Global warming stopped 16 years ago

[fmccap]

Where???

You said deniers fudged numbers and I replied that believers did also and never received a response about that. Let me guess, they did it so it's OK.

[fmccap]

 

I'm going all in with Fired will end up casting a vote for the Republican candidate just like 2012 while casting aspersion at everyone for voting for either party.

So aspiration at yourself?

[Langston Hughes]

So aspiration at yourself?

 

What?

[Langston Hughes]

You said deniers fudged numbers and I replied that believers did also and never received a response about that. Let me guess, they did it so it's OK.

 

You did receive a response to your accusation, just not the part you want. If you want me only to reply to one thing please stop from adding things into the post that I can reply to.

[FiredMotorCompany]

If you want me only to reply to one thing please stop from adding things into the post that I can reply to.

LH, do you work as a Chinese swing-set assembly manual writer?

[xr7g428]

X,

Page is a hack who's not worth posting. He's known for taking studies and making wild ass extrapolations from them which are misleading. He can say that people are haters, but that doesn't change what he is.

 

Priceless. Straight to the ad homienem attack.

[fmccap]

LH I have an idea that will help and the technology is already here. How about no more cutting trees down for paper use? We have the Internet and email. No more newspapers, magazines or junk mail? The technology is here.

[Langston Hughes]

 

Priceless. Straight to the ad homienem attack.

 

No, I did not. I mentioned that he is biased and has been known to mislead people in his articles. You replied to this so I'd expect better from you than to make intentional false accusations.

 

Should I save Spaniard the time of suggesting that articles written by known a known denier who has played fast and loose with stats before are not going to help your side

 

 

 

Here's the criticisms.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/dec/17/register-climate-myths

 

The Register demonstrates how climate myths are created

Bloggers and sceptics promoted an incorrect assertion without checking the facts

 

 

This was about a Page story in which he advances some junk science mathematics that he did on the back of a napkin himself and mucked it up.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/oct/11/2

 

Another story about how Page makes another incorrect extrapolation.

 

And yet The Register article puts a whole different spin on the story, one that seems to completely contradict The Guardian's reporting, the paper, and Haigh's own statements on the subject.

"New data indicates that changes in the Sun's output of energy were a major factor in the global temperature increases seen in recent years

. The research will be unwelcome among hardcore green activists, as it downplays the influence of human-driven carbon emissions."

Eh? Compare and contrast with e.g. Imperial College's press release:

"Overall solar activity has been increasing over the past century, so the researchers believe it is possible that during this period, the Sun has been contributing a small cooling effect, rather than a small warming effect as had previously been thought."

 

 

[xr7g428]

Langston what is important is the central facts of the issue, not who speaks them. If you can't counter the facts you immediately attack the speaker. It is just the way you roll.

 

You might want to read this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/graun_robbins_counterblast/

 

Globally popular Guardian science correspondent Martin Robbins has initiated a public flame war with the Reg. This is our response.

Earlier today, under the page title "The Register misrepresents climate science", the Guardian ran this piece by Robbins, who blogs for the Graun under the title "The Lay Scientist" and who recently shot to world fame after writing this terrifically popular spoof science article - which we thought was pretty good, by the way.

But Robbins doesn't like us, here on the Reg boffinry desk. In particular he didn't like this piece of ours, reporting on recent research into the effects of solar variation on climate change.

Under the headline "Much of recent global warming actually caused by Sun", we wrote:

We had based this on the fact that the new research covered the period 2004 to 2007, which we would say fits pretty well under "recent years". We thought the phrase "major factor" was appropriate as Professor Joanna Haigh - lead scientist conducting the research - told Nature, publishing it, that increased visible-light emissions by the Sun have caused as much warming over those recent years as human carbon emissions have. We quote Nature:New data indicates that changes in the Sun's output of energy were a major factor in the global temperature increases seen in recent years. The research will be unwelcome among hardcore green activists, as it downplays the influence of human-driven carbon emissions.

Open and shut, then. Much of recent global warming - as much as was caused by human carbon emissions, anyway - was actually down to changes in the Sun. At least, if you believe Professor Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London.Over the three-year study period, the observed variations in the solar spectrum have caused roughly as much warming of Earth's surface as have increases in carbon dioxide emissions, says Haigh.

