World cools on global warming as green fatigue sets in

Feb 27, 2013 Full story: The Independent 23

Note: We do not store your email address but your IP address will be logged to prevent abuse of this feature.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#1 Feb 27, 2013
How can you present a complete world picture without discussing the long wars that have devastated populations and their livelihood? You can't.

Problems have escalated without solutions. The title should be: World tired of wars!
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#2 Feb 28, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
How can you present a complete world picture without discussing the long wars that have devastated populations and their livelihood? You can't.
Problems have escalated without solutions. The title should be: World tired of wars!
Or world is tired of fighting over greed of the 'powers that be'. i.e the peasants pay the price of the power struggle between wealthy aristocrats (i.e capitalist billionaires, multi-millionaires, old money families, etc) and the political 'central authority' which is dominated by a few other wealthy families.

Whether by war or in the law making chambers, the fight over who gets what of a declining economy, instead of creating new wealth tends to hurt the working families most. But there is no leadership in the struggle AGAINST the 0.1%ers. So no real action, or if there is a spark, it gets 'co-opted' by one side or another with the funds and talents to promote it as a way of 'winning' for one side or the other.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#3 Feb 28, 2013
You can only make up disasters, climate or economic, for so long before fatigue sets in.

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Dr Stephen Schneider, of Stanford University, is a well-respected climatologist who is also quite active in the media and politics

Surprise, surprise. A scientist who is involved in media and politics. Who'd have thought.

In TV sitcoms, they call it 'jumping the shark'. It's downhill from here.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#4 Feb 28, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
You can only make up disasters, climate or economic, for so long before fatigue sets in.
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Dr Stephen Schneider, of Stanford University, is a well-respected climatologist who is also quite active in the media and politics
Surprise, surprise. A scientist who is involved in media and politics. Who'd have thought.
In TV sitcoms, they call it 'jumping the shark'. It's downhill from here.
1. you have deliberately misquoted Schneider a 2. you are too ignorant even to know he died two and and a half years ago.
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneide...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#5 Feb 28, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
... A scientist who is involved in media and politics...
Yes, that's why you should read the original scientific paper whenever possible. Scientists can't lie or politically distort their work like others can.
Science must be repeatable. If a scientist publishes something, another scientist, anywhere in the world, will try to verify it. If there's been distortion, political or otherwise, it'll be detected.
Mistakes may only be embarrassing. Outright deception, though, will typically end a scientist's academic career.
That's why scientists CAN'T lie in their scientific journals. When they speak in public or seek out media, they may oversimplify & exaggerate, but they can't do that in their scientific journal articles.
That's one of the differences between honest scientists & lying deniers.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#6 Feb 28, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
1. you have deliberately misquoted Schneider a 2. you are too ignorant even to know he died two and and a half years ago.
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneide...
No misquote, what you posted says exactly what I posted. "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

He should have added, but if honest doesn't work well then effective must prevail. Just review those climategate emails. Or the number of policy recomendations from the IPCC taken from magazine articles. Or the number of predictions that have failed. Or one of my favorites, who looks at data, we rely on computer models.

Then there's "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated."

See more at: http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-official-climate-...

Fair Game, have you ever heard that an object in motion remains in motion... that's a 'quote' from Newton, he's been dead for a while now and he still gets quoted even in the paraphrased fashion. This may be news, but lots of people have died who's 'legacy' is reflected by what came out of their mouths. Sad, but true.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#7 Feb 28, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
No misquote, what you posted says exactly what I posted.
Liar.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#8 Feb 28, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that's why you should read the original scientific paper whenever possible. Scientists can't lie or politically distort their work like others can.
Science must be repeatable. If a scientist publishes something, another scientist, anywhere in the world, will try to verify it. If there's been distortion, political or otherwise, it'll be detected.
Mistakes may only be embarrassing. Outright deception, though, will typically end a scientist's academic career.
That's why scientists CAN'T lie in their scientific journals. When they speak in public or seek out media, they may oversimplify & exaggerate, but they can't do that in their scientific journal articles.
That's one of the differences between honest scientists & lying deniers.
Not all people are good people and scientists are people too. They come with all the same agendas and biases as everyone else. They are as corrupt, as crooked and incompetent as people in any other profession. If there are corrupt attorneys, bad doctors, thieves in the business world, well the same percentage of bad scientists exists.

