As reported by The Guardian, Pope Francis is set to issue a Papal Edict on climate change ahead of next year’s UN climate meeting in Paris, in an attempt to influence the dialogue at that meeting.
He has been called the “superman pope”, and it would be hard to deny that Pope Francis has had a good December. Cited by President Barack Obama as a key player in the thawing relations between the US and Cuba, the Argentinian pontiff followed that by lecturing his cardinals on the need to clean up Vatican politics. But can Francis achieve a feat that has so far eluded secular powers and inspire decisive action on climate change?
It looks as if he will give it a go. In 2015, the pope will issue a lengthy message on the subject to the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, give an address to the UN general assembly and call a summit of the world’s main religions.
The reason for such frenetic activity, says Bishop Marcelo Sorondo, chancellor of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, is the pope’s wish to directly influence next year’s crucial UN climate meeting in Paris, when countries will try to conclude 20 years of fraught negotiations with a universal commitment to reduce emissions.
“Our academics supported the pope’s initiative to influence next year’s crucial decisions,” Sorondo told Cafod, the Catholic development agency, at a meeting in London. “The idea is to convene a meeting with leaders of the main religions to make all people aware of the state of our climate and the tragedy of social exclusion.”
Following a visit in March to Tacloban, the Philippine city devastated in 2012 by typhoon Haiyan, the pope will publish a rare encyclical on climate change and human ecology. Urging all Catholics to take action on moral and scientific grounds, the document will be sent to the world’s 5,000 Catholic bishops and 400,000 priests, who will distribute it to parishioners.
If Pope Francis does issue a Papal Edict on climate change, it follows that the conservatives who comprise the religious right will renew their criticisms of him, especially given his previous criticisms of the “cult of greed” and his call for greater economic equality and less of a focus on wealth. After all, greed and a focus on wealth seem to be cornerstones of the Republican Party’s rhetorical support for and legislative efforts on behalf of the richest individuals and biggest corporations in our country.
I’m encouraged by Pope Francis’ decision to share his thoughts on global climate change, because his words and deeds have weight – as evidenced by the important role he played in the historic change in relations between the United States and Cuba – so perhaps his efforts to influence the dialogue on global climate change will yield positive results as well.
Strange but the Journal jsu toutlined how the left has reduced the net worjt, slaires lives of the Middle class and workign poor, inflated prices and took away their jobs while the rich have becoem much richer, especially those that gave money to the left during the obama regime.
Dohnal, Wisconsinites against prospertiy digest
1. Wrong thread?
2. Posting while intoxicated?
3. Both?
Serious Bob….is it too much to ask that you do a basic spell check before you post comments? I’m not trying to be overly critical here, but it’s really hard to follow with comments like these.
Wisconsin Conservative Digest– show the data that proves your statement (above).
Zach, thanks.
I’d given up hope of ever seeing a pope such as Francis 1.
If Francis veers too far towards sanity (ordaining women) disgraced Benedict XV1 is Opus Dei’s trump card. They could use him to engineer a schism. I’m hopeful that Francis will relax MANDATORY celibacy for Roman Catholic clerics. Go back to the way it used to be, give priests the option to remain celibate or marry.
1 Mark
30 But Peter’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.
31 And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.
An Encyclical about stewardship of the earth/climate change would be huge.
WOW! Impressive:
Pope Francis comes out against economic “tyranny” caused by corporate greed or “unfettered Capitalism.”
The arch conservative,Cardinal Burke* (my former Bishop) is “retired.”
The Vatican Cardinals are told to get with the people and stop seeking fame and fortune.
He suggests we take it easy on the LGBT.
And now it appears he will warn the conservatives, here and abroad, that ignoring the causes of climate change is akin to murder of mankind.
I hope he gets around to addressing the U.S. violent death rate and the “unfettered” control of my Congressman by the NRA.
Way to go, Pappa Fran!
Eppur si muove.
–Global sea ice area at above the 30-year average at the end of 2014.
–No global warming for over 18 years.
-31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs.
Nemo’s wrong again:
“Discussions about the amount of sea ice in the Arctic often confuse two very different measures of how much ice there is. One measure is sea-ice extent which, as the name implies, is a measure of coverage of the ocean where ice covers 15% or more of the surface. It is a two-dimensional measurement; extent does not tell us how thick the ice is. The other measure of Arctic ice, using all three dimensions, is volume, the measure of how much ice there really is.
Sea-ice consists of first-year ice, which is thin, and older ice which has accumulated volume, called multi-year ice. Multi-year ice is very important because it makes up most of the volume of ice at the North Pole. Volume is also the important measure when it comes to climate change, because it is the volume of the ice – the sheer amount of the stuff – that science is concerned about, rather than how much of the sea is covered in a thin layer of ice*.
Over time, sea ice reflects the fast-changing circumstances of weather. It is driven principally by changes in surface temperature, forming and melting according to the seasons, the winds, cloud cover and ocean currents. In 2010, for example, sea ice extent recovered dramatically in March, only to melt again by May.
