[dohboi]

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2015/04 ... icans.html

Gallup poll: Conservative Republicans alone on timing of global warming – 40 percent say global warming will never happen

That's far higher than any other of the groups polled.




Further: Majority of Conservative Republicans Say Global Warming Due to Natural Changes

These guys are more ideologically hidebound than Stalinists!

[dissident]

The corporate sponsors of climate change denial (e.g. Exxon) have succeeded in politicizing the issue. All the shill yaps like Rush Limbaugh have been working hard for years spreading the "hoax" myth. People value their political opinions above any objective information that challenges their world view.

But I would call the US right wing, the corporatist wing. Social conservatism has nothing to do with science denial since the time before the renaissance. But the denier campaign has even worked its way through religion and we have the nutbars at Cornwall Alliance trying to use the Bible to propagate Exxon's agenda. Supposedly God promised Noah to never wipe out humanity again. I don't see a promise in this that humanity will never wipe itself out.

[dohboi]

"Supposedly God promised Noah to never wipe out humanity again"

Yeah, I got this from one of my fundie students. They have managed to take a story with one of the clearest messages of earth care in the Bible and turn it, in the 'minds' of the unquestioning Believers, into an anti-GW science screed. That's what I would call Bible Abuse.

[Fishman]

And then of course they could actually be reading the studies. Today's article from Duke, not so much climate change. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... study.html

[Lore]

And then of course they could actually be reading the studies. Today's article from Duke, not so much climate change. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... study.html

All that study talks about is the relationship to models versus short term observations. In fact all it states is that due to chaotic natural variability AGW can be influenced positively or negatively. Not much of a revelation.

If you actually read the Daily Mail piece you'd find the authors put in a caveat to their study in relationship to the hiatus.

There's no guarantee, however, that this rate of warming will remain steady in coming years, Li stressed.
'Our analysis clearly shows that we shouldn't expect the observed rates of warming to be constant. They can and do change.'

Also, their study ends in 2013 and by adding another year it shows that their "flat" or "negative" curves turned positive in 2014.

The study says nothing about the fact that climate change is happening and will continue. It does indicate what group you're in though.

[Timo]

"Supposedly God promised Noah to never wipe out humanity again"

Yeah, I got this from one of my fundie students. They have managed to take a story with one of the clearest messages of earth care in the Bible and turn it, in the 'minds' of the unquestioning Believers, into an anti-GW science screed. That's what I would call Bible Abuse.

Slight correction. Supposedly, God promised never to flood the world again. However, Revelations spells out the end of the world as FIRE!

AGW, anyone?

[Lore]

Which leads us to another brief musical interlude and The Crazy World of Arthur Brown!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaHEusBG20c

[dohboi]

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/B1FhZ7s ... ategy.html

ExxonMobil’s dangerous business strategy:
While other oil firms are starting to speak straightforwardly about climate change, ExxonMobil continues to deny reality

[ROCKMAN]

"But I would call the US right wing, the corporatist wing." Good point. Maybe conservative petroleum geologists don't qualify as "right-wingers". I've never met one who didn't appreciate the potential for significant climate change...man-made and natural. Maybe it's because we study earth geologic history and have documented much greater climate changes.

[dohboi]

They've stepped back from their earlier position now, but up until recently the American Assoc. of Petropeum Geologists' official position on climate change concluded with the statement:

"The nonequilibrium systems that control natural phenomena on earth very likely dwarf man's ability to affect climatic conditions on a global scale."

So I'm not sure which petroleum geologists it was that you were talking to, or when.

[AgentR11]

"The nonequilibrium systems that control natural phenomena on earth very likely dwarf man's ability to affect climatic conditions on a global scale."
So I'm not sure which petroleum geologists it was that you were talking to, or when.

That's a completely true statement. Nothing *any* scientist is discussing in reviewed material comes even close to what Earth has experienced in the history of life. Geologists are very accustomed to dealing with time periods that exceed the length of time humans have existed; and any statement from them should be understood in that light.

With our actions, we can vary carbon content in the atmosphere on the scale of hundreds/ppm. Natural forces can do it in the several thousand/ppm scale; though the rate (which is our problem as a species-class) is slower than our current efforts. In a time, long before there were any hominids, but not that long ago from Gaia's perspective, the Earth had a couple thousand ppm of CO2 and was a good 10C'ish warmer; then the geological processes moved continents, changed ocean currents and biology extracted the CO2 and stuffed it in the ground, eventually causing the temperature to collapse to our current oscillation between cold(which we love) and really really cold (which we tolerate well enough). The argument some of us make is that man can reach a tipping point where feedbacks will put much of that CO2 back in the atmosphere, and flip us back to that warm phase with global average temperatures no hominid has ever experienced and to which we are exceedingly poorly adapted. But it *will* be a natural process that takes the reins from our hands and which will exceed our capacity to undo.

My hunch is that by the time I die (in two to four decades most likely), we'll know its underway.

[ROCKMAN]

dohboi - "So I'm not sure which petroleum geologists it was that you were talking to, or when." The thousands of engineers and geologist I've known for the last 40 years...that's who. I'm curious: exactly how many pet. engineers and pet. geologist (other than the Rockman) have you communicated with directly?

BTW the AAPG is neither a geologist nor engineer...it's a corporation. This where almost everyone here has a terrible blindside: the desire to lump the multiple diverse opinions and positions of tens of thousands of individuals under one group think. I dare say 98% of all the folks here have had little or no direct contact with the oil patch hands who understand exactly what's going on and wouldn't hesitate to lay it out plainly if asked directly. Remember we all understand that almost everyone thinks the vast majority of the oil patch are lying bastards so we don't really give a sh*t what you think about us so it's not a problem to show y'all our dirty laundry. LOL.

