, and maybe boycotting all the products it advertises. Live simply, serve God instead. I can’t even stand to watch it to find out what products to boycott.

You are very wrong about Al Jazeera America. Frankly at first I also thought it would give an Islamic perspective, though I did understand that its parent Al Jazeera has been very good in covering news for the Arabic-speaking world, but I found out it is a very good source for uncorrupted, non-tabloid world-wide news…the way news used to be in the U.S. many decades ago, the way news should be. Give it a try. You will not be disappointed.

I’ve also discovered some religious channels that have great movies. I’d suggest watching THE PERFECT STRANGER trilogy, that includes, ANOTHER PERFECT STRANGER, and NIKKI AND THE PERFECT STRANGER (which I haven’t seen yet, but am waiting eagerly to see).

So it’s Al Jazeera America, Link TV, and Free Speech TV, plus these religious channels for really inspirational religious movies (not the Left Behind series) and my husband still insists on Westerns, like Bonanza… And now that winter break is over, it’s not much time for TV or CAF.

 

[Tomdstone]

Al Jazeera is, well I think we all know what it is.

We do? What do we all know about Al Jazeera?

 

[lynnvinc]

lynnvinc;11619066:

…You know, it’s actually hard to find studies from people whom you call 'denialists". It’s rare that anyone sees it.

That’s because their science is up to snuff to get published in peer-reviewed jnls, tho occasionally a skeptic article does pass peer-review. I remember a skeptic here on CAF citing an article that supposed disproved the greenhouse effect. It was in an obscure Hungarian journal. My climate scientists friend knew the author and very politely dismissed his ideas, which never were published in a mainstream journal.

You can go back over some of the earlier posts on CAF on AGW, and some skeptics here posted long lists of references supposedly disproving AGW.

One time I sent the list to RealClimate.org and asked if anyone knew about this articles and/or authors. On poster took the time to debunk all of them. Some were written by anthropologists and philosophers. Some actually did support AGW, instead of disproving it as the CAF poster had claimed. Some were really old and had not been disproven long time back. I did a google search and found that list on a denialist site – the CAF poster had simply copied and pasted it.

Also that Oregon Petition list of “scientists” who reject AGW has all sorts of bogus people on in, including a cast member of MASH, some dentists, a Dixie Chick, and some scientists who in fact do not (or no longer) reject AGW.

One by one the last true skeptics’ arguments have been refuted…even Lindsen’s “iris theory” holds water no more. Some of the scientist “skeptics” also rejected the idea that smoking can cause cancer and in general reject anything that suggests our lifestyle can cause any problems or harms.

Here are some sites that help with who the denialist industry-supported skeptic “scientists” are, and why their claims are unsubstantiated, even deceitful:

• skepticalscience.com/
• desmogblog.com/
• realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki
• climatecrocks.com/

 

[gilliam]

For one thing the deep ocean (the temps of which are not factored in the above chart) has been absorbing more of the excess energy retained by the increasing GH effect,

It doesn’t look like the North Atlantic or the Pacific are warming. See:
bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/if-manmade-greenhouse-gases-are-responsible-for-the-warming-of-the-global-oceans/

 

[vz71]

Was part of this conspiracy stopping warming dead for 15 years?

That was Bush.

 

[vz71]

I just stumbled across Al Jazeera America…

My father in law made a similar mention during a debate/argument we were having.

All I can say is who else is in this camp with me, and why are they here.

Al Jazeera? Really? Are not they known for being a mouthpiece for various terrorist organizations?

 

[vz71]

Your chart shows there has been no warming for 15 years. But that is not what the alarmists told us was going to happen 15 years ago.They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

Perhaps they were using the wrong instruments.

They should have been using the thermometers from the 1890’s to gather their data.
Perhaps they would be more accurate.

 

[frobert]

The mistake was in using a magazine reference in a scientific paper; it wouldn’t matter if the article was correct or incorrect. Nor was this a single incident; I understand there were several references in the IPCC paper to other articles written by the WWF. As far as scientific protocol is concerned this is appalling.
I referred to “senior staff” members. That is more significant than “a couple of bad apples.” The appropriate response is to refute the charge, not suggest that it is not relevant.

Ender

Here are ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR (174) Global Warming & Climate Change Myths that you can debunk.

Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says. Click the response for a more detailed response. You can also view them sorted by taxonomy, by popularity, in a print-friendly version, with short URLs or with fixed numbers you can use for permanent references.
Climate Myth vs What the Science Says
1 “Climate’s changed before”
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

2 “It’s the sun”
In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions

3 “It’s not bad”
Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.

See Myths 4 thru 173 at: skepticalscience.com/argument.php

174 “Postma disproved the greenhouse effect”
Postma’s model contains many simple errors; in no way does Postma undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect.

Lot of material here to debunk. Have fun!

Seriously though, I haven’t read all your post and I don’t deny that you have some valid arguments but much of you post is based on things taken out of context and/or the propaganda of vested interests. I am not saying that every climate scientist theory is correct but, unfortunately much of what is being predicted will come to pass, and we no longer have time to mitigate the damage. There are a few things coming to together in the not too distant future. What to expect: An increase in billion and multi-billion dollar weather events, flooding, drought, etc that the governments of world will not be able to repair or mitigate much of the damage. You may wish to argue that these are natural events and yes they are but the frequency and severity of damage may not be so natural.