Climate Change: Public Skeptical, Scientists Sure

[Prurient Purveyer]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Just to let you know I not only read this but I've got a few years on you and for the first 30 years of my life I worked, played, and pretty much lived outdoors, in the weather everyday. And I could count on it.

And then things began to change in just the most gradual and slightest ways. But pretty soon it was sand dunes where there'd always been prarie before. And there wasn't any real winters anymore but there was freezing rain in February. And then even the wind hit me wrong. For my whole life I could count on what ever was moving to be coming from the west and going straight east. That was as sure as the sun coming up.

But I'd walk out my front door and instead the wind was hitting me from the south west to even south.

Ever since then there's been no predicting it.

But we haven't had any apples in the orchard on the Mountain for more than a decade. There's all kinds of theories but I'm pretty sure its the same reason we don't get many plumes, apples, or apricots down in town anymore. There are no bees. Not like there used to be.

That really bothers me more than any of the other predictions because that was not one of them. Nobody said no bees. But when I look at it I can see where things are drying up in the long run so much they can't make it where they used to so they just ain't there.

You link "no bees" to Global Warming?

Try studying the subject instead.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

From Dr. Bob Brown's blog at the Seattle PI...


The Deniers of Global Warming are Winning


The House of Representatives voted 240-184 this spring to defeat a resolution that said that “climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce informed the Environmental Protection Agency that “populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced recently that melting of sea ice “will result in more shipping, fishing and tourism, and the possibility to develop newly accessible oil and gas reserves.”
Apparently these politicians know something that the scientists don’t?
The data of the past few years has shifted the paradigm for GW. What was forecast six years ago to happen in 2050 now is projected for 2020 (some of it is here in 2011).
Freak weather has become the norm: Deadly tornados in Joplin, Mo., and Tuscaloosa, Ala.; wildfires have engulfed large tracts in California, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas; severe droughts in the Southwest, parts of China and the Amazon; increased moisture in the air leading to huge snowpacks in some areas — which melt quickly in the summer; massive flooding along the Mississippi as well as in Australia, New Zealand, China and Pakistan; unprecedented heat waves in Russia, Eastern US, Europe and Asia; the fish stocks in the oceans are dying; the glaciers & polar ice caps are disappearing; etc. Not to mention the endless effects of steadily rising sea levels.
All of this is happening with only one degree of global warming. All numerical models that evaluate the effect of increased CO2 predict another degree warming is already in the pipeline, and several more degrees if CO2 continues to increase as it has the past decades. The fingerprints of fossil fuel burning are on the measured CO2.
So what’s the solution? It’s all around you, not in your green home, hybrid car or solar panels — that’s symbolic to show you’re aware — but it’s in the myriad trucks, SUVs, coal-firing plants & other burners of fossil fuels that continue to be built.
Some people won’t believe it is human caused and could be stopped (or at this point “alleviated”). They’ll sit back and say it’s “natural” and/or it’s “god’s wrath” (Possibly. Punishing us for being so stupid?). The term “deniers” is probably appropriate. And it should be applied to our political leaders.



Share0
Posted by Bob Brown on August 28, 2011 at 11:39 am| Permalink| Leave a comment1 Comment4 Comments

Well maybe not today Whitey. At least not on the right wing false propaganda machine where they are falsely claiming that Al Gore has publicly compared global warming/climate change deniers to racists. Yes that's right Al Gore called global warming deniers racists.

And of course that's just another one of the lies they are telling because what Gore actually said was:

“There came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural,” Gore said. “Then there came a time when people would say, ‘Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won. We have to win the conversation on climate.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/20...cs-to-racists/

That's a little different in casting global warming/deniers as outmoded and unacceptable in their thinking on global warming as racists became in their thinking as the civil rights movement took hold and vast majority of people moved away from racism, discrimination, and prejudice. Something we can see right here in fact with the overall reaction to the racists on our forum even though they are overly represented in a forum like this because they can get away with broadcasting their racism they are a very small, much reviled, but actually impotent minority.

Gore is claiming that will be the fate of global warming/climate change deniers and I believe he not only has a point I believe we see that now as our society moves on to greener energy despite the howls of deniers.

And while I'm on the subject of Gore I finally got around to watching An Inconvenient Truth the other day, and suddenly knew why the global warming deniers and Al Gore haters were just foaming at the mouth.

I mean how long ago was that? 2006. Nearly five years ago and Gore in undeniable understandable ways debunks and totally destroys all the bullshit arguments we are still hearing over and over again now and then goes on to just bust the Bush Administration for not just censoring but actually altering the findings and reports of NASA scientists.

You bet they hate him for telling those inconvenient truths right to their faces.

And they can get ready to hate him even more because he's obviously declared a public war on those funding global warming denial and those spreading it.

Which I actually think is needed and something that needs to be addressed.

Let's look at the case of "but last winter was so cold." Global Warming/climate change doesn't exist. Now that is not actually true and all we have to do is go to NOAA to prove it because they are he ones with the data. But we go from how cold was it last winter? To no we absolutely not trust NOAA or NASA they are all part of the conspiracy. Well if they are then our government and presidential administration must also be. And we are right back to thousands of scientists all over the world have been lying for more than 3 decades about global warming/climate change.

And things like this don't even seem to penetrate their denial defenses:

Err, maybe this is why scientists use statistics? To collect and objectively interpret large data sets with complex trends and arrive at an objective understanding.


Hold on. Is Motl really trying to make the point that unless every station shows a warming trend then we can’t claim that there is global warming? Is his point really so dogmatically stupid? Maybe, because in spite of his self-declared brilliance Motl has to admit that he got “standard deviation” mixed up with “root mean square“. Unfortunately he says “I don’t have the energy to redo all these calculations – it’s very time-consuming and CPU-time-consuming” but I’m sure it’s a wash, huh?


Anthony Watts and the “Global Warming Policy Foundation” are certainly happy to overlook this, because to them the fact that 30% of the recording stations show a cooling history apparently makes their heads reel. Not climate scientists however. Only an idiot would expect a trend to be uniformly expressed throughout a complex natural system.

http://wottsupwiththat.com/tag/cherry-picking/


The fact that anecdotal evidence of one year being cold where they are has absolutely no scientific value what so ever in something as big as the earth, its atmosphere, and its over all temperature totally escapes them while they try to champion their ridiculous cause.


It gets to the point where they will falsely claim last year was colder even though NASA says it was one of the three hottest on record.

NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years


WASHINGTON -- A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010...est_temps.html

Then they will claim last year was cooler and the past decade was actually cooler. And when you give them sources that say it was actually the hottest decade on record ...............


