Fear and loathing in DC

[DanG 1]

Quote

Observed data vs the predictions

Are you claiming that none of the climate change predictions are coming true?

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

Observed data vs the predictions

Are you claiming that none of the climate change predictions are coming true?

First off
The climate changes
That is undisputable
Is man altering the change somehow is the question
So, some predictions will come true by default
I am not disputing change

As for the alarmists predictions?
Well, when one knows that it was warmer in the past than the manipulated data (that was used to push the myth) shows, I question the whole AWG premise to begin with

and no current data supports the claims either

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

Observed data vs the predictions

Are you claiming that none of the climate change predictions are coming true?

My turn

will you say that current observations support the predictions?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

will you say that current observations support the predictions?

Most of them, yes.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

will you say that current observations support the predictions?

Most of them, yes.

which ones?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Global temperatures are going up.
Land ice in Antarctica is melting.
Ice extend in the Arctic is reducing.
Glaciers everywhere are receding.
Ocean levels are rising.
CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentration are rising.

- Dan G

[billvon 3,110]

>Are the difference is?

Deniers make his company more money.

[rushmc 23]

You make my point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

You make my point

Huh? I don't know what you mean.

If your point is that the large majority of climate change predictions are being observed, then yeah, I make your point. Otherwise, I think you need to make your point clear.

- Dan G

[billvon 3,110]

>Your climate change theory is a combination of extreme political ideology and a
>religious cult all rolled into one as Patrick Moore a PhD in Ecology would say.

Another article on this from PNAS. (It doesn't fit right wing dogma, so feel free to stop reading right now.)

==================
Expert credibility in climate change

William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider

Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and
expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists
on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American
public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic
cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A
broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the
distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to
agreeing researchers, and the level of agreementamong top climate
experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate
researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the
field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and
scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are
substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
===================

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Your climate change theory is a combination of extreme political ideology and a
>religious cult all rolled into one as Patrick Moore a PhD in Ecology would say.

Another article on this from PNAS. (It doesn't fit right wing dogma, so feel free to stop reading right now.)

==================
Expert credibility in climate change

William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider

Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and
expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists
on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American
public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic
cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A
broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the
distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to
agreeing researchers, and the level of agreementamong top climate
experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate
researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the
field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and
scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are
substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
===================

Just the fact that this touts the consensus lie, makes this not worth reading
And one of the most respected alarmists changes his mind and he is attacked

So I think this does little good for your cause except to supply another chapter in the bible that is AWG

Oh
I also like the dates
I wonder if any of these guys have changed their minds in the last 3 plus years
If so, they would be ignored and attacked too

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

How would you like to see a study that shows that climate alarmists are paid more when they write papers that support AGW?

You'd love it, and you'd tout is as a first rate piece of evidence to prove your claim.

But when billvon posts something that disagrees with your position, you go out of your way to dismiss it.

If you really think you're unbiased, you're not being honest with yourself.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

How would you like to see a study that shows that climate alarmists are paid more when they write papers that support AGW?

You'd love it, and you'd tout is as a first rate piece of evidence to prove your claim.

But when billvon posts something that disagrees with your position, you go out of your way to dismiss it.

If you really think you're unbiased, you're not being honest with yourself.

You think you are unbiased?

How about Bill?

But how about this?

I would re-examine my position if something new came out today supporting AWG

But there has been nothing for how many years?
hell, look what Bill had to drag up
At least the things I post are new
The manipulated data?
The climate scientist who was a leading and respected person in the field until
until




until
He changed his mind because HE looked at the data and now thinks he himself was wrong

Now, If you think anyone else is doing different than I am here you are fooling only yourself

Oh, and we already know that many of these alarmists are protecting their pocket books
Governments are spending big bucks on research in this field. But IMO it is not because of climate change, it is about using climate change to extract even more money from the population it governs

Hope the fall off your high horse does not hurt too much

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Look
I know this is a persons opinion but, he does talk about some of those things I have talked about here

Posting this because is sums up what I think (better than I can) very well

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/07/15/The-real-problem-with-climate-change-experts-who-aren-t-experts

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,110]

