The nub of the climate change thing problem

[SeattleGriz]

I just looked at a map of all the places that would drown if the ice caps melt.

I believe we need to rethink our position on AGW being a net bad thing

I am on record as stating the best thing that could happen to this planet would be for ocean levels to go up about 20 feet.

I'd have beach front property.

[kalm]

I am on record as stating the best thing that could happen to this planet would be for ocean levels to go up about 20 feet.

I'd have beach front property.

In a rain soaked dystopia.

[travelinman67]

I'd have beach front property.

In a rain soaked dystopia.

...further south...that's Tacoma.

[kalm]

[GannonFan]

[LeadBolt]

Kudos!

[LeadBolt]

I'm giving in to the climate change thing. Next month I will move north to a higher elevation. Now I just need vehicles with bigger engines.

[travelinman67]

Off topic, but akin to the "irony" issue...

...right before the infamous Seattle WTO protest, an older "activist" client of mine from SF, was asked by an organizer to provide mattresses for the warehouse housing of the out of town protesters. She contacted a wholesaler, who filled her order of 85 "cheap" mattresses...from a manufacturer in Malaysia.

[JohnStOnge]

Don't know if anyone's posted this yet but I think it's a point of interest:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/22/forme ... n-climate/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The headline is:

Former UN Lead Author: Global Warming Caused By ‘Natural Variations’ In Climate

I don't think that's really what he said. I think this is it:

This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.

I don't even know if I'd say THAT. I'd probably say something like "we can't say it's outside of the range of natural variation." But it's interesting in any case. And it's actually consistent with this statement from the article:

Global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years, according to a new paper by a former Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) lead author.

And, BTW, this is another example of the benefit of listening to Rush Limbaugh. The reason I looked this up is because one of my brothers heard reference to it on Rush Limbaugh and told me about it.

[travelinman67]

https://medium.com/@spann/the-age-of-di ... d55837d7d9

Reality v propaganda. Well written viewpoint from a seasoned meteorologist.

[kalm]

Don't know if anyone's posted this yet but I think it's a point of interest:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/22/forme ... n-climate/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The headline is:

Former UN Lead Author: Global Warming Caused By ‘Natural Variations’ In Climate

I don't think that's really what he said. I think this is it:

This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.

I don't even know if I'd say THAT. I'd probably say something like "we can't say it's outside of the range of natural variation." But it's interesting in any case. And it's actually consistent with this statement from the article:

Global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years, according to a new paper by a former Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) lead author.

And, BTW, this is another example of the benefit of listening to Rush Limbaugh. The reason I looked this up is because one of my brothers heard reference to it on Rush Limbaugh and told me about it.

He's a former UN lead author? Well then he must not be connected to petrochemical engineering. I mean who would ever check up on Rush's sources, right?

[travelinman67]

Don't know if anyone's posted this yet but I think it's a point of interest:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/22/forme ... n-climate/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The headline is:



I don't think that's really what he said. I think this is it:



I don't even know if I'd say THAT. I'd probably say something like "we can't say it's outside of the range of natural variation." But it's interesting in any case. And it's actually consistent with this statement from the article:



And, BTW, this is another example of the benefit of listening to Rush Limbaugh. The reason I looked this up is because one of my brothers heard reference to it on Rush Limbaugh and told me about it.

He's a former UN lead author? Well then he must not be connected to petrochemical engineering. I mean who would ever check up on Rush's sources, right?

Source?

[kalm]

He's a former UN lead author? Well then he must not be connected to petrochemical engineering. I mean who would ever check up on Rush's sources, right?

Source?

Intellectually lazy conk. Look him up yourself.

Oh..and good luck.

[BDKJMU]

Donk "Senator: Use RICO Laws to Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sen ... 63007.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Course maybe I shouldn't be that surprised...

[travelinman67]

Donk "Senator: Use RICO Laws to Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sen ... 63007.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Course maybe I shouldn't be that surprised...

Just saw that.

Great argument that alarmism is a mental illness.

Maybe alarmists should be institutionalized?

[travelinman67]

NOAA CAUGHT ERASING COOLING DATA. ANNOUNCES "ADJUSTMENT" TO CLIMATE DATA!

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa- ... ng-hiatus/

Breaking!!!

Kennedy Found Alive!!

Slavery Revealed As Myth!!

Cheney Brainwash Program Caused Homosexuality!!

Kalm Confirmed As Moderate!!

[kalm]

NOAA CAUGHT ERASING COOLING DATA. ANNOUNCES "ADJUSTMENT" TO CLIMATE DATA!

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa- ... ng-hiatus/

Breaking!!!

Kennedy Found Alive!!

Slavery Revealed As Myth!!

Cheney Brainwash Program Caused Homosexuality!!

Kalm Confirmed As Moderate!!