2010 One of Two Warmest Years On Record; El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Other Climate Patterns Play Major Role

ScienceDaily (June 30, 2011) — Worldwide, 2010 was one of the two warmest years on record, according to the 2010 State of the Climate report, which NOAA has just released. The peer-reviewed report, issued in coordination with the American Meteorological Society, was compiled by 368 scientists from 45 countries. It provides a detailed, yearly update on global climate indicators, notable climate events and other climate information from every continent.


This year's report tracks 41 climate indicators ― four more than last year ― including temperature of the lower and upper atmosphere, precipitation, greenhouse gases, humidity, cloud cover, ocean temperature and salinity, sea ice, glaciers, and snow cover. Each indicator includes thousands of measurements from multiple independent datasets that allow scientists to identify overall trends.


While several well-known cyclical weather patterns had a significant influence on weather and climate events throughout the year, the comprehensive analysis of indicators shows a continuation of the long-term trends scientists have seen over the last 50 years, consistent with global climate change.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0629204702.htm


And so all they are left with is to attack thousands of scientists all over he world and one or more of our own government agencies as lying and conducting an international scam to cost American manufactures and power generators more money.


Gore allegedly (because I don't know this site) said it about the best:

Mr Gore said: 'This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole, to attack their integrity, and to slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1WQpAxOhM

And personally I've very glad to see him and others standing up to those lies and going after the liars who tell them.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Prurient Purveyer

You link "no bees" to Global Warming?

Try studying the subject instead.

You may make an ass of yourself when you assume like that but not me pardner. What I've said is that I've noticed a lack of bees both in town and on our ranch on the mountain.


And I'm not the only one who's noticed that or wondering if it can be linked to global warming/climate change.

Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder

Other Factors

Other reported theories include the effects of shifting spring blooms and earlier nectar flow associated with broader global climate and temperature changes,61 the effects of feed supplements that are produced from transgenic or genetically modified crops, such as high-fructose corn
syrup,62 and also the effects of cell phone transmissions and radiation from power lines that may be interfering with a bee’s navigational capabilities.63 The contributions of these possible factors have not been substantiated by evidence examined by the key researchers of this issue.64

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33938.pdf

So while scientists are not blaming the decrease in bee population on global warming/climate change they have not ruled it out as one of the factors.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

Only about 45% of the electric power generated from coal, in the USA. Much power also comes from methane, nuclear, and other sources. As power companies use more renewable energy like wind, solar, and nuclear, the emissions will be far less. Even with power companies generating emissions with 45% coal, it is much easier to regulate the emissions of a few power companies than to regulate each individual vehicle that burns gasoline. Moreover, the use of electric vehicles will make us independent of oil.

All of a sudden you pretend to care about African people working in the mines. If slaves are really mining lithium and nickel, this is certainly a problem that has to be dealt with. But, lithium and nickel have been used for years to make other things besides batteries for electric cars. Blaming slavery on new electric cars is an exaggeration. Children working the coal mines was also a problem in the USA at one time.

And what the deniers continue to deny is that the rest of the world has not already moved on.

Renewable Energy Reaches 25% of Global Energy Capacity

The REN21 Renewables 2011 Global Status Report shows that the renewable energy sector continues to perform well despite continuing economic recession, incentive cuts, and low natural-gas prices.



In 2010, renewable energy sources supplied an estimated 20% of global energy consumption, and by year's end, comprised 25% of global power capacity from all sources.

And renewable energy also hit a milestone in the US: domestic production is now greater than nuclear and is closing in on oil, according to the "Monthly Energy Review" by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

For 2011, renewable energy sources (biomass/biofuels, geothermal, solar, water, wind) supplied 11.73% of U.S. energy, 5.65% more than nuclear power, and 77.15% of that from domestic crude oil production, with the gap closing rapidly.

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/i...splay/id/22687


And leave it to hypocrites to claim to have such sympathy and care for the poor people of the Congo while there are literally tens of thousands of children dying daily from the famine and disease in the Horn of Africa which is caused by droughts which are of course predicted by the global warming/climate change models.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-dev...ne-horn-africa

[clarise]

It bears repeating:

Yes, 2005, 2009 and 2010 were warmer years than usual. But what is never reported is that the fluctuations are within NASA's margins of error.

These stories about the warm years of the past decade invariably omit that inconvenient truth.

That is not to say the years have not been warmer. Yes, they have been. No one is "denying" that.

But the "believers" are denying that ALL of the warming since 1998 falls within the margin of error and is therefore statistically flat.

NASA (what is left of it) reports science. They have little choice, after all. They are merely reporting the figures measured by instruments.

Trouble is, they report it to places like the NOAA, which have an agenda and editorialize. NOAA also commits sins of omission, such as the not-insignificant detail mentioned above. The New York Times, The Huffington Post, RawStory, and their major pseudo-scientific source, the NOAA, report sensation. Not science.

Sensationalism is not science, and never will be, no matter how many times, and no matter how stridently, it is repeated.

[stumbler]

Al Gore hasn't broken into the mainstream media yet with his new offensive on global warming/climate change deniers which is actually just more proof that there is not now and never was a liberal press.

But his offensive against global warming/climate change deniers is getting picked up by the left wing noise machine and there are times those stories eventually grow to the point where the MSM has to cover them or look like they don't know what's really going on.

Right now, however, they can even conveniently ignore the fact Gore has publicly stated global warming/climate change deniers are becoming like die hard racists in the 1960's who found their public racism was no longer acceptable to the vast majority of Americans.

And Gore's hitting hard on another issue that should gain some public sympathy which is the slander and liable of our entire scientific community doing exactly what many here do which is claim things like NOAA and NASA are making up data, or that the temperature increases are actually within the "margin of error," as if they'd calculated the data themselves and caught NASA and NOAA lying.

Much like presidential candidate Rick Perry claiming:

Perry recently said he believes there are "a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling in to their projects."

To which Gore rightfully responds:

Gore explains that scientists have previously overturned accepted views, so there’s a “natural respect” for a contrarian impulse in the scientific community. But he argues that comments by Perry and others are totally different. He says, "This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole. To attack their integrity, and to slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money."

And we can see obvious proof of the "organized effort" is the fact that nearly all global warming/climate change deniers continue to try and foster the same old debunked myths and lies over and over again as if every time they had just discovered something when its almost always the same old worn out right wing noise machine false propaganda.


But you know what I really think is the worst and most cowardly thing about the organized attack on the science of global warming/climate change is:

Gore says members of the scientific community did not enter their profession to make money. Nor did they expect to be regularly defending themselves from political attack.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_940802.html


Its always just stunned me that it was even possible to brainwash people in this day and age that they cannot trust scientists or the scientific method because that just seems so "dark ages" but low and behold this thread. One of maybe a hundred we've had on this topic, where someone on a porn forum can claim they found the errors NASA missed, or that NOAA is altering all the global warming/climate change data in the world and conducting the biggest scam in history for some mysterious gain no one can name.