Sea-ice is subject to powerful short-term effects so while we can’t conclude anything about the health of the ice from just a few years’ data, an obvious trend emerges over the space of a decade or more, showing a decrease of about 5% of average sea-ice cover per decade.
http://skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm
Nemo’s wrong again:
Nemo, here’s your “Petition Project,”
“There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere …”. (Petition Project)”
Nemo, below, is the real answer:
“Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.
But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.
So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other’s work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted – and relied upon.
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).
A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of ‘global warming’ and ‘global climate change’ published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.”
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Nemo’s wrong again:
“No, it hasn’t been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn’t the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What’s more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.
Though humans love record-breakers, they don’t, on their own, tell us a much about trends — and it’s trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables — like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity — not by cherry-picking single points.
There’s also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on surface air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance — due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called ‘thermal mass’) — tend to give a much more ‘steady’ indication of the warming that is happening. Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon (Figure 1). More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3% goes into increasing the surface air temperature.”
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
Nemo,
As the caps recede, and we lose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation , then what happens?
Where we gonna move?
Nemo,
I’m not seeing a response from you to my question about Thermohaline circulation?
Is my computer broken?
“2014 smashes temperature records in Europe”
http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/2014-smashes-temperature-records-in-europe_1525497.html
John,
That’s quite a bit of cut and paste for me to refute, so I’ll start at the top.
Your data is half a decade old. Since its publication, Antarctic ice has hit record levels and Arctic ice is rapidly increasing. Given this inconvenient reality, you have a choice: You can continue to have faith in a flawed dogma, or you can try to understand nature.
Eppur si muove.
Nemo,
Please include which CLIMATE SCIENTISTS peer reviewed any links you have already provided.
Thanks.
Ahh, the old Ad hominem circumstantial, eah? I’m not sure how germane peer review is to actual data sets, but as long as you opened the door, let’s dispense a bit of peer reviewed heresy. Here’s another few other peer reviewed papers you may have missed. Don’t feel bad for overlooking them, the IPCC did too.
Eppur si muove.
Nemo,
You wrote: “I’m not sure how germane peer review is to actual data sets”
Of course you don’t.
It’s because you don’t have any data.
Here’s your disinformation playbook: “The Serengeti strategy: How special interests try to intimidate scientists, and
how best to fight back.”
IT IS
5
MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
®
Feature
The Serengeti strategy:
How special interests try to
intimidate scientists, and
how best to fight back
Michael E. Mann
Abstract
“Much as lions on the Serengeti seek out vulnerable zebras at the edge of a herd, special interests faced with
adverse scientific evidence often target individual scientists rather than take on an entire scientific field at once.
Part of the reasoning behind this approach is that it is easier to bring down individuals than an entire group of
scientists, and it still serves the larger aim: to dismiss, obscure, and misrepresent well-established science and
its implications. In addition, such highly visible tactics create an atmosphere of intimidation that discourages
other scientists from conveying their researchÕs implications to the public. This ÒSerengeti strategyÓ is often
employed wherever there is a strong and widespread consensus among the worldÕs scientists about the under-
lying cold, hard facts of a field, whether the subject be evolution, ozone depletion, the environmental impacts of
DDT, the health effects of smoking, or human-caused climate change. The goal is to attack those researchers
whose findings are inconvenient, rather than debate the findings themselves. This article draws upon the
authorÕs own experience to examine the ÒSerengeti strategy,Ó and offers possible countermeasures to such
orchestrated campaigns. It examines what responses by scientists have been most successful, and how to
combat the doubt-sowing that industry has done regarding the science behind climate change and other fields.”
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/71/1/33.full.pdf+html
John,
Did you see the links? If you looked at them you would have seen that, “It’s because you don’t have any data.” is demonstrability false. But before we get into the hole peer review process, perhaps we should understand what we are talking about.
Eppur si muove.
Nemo,
You moved your goal posts at 12:24 with this: “I do believe, and can back up with facts, that mankind has not had any statically significant effect on global climate.”
Post a quote from YOUR links anything that you claim supports that.
You’ve had more than TWENTY-hours to respond to my question (and link) about the Thermohaline cirulcation. What’s wrong? Koch brothers don’t have anything in your national data base about that?
John,
Since I saw your thermohaline question just over two hours ago, you have posted another demonstratively false statement. A accurate way of describing the time I’ve had to respond to the static/dynamic arctic issue would be to say that I’ve had up to twenty hours to respond. In addition to the time required to respond to this, you would have to subtract the small amount of time used to respond to the other dogma you’ve posted.
To review, your question was about what happens when we “lose” thermohaline circulation. According to the latest studies, the Arctic appears to be more dynamic than static for the last 66 million years. Because of this, the thermohaline question should be filed in the “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin” folder. You’ll find that right next to the “What do we do when the sun goes out” folder in the DOOM! section.
Eppur si muove.