I'm too lazy to look it up, but "Science Mag", similar "whatsupwiththat.org", sounds totally legit.

Your homework, Tman, is to produce their funding source.

I look forward to your reply.

[travelinman67]

NOAA CAUGHT ERASING COOLING DATA. ANNOUNCES "ADJUSTMENT" TO CLIMATE DATA!

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa- ... ng-hiatus/

Breaking!!!

Kennedy Found Alive!!

Slavery Revealed As Myth!!

Cheney Brainwash Program Caused Homosexuality!!

Kalm Confirmed As Moderate!!

I'm too lazy to look it up, but "Science Mag", similar "whatsupwiththat.org", sounds totally legit.

Your homework, Tman, is to produce their funding source.

I look forward to your reply.

Blankman, the source is NOAA.

[CID1990]

NOAA CAUGHT ERASING COOLING DATA. ANNOUNCES "ADJUSTMENT" TO CLIMATE DATA!

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa- ... ng-hiatus/

Breaking!!!

Kennedy Found Alive!!

Slavery Revealed As Myth!!

Cheney Brainwash Program Caused Homosexuality!!

Kalm Confirmed As Moderate!!

I'm too lazy to look it up, but "Science Mag", similar "whatsupwiththat.org", sounds totally legit.

Your homework, Tman, is to produce their funding source.

I look forward to your reply.

Klam- youre as much of a broken record around here as Tman

Your problem is that to you seem to believe that private funding = agenda driven junk science

What it hard to understand about you is how you don't comprehend that government funded science is also agenda driven- ESPECIALLY climate science

It is entirely possible that that both sides of the argument are driven by some legitimate science - and it is equally possible that nobody has a fuvking clue because NONE of the science is good

predictive models from ten years ago alone show that the AGW science is in fact flawed - especially in terms of the degree to which human activity affects the climate

so you can ask for funding information all you want- but if somebody is paying, they have an agenda. Right now, if you are studying external causes of climate change as a way to mitigate the effect of human activity you are NOT/NOT going to get a government research grant right now. Period

[kalm]

I'm too lazy to look it up, but "Science Mag", similar "whatsupwiththat.org", sounds totally legit.

Your homework, Tman, is to produce their funding source.

I look forward to your reply.

Klam- youre as much of a broken record around here as Tman

Your problem is that to you seem to believe that private funding = agenda driven junk science

What it hard to understand about you is how you don't comprehend that government funded science is also agenda driven- ESPECIALLY climate science

It is entirely possible that that both sides of the argument are driven by some legitimate science - and it is equally possible that nobody has a fuvking clue because NONE of the science is good

predictive models from ten years ago alone show that the AGW science is in fact flawed - especially in terms of the degree to which human activity affects the climate

so you can ask for funding information all you want- but if somebody is paying, they have an agenda. Right now, if you are studying external causes of climate change as a way to mitigate the effect of human activity you are NOT/NOT going to get a government research grant right now. Period

Yes, you've made this somewhat Spandosesque point before and it's feasible (you see, unlike Tman, I actually read and remember what other people post).

Speaking of reading what's posted, Tman obviously didn't read his own article. In the first paragraph, it references a NOAA study, hyperlinking to it. Except the hyperlink takes you to something called a "Science Mag" (literally "Mag", not short for anything ) rather than the referenced NOAA research. That article has further links to Science Mag articles and references the IPCC but nothing about NOAA.

I hope the deniers are correct but nothing Tman reports comes from an independent scientific organization. Sure government funded organizations might be grant biased to the point of being completely wrong but the percentages make it highly unlikely.

Besides, I thought you leaned toward AGW?

[CID1990]

Klam- youre as much of a broken record around here as Tman

Your problem is that to you seem to believe that private funding = agenda driven junk science

What it hard to understand about you is how you don't comprehend that government funded science is also agenda driven- ESPECIALLY climate science

It is entirely possible that that both sides of the argument are driven by some legitimate science - and it is equally possible that nobody has a fuvking clue because NONE of the science is good

predictive models from ten years ago alone show that the AGW science is in fact flawed - especially in terms of the degree to which human activity affects the climate

so you can ask for funding information all you want- but if somebody is paying, they have an agenda. Right now, if you are studying external causes of climate change as a way to mitigate the effect of human activity you are NOT/NOT going to get a government research grant right now. Period

Yes, you've made this somewhat Spandosesque point before and it's feasible (you see, unlike Tman, I actually read and remember what other people post).

Speaking of reading what's posted, Tman obviously didn't read his own article. In the first paragraph, it references a NOAA study, hyperlinking to it. Except the hyperlink takes you to something called a "Science Mag" (literally "Mag", not short for anything ) rather than the referenced NOAA research. That article has further links to Science Mag articles and references the IPCC but nothing about NOAA.