And that's what passes for thinking in their thoroughly washed brains.

[stumbler]

..... on the Fox Business Channel no less.

And Nye said Gore was right on both counts human caused global warming/climate change is real and deniers are becoming like the racists of old when they found racism was no longer going to be tolerated.

Nye went on to lay out in plain terms some of the facts of climate change, including rising temperatures in the Pacific ocean. The two debated a Newsweek story claiming radical weather is the "new normal," with Payne asking Nye if that was "irresponsible, or is there any science behind it?"

Well, Nye said, "there's a lot more science behind it than saying it's not."


"The world is getting warmer," he added. "Everybody, the world is getting warmer." Nye went on to give some context to former Vice President Al Gore's remarks comparing global warming skepticism to 20th century racism before Payne said, "you're confusing our viewers."


Watch the video:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo....php?ref=fpblg


Oh yeah that's the last thing you want to do to brainwashed Fox viewers who are not used to hearing the truth. That does confuse them. I see it around here all the time.

[easttexasbadboy32]

stumbles, did you not know that the manmade global warming alarmist scientists do indeed profit from the manmade global warming hubub? Seriously, It's difficult to justify their grants and funding if/when people realize that solar activity and volcanoes have so much more impact and that we are powerless to change the big picture. You can eliminate all burning of fossil fuels and still have the same result just as quickly.

Gore himself has invested HEAVILY in carbon credit trading ...he has fortunes at stake in 'cap and trade.' just think, if it does go away perhaps he would have to give up the private jet and fly commercial lol

How can you totally you dismiss these motives?

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by easttexasbadboy32

stumbles, did you not know that the manmade global warming alarmist scientists do indeed profit from the manmade global warming hubub? Seriously, It's difficult to justify their grants and funding if/when people realize that solar activity and volcanoes have so much more impact and that we are powerless to change the big picture. You can eliminate all burning of fossil fuels and still have the same result just as quickly.

Gore himself has invested HEAVILY in carbon credit trading ...he has fortunes at stake in 'cap and trade.' just think, if it does go away perhaps he would have to give up the private jet and fly commercial lol

How can you totally you dismiss these motives?

Nope I actually happen to know that is a lie. Because scientists, and science research facilities are always in short supply and if they weren't working on global warming/climate change they would have other things to be studying.

Its just that there are few scientific issues with more direct connections to humans, our impact on our environment, and our survival than global warming/climate change the effects of which we are seeing to day.

And what concerns me more than what Al Gore does personally is I think he's right and you deniers spreading the same old worn out lies need to be dealt with the same way we ended up having to deal with racists back in the 1960's which was simply telling them their beliefs were no longer acceptable to the majority of Americans, because the days of racism then, just like the days of global warming denial are now, were numbered.

You last few are out there screaming the lies and myths the oil companies bought at paid for long after the oil companies admitted that they had paid for junk science and that actually human caused, global warming/climate change is real.

That's what a dinosaur you actually are.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by clarise

It bears repeating:

Yes, 2005, 2009 and 2010 were warmer years than usual. But what is never reported is that the fluctuations are within NASA's margins of error.

These stories about the warm years of the past decade invariably omit that inconvenient truth.

That is not to say the years have not been warmer. Yes, they have been. No one is "denying" that.

But the "believers" are denying that ALL of the warming since 1998 falls within the margin of error and is therefore statistically flat.

NASA (what is left of it) reports science. They have little choice, after all. They are merely reporting the figures measured by instruments.

Trouble is, they report it to places like the NOAA, which have an agenda and editorialize. NOAA also commits sins of omission, such as the not-insignificant detail mentioned above. The New York Times, The Huffington Post, RawStory, and their major pseudo-scientific source, the NOAA, report sensation. Not science.

Sensationalism is not science, and never will be, no matter how many times, and no matter how stridently, it is repeated.

NASA and NOAA are in agreement on the temperature along with other sources. What source shows that the anomalies are within the noise? Don't give a link to an anti-global warming site. Just provide non-judgemental data...

The data shows that average temperature has been increasing for most of the past century. The "believers" you are referring to are scientists not necessarilly faithful people.

NOAA has scientists working for them that actively publish papers on climate change. Susan Soloman has published many a good papers in recent ears.

Finally, climate change does not refer to the earth getting colder. But, it refers to the green house effect and that some of the models predict extreme weather events, like cold wet winters, hot dry summers, etc..

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by McDick

The mistake the global warmer's made was to propose the "cap & tax" scheme. When they did that the Democrats immediately latched onto the idea and the Republicans opposed it. From there it degenerated into just another political issue with politicians advocating it.

They then began to lose middle America who saw it as a poorly disguised effort to send more tax dollars to Washington D.C.. As if sending more tax dollars to D.C. would somehow help cool the planet off.

"Cap and Trade" (not cap and tax) was an attempt to limit the CO2 emissions and to promote green business practice. Carbon credits also were proposed to have a similar effect. Both were rejected by conservatives. Why? Because they don't take climate change seriously.

[itiswhatitis]

Not to rain on anyones parade:

Sept 01 2011 ...... wet snow forcast for western Alberta..

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Nope I actually happen to know that is a lie. Because scientists, and science research facilities are always in short supply and if they weren't working on global warming/climate change they would have other things to be studying.

Its just that there are few scientific issues with more direct connections to humans, our impact on our environment, and our survival than global warming/climate change the effects of which we are seeing to day.

And what concerns me more than what Al Gore does personally is I think he's right and you deniers spreading the same old worn out lies need to be dealt with the same way we ended up having to deal with racists back in the 1960's which was simply telling them their beliefs were no longer acceptable to the majority of Americans, because the days of racism then, just like the days of global warming denial are now, were numbered.

You last few are out there screaming the lies and myths the oil companies bought at paid for long after the oil companies admitted that they had paid for junk science and that actually human caused, global warming/climate change is real.

That's what a dinosaur you actually are.

That's true that there are organizations and grants that spend money on scientific research. Researchers apply for the monies by making their case to those in charge of the purse strings. The most worthy proposals get the research money. Grants are being given to all sorts of studies besides climate change.

[Whitey44]

Here's a link to a video of Bill Nye, "The Science Guy", being interviewed by CBS on climate change.

Bill Nye answers questions about:

1) evidence of climate change from Hurricane Irene.

2) Al Gore's ( oops, I wan't supposed to say that name ) recent comments about racism and global warming denial.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20099349.shtml

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by itiswhatitis

Not to rain on anyones parade:

Sept 01 2011 ...... wet snow forcast for western Alberta..

Central USA had 100 def F peak temperatures the past several days. But, that's weather, not climate...