Nemo wrote:
“Since I saw your thermophaline question just over two hours ago,”
Not surpised, another convenient lie.
Once the thermophaline circulation stops, as a result of no more ice, the oceans begin to lose oxygen. Without oxygen, most of the life in the oceans die. That decaying matter poisons everything else. #livinginaseptictank As the earth continues to warm, the oceans can also hold less CO2. That speeds up the killing off of humanity.
Happy trails.
Hope you’re well compensated for posting your disinformation.
John,
I’m unclear on how your pronouncement on my alleged prevarication advances your position in this linguistic squabble. I did not see your post until late this morning. I don’t see why that would even matter to you.
As for your thermophaline circulation concerns, did you read and understand the links I gave you? Antarctic ice is at record levels! Arctic ice is up 300%!
The only compensation I currently enjoy for logically besting you here is of a non-corporal nature. Fighting on the side of science is often like that.
Later tater.
Monchton has been debunked repeatedly over numerous issues: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton
Climate change deniers explained: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/08/14/206542/yes-global-warming-has-continued-since-1998/
Investments by petroleum giants who have too much to lose if there is any impediment to their ability in continuing unlimited/unrestricted mass carbon extraction are simply paying for contrived messaging to support their bottom line. Not too freaking hard to understand that truth.
On Paid trolls: mouse over nemo’s name, a click takes you to a forest county website and ISP owner, mouse over “Sites of Interest and at the bottom of that menu, mouse over “blogs,” and there are three listed. “free racine,” from denis navratil, “lake lucerne” blog, from nemo/denis and blogging blue. A Forest County mecca for all lefties and progressives to freely boycott from now on.
nonquioxte for the win!
Nemo,
Here’s YOUR guy!
“Christopher Monckton is a non-scientist AGW denier, who has had articles published in The Guardian and in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter[1] of the American Physical Society (whose Council subsequently disagreed with Monckton’s conclusions)[1] claiming that global warming is neither man-made nor likely to be catastrophic. Monckton has made various false claims in the past such as that he is a member of the British House of Lords.[2], a Nobel Prize winner, inventor of a cure for HIV, winner of a defamation case against George Monbiot and writer of a peer-reviewed article.”
Check out his photo in wiki!
LMAO
Non,
Welcome to the party, pal! Your entry into the Ad Hominem Circumstantial club has been registered.
The link you posted to show that Mann-made warming has continued is old. The conclusions of the decade old piece have since been found in conflict with reality (see 4:33 for links). You might as well post an article from 1633 about the sun moving around the earth. I’m happy to clear this up for you, Yippee-ki-yay.
I stand by my linking to this blog, even if it does result in the boycotting of my site. I’ve always enjoyed good discourse (along with the northwoods.) That, plus Denis once bought me a beer. Guinness, yum. So Non, I should put you down as a definite “No” for this weekend’s Bottle Rocket War?
Eppur si muove.
“decade old piece” = “half decade old piece”, sorry about that. The fingers are not as fast today. I blame the extreme cold. Ironic, eah?
Eppur si muove.
Nemo,
I’ve looked at two of your sources Monchton and Delingpole.
Monchton claims to have won the Nobel prize and found a cure for Aids. Do you have a link to either?
Delingpole has a degree in English Lit.
You don’t have any data.
And you’re complaining because nonq’s data isn’t recent enough?
Do I have that right?
How recent does data have to be before you’ll accept it?
I did see the date on the 2010 link which doesn’t negate the value of the explanation in the least. Pretty much illustrated your hodge-podge method of pontificating. Should probably leave that to the Pope, the pontificating that is.
I guess you agree we are correct about Monckton’s “authority,” on much of anything.
You ignored the petroleum company point I made, as that obviously just makes too much common sense to argue against. Any paid petro-company operative would certainly ignore that comment.
In attempting to get back to the topic of the Papal Edict, if the Pope states reduction of carbon emissions benefits humanity and the larger world public good, I’m all for his positive influence in that arena.
Also with your purposeful distraction to make this, “discussion,” all about the believability of climate change, you completely ignore every other factor such as oil drilling rig spills in the Gulf, mountaintop removal for coal, Athabascan wilderness destruction digging tar sands, the inevitable future train derailments and Enbridge pipeline spills, the destruction to our limited water resources, seafood resources and the leveling of the sand hills in WI for fracking.
Throw in just the adverse affects of particulate air pollution and lung disease, these factors alone are enough to convince anyone of the sheer stupidity and futility of failing to wean our global society off of carbon based energy sources. Toss in the $Trillions in lives and blood, continuing inadequate yet costly health care for wounded veterans of the ME oil wars, overall useless military spending and their perpetual burning of the fossil fuels, these unequivocally prove the idiocy of your position.
I hadn’t bothered to figure out why you closed each comment with the Italian phrase supposedly uttered by Galileo Galilei, “yet it moves.” My first guess was your intent to pass yourself off as someone with astute educational insights, but I quickly understood from the lack of facts in anything you wrote that, “movement,” simply referred to your bowels figuratively dropping another steaming load with each visit.