As for this being unwelcome news to hardcore green activists, the response the piece received - not least from Robbins of the Grauniad - suggests we were right on the money there, too. He says:

We've got no argument with the idea that CO₂ in an atmosphere has a greenhouse effect: that's just a fact. But as for massive global action being required by the climate changes and atmospheric measurements observed in the present day, that's just an opinion based on long-range weather forecasts. It's an opinion widely held, apparently by Professor Haigh, certainly by Mr Robbins and many other green activists. For the record, your correspondent simply doesn't know whether they're right or not.At a time when action to deal with climate change is needed more than ever, this sort of misleading reporting does nothing to help the public debate.

The opinion of an eminent physicist like Professor Haigh carries weight - Robbins' is worth less than the electrons used to publish it, of course. But then we might also consider the opinion of the still more eminent physicist Freeman Dyson - who considers the menace of carbon emissions to be seriously overblown, and who is not alone among eminent physicists in this.

Then, even James Hansen of NASA himself - the man who more or less invented the idea of carbon-driven warming and who believes that only the exhaustion of global oil supplies can save humanity - has lately admitted that in fact other things might have just as powerful an effect on the climate as CO₂.

Then too there are all the embarrassing blunders made by the IPCC lately, in allowing totally unverified claims regarding glaciers, rainforests etc to filter through from hardcore green activists to official UN descriptions of the scientific state of play.

All in all, then, we'd say that our reporting is a lot more accurate than most on the environment beat. But we would say that, wouldn't we.

Robbins doesn't agree, certainly. He says we have "seriously misrepresented" the research, and quotes Haigh as saying:

The title of the article in The Register entirely misrepresents the paper's conclusions. While our work showed over a 3 year period that declining solar activity might have caused a warming of the planet it made no claims on longer periods. Even if it were the case that solar activity is inversely related to warming then the ups and downs of the solar cycle would cancel out over time. And over the past century overall solar activity has risen which, on the same basis, would imply global cooling.

But in fact the article title accurately reflected her comments to Nature: and we repeatedly made clear in the body of the piece that the research referred only to the period 2004-2007. We also reported her comments on the solar cycle and possible effects over the past century:

Which is probably why the Professor specifically states only that the headline misrepresents her paper's conclusions. But it doesn't refer to the paper's conclusions - it refers to her accompanying comments, and we stand by it as presumably she stands by them.All that can be said with any certainty is that through 2004-2007, the Sun warmed the planet much more powerfully than had been thought...

Haigh thinks, however, that... over long periods of time solar warming probably has little effect on the Earth's temperature one way or the other, as solar activity cycles up and down regularly.

"If the climate were affected in the long term, the Sun should have produced a notable cooling in the first half of the twentieth century, which we know it didn't," she says.

Anyway, enough of Haigh and solar warming. Let's finish up with the "Lay Scientist". In addition to accusing us of "misrepresenting climate science", and - worst of all - "completely contradicting The Guardian's reporting" (OMG!!! Heresy!) he simply doesn't like our style. He writes:

It's not just the misrepresentation of science that grates. Through-out the article, the author, [sic] uses rather unfortunate language to describe scientists... the research is described as being published in "hefty boffinry mag Nature."

The use of 'boffin', common at the random-USE-of-CAPITALS end of tabloid journalism, is problematic to many scientists, as the word is increasingly loaded with negative connotations...

Whenever I see it, it reeks...

I feel it belittles researchers, and patronizes the reader.

Three minutes before Mr Robbins' effusion went up at the Graun, we received an email from him, which we reproduce here in part:

I trust that you'll pass on her concerns to your readers in an amendment to the article, and I'd be interested to hear your response to the criticism.

Well, down here at the random-use-of-capitals end of tabloid journalism, Mr Robbins, we DON'T CARE what YOU THINK. We are certainly not going to amend the article because you say so: and this is our response, delivered pretty much the way your request for comment was. ®

Boffinry Bootnote

We do care what boffins think, though, so we'd just like to repeat our previous assertions that on the pages of the Reg the word "boffin" is a title of honour accorded only to researchers we respect - generally from the proper sciences and able to do hard sums, like Professor Haigh. Lesser practitioners (for instance business-studies or psychology professors purveying dubious surveys and statistical analyses) are generally known as "eggheads" or "trick-cyclists", for instance.

We get a fair bit of positive mail from people we have dubbed boffins, so we're fairly sure most of them know this, but it never hurts to be sure.