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

"Cap and Trade" (not cap and tax) was an attempt to limit the CO2 emissions and to promote green business practice. Carbon credits also were proposed to have a similar effect. Both were rejected by conservatives. Why? Because they don't take climate change seriously.

I would say that the recent defeat of cap and trade is actually just more proof of the total obstructionism of the conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers in congress because cap and trade, just like the individual mandate in the health care reforms were actually Republican ideas to begin with.

They only opposed them once President Obama and the democrats were elected.

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2...e-was-gop-idea

[CS natureboy]

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by stumbler

I would say that the recent defeat of cap and trade is actually just more proof of the total obstructionism of the conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers in congress because cap and trade, just like the individual mandate in the health care reforms were actually Republican ideas to begin with.

They only opposed them once President Obama and the democrats were elected.

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2...e-was-gop-idea

They were also big fans of the health insurance individual mandate....before they were against it.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

They were also big fans of the health insurance individual mandate....before they were against it.

The Heritage Society even put out a position paper on it extolling all the virtues of an individual mandate. And then directly contradicted themselves when the Affordable Care Act was being proposed.

As if no one would notice that or call attention to it.

[CS natureboy]

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by stumbler

The Heritage Society even put out a position paper on it extolling all the virtues of an individual mandate. And then directly contradicted themselves when the Affordable Care Act was being proposed.

As if no one would notice that or call attention to it.

I'm not sure how stupid they think WE are, Stumbler, but they know for sure how stupid their tea-party adherents are.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

I'm not sure how stupid they think WE are, Stumbler, but they know for sure how stupid their tea-party adherents are.

And have you ever seen the position paper the Heritage Society put out on what the Bush Tax Cuts would do. The only thing further off than their predictions of how the tax cuts would pay for themselves was the number of jobs they would create.

But you will still see conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers quote them.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by stumbler

And have you ever seen the position paper the Heritage Society put out on what the Bush Tax Cuts would do. The only thing further off than their predictions of how the tax cuts would pay for themselves was the number of jobs they would create.

But you will still see conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers quote them.

Being a Republican economist means that you never have to say you are sorry about all the times you are mistaken. Every now and then someone like Kevin Phillips or Bruce Bartlett gets tired of the lies, so he begins to tell the truth.

[anotheruser1]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Being a Republican economist means that you never have to say you are sorry about all the times you are mistaken. Every now and then someone like Kevin Phillips or Bruce Bartlett gets tired of the lies, so he begins to tell the truth.

well now, no shit.....if it isn't mr. encyclopedia brittanica himself.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Being a Republican economist means that you never have to say you are sorry about all the times you are mistaken. Every now and then someone like Kevin Phillips or Bruce Bartlett gets tired of the lies, so he begins to tell the truth.

That also holds true, evidently, for ex-Republican Vice Presidents.

[Whitey44]

13 September 2011, 6.40am AEST
Diamond planets, climate change and the scientific method

Recently my colleagues and I announced the discovery of a remarkable planet orbiting a special kind of star known as a pulsar. Based on the planet’s density, and the likely history of its system, we concluded that it was certain to be crystalline. In other words, we had discovered a planet made of diamond…

Author

1. Matthew Bailes
   
   Pro-Vice Chancellor (Research) at Swinburne University of Technology
   

Disclosure Statement

Matthew Bailes receives funding from the Australian Research Council for his astronomical research.
Our goal is to ensure the content is not compromised in any way. We therefore ask all authors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before publication.
The full article is available here as HTML.

<link rel="canonical" href="http://theconversation.edu.au/diamond-planets-climate-change-and-the-scientific-method-3329"> <meta name="syndication-source" content="http://theconversation.edu.au/diamond-planets-climate-change-and-the-scientific-method-3329"> <p>This article was originally published at <a href="http://theconversation.edu.au">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="http://theconversation.edu.au/diamond-planets-climate-change-and-the-scientific-method-3329">original article</a>. </p>



Science follows certain procedures, but does the media get the signal? CSIRORecently my colleagues and I announced the discovery of a remarkable planet orbiting a special kind of star known as a pulsar.
Based on the planet’s density, and the likely history of its system, we concluded that it was certain to be crystalline. In other words, we had discovered a planet made of diamond.

Following the publication of our finding in the journal Science, our research received amazing attention from the world’s media.
The diamond planet was featured in Time Magazine, the BBC and China Daily, to name but a few.
I was asked by many journalists about the significance of the discovery. If I were honest, I’d have to concede that, although worthy of publication in Science, in the field of astrophysics it isn’t that significant.
Sure, there are probably somewhere between six and a dozen quite important theoretical astrophysicists around the world who would have been thrilled at the news (after all, the diamond planet fills a gap in the binary pulsar family).
But in the overall scheme of things, it isn’t that important.
And yet the diamond planet has been hugely successful in igniting public curiosity about the universe in which we live.
In that sense, for myself and my co-authors, I suspect it will be among the greatest discoveries of our careers.
Our host institutions were thrilled with the publicity and most of us enjoyed our 15 minutes of fame. The attention we received was 100% positive, but how different that could have been.
How so? Well, we could have been climate scientists.

Imagine for a minute that, instead of discovering a diamond planet, we’d made a breakthrough in global temperature projections.
Let’s say we studied computer models of the influence of excessive greenhouse gases, verified them through observations, then had them peer-reviewed and published in Science.
Instead of sitting back and basking in the glory, I suspect we’d find a lot of commentators, many with no scientific qualifications, pouring scorn on our findings.
People on the fringe of science would be quoted as opponents of our work, arguing that it was nothing more than a theory yet to be conclusively proven.
There would be doubt cast on the interpretation of our data and conjecture about whether we were “buddies” with the journal referees.
If our opponents dug really deep they might even find that I’d once written a paper on a similar topic that had to be retracted.
Before long our credibility and findings would be under serious question.
But luckily we’re not climate scientists.
Our work is part of the astonishing growth in our knowledge of the universe, made possible by huge leaps forward in instrumentation and telescope technology.

Method

It may come as a big surprise to many, but there is actually no difference between how science works in astronomy and climate change – or any other scientific discipline for that matter.
We make observations, run simulations, test and propose hypotheses, and undergo peer review of our findings.
We get together (usually in nice locations around the world) and discuss and debate our own pet theories, become friends and form a worldwide community.

If you are a solid state physicist, an astronomer, or doing laser optics, the world is happy to celebrate your discoveries, use them in new products such as WiFi, and wonder about the growth in knowledge and technology.
Of course we all make mistakes. But eventually the prevailing wisdom of the community triumphs and the field advances.
It’s wonderful to be a part of that process.