Thanks.
IMHO, Nemo’s national.
John,
You’re wrong. Well,
Zaphod’sNemo’s just this guy, you know?But you did put a song in my head, thanks!
Eppur si muove
Just a bump to one pertinent comment on this thread.
http://bloggingblue.com/2015/01/pope-francis-to-issue-edict-on-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-145743
Presented with facts the troll has no response.
nonq,
Nice catch:
“…Throw in just the adverse affects of particulate air pollution and lung disease, these factors alone are enough to convince anyone of the sheer stupidity and futility of failing to wean our global society off of carbon based energy sources…”
Too often gets left out of the discussion.
John,
Let’s look at the next paste. The 97% has been thoroughly debunked much to the embarrassment of the College of Climate Cardinals or what ever the ecclesiastical body is called. In the past, the scientific consensus was that the world was flat. In the past, the scientific consensus was that the sun orbited the earth. See a pattern here?
Eppur si muove.
Nemo,
I love it when you try and “go green.”
Since you want to lie and take away climate change as any kind of a contributing cause, you’re free to announce what Gov. Walker’s plans are to bring back the thousands of COMMERCIAL fishing jobs in Lake Michigan that are NO LONGER in Lake Michigan.
“The Decline of a Once-Great Fishery”
http://www.jsonline.com/news/127244963.html
What do you want to talk about next, the emerald ash borer, un-explained bat deaths, northern march of diseases that used to be further south?
John,
Lie? No, the word you should have used is apostasy. And for the record I have never stated that man has not had “any kind of a contributing cause” to global warming. I do believe, and can back up with facts, that mankind has not had any statically significant effect on global climate. As for your litany of problems both large and small, I’m sure a scientific reason can be found for each without embracing the beliefs of the religious left.
Nemo,
You wrote, “I do believe, and can back up with facts, that mankind has not had any statically significant effect on global climate.”
I’m waiting.
Waiting? Waiting for what? I’ve linked to over 450 peer reviewed papers supporting my statement. I’m forced to conclude that you either don’t understand their content or their implications on Mann-made religion. So let’s try another angle. One way to show the “correctness” of a theory is to see how well predictions made by it turn out. Mann-made global warming predictions seem to have the same batting average as haruspicy, though they tend not to annoy the sheep as much. The only think left to say is quod erat demonstrandum.
Eppur si muove.
Nemo,
1. Start with the first (earliest) of your “over 450” peer-reviewed studies.
2. Name the authors and the title.
3. Pull out a quote that states what you claimed, ““I do believe, and can back up with facts, that mankind has not had any statically significant effect on global climate.”
4. List the page on which the quote occurs.
You’re on the clock.
That’s quite a task list there, but I can do better. I’m not sure that only 450 papers would be able to shake your faith in the cult of Mann. Here’s a link to 1350+ peer reviewed papers that support my heresy. In the words of President Calvin Coolidge, “You lose”.
Eppur si muove.
Nemo,
I’m sorry you can’t even find ONE scientific study that backs up your claim: “I do believe, and can back up with facts, that mankind has not had any statically significant effect on global climate.”
You’re still on the clock:
1. Start with the first (earliest) of your peer-reviewed studies.
2. Name the authors and the title.
3. Pull out a quote that states what you claimed, ““I do believe, and can back up with facts, that mankind has not had any statically significant effect on global climate.”
4. List the page on which the quote occurs.
john,
Time to clean the wax out of your eyes. I’ve just linked to 1350+ peer reviewed papers that support my heresy. I’m not going to read them to you because that would retard your learning experience. You’ll retain more if allowed to discover real science on your own. Be warned though, the chief priests, scribes, elders and Pharisees of the Mann-made global warming faith may excommunicate or even smite you. Good luck!
-Eppur si muove.
Nemo,
1. You wrote: “Time to clean the wax out of your eyes.”
If you thought I had wax in my eyes, why do you think I could read anything you wrote?
2. You wrote: “I’ve just linked to 1350+ peer reviewed papers that support my heresy.”
Thanks for using the word “heresy.” Does this mean you consider yourself a member of the flat-earth society?
3. You wrote: “I’m not going to read them to you.”
How could you “read” them to me over a blog?
4. You wrote: “because that would retard your learning experience.”
Opinions paid for by the Koch brothers and others who have a financial interest in deflecting the facts about climate change/global warming, aren’t a “learning experience.”
5. You wrote: “You’ll retain more if allowed to discover real science on your own. Be warned though, the chief priests, scribes, elders and Pharisees of the Mann-made global warming faith may excommunicate or even smite you.
Your lack of respect for Christian Holy Scriptures is duly noted.
6. You wrote: “Good luck!”
Luck’s got nothing to do with you ignoring the claim you so boldly made on this thread, the one you’re now so desperately running away from.
I’m sorry you can’t even find ONE scientific study that backs up your claim: “I do believe, and can back up with facts, that mankind has not had any statically significant effect on global climate.”