[dohboi]

"BTW the AAPG is neither a geologist nor engineer...it's a corporation"

OK, my bad. How silly of me to think that a group calling itself the American Association of Petroleum Geologists would have Petroleum Geologists in it!

[KaiserJeep]

Almost as bad as thinking that the IPCC would restrict membership to those people who had actual climate expertise, rather than anybody who pays dues and submits a membership form.

[dohboi]

Actually, as far as I can see, the AAPG does require it's members to be in the field or students training for the field. Which still leaves me wondering who R has been talking to--or perhaps just the top leaders put out that 1999 position paper? (I just went to their site to see if I could sign up.)

The main problem with the looseness of the IPCC policies on who can make comments is that it allows anti-science rightwingers to try to influence the text of the final document.

Thanks for helping to bump the thread, though, KJ. You are, after all, something of a poster child for it.

[zoidberg]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/1156 ... gures.html

The politicization is coming from all angles. One of the biggest is the push to tax hydrocarbon energy and control it. All for the greater good of course. The money will be spend by others though. That is also for your good as well.

All I see is indoctrination as blind as any religious zealot in the climate change or global warming or agw crowd. Why? You've been programmed with propaganda and then emotionally invested in an issue which kills all objectivity . The warming numbers are suspected.

[Lore]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

The politicization is coming from all angles. One of the biggest is the push to tax hydrocarbon energy and control it. All for the greater good of course. The money will be spend by others though. That is also for your good as well.

All I see is indoctrination as blind as any religious zealot in the climate change or global warming or agw crowd. Why? You've been programmed with propaganda and then emotionally invested in an issue which kills all objectivity . The warming numbers are suspected.

Conspiracy is the last refuge of denial.

[zoidberg]

Time will tell.So far it says current theories can't match observations unless the data is faked. You say , nay believe it isn't and any data that contradicts expected results must be aggressively ignored. Well we are all entitled to our beliefs. skepticism is healthy my friend.

Edit. I get the idea though co2 lets sunlight through and blocks the infrared coming back out. The question isn't the mechanics but how it actually interacts with our planet. I would more confident if the climatetologists could accurately predict the weather. Like a hurricane 90 days in advance? Hell they can't even do it well watching it through a satellite.

[Lore]

The theory on AGW is so far very sound and is working quite well. If you're referring to the rate of temperature climb in observations vs models then you have to consider that models are approximations using the best data available and like weather they do not account completely for the complex chaotic nature of natural short term variability. Strip away the short term noise and the models are quite accurate. It just goes to show that the myth which exists that since the models are not in sync with the current observations then the theory must be wrong is nothing more than a strawman argument. The theory dictates the end result will be the same, regardless of the statistical bumps along the way.

[KaiserJeep]

Of course, there are AGW and CC theories, and there is objective reality. The two do not agree. I dislike it when I have to point out to you AGW/CC
fanboys that your obsessions are quite simply wrong, it causes no end of screeching and whining, as if somebody had kicked your dog.

STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means

June 6th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In response to those who complained in my recent post (1) that linear trends are not a good way to compare the models to observations (even though the modelers have claimed that it’s the long-term behavior of the models we should focus on, not individual years), here are running 5-year averages for the tropical tropospheric temperature, models versus observations (set scaling to 75% for full size):



In this case, the models and observations have been plotted so that their respective 1979-2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models’ results for comparison to the observations.

In my opinion, the day of reckoning has arrived. The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years, despite the fact that some of us have shown that simply confusing cause and effect when examining cloud and temperature variations can totally mislead you on cloud feedbacks (e.g. Spencer & Braswell, 2010)(2). The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time.

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the coming years. I frankly don’t see how the IPCC can keep claiming that the models are “not inconsistent with” the observations. Any sane person can see otherwise.

If the observations in the above graph were on the UPPER (warm) side of the models, do you really believe the modelers would not be falling all over themselves to see how much additional surface warming they could get their models to produce?

Hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into the expensive climate modelling enterprise has all but destroyed governmental funding of research into natural sources of climate change. For years the modelers have maintained that there is no such thing as natural climate change…yet they now, ironically, have to invoke natural climate forces to explain why surface warming has essentially stopped in the last 15 years!

Forgive me if I sound frustrated, but we scientists who still believe that climate change can also be naturally forced have been virtually cut out of funding and publication by the ‘humans-cause-everything-bad-that-happens’ juggernaut. The public who funds their work will not stand for their willful blindness much longer.

(1) http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/
(2) http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf

There you have it, all 73 climate models produced by IPCC members, predicting severe and accelerating warming. Then the actual balloon and satellite temperature observations that demonstrate that the real warming is tracking below the much more modest trend predicted by astronomer and geophysicist Milutin Milanković, during his tenure as a POW in WW1. The three main factors, ignored by climate modellers, are the eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit (1).

Quite simply, we need a new model, one that explains why the global temperatures are below those predicted by Milanković, and there are lots of scientists who would love to work on that, if it were not the case that you goose-stepping AGW fanboys are acting like Nazis, suppressing Science in favor of Politics. You would be the ultimate "rightwingers", as you attempt to suppress objective observations that do not support your pet theory. Burned any books lately?



That pretty much says it all. In denying orbital mechanics, you AGW fanboys have demonstrated intelligence and scientific acumen comparable to The Flat Earth Society (2).

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
(2) http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Now, everybody have a nice day.