But on occasion those from the fringe of the scientific community will push a position that is simply not credible against the weight of evidence.
This occurs within any discipline. But it seems it’s only in the field of climate science that such people are given airtime and column inches to espouse their views.
Those who want to ignore what’s happening to Earth feel they need to be able to quote “alternative studies”, regardless of the scientific merit of those studies.
In all fields of science, papers are challenged and statistics are debated. If there is any basis to these challenges they stand, but if not they fall by the wayside and the field continues to advance.
When big theories fall, it isn’t because of business or political pressures – it’s because of the scientific process.

Sadly, the same media commentators who celebrate diamond planets without question are all too quick to dismiss the latest peer-reviewed evidence that suggests man-made activities are responsible for changes in concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere.
The scientific method is universal. If we selectively ignore it in certain disciplines, we do so at our peril.

[Whitey44]

I forgot to post this article about an editor that resigned because he passed Dr. Spencer's flawed paper trough review...


9/02/2011 @ 1:12PM |7,116 views

Paper Disputing Basic Science of Climate Change is "Fundamentally Flawed," Editor Resigns, Apologizes





Peter Gleick Contributor
+ Follow

+ show more

These posts are the personal musings of Dr. Peter H. Gleick. Gleick is co-founder and President of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California. He is an internationally recognized climate and water expert and works at the intersection of science and policy, including issues related to the integrity of science. His work addresses the critical connections between water and health, the human right to water, the hydrologic impacts of climate change, the concepts of “peak water” and the “soft path for water,” sustainable water use, privatization and globalization, and ways of reducing conflicts over water resources. Dr. Gleick received a B.S. from Yale University in Engineering and Applied Science, and an M.S. and Ph.D. from the Energy and Resources Group of the University of California, Berkeley. He is the recipient of numerous awards for his work, among them the prestigious MacArthur “genius” Fellowship in 2003. He was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 2006.


The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer. Forbes Subscriptions

• Subscribe To Newsletter
• Subscribe To Magazine
• Subscriber Customer Service

One month ago, a paper by Roy Spencer and William Braswell was published in the journal Remote Sensing arguing that far less future global warming will occur than the scientific community currently anticipates. This highly controversial finding – controversial since it is at odds with observations, basic understanding of atmospheric physics, models, and with what most scientists think we know about climate science — was seized upon by climate change deniers and skeptics and broadcast loud and far.
While other climate experts quickly pointed to fatal flaws in the paper, it received a great deal of attention from certain media. In something of a media frenzy, Fox News, the authors themselves in press releases and web comments, Forbes, in a column by a lawyer at the Heartland Institute, Drudge, and others loudly pointed to this as evidence that the vast array of science on climate change was wrong.
The staggering news today is that the editor of the journal that published the paper has just resigned, with a blistering editorial calling the Spencer and Braswell paper “fundamentally flawed,” with both “fundamental methodological errors” and “false claims.” That editor, Professor Wolfgang Wagner of the Vienna University of Technology in Austria, is a leading international expert in the field of remote sensing. In announcing his resignation, Professor Wagner says “With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements.”
In his editorial resignation, Professor Wagner says the paper was reviewed by scientific experts that in hindsight had a predetermined bias in their views on climate that led them to miss the serious scientific flaws in the paper, including “ignoring all other observational data sets,” inappropriate influence from the “political views of the authors,” and the fact that comparable studies had already been refuted by the scientific community but were ignored by the authors. He summarizes:

In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

There is a famous saying in science: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” In this case, the arguments for climate change are backed up by such an astounding degree of science and evidence, that one, or even a few, papers that claim to refute the science of climate change deserve careful scrutiny. As the author of Skeptico notes:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they usually contradict claims that are backed by extraordinary evidence. The evidence for the extraordinary claim must support the new claim as well as explain why the old claims that are now being abandoned, previously appeared to be correct.

The Spencer and Braswell paper fails in these requirements. But this is also the way science works: someone makes a scientific claim and others test it. If it holds up to scrutiny, it become part of the scientific literature and knowledge, safe until someone can put forward a more compelling theory that satisfies all of the observations, agrees with physical theory, and fits the models. Once again, despite the fervent desires of climate skeptics and deniers, the vast body of literature and the basic conclusions about the growing threat of climate change remains intact: the climate is changing rapidly and humans are the dominant cause.
Now, the question remains, will Fox News, Drudge, the Heartland Institute, and others that covered the initial report of this paper show the honesty and courage that Professor Wagner has shown and cover the fact that the paper is “fundamentally flawed?” Any bets?
Peter Gleick

[freespiritx]

Below I've posted part of a release made by Greenpeace.
With only a one meter rise in sea water levels, tens of millions of people will be displaced and will have to be absorbed into already overpopulated nations.
Huge tracts of farmland which feed our nations will be lost to flooding.
Starvation which is already becoming a global issue will only increase and nations that to date have not been severely impacted will have segments of their societies facing starvation. Families will not be able to afford the increased prices of the food grown on what little farmland that will be left.
Deniers are only supporting the greed of oil and coal companies at the peril of their children and grandchildren.
It's time to stand up and protect your families against their greed, not to assist these corporations in your families demise.

The following is from a Greenpeace release.
Consequences

Between the Greenland ice sheet and the Western Antarctic ice sheet the world could well be facing a 13 metre (43 foot) rise in sea level if we do not drastically curb our greenhouse gas emissions. Even a small fraction of this much sea level rise would be an economic and humanitarian disaster. A few possible consequences of rising sea levels:

• Billions spent on adaptation - if you can afford it. The US has roughly 20,000 km (12,400 miles) of coastline and more than 32,000km (19,900 miles) of coastal wetlands. A recent study estimated the costs of adapting to even a one metre sea level rise in the US would amount to US$156 billion (3 percent of GNP). Most countries don't have this kind of money to spend.
• With only a one metre sea level rise some island nations,such as the Maldives, would be submerged. Already, two of the islands that make up Kiribati (a Pacific island nation) have gone under the waves, and in early 2005 others were inundated by a high spring tide that washed away farmland, contaminated wells with salt water, and flooded homes and a hospital.
• If current warming trends continue, cities like London,Bangkok and New York will end up below sea level - displacing millions and causing massive economic damage. Alexandria, Egypt, is one of them any cities that could be inundated by a one meter sea level rise. At some point, building higher and higher sea walls becomes impractical,and even the wealthiest nations will see cities flood.
• Rising oceans will contaminate both surface and underground fresh water supplies. - worsening the world's existing fresh water shortage. Underground water sources in Thailand, Israel, China, Vietnam and some island states are already experiencing salt water contamination.
• Rural populations and farmland (especially rice) on some coasts will be wiped out. For example, according to the UK Royal Society a one metre sea level rise could flood 17 percent of Bangladesh, one of the world's poorest countries, displacing tens of millions of people and reducing its rice-farming land by 50 percent.