1. Start with the first (earliest) of your more than 1,300 peer-reviewed studies.
2. Name the authors and the title.
3. Pull out a quote that states what you claimed, ““I do believe, and can back up with facts, that mankind has not had any statically significant effect on global climate.”
4. List the page on which the quote occurs.
You’re still on the clock.
Okay, I’ll take the 3 minutes to help you accept the facts about your Mann-made religion.
1) I’m unsure if this is the the earliest but it’s pretty early.
2)Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
Cynthia Kuo, Craig Lindberg & David J. Thomson
3) Proof method: Indirect Proof/ Proof by Contradiction
If you expect a statically significant effect on global climate by mans co2 emissions, it follows that temperature rises would follow increases in atmospheric co2 concentrations. But (here’s the contradiction part!) changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months.
4)It’s in the abstract and there’s also like a bazilion references.
Be warned john, the Pharisees of the Mann-made global warming cult may have you do some penance for reading this heresy. It should also be noted because the data is old, they missed the part about the lack of any warming for the last 18 years and 3 months. A pass should be forgiven for this little faux pas though, even the chief priests of Mann-made warming missed the coming pause despite the best gigo code and haruspicy grant money could buy. Heh.
Your mention of the Kochs reminds me to ask. Do you really have a Two Minutes Hate (a daily period in which Party members must watch a film depicting the Party’s enemies (notably
Emmanuel GoldsteinKoch Brothers and their followers)) and express their hatred for them? That’s what I hear. Heh.-Eppur si muove.
1. Nemo wrote: “Okay, I’ll take the 3 minutes” to help you accept the facts about your Mann-made religion.
I’m unsure if this is the the earliest but it’s pretty early.”
You’re the one who raised the issue of recency with nonq. Unless you withdraw that (change your religion) I’m not interested in your guesses, but they do help reveal you as way too casual to be taken on science.
2. Nemo wrote: “2)Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
Cynthia Kuo, Craig Lindberg & David J. Thomson”
Hey genius, where’s the link?
You’re the one who dumped more than 1,300 links. How’s that working out for you? After you give me the link, how are you going to confirm that this is one of your original 1,300?
3. Nemo wrote: “3) Proof method: Indirect Proof/ Proof by Contradiction”
Is this in the article or is it more junk-science you made up?
4. Nemo wrote: “If you expect a statically significant”
Define “statically.”
5. Nemo wrote “effect”
“Effect” does not equal “affect,” are you sure you’re using the right one in this case?
6. Nemo wrote:
Define “on global climate.” Specifically explain how “aeresols” fit within your definition.
7. Nemo wrote: “by mans”
What is “mans?”
8. Nemo wrote: “co2 emissions,”
Why does this article ignore methane and other green house gasses why should I waste time something so obviously flawed?
9. Nemo wrote: “it follows”
Absolutely nothing “follows,” from anything you’ve written so far.
10. Nemo wrote: “that temperature rises”
Show me the data.
Where on earth is it getting cooler? Is that too tough for you? Give me a country or lat/long.
11. Nemo wrote: “would follow increases in atmospheric co2 concentrations.”
And again ignoring all other green house gasses.
12. Nemo wrote: But (here’s the contradiction part!)
Nope.
The “contradiction part!”started above when you wrote “I’m unsure if this is the the earliest but it’s pretty early.” Then YOU contradicted yourself in #18 below.
12. 1 Nemo wrote: “changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months.”
So now you agree with Mann. Temp’s going up, but there’s a five-month lag?
13. Nemo wrote: “4)It’s in the abstract”
Thank you Jackson Pollock. In God we trust, everyone else bring DATA. No abstractions, just data.
14. Nemo wrote: “and there’s also like a bazilion references.”
That’s wonderful for you. Pick ONE out and LIST THE PAGE ON WHICH IT IS PRINTED. You know, like a FOOTNOTE in a scientific paper.
Write out a bazillion. How many zeroes?
15. “Be warned john,”
Keep beating your breast.
16. Nemo wrote: “the Pharisees”
Please define what you think a Pharisee is and why you think it’s relevant to mention in a comment about climate/change global warming.
17. Nemo wrote: “of the Mann-made global warming cult may have you do some penance for reading this heresy.
What do you suggest?
18. Nemo wrote: “It should also be noted because the data is old,
Hold on. Above you told me this article is among the earliest data in your “over” 1,350 links. See #12 above.
How old is the data? Be specific. Quote from the article and provide the page number in the article which describes how “old” the data is. Remember, that’s what you were beating up on nonq’s data about. You claimed it was too “old.”
19. Nemo wrote: “they missed the part about the lack of any warming for the last 18 years and 3 months.”
So you admit, the best of your “over” 1,300 articles is flawed by more than 18 years?
How long is their study?
20. Nemo wrote: “A pass should be forgiven”
Do you mean “given,” or do you want to drop the “pass?”