I hope the deniers are correct but nothing Tman reports comes from an independent scientific organization. Sure government funded organizations might be grant biased to the point of being completely wrong but the percentages make it highly unlikely.

Besides, I thought you leaned toward AGW?

I do lean towards AGW, I am skeptical about the degree to which we actually have an effect.

And anyone who actually looks at the number from the predictive models will conclude one of two things:

Either the science is bad or

We are collecting and compiling our results incorrectly (also bad science)

Tell you what- why don't you tell us who funds the science you agree with? Obviously not ExxonMobil or Shell, so who funds "your" science?

If there was a Republican president do you think government grants to study AGW would be more prolific? Or less?

You've been clear that research funded by Shell is dishonest (and it might well be)- so where's the honest science?

Also- related tangentially to this discussion is the EPA franking report that was just issued. Go check it out (just don't look in the NYT they aren't covering it)

[travelinman67]

Holy crap! Klam, your ignorance knows no bound.

If you had expanded the authors link, you would have found...

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

 Authors
Thomas R. Karl1,*,
Anthony Arguez1,
Boyin Huang1,
Jay H. Lawrimore1,
James R. McMahon2,
Matthew J. Menne1,
Thomas C. Peterson1,
Russell S. Vose1,
Huai-Min Zhang1

1National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), Asheville, NC 28801, USA.
2LMI, McLean, VA, USA.↵
*Corresponding author. E-mail:thomas.r.karl@noaa.gov

...EIGHT of the nine authors of the study are NOAA employees.

But in all fairness, Klam, I'll hack their bank accounts and check to make sure they haven't been surreptitiously funded by Exxon.



Jackass. Once again, wasting everyone's time; always wrong...

[kalm]

Holy crap! Klam, your ignorance knows no bound.

If you had expanded the authors link, you would have found...

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

 Authors
Thomas R. Karl1,*,
Anthony Arguez1,
Boyin Huang1,
Jay H. Lawrimore1,
James R. McMahon2,
Matthew J. Menne1,
Thomas C. Peterson1,
Russell S. Vose1,
Huai-Min Zhang1

1National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), Asheville, NC 28801, USA.
2LMI, McLean, VA, USA.↵
*Corresponding author. E-mail:thomas.r.karl@noaa.gov

...EIGHT of the nine authors of the study are NOAA employees.

But in all fairness, Klam, I'll hack their bank accounts and check to make sure they haven't been surreptitiously funded by Exxon.



Jackass. Once again, wasting everyone's time; always wrong...

Hey window licker...why don't you and Science Mag actually link to NOAA's research and quit wasting the time of those open minded enough to question?

[travelinman67]

Holy crap! Klam, your ignorance knows no bound.

If you had expanded the authors link, you would have found...



...EIGHT of the nine authors of the study are NOAA employees.

But in all fairness, Klam, I'll hack their bank accounts and check to make sure they haven't been surreptitiously funded by Exxon.



Jackass. Once again, wasting everyone's time; always wrong...

Hey window licker...why don't you and Science Mag actually link to NOAA's research and quit wasting the time of those open minded enough to question?

EDIT: Study link provided in the third paragraph of the article...

...wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data...

Listen up, Klam...

...grow up.

Your trademark is to waste everyone's time with straw man arguments, hyperbole, rhetoric and talking points.

Rather than challenging the merit of a position or argument, as in this case, you challenge the credibility of the source, without even an effort to determine the source you impugn.

By definition, you are either an idiot or a troll. Either way, stop wasting our time.

And, btw, Napoleonic Complex is synonymous with dysfunctional insecurity, a trait of which is the OCD habit of always responding believing "having the last word" validates their superiority.

[kalm]

Hey window licker...why don't you and Science Mag actually link to NOAA's research and quit wasting the time of those open minded enough to question?

EDIT: Study link provided in the third paragraph of the article...

...wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data...

Listen up, Klam...

...grow up.

Your trademark is to waste everyone's time with straw man arguments, hyperbole, rhetoric and talking points.

Rather than challenging the merit of a position or argument, as in this case, you challenge the credibility of the source, without even an effort to determine the source you impugn.

By definition, you are either an idiot or a troll. Either way, stop wasting our time.

And, btw, Napoleonic Complex is synonymous with dysfunctional insecurity, a trait of which is the OCD habit of always responding believing "having the last word" validates their superiority.

How long have you been afflicted?

Listen, Spandos…take a page from youtube marketing 101. You have 5 seconds to capture their attention, and one minute to convince. Links to links to third page links supporting the assertion don't work.

BTW, the edit link you just posted goes to Science Mag not the NOAA research (as I already pointed out) clearly proving you don't even read your own shit much less anyone else's.

Man you is slow….