There is some good news, though. If we act rapidly to reduce emissions we can still prevent the worst effects of climate change. Switching to renewable energy sources, if we do it fast enough, is our only hope to avoid disastrous sea level rise.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by freespiritx

Below I've posted part of a release made by Greenpeace.
With only a one meter rise in sea water levels,

....

Wow. Nice. That is, umm... like... informatively informational information.

So.

What would a five meter rise do?

What about a ten meter rise? How high would our taxes rise, then?

How many carbon credits would I have to buy, if we had a fifteen meter rise?

What if we brought the oceans to a boil? What would that do?

What does PETA have to say about it? What would it do to the fluffy pussycats? Does PETA think we would have to shave all the Persian pussies, if the oceans came to a boil?

Would the oceans make good soup?

(giggle)

You do know that the oceans are not rising. Right?

Right?

(giggle)

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

I forgot to post this article about an editor that resigned because he passed Dr. Spencer's flawed paper trough review...


9/02/2011 @ 1:12PM |7,116 views

Paper Disputing Basic Science of Climate Change is "Fundamentally Flawed," Editor Resigns, Apologizes





Peter Gleick Contributor
+ Follow

+ show more

These posts are the personal musings of Dr. Peter H. Gleick. Gleick is co-founder and President of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California. He is an internationally recognized climate and water expert and works at the intersection of science and policy, including issues related to the integrity of science. His work addresses the critical connections between water and health, the human right to water, the hydrologic impacts of climate change, the concepts of “peak water” and the “soft path for water,” sustainable water use, privatization and globalization, and ways of reducing conflicts over water resources. Dr. Gleick received a B.S. from Yale University in Engineering and Applied Science, and an M.S. and Ph.D. from the Energy and Resources Group of the University of California, Berkeley. He is the recipient of numerous awards for his work, among them the prestigious MacArthur “genius” Fellowship in 2003. He was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 2006.


The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer. Forbes Subscriptions

• Subscribe To Newsletter
• Subscribe To Magazine
• Subscriber Customer Service

One month ago, a paper by Roy Spencer and William Braswell was published in the journal Remote Sensing arguing that far less future global warming will occur than the scientific community currently anticipates. This highly controversial finding – controversial since it is at odds with observations, basic understanding of atmospheric physics, models, and with what most scientists think we know about climate science — was seized upon by climate change deniers and skeptics and broadcast loud and far.
While other climate experts quickly pointed to fatal flaws in the paper, it received a great deal of attention from certain media. In something of a media frenzy, Fox News, the authors themselves in press releases and web comments, Forbes, in a column by a lawyer at the Heartland Institute, Drudge, and others loudly pointed to this as evidence that the vast array of science on climate change was wrong.
The staggering news today is that the editor of the journal that published the paper has just resigned, with a blistering editorial calling the Spencer and Braswell paper “fundamentally flawed,” with both “fundamental methodological errors” and “false claims.” That editor, Professor Wolfgang Wagner of the Vienna University of Technology in Austria, is a leading international expert in the field of remote sensing. In announcing his resignation, Professor Wagner says “With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements.”
In his editorial resignation, Professor Wagner says the paper was reviewed by scientific experts that in hindsight had a predetermined bias in their views on climate that led them to miss the serious scientific flaws in the paper, including “ignoring all other observational data sets,” inappropriate influence from the “political views of the authors,” and the fact that comparable studies had already been refuted by the scientific community but were ignored by the authors. He summarizes:

In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

There is a famous saying in science: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” In this case, the arguments for climate change are backed up by such an astounding degree of science and evidence, that one, or even a few, papers that claim to refute the science of climate change deserve careful scrutiny. As the author of Skeptico notes:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they usually contradict claims that are backed by extraordinary evidence. The evidence for the extraordinary claim must support the new claim as well as explain why the old claims that are now being abandoned, previously appeared to be correct.

The Spencer and Braswell paper fails in these requirements. But this is also the way science works: someone makes a scientific claim and others test it. If it holds up to scrutiny, it become part of the scientific literature and knowledge, safe until someone can put forward a more compelling theory that satisfies all of the observations, agrees with physical theory, and fits the models. Once again, despite the fervent desires of climate skeptics and deniers, the vast body of literature and the basic conclusions about the growing threat of climate change remains intact: the climate is changing rapidly and humans are the dominant cause.
Now, the question remains, will Fox News, Drudge, the Heartland Institute, and others that covered the initial report of this paper show the honesty and courage that Professor Wagner has shown and cover the fact that the paper is “fundamentally flawed?” Any bets?
Peter Gleick

None of that will matter to people determined only to hear what they want to hear. Of all the hundreds, maybe thousands of peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change, they'll pick the ONE out that appears to contradict the prevailing view, and seize on the findings as evidence of a conspiracy on the part of everyone else. And they'll studiously ignore the debunking that inevitably occurs.

[Distant Lover]

100 percent of mathematicians believe 9 x 9 = 81.

56 percent of registered Republican voters disagree.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

None of that will matter to people determined only to hear what they want to hear. Of all the hundreds, maybe thousands of peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change, they'll pick the ONE out that appears to contradict the prevailing view, and seize on the findings as evidence of a conspiracy on the part of everyone else. And they'll studiously ignore the debunking that inevitably occurs.

So far, none of the minority skeptical scientists out there have been able to able to put an end to the scientific consensus about climate change. This is important with any good theory, no matter how many tests the theory is placed through, it prevails.

On the other hand, climate change predictions are not fully accurate, but they are correct about the warming, melting, and extreme weather trends. There is definitely some room for improvents in the computer models. Adding the less dominant opposite cooling effect of aerosols to the warming effect of green house gases is probably a good step in the right direction of improving the accuracy of climate change predictions.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

100 percent of mathematicians believe 9 x 9 = 81.

56 percent of registered Republican voters disagree.

It's only true if you have ten fingers. I'll leave it to you to determine where they might be hiding one of them.

An awful lot of Republicans also seem to think the world is 6,000 years old, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/maj...evolution.aspx

[umpire2]

Perhaps oversimplifying the argument:

Those who jump on the bandwagon with those who argue against Global Warming are NOT saying that there is no Climate change (well, most of them, anyway); what they are saying is that HUMAN TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN AFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT ARE NOT CAUSING THIS CHANGE. THAT IT IS A NORMAL SHIFT, LIKE THOSE THAT HAVE HAPPENED NUMEROUS TIMES BEFORE IN HISTORY (warming periods and cooling periods).