21. Nemo wrote: “for this little faux pas though,”
You gonna apologize to nonq?
It wasn’t “little” when you accused him of the same thing.
22. Nemo wrote “even the chief priests of Mann-made warming”
Well, they all have Ph.D’s in the hard sciences. You rely on folks with an undergrad degree in Philosophy or English Lit, or guys who claim to have cured aids.
23. Nemo wrote: “missed the coming pause despite the best gigo code and haruspicy grant money could buy. Heh.”
Please translate into English.
24. Nemo wrote: “Your mention of the Kochs reminds me to ask. Do you really have a Two Minutes Hate (a daily period in which Party members must watch a film depicting the Party’s enemies (notably Emmanuel Goldstein Koch Brothers and their followers)) and express their hatred for them? That’s what I hear. Heh.”
Koch brothers are monopolists. If you were a capitalist, you’d understand the problem.
You’re still on the clock for a quote from this piece which states what you claimed: “I do believe, and can back up with facts, that mankind has not had any statically significant effect on global climate.” Then, include the PAGE NUMBER on which said quote occurred in this article.
john,
We have got so deep into the replies that a reply tab does not exist for your last spew. I hope you find this. I am amazed at your point 2. Have you ever used a search engine. They are all the rage on the interweb. I’ll help you out here…
1)Copy the title of the paper I gave you.
2)Go to http://www.google.com
3)Paste the title in the test box.
4)Hit
5)See the first item that comes up.
I can understand the grammar-Nazi decent of your arguments. If you find yourself losing on the facts, go for the grammar, but the fact that you don’t know what “statically significant” means troubles and saddens me. As does your not knowing gigo (garbage in – garbage out, one of the most basic concepts in Computer Science) or being able to look up “haruspicy” (I assume that it’s one of the most important tools in warmist theory, it’s certainly one of the most accurate). Perhaps it’s time you back away from the keyboard and have a nice juice box or something.
-Eppur si muove.
Nemo,
“Winter may be knocking on your window, but 2014 was the warmest on record” is from your hero, Michael Mann, Ph.D.
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-01-08/winter-may-be-knocking-your-window-2014-was-warmest-record
I realize when a Pharisee as grand as Sub-Pope Michael “Hide the Decline” Mann speaks scripture, those of you seated in the pews say, “Amen!”, but I prefer science to religion in such things. That being said, let’s lay a little Mann-made Global Warming blasphemy on you. Twenty fourteen was not the Hottest Year Ever.
Is it just this topic, or are you not very good at defending any of your positions?
-Eppur si muove.
Nemo,
I left 24 NUMBERED responses to you at 1:49p.m..
You ignored all 24.
This thread is a time stamped record that you ran away from all 24.
Nemo,
Refute this:
“Climate Study: Extreme Rain Storms in Midwest Have Doubled in Last 50 Years, Often Leading to Worsened Flooding
Report Details Major Storm/Flooding Trends in 8 States: IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, OH and WI; Midwest Illustrates Growing Concerns About Climate Link Between Big Storms and Flooding.”
“CHICAGO (May 16, 2012) – The kind of deluges that in recent years washed out Cedar Rapids, IA, forced the Army Corps of Engineers to intentionally blow up levees to save Cairo, IL, and sent the Missouri River over its banks for hundreds of miles are part of a growing trend, according to a new report released today by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization (RMCO) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Big storms, leading to big floods, are occurring with increasing frequency in the Midwest, with incidences of the most severe downpours doubling over the last half century, the report finds.
Stephen Saunders, the president of the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and the report’s lead author, said: “Global studies already show that human-caused climate change is driving more extreme precipitation, and now we’ve documented how great the increase has been in the Midwest and linked the extreme storms to flooding in the region. A threshold may already have been crossed, so that major floods in the Midwest perhaps now should no longer be considered purely natural disasters but instead mixed natural/unnatural disasters. And if emissions keep going up, the forecast is for more extreme storms in the region.”
In addition to region-wide trends, the report presents trends in the eight Midwestern states. For the worst storms (three inches or more of rain in 24 hours) from 1961-2011, the report outlines the following state-level trends: Indiana (+160 percent); Wisconsin (+203 percent); Missouri (+81 percent); Michigan (+180 percent); Minnesota (+104 percent); Illinois (+83 percent); Ohio (+40 percent); and Iowa (+32 percent).
Titled, “Doubled Trouble: More Midwestern Extreme Storms,” the new NRDC-RMCO report adds several years of data to previous reports tracking the issue of Midwestern storms. Key findings include:
Since 1961, the Midwest has had an increasing number of large storms. The largest of storms, those of three inches or more of precipitation in a single day, increased the most, with their annual frequency having increased by 103 percent over the roughly half century period through 2011. For storms of at least two inches but less than three inches in a day, the trend was a 81 percent increase; for storms of one to two inches, a 34 percent increase. Smaller storms did not have a significant increase.