>I would re-examine my position if something new came out today supporting AWG

=================
Science 4 July 2014:
Vol. 345 no. 6192 pp. 77-80

Report
Climate change and wind intensification in coastal upwelling ecosystems

W. J. Sydeman1,*,
M. García-Reyes1,
D. S. Schoeman2,
R. R. Rykaczewski3,
S. A. Thompson1,4,
B. A. Black5,
S. J. Bograd6

Abstract

In 1990, Andrew Bakun proposed that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would force intensification of upwelling-favorable winds in eastern boundary current systems that contribute substantial services to society. Because there is considerable disagreement about whether contemporary wind trends support Bakun’s hypothesis, we performed a meta-analysis of the literature on upwelling-favorable wind intensification. The preponderance of published analyses suggests that winds have intensified in the California, Benguela, and Humboldt upwelling systems and weakened in the Iberian system over time scales ranging up to 60 years; wind change is equivocal in the Canary system. Stronger intensification signals are observed at higher latitudes, consistent with the warming pattern associated with climate change. Overall, reported changes in coastal winds, although subtle and spatially variable, support Bakun’s hypothesis of upwelling intensification in eastern boundary current systems.

Accepted for publication 30 May 2014.
================================

[billvon 3,110]

>You think you are unbiased?
>How about Bill?

I am definitely biased. I have a strong bias for peer-reviewed science over popular media - which is one reason you and I disagree so much.

>Now, If you think anyone else is doing different than I am here you are fooling
>only yourself

Most people are "doing different" than you are.

[rushmc 23]

Actually you like the buddy support review

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>I would re-examine my position if something new came out today supporting AWG

=================
Science 4 July 2014:
Vol. 345 no. 6192 pp. 77-80

Report
Climate change and wind intensification in coastal upwelling ecosystems

W. J. Sydeman1,*,
M. García-Reyes1,
D. S. Schoeman2,
R. R. Rykaczewski3,
S. A. Thompson1,4,
B. A. Black5,
S. J. Bograd6

Abstract

In 1990, Andrew Bakun proposed that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would force intensification of upwelling-favorable winds in eastern boundary current systems that contribute substantial services to society. Because there is considerable disagreement about whether contemporary wind trends support Bakun’s hypothesis, we performed a meta-analysis of the literature on upwelling-favorable wind intensification. The preponderance of published analyses suggests that winds have intensified in the California, Benguela, and Humboldt upwelling systems and weakened in the Iberian system over time scales ranging up to 60 years; wind change is equivocal in the Canary system. Stronger intensification signals are observed at higher latitudes, consistent with the warming pattern associated with climate change. Overall, reported changes in coastal winds, although subtle and spatially variable, support Bakun’s hypothesis of upwelling intensification in eastern boundary current systems.

Accepted for publication 30 May 2014.
================================

Good
So let me ask you
Has this intensification EVER happened before ?

We know that we have had higer CO2 consentration in that past than we do today
What about this?

Or are we going to have to believe that wind strenths, directions and temps are generally static?
Or, intensified from what?
What he say in the 90's

This clip you posted seems to indicate that they have seen 60 year cycles in the past
Do those cycles generally include this intensification?

Glad to see something new but, it seems a bit week on what it really means dont you think?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,110]

>Has this intensification EVER happened before ?

Probably, although the article doesn't speak to that.

>We know that we have had higer CO2 consentration in that past than we do
>today. What about this?

True, and we've had higher temperatures, too. In the past this was due to things like volcanic eruptions and meteor impacts. This time it's due to us.

>Or are we going to have to believe that wind strenths, directions and temps are
>generally static?

Uh, no, that's what the article says - they change with the climate.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Has this intensification EVER happened before ?

Probably, although the article doesn't speak to that.

>We know that we have had higer CO2 consentration in that past than we do
>today. What about this?

True, and we've had higher temperatures, too. In the past this was due to things like volcanic eruptions and meteor impacts. This time it's due to us.

>Or are we going to have to believe that wind strenths, directions and temps are
>generally static?

Uh, no, that's what the article says - they change with the climate.

You do not know it is due to us
That is your opinion
There is no scientific basis for that claim yet
Only conjecture

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,110]

>You do not know it is due to us

We know the CO2 increase is due to us. There is no doubt about that in science at all. It's simple math; megatons out to megatons in the atmosphere.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>You do not know it is due to us

We know the CO2 increase is due to us. There is no doubt about that in science at all. It's simple math; megatons out to megatons in the atmosphere.

You need it to be simple to try and make your argument
but it is not simple
We know this now
We know there is much more involved in climate change
Which seems to have very little to do with man

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,110]

>You need it to be simple to try and make your argument

The basics are pretty simple.

1) We are increasing CO2 concentrations
2) More CO2 means more heat retained via the greenhouse effect
3) On average, the temperature has been rising as CO2 has increased.

You can try to distort that as much as you want; the basics don't change.

[rushmc 23]

I am not distorting a thing. You however, purposely want to leave out so very much

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,110]

>I am not distorting a thing.

So you accept those three basic principles? Excellent! Progress.