If it becomes a political debate between Democrats supporting environmental restrictions against industrial waste and perceived damage to the environment and Republicans who own companies that make billions of dollars from resource exploitation and industries that cause various hazardous waste products, then the Democrats MUST be wrong because acceptance of the concepts of HUMAN CAUSED Global Warming could cost the wealthy money.

Go SOME of that money garnered from industrial profits has to be used to convince the general public that Global Warming is a sham.

The reality is that the earth is slowly undergoing a natural climatic change. Yes, as far as that goes, the Global Warming Naysayers are correct.

However, that natural climatic change is being EXACERBATED by Human impact on the environment, causing those changes to occur more rapidly and with more severity.

One of my silly analogies.

A boy throws a baseball, it travels 60 feet and lands in a catcher's glove. It attains a speed of 55 miles per hour. That is natural. A coach (human affect on natural conditions) shows the boy how to grip the ball and deliver a fastball. The boy now throws the ball 60 feet at a speed of 75 miles per hour.

The act of throwing the ball at one speed is natural change (ball not in motion, in hand to ball delivered to catcher); the impact of coaching that causes increased speed to the ball (human industrial affect on the environment) does not change the act of throwing the ball, but it does change how fast it reaches the catcher's glove.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

It's only true if you have ten fingers. I'll leave it to you to determine where they might be hiding one of them.

An awful lot of Republicans also seem to think the world is 6,000 years old, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/maj...evolution.aspx

Survey Methods
These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,007 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted June 1-3, 2007. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±3 percentage points.
For results based on the sample of 203 Catholics, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±8 percentage points.
For results based on the sample of 804 non-Catholics, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.








LOL, sample of 1,007 adults, aged 18 and older? Oh yeah, that really is a good representation of the 311 million people that live in the US.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Survey Methods
These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,007 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted June 1-3, 2007. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±3 percentage points.
For results based on the sample of 203 Catholics, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±8 percentage points.
For results based on the sample of 804 non-Catholics, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.








LOL, sample of 1,007 adults, aged 18 and older? Oh yeah, that really is a good representation of the 311 million people that live in the US.

Obviously, you know as much about statistical sampling as you do about everything else.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...matic-for-gop/

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/40-...ect-evolution/

[CS natureboy]

Where I live the statewide average temperature during September was 63.2 degrees, which is 3 degrees cooler than normal. The cooler average temperature made it the 13th coolest September on record for the state.

Maybe that retard Al Gore-gon can open up his big mouth and let some more hot gases out so things will warm back up?

[Whitey44]

The Methane Hydrate Mystery
-by Bob Brown


Lets talk about a possible positive feedback to Global Warming.
When you mix natural gas with water at low temperature and high pressure you get a frozen latticelike substance called methane hydrate, huge amounts of which underlie our oceans and polar permafrost. It looks like ice, but burns easily. Methane hydrate was discovered only a few decades ago, and little research has been done on it until recently.
The good news:
By some estimates, the energy locked up in methane hydrate deposits is more than twice the global reserves of all conventional gas, oil, and coal deposits combined. But no one has yet figured out how to pull out the gas inexpensively, or even safely.
The bad news:
Because methane is also a greenhouse gas that is 10 times more effective than carbon dioxide in causing climate warming, release of even a small percentage of total deposits could have a serious effect on Earth’s atmosphere.
Geologists early noted the possibility of a sudden release of methane if the Arctic Ice were to disappear. (E. Nisbet, “Climate change and methane,” Nature, v. 347, p. 23, September 1990). It has been sporadically discussed as a ‘Slim but possible disasterous release of a greenhouse gas” since. About 55.8 million years ago the arctic ocean temperatures rose ‘suddenly’ [in less than 100 years] by several deg C to temperatures near 30 deg C [~90F].
The latest report is from recent polar flights by Steve Wofsy and others ['HIPPO', August 2011], that observed ‘large’ summertime methane emissions from the ice-free arctic ocean. Since we seem to be heading toward a completely ice-free summertime Arctic ocean, the possibility of runaway climate instabilities becomes distinctly more exciting, as an atmospheric scientist colleague has noted. I agree, but I suppose an economics professor would substitute the word catastrophic for exciting.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here is a video of Steven Wofsy describing the methane release data found in the atmosphere in HIPPO I research flight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crO_oL3ZlOE

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

The Methane Hydrate Mystery
-by Bob Brown


Lets talk about a possible positive feedback to Global Warming.
When you mix natural gas with water at low temperature and high pressure you get a frozen latticelike substance called methane hydrate, huge amounts of which underlie our oceans and polar permafrost. It looks like ice, but burns easily. Methane hydrate was discovered only a few decades ago, and little research has been done on it until recently.
The good news:
By some estimates, the energy locked up in methane hydrate deposits is more than twice the global reserves of all conventional gas, oil, and coal deposits combined. But no one has yet figured out how to pull out the gas inexpensively, or even safely.
The bad news:
Because methane is also a greenhouse gas that is 10 times more effective than carbon dioxide in causing climate warming, release of even a small percentage of total deposits could have a serious effect on Earth’s atmosphere.
Geologists early noted the possibility of a sudden release of methane if the Arctic Ice were to disappear. (E. Nisbet, “Climate change and methane,” Nature, v. 347, p. 23, September 1990). It has been sporadically discussed as a ‘Slim but possible disasterous release of a greenhouse gas” since. About 55.8 million years ago the arctic ocean temperatures rose ‘suddenly’ [in less than 100 years] by several deg C to temperatures near 30 deg C [~90F].
The latest report is from recent polar flights by Steve Wofsy and others ['HIPPO', August 2011], that observed ‘large’ summertime methane emissions from the ice-free arctic ocean. Since we seem to be heading toward a completely ice-free summertime Arctic ocean, the possibility of runaway climate instabilities becomes distinctly more exciting, as an atmospheric scientist colleague has noted. I agree, but I suppose an economics professor would substitute the word catastrophic for exciting.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here is a video of Steven Wofsy describing the methane release data found in the atmosphere in HIPPO I research flight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crO_oL3ZlOE

I would contend that guys working in the oil and gas fields knew about Methane Hydrates (because they were sometimes killed or crippled by them) long before just a few decades ago and it took that long for the scientists to catch up.

And Whitey you might have to help me out here but if I understood the program right our oceans actually collect this methane in the proper conditions but if the oceans warmed too much it reverses the process suddenly releasing massive amounts of methane that erupt in continent sized fire balls.

[stumbler]

Ok so if you're one that denies evolution I don't suppose its much harder to deny human caused global warming/climate change. But if you're in Rick Perry's Texas what do you do when the sea level actually begins to rise?

Well you go in and erase every mention of global warming/climate change to the point the actual scientist withdraws the paper.

In addition to editing out mentions of climate change, note that the commission even edited out the prediction of how the bay was rising and would continue to rise, and reference to human intervention as being the main reason for disappearance of area wetlands. In other words, they edited out the whole purpose of the report.