The rates of increase for all large storms accelerated over time, with the last analyzed decade, 2001-2010, showing the greatest jumps. For the largest storms, in 2001-2010 there were 52 percent more storms per year than in the baseline period.
The frequency of extreme storms has increased so much in recent years that the first 12 years of this century included seven of the nine top years (since 1961) for the most extreme storms in the Midwest.
With more frequent extreme storms, the average return period between two such storms has become shorter. In 1961-1970, extreme storms averaged once every 3.8 years at an individual location in the Midwest. That is two to four times more frequent than a major hurricane making landfall at a typical location along the U.S. coast from North Carolina to Texas. By 2001-2010, the average return period for Midwestern extreme storms at a single location was down to 2.2 years—or four to eight times more frequent than landfalling major hurricanes.
The report also presents new evidence linking extreme storms in the Midwest to major floods, the region’s most costly regularly occurring natural disasters. The new analysis shows that the two worst years in the Midwest for storms of three inches or more per day were 2008 and 1993, the years with the Midwest’s worst floods in some 80 years, which caused $16 billion and $33 billion in damages and rank, among the nation’s worst natural disasters. The report presents new evidence linking the 2008 flooding to extreme storms, showing that in areas with the worst flooding 48 percent of the local precipitation came from extreme storms. ….”
http://www.nrdc.org/media/2012/120516a.asp
Okay, refuted. With science! I’d have spent more than the 2 minutes it took to find this article, but the snow needs clearing and it’s -9 F out there, there was a very real chance of getting irony poisoning.
If you find yourself in northeastern Wisconsin this weekend, we are having the 24th Annual Lake Lucerne Bottle Rocket War. You can see fort construction live today and tomorrow here (Lake Lucerne, WI) or at the webcam at the site non mentioned. To show there is no animosity, feel free to stop by the bar on the north end of Lake Lucerne after the event (think 7:30 or 8:00 PM Saturday) for free drinks, pool and food.
Nemo,
Really can’t thank you enough for using the completely discredited Heartland Institute as your source on MISREADING the balanced and nuanced NOAA report. Shame on Forbes for printing their garbage.
“Heartland Stands By Its Climate Change Denial As Donors Jump Ship”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/heartland-climate-change_n_1504632.html
Nemo:
“Deniers are not skeptics”
“Some members of the media are still misleading the public by wrongly using the term “skeptic.” The New York Times, for example, recently called Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) a skeptic — even though he believes that climate change is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated.”
Scientists should practice and promote scientific skepticism, and encourage informed citizens do the same. But those who reject the facts on climate change are not skeptics — they’re deniers.
Sign your name to support the open letter from nearly fifty members of the skeptical scientific community, telling the media: Climate deniers are not skeptics.”
http://act.forecastthefacts.org/sign/skeptics/?sp_ref=93393628.170.11117.t.43149.2&referring_akid=646.126810.Glp2DZ&source=tw
Those who reject the facts on climate change are not skeptics — they’re warmists.
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr, “the bottom line on this new NOAA special report: If you are attributing any extreme other than heat waves to Anthropogenic Climate Change, you are on weak (or worse) scientific ground.”
John,
Waiting? Waiting for what? The metaphorical Godot has came, ate, burped, and is currently enjoying a cigar in your living room. I’ve given you over 450 peer reviewed pieces of a wonderful tapestry that points to my premise. Perhaps another angle will shake you from this false religion. One way to determine the correctness of a theory is to see how well it predicts the future. It seems that the Mann-made global warming speculation is in the same league as haruspicy, though I’ll admit it does not annoy the sheep as much.
Eppur si muove.
Nemo,
You’re GUY in the “thoroughly debunked” link has a degree in English Lit.
He’s not even a scientist.
LMAO.
John,
Don’t like the source (Ad Hominem Circumstantial), eah? How’s about a lovely, peer reviewed paper showing your 97% is more like 0.3%. You’ve just been pwned, later tater.
Eppur si muove.
Nemo
Some background on the author of your piece on peer review.
”
Peter recently reshared an interview with Professor John Abraham about Mr Watts that was published on Oilprice.com. It’s a must-read for anyone at all interested in the whole “facts versus total BS debate” that goes on in one small corner of the global warming world. So, here it is:
John Abraham: The fact is that Mr. Watts is not a pragmatic sceptic. Real scientists are sceptical by nature. We don’t believe what our colleagues tell us until we verify it for ourselves. Scientists honestly develop views of how the world works and they test those views by experimentation. As a result of approximately 150 years of climate science, the vast majority of scientists are convinced that humans are a major cause of climate change. Mr. Watts, on the other hand, dismisses evidence that is counter to his viewpoint. That is not scepticism–that is plain denial.
Let me expand on this by going back to his interview. Mr. Watts’s claimed that:
“’Global warming’ suggests a steady linear increase in temperature, but since that isn’t happening, proponents have shifted to the more universal term “climate change,” which can be liberally applied to just about anything observable in the atmosphere.”
First, scientists have never predicted a linear increase in temperature–we are not that naive. Things are much more complex than that.
