The problem with the global warming crowd is that many of the predictions made by the alarmists did not happen. That’s what happens when you have a buffoon like Al Gore acting as high priest of the movement and putting out propaganda pieces instead of addressing the actual science.
The public sees that the sky is not falling, reads that global warming has paused over the last 16 years, and starts to wonder if the whole thing is bullshit.
Top that off with scientists like Jones saying things like ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ and admitting that we simply don’t understand all the variables involved, and I start to wonder how accurate their predictions will be.
No, I’m not and neither are the “climate” scientists discussing their “climate” model in the article.
Weather is hours/days/months.
Climate is of course the same thing over longer periods.
A multi-decades long drought falls into the “climate” end of the spectrum as does the cycling of El Nino and La Nina.
You are reading far more into my position than is either stated or accurate.
My point: don’t predict stuff you can’t predict.
As I asked before, you’ve asserted that the models are accurate, do you have an example of a climate model that basically matches historical records regarding temp, rainfall, number and intensity of storms, droughts, increase and decrease of desert areas, etc.?
Edit: I see you’ve posted and provided a link, unfortunately it’s “skepticalscience” which didn’t appear to have anything substantial, but I will check it again.
Edit 2: Ok, I checked those graphs. Was hoping for something that was more substantial (more data points) and over much longer periods, not just 100 years.
Just putting some perceptive, it is clear that you were saying about Jones was a misrepresentation of that he actually said.
Really, the Skeptical Science climate myths page has been up, updated constantly and cites the science and the debunked to death points, yours here is # 19:
Based on bullshit from very few scientists and usually non-experts in league with powerful interests.
And just repeating that I did not address what you said is really a sad opinion. Clearly the context shows that he had very good reasons to say that, as he already has reported that there was already significant warming, we should now wait more years to see where the trend will go, so far it continues to go up, as even statistician experts report.
Once again, that inaccuracy on specific years has been granted, what the attempt here is to minimize what they are doing well now, and that is to come very very close on matching the number of past extremes. And the reason is that while there uncertainty on some extreme events like hurricanes and tornadoes (this was already explained, why this is asked again leads others to wonder something else) there is more certainty that more GWG emitted will lead to more droughts, extreme flooding in some areas, more forest fires, ocean rise and acidification, the evidence for that is so clear that we have a lot to do to prepare.
Now as for the (already granted) uncertain numbers of hurricanes and tornadoes to come in a warming world, it remains a gamble that IMHO is not ok to also add to the most certain problems to come. So why do many continue to gamble that the sources they depend on are correct also regrading the the most certain ones to come?
As for the “unfortunate” skeptical science, you should be aware that conservative scientists do link to it as it is a resource,
Incidentally, Richard Alley is a Republican, but I wonder if he will go like Kerry Emmanuel after encountering all the nonsense from Republican Politicians. I mention that because Skeptical Science also relies on him:
And here is a quick explanation from Alley on why we should act on the problem even if there is uncertainty with the timing of the extremes:
Sorry, me a culpa. I thought you were dismissing that the earth is warming with this post:
My mistake.
I agree that these would be good steps, but probably not sufficient. A lot of industries would od with some deregulation and we should stop subsidizing fossil fuels. I would also like to see more investment in biofuels, algae based especially. Cap and trade is just asking for corruption, do a straight up carbon tax and cut everyone’s income tax to compensate.
I don’t know what you are trying to say here. Were you drinking when you typed that? If it is a misrepresentation then please point it out instead of building a straw man composed of something I did not quote.
Pointing out the obvious about Gore is not something that can be “debunked” regardless of what your favorite website concludes. AGW proponents overstated their case and are now paying the price in terms of public perception. The sky is not falling. There have been many instances of respected scientists making overblown predictions that turn out to be completely incorrect. This is just another example. Seems humans have a need to fear something every 10 years or so.
“Powerful Interests”…sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense to me. I really do believe this climate change stuff has become a religion to you and others. I guess we all need something to believe in…
I agree we should wait a few more years. As Prof. Jones said:
‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’
Maybe a few more years’ time will help us figure all this out. All you True Believers want to act now even though we simply do not have all the facts. When pushed you will admit that there are a lot of things we do not understand about how the climate operates yet we should still act now. Sounds like a religion to me.
Already pointed out, Jones had very good reasons to say that, chief among them that he already showed that indeed there is significant warming already, so in essence it was false to imply that he is incorrect.
This is nonsense, if you were correct then the science would had changed and dropped the warnings, instead the warnings are still there, whereas you like it or not.
Nope, this is not a belief, it has been documented.
Nope, the ones using religion are on the other side, and in positions of government.
Once again, not knowing how many hurricanes or tornadoes are coming thanks to the future warming is uncertain, but chances are that they will be worse in a warming world.
Even forgetting about that, science still is telling us that all other much very likely items like ocean acidification, ocean rise and harsher heatwaves with the resulting crop loss are more than enough reasons to do something now.
Good reason to say what? That we should be worried if the “no upward trend” continues for more than 15 years. Yes, I agree he had good reason to say that.