Anderson has refused to let TCEQ publish the heavily edited version of his work. "It would not have been a worthwhile paper," he says. "It would not have said anything."

Perry is a notorious(ly dim) climate denier, and the decision from this Texas commission points rather squarely to what happens when plain scientific results clash with a predetermined ideology: The research has to be erased, so that there is no longer a conflict. You say the bay is rising by three millimeters a year? Well, we'll just see about that, Mr. Measuring Guy. Our leaders say it's not happening, and they have hell of a lot more clout than you.


It sounds like something from North Korea or the old Soviet Union. Nope! Modern conservatism, where ideology trumps actual facts. Next up: airbrushing Reagan out of old photos, because he was just way, way too moderate.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1...ges?via=blog_1

[madisonz]

There are many radical elements of the environmental community and the Center for the (Earth First Southwest) Center for Biological Diversity (SWCBD) is probably the most despised. In recent years the SWCBD has received tens of millions of dollars (as has many others) from numerous entities including the American government to further their radical agendas. Their obvious goals are to shut down logging, mining, ranching, water usage and recreational use of not only America’s public lands but management of private property has also been in their sights.

[madisonz]

Several years ago the SWCBD removed “Southwest” from its name making it the Center for Biological Diversity CBD and opened up field offices throughout the country.

In years past, the SWCBD has been listed in the Earth First Journal as an Earth First organization and over the years, staff members of the SWCBD have written numerous controversial articles for that radical/terrorist publication.

[madisonz]

Among the current staff are former Earth First activist Keiran Suckling, Peter Galvin, Bill Haskins and Todd Schulke. While the Center’s staff has neither been charged nor convicted of any terrorism their beginning was somewhat controversial and circumspect.

Suckling is the executive director of the CBD and the founder of the Earth First SWCBD. On April 27, 1998 Suckling, stated in the Tucson Citizen, “We’re not trying to shut everything down.” At that time and currently this statement contradicts their apparent goals and the opinions of those whose jobs, lives and communities have been drastically impacted by the law suits filed by the CBD and other extremist groups on a national basis.

[madisonz]

One example of these lawsuits is the Rodeo-Chedensky fire that left over 400 families’s homeless and ultimately severely damaged the entire community. Many citizens of Arizona blamed “radical environmentalist” for the June 18, 2002, fire including Arizona Senator Jon Kyl. The criticism comes as a result of a lawsuit over the Mexican Spotted owl which prohibited timber interests from thinning the forest.

Suckling’s career as an extremist goes back many years and includes a June 6, 1993 charge in Pima County, Arizona Justice Court, Case # CR93-608994 for “Interference with the peaceful conduct of educational institutions” at the University of Arizona. “Deposition: 6 months unsupervised probation and cannot return to the university for 6 months, unless he is a UA student.”

[madisonz]

Suckling’s resume shows he was also a USFS employee, working as an “owl surveyor.” During the beginning of his career as an Earth Firster, Suckling and the SWCBD were based in Silver City, New Mexico. Until Ted Turner’s foundation and other foundations stepped in, Suckling and his fellow Earth Firsters were without funds. It was during this time that Suckling was arrested on November 26, 1994 in Silver City, New Mexico for shoplifting a pair of hiking boots at the local Wal-Mart store for which he plead “no contest.”

While some members of Earth First continued on with terrorist activities, Suckling and his staff legitimized themselves by using huge amounts of money to manipulate a public relations campaign that they believe would uncover and highlight what they apparently are convinced is the destruction of Mother Earth. Currently, a look into the California Attorney General’s website shows the Center has “$9,999,225.00 in assets and $7,989,259.00 in Revenue.”

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Ok so if you're one that denies evolution I don't suppose its much harder to deny human caused global warming/climate change. But if you're in Rick Perry's Texas what do you do when the sea level actually begins to rise?

Pray?

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Pray?

I sure hope not. The last time he prayed for rain the whole state burned down. I don't think Texas can endure the flood praying to hold back the waters might do.

And this is the guy whose wife claims they are being persecuted by Perry's Republican rivals and the press because of their faith which includes God calling them to run for president.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by stumbler

I sure hope not. The last time he prayed for rain the whole state burned down. I don't think Texas can endure the flood praying to hold back the waters might do.

And this is the guy whose wife claims they are being persecuted by Perry's Republican rivals and the press because of their faith which includes God calling them to run for president.

If God is telling Rick Perry to run for president, it's pretty clear that He's on our side.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

If God is telling Rick Perry to run for president, it's pretty clear that He's on our side.

You know I'm beginning to believe you're right about that. Now even the Koch brothers have been ripped off. They paid $150,000 for a leading global warming denier to conduct research and he stabbed them in the back by actually confirming the accuracy of the three primary global warming/climate change models.

Climate Skeptics Take Another Hit

But Muller's congressional testimony last March didn't go according to plan. He told them a preliminary analysis suggested that the three main climate models in use today—each of which uses a different estimating technique, and each of which has potential flaws—are all pretty accurate: Global temperatures have gone up considerably over the past century, and the increase has accelerated over the past few decades. Yesterday, BEST confirmed these results and others in its first set of published papers about land temperatures. (Ocean studies will come later.) Using a novel statistical methodology that incorporates more data than other climate models and requires less human judgment about how to handle it (summarized by the Economist here), the BEST team drew several conclusions:

• The earth is indeed getting warmer. Global average land temperatures have risen 0.91 degrees Celsius over the past 50 years. This is "on the high end of the existing range of reconstructions."
• The rate of increase on land is accelerating. Warming for the entire 20th century clocks in at 0.73 degrees C per century. But over the most recent 40 years, the globe has warmed at a rate of 2.76 degrees C per century.
• Warming has not abated since 1998. The rise in average temperature over the period 1998-2010 is 2.84 degrees C per century.
• The BEST data significantly reduces the uncertainty of the temperature reconstructions. Their estimate of the temperature increase over the past 50 years has an uncertainty of only 0.04 degrees C, compared to a reported uncertainty of 0.13 degrees C in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
• Although many of the temperature measuring stations around the world have large individual uncertainties, taken as a whole the data is quite reliable. The difference in reported averages between stations ranked "okay" and stations ranked "poor" is very small.
• The urban heat island effect—i.e., the theory that rising temperatures around cities might be corrupting the global data—is very small.

In the press release announcing the results, Muller said, "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK." In other words, climate scientists know what they're doing after all.

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...es-another-hit

[stumbler]

You just know that anytime Al Gore can expose the Koch brothers and global warming/climate change deniers its gotta hurt.

Koch-Funded Study Confirms Climate Data


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gor...b_1032439.html