Mr. Watts also argues that “proponents” have shifted from using the phrase global warming to “climate change”. He didn’t bother telling you that this was actually suggested by a conservative consultant, Frank Luntz, as a way to reduce public concern. Ironically, “climate change” is a better description of what is happening, and climate scientists use it to be more accurate. Let me give you some examples….
• We are causing the ocean chemistry (pH) to change–that isn’t warming or cooling.
• We are causing some areas to become wetter and others to become drier–again, not warming.
• We are increasing humidity in the atmosphere.
• We are cooling the upper part of the atmosphere (the stratosphere).
• We are making weather swings more severe.
• We are losing polar ice at a rapid rate.
• Warmer oceans make hurricanes more severe here and here.
Mr. Watts and others who deny that humans are a major cause of climate change have helped to create an environment where scientists are attacked mercilessly for their science. I have been attacked numerous times on Mr. Watts’s website, as have my colleagues. How can we encourage young scientists to go into this field when they are promised personal attacks and vilification? Fortunately, young bright scientists go into this field anyway and I am excited about the new crop of young minds that are rising through the ranks.
James Stafford: Watts spends a great deal of time discussing the “heat sink” effect in urban areas. Can you offer us an alternative view on what this means in terms of climate change?
John Abraham: This issue has been the calling card of Mr. Watts. Unfortunately, he did not disclose much in his comments.
• He didn’t tell you that he actually published a paper on this subject a few years ago where he concluded that temperature sensor siting had no impact on temperature trends.
• He didn’t tell you that other groups have looked at this issue and made similar conclusions.
• He didn’t tell you that recently a Koch-funded study looked at this issue and concluded that the real climate scientists were right: locations of temperature sensors didn’t matter.
• He didn’t tell you that he initially supported the Koch-funded study until the results were made known.
• He didn’t tell you that measurements of the atmosphere made by weather balloons and satellites agree the Earth is warming.
• He didn’t tell you that measurements of the ocean show a significant and long-term increase in temperature.
• He didn’t tell you that the vast majority of glaciers are losing ice, as are Greenland and Antarctica.
• Finally, he didn’t tell you that in the last 30 years, approximately 75% of the Arctic ice which remains at the end of the melting season has disappeared.
It isn’t surprising that Mr. Watts disagrees with all of these other researchers. What I was surprised by was the fact he seems to disagree with his own research.
By the way, Peter also has a great video that features Mr. Watts that you might want to check out:”
http://planetsave.com/2013/03/31/skewering-anthony-watts-anti-science/
Nemo, the video is with your hero, Glenn Beck.
Nemo,
Here’s the link to the story (mentioned above) about the study funded by the Koch brothers that confirms climate change is real.
“Bombshell: Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/
Still waiting for you to say how recent data has to be before you’ll accept it.
Would that be the report that was met with massive scientific blowback from his colleagues.
1) Climatologist Dr. Pielke Sr. On Muller’s study: ‘Unless, Muller pulls from a significantly different set of raw data, it is no surprise that his [temp] trends are the same’
2) Meteorologist Watts: The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review… making a ‘pre-peer review’ media blitz despite errors
3) Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl Rips Muller’s Temperature Study: ‘It is not true that the Berkeley group has found relevant evidence for the core questions in the AGW debate’
4) Scientist reveals Muller’s impact: ‘Richard Muller Gives Permission To Be Climate Skeptic, Shows Why’
5) Meteorologist D’Aleo: ‘Muller’s results are predictable, since he appears to have worked with much of the same raw data all 3 global data centers used or started with’
6) Scientist Mocks Muller’s claims: ‘The Doubt Is Over – Temperatures Rising Almost As Fast As James Hansen’s Zero Emissions Scenario’ — Muller’s headline [in WSJ] is exactly wrong. [Muller should instead declare he has made] ‘The Case Against For Global-Warming Skepticism’
Doesn’t matter to me if the report you cite is old or recent. Bad science doesn’t have an effect on my apostasy. It’s time for you to pick up your prayer rug, put down the scriptures of Mann, and embrace science before you end up shaving your head and selling flowers in some airport.
Eppur si muove.
Nemo:
Your guy, Alex Epstein, has a Bachelors in Philosophy.
@thackerpd
.@AlexEpstein, can you explain how a degree in philosophy prepared you to be a #climate expert? @MichaelEMann https://web.archive.org/web/20070617063729/http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_AlexEpstein …
https://web.archive.org/web/20070617063729/http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_AlexEpstein
John,
Now onto the third thesis you nailed onto the door of this post. Referring to a single warm year, June 2009 to May 2010, is cherry picking. Denoting an almost two decade old trend is the state of things as they actually exist. The pause in Mann-made Global Warming is now old enough to marry, enter into contracts, and vote. The less said about the credo that “The oceans ate my global warming” the better. With water having a heat capacity over 1000 times that of the air I have to wonder; Do they even teach experimental uncertainty and significant digits anymore?
Eppur si muove.