Irrelevant and moot when we take into account the context.
And you need to check the sources that have misled you:
The attempt at discrediting Jones has been debunked many times already, and this latest “15 years” item is just continuing to repeat out of context words only demonstrates that the attention paid is not to science but to McExperts, fake skeptics and clueless sources.
I never understood what was actually “Conservative” about denying Global Warming. Is it really nothing more than the fact that Conservatives and Republicans are shills for Big Business?
And this strange Conspiracy they posit. They always say the motive is money (you know those huge Science Grants everyone is itching to get their hands on) but ignore the fact that the beneficiaries of the Status quo are literally the most profitable entities in the history of our civilization. It really just makes no sense at all.
we need energy to survive economically. Trying to tax co2 out of existing is likely going to hurt the economy. If you hurt the economy you hurt the tax base. If you hurt the tax base then we have less money available to actually do something useful about GW.
Natural gas is the obvious replacement for aging coal plants because of the reserves in North America. By default we will be reducing co2 as this occurs. There is growth potential for wind generation and we’re not too far off from seeing solar cells in some useful form. These are not idle thoughts, it’s happening right now in my state. We’ve shut down quite a few coal plants and we’ve been using natural gas for peak-use generators for many decades. We’ve also just built a solar-cell facility.
But back to the bio-fuels discussion. It’s just common sense to use the infrastructure we have now as an interim step to future developments. We already have a gas station on every corner. We already have diesel cars that outperform hybrids. I suspect the winner in the hybrid market is going to be an extended range vehicle using a micro-turbine as the ice engine. It’s a lighter/smaller footprint in the engine bay which allows for more batteries and can run at it’s optimum speed all the time. Micro-turbines would represent a considerable reduction in parts and complexity over the current atkinson cycle engines.
The experience we got when modern cities finally dealt with getting clean water and controlling sewage, shows that this point ignores the economical benefits. In the past the gains came from not dealing with cholera or other diseases, and new industries came out of it, (So, why do you hate Joe the Plumber? )
Today, many new industries are poised to make huge gains in the near future. And even the old fossil fuel industry is making moves to take advantage of that.
Uh, I would think the quotes are ok, but I have indeed trouble with my lines. What I tried to say is:
The experience we got when modern cities finally dealt with getting clean water and controlling sewage shows that your point ignores the economical benefits.
In the past the gains came from not dealing anymore with cholera or other diseases, indeed, back then many said that the economy was going to suffer because of the cost of all those pipes and treatment plants, but not having people die and suffer other problems is a priceless thing, and new industries came out of getting clean water and controlling sewage. (So, why do you hate Joe the Plumber? )
As pointed before, it is when one considers the huge costs of dealing with disruptions in the future (as a result of not doing anything to control emissions) when one can realize how shortsighted is the idea of concentrating just on the economical well-being of an industry that should not get subsidies at least. There are indeed benefits from doing the right thing and new industries that will keep the economy going after the change.
I’ve never read any objection to cost regarding clean water or sewage nor am I objecting toward spending money to alter the temperature.
I’ve stated quite simply that spending money to reduce co2 is not based on any attempt at the best return for money spent . Regardless of co2 the planet is going to warm. At some point we risk releasing a great deal of methane and that’s going to be a huge problem. It may end up being much cheaper to simply block the sun with the release of reflective particles at high altitude. That would affect the temperature directly instead of trying to mitigate just one of the GH gases.
What we should be doing is leveraging the assets we have and not trying to reinvent the wheel. There is no excuse for keeping 65 mpg diesels out of the US. It makes no sense.
For the record I don’t deny global warming exists. I don’t even deny that man has a part in the warming. The difference is degree. Are we responsible for the level of warming seen over the last X years due to burning fossil fuels, etc. The problem is that there is so much about the climate that we don’t understand. The models developed so far have not been that predictive of current trends and the experts admit that we simply do not understand all the variables involved. Throw in a big dose of “big oil” funding anyone, including scientists, who disagree in degree with AGW and the hysteria of those non-scientists trying to push an agenda because of ideology and you basically have a religion.
As a scientist (though not one in any way familiar with climate science) I’m always skeptical when scientists make outrageous claims and the media hypes them. This has happened more times than I can count and they are usually, if not always, incorrect. The difference here is that we may need to wait decades or centuries to see if the current batch of alarmist scientists are correct. People like GIGObuster are so committed to the religion that they will defend it at all costs. You can see how quick they are to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as quacks, tools of “big oil” etc.
That’s still not the quote I referenced. I have not attempted to discredit Prof. Jones. I was using a quote from his climate gate e-mails. If it is out of context please point it out.
There seems to be more, bigger, and longer lasting hail dumping (rather than tornado spawning) t-storms in my area than in years past. But, that could also be confirmation bias on my part because of the insurance claims I’ve had to file in the past 5 years.
Yes, smack dab in the middle of tornado alley I am.
Any real data about that? (curiosity only, no dog in fight)
)