 

[cal50]

LH I have an idea that will help and the technology is already here. How about no more cutting trees down for paper use? We have the Internet and email. No more newspapers, magazines or junk mail? The technology is here.

 

 

That is hitting where it hurts....

 

[napfirst]

"It was so cold today that I actually saw a democrat with his hands in his own pockets".

[Langston Hughes]

LH I have an idea that will help and the technology is already here. How about no more cutting trees down for paper use? We have the Internet and email. No more newspapers, magazines or junk mail? The technology is here.

 

I've gone paperless as much as possible.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

I've gone paperless as much as possible.

Where do you buy your iPads on a roll? Going paperless in the loo is expensive.

[Langston Hughes]

Where do you buy your iPads on a roll? Going paperless in the loo is expensive.

 

I use the 3 seashells

 

http://youtu.be/9mFuB0gsNAA

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

I use the 3 seashells

 

http://youtu.be/9mFuB0gsNAA

Better than the Arab (?) solution. Never use your left hand to eat.

Edited January 8, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[Langston Hughes]

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/now-just-001-percent-of-climate-scientists-reject-global-warming

 

Interesting.

[FiredMotorCompany]

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/now-just-001-percent-of-climate-scientists-reject-global-warming

 

Interesting.

Climate scientists see where the money is.

Jump on the band wagon!

 

 

If that tiny sliver represents the correct view, what does it matter if the lemmings run off the cliff together.

If a man, alone, knows the truth, though no others believe him, his knowledge is still truth.

 

 

The most widely held view, at one time, was that the world was flat.

 

Are you a flat Earther? I mean. It was what EVERYBODY held as the truth.

Edited January 15, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[RangerM]

MIT Professor Urging Climate Change Activists To Slow Down

 

 

A new proposal on climate change focuses on public health, energy, transportation and basic infrastructure. Under the plan unveiled Tuesday, $40 million will go to help cities and towns in Massachusetts shore up the power supply and keep the lights on. Ten million will be earmarked for the coast, to protect it from rising sea levels.

But will it work?

While Gov. Deval Patrick and others painted a dire picture of what global warming might do to us, others are more skeptical. MIT Professor Richard Lindzen is a leading international expert on climate change.

“The changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for,” he told WBZ-TV. “It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with where we live.”

Lindzen endorses sensible preparedness and environmental protection, but sees what he terms “catastrophism” in the climate change horror stories.

“Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,” he says.

“Even many of the people who are supportive of sounding the global warning alarm, back off from catastophism,” Lindzen said. “It’s the politicians and the green movement that like to portray catastrophe.”

 

Heretic!

[NickF1011]

 

The most widely held view, at one time, was that the world was flat.

 

Are you a flat Earther? I mean. It was what EVERYBODY held as the truth.

 

Until better evidence presented itself. Better evidence has presented itself that man is affecting the climate. I'm still of the position that I'm not sure there's anything we can really do to slow our impact though. Trying to legislate it isn't going to fix anything until we understand it more.

[akirby]

Better evidence has presented itself that man is affecting the climate.

 

Evidence? Or unproven theories?

[NickF1011]

 

Evidence? Or unproven theories?

 

Oh boy.

 

[fordmantpw]

 

 

the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\

: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

 

I'm pretty sure akirby knows what it means. It's impossible to prove global warming was caused by man. It can't be done. There is so much natural climate change in the world that saying man caused global warming is a theory that cannot be proven true.

[akirby]

And I don't think you know what evidence means.

 

What we have is the equivalent of a dead body with a gunshot wound and a gun nearby. You can't say the evidence points to the gun being the murder weapon unless you match it with a ballistics test. If you can't prove it that way then it's not evidence, it's just a theory.

 

We don't have a model that's adequate to test the theory that increased carbon dioxide is responsible for increasing global temperatures.

[RangerM]

The most recent evidence I've seen has put the current global temperature outside the range (and lower than) predicted by all climate models used to promote MMGW.

 

That evidence would seem to indicate all the models are wrong.

[akirby]

The most recent evidence I've seen has put the current global temperature outside the range (and lower than) predicted by all climate models used to promote MMGW.

 

That evidence would seem to indicate all the models are wrong.

 

Exactly. If you put forth a theory and make predictions based on that theory and model and you don't get the results you expected then the model and/or the theory are wrong.