If not we would have never seen the 'hockey stick'.

We would never have been told that the himilayan glaciers would melt by 2035.

No one would be posting Hansen's senario C and comparing it to the temperature record as proof of a realized prediction.

If there was only up front honesty, there'd be no reason to change the historically recorded data in the temperature data sets.

If what you say is true, then there would be empirical evidence to support man made global warming, not just computer models. That's the problem. Find one scientific paper that demonstrates man made global warming, not based on a computer model. Just one.

Scientists are people too, they need a paycheck just like everyone else.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#9 Feb 28, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar.
Careful. Your fourth grade mentality is showing again.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#10 Feb 28, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that's why you should read the original scientific paper whenever possible.
That's the one thing that makes me different from most of the posters, I do read the papers.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#11 Feb 28, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the one thing that makes me different from most of the posters, I do read the papers.
He was talking about science papers, not graphic novels. Ask your legal guardian.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#12 Mar 1, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
...scientists... are as corrupt, as crooked and incompetent as people in any other profession...
If not we would have never seen the 'hockey stick'.
We would never have been told that the himilayan glaciers would melt by 2035.
No one would be posting Hansen's senario C and comparing it to the temperature record as proof of a realized prediction.
If there was only up front honesty, there'd be no reason to change the historically recorded data in the temperature data sets.
If what you say is true, then there would be empirical evidence to support man made global warming... Find one scientific paper that demonstrates man made global warming, not based on a computer model. Just one...
Fun "Facts"

Everything you say is a lie.

I just explained to you how the process of science minimizes the normal human foibles everyone has. It works. Scientists simply CAN'T lie like you do.

The hockey stick scientists (Mann et al) have not only been "cleared" by no less than 6 formal inquiries, much more importantly, their work has been verified by other scientists, PROVING it's correct.

Assuming you're not colorblind, just look at the graph. The other colors represent other studies by other scientists using other proxies. Despite lots of statistical variation (which no one would deny), the basic shape of the hockey stick is obvious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_T...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Records_of_... (NOAA,_Jansen_et_al).png

We weren't "told" Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. There was ONE error in ONE small part of the IPCC's report that was NOT repeated in other parts of the report.

You LIE about James Hansen. Why don't you look at his original 1981 Science paper? He was remarkably accurate, both for temps in 2000 & today. No need for Scenario C or anything else. We're actually on the warm end of his projection today.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hans...

This was written YEARS before others had figured out what was going on. Yet he was RIGHT.

Historical data sets haven't been "changed" - that's a LIE. Again, the process of science militates against the lying that other people do. When they make various adjustmenst, they're up front about what was done & why. That's the way science works.

Climatological projections are NOT based on models, they're based on what happened on the earth in the past. Just try watching one of Hansen's videos. He says it explicitly here.



AGW/CC was predicted by Arrhenius in 1896. Thousands of scientists' works over more than a century have verified his basic outline. We have measured higher temps than we've had since the Eemian (~124,000 years ago). The basics of AGW/CC are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The work following up Mann's study, among many other things, has proven it.

Lastly, there is NO SUCH THING as "climategate." Believing it means either (1) you're an ignorant fool (not true for you, knowing your other posts), or (2) a lying denier.

In science, a "trick" isn't anything nefarious or deceptive, it's a way of analyzing or combining disparate data. "Mike's trick" referred to combining modern, measured temps with tree ring data that were proxies for temps going back a millenium.

Most trees show wider rings & less dense wood with higher temps. However, SOME northern trees show narrower rings when we know measured temps are higher. So Mann et all threw these data out, a perfectly reasonable thing to do. They were "hiding the decline" in tree ring width. This is the "divergence problem," much discussed in the scientific literature.

In their paper, they didn't hide it, THEY CALLED ATTENTION TO IT. They asked other scientists to investigate it, & several hypotheses have subsequently been proposed.

So you're just wrong, wrong, WRONG.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#13 Mar 1, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Fun "Facts"
Everything you say is a lie.
I just explained to you how the process of science minimizes the normal human foibles everyone has. It works. Scientists simply CAN'T lie like you do.
The hockey stick scientists (Mann et al) have not only been "cleared" by no less than 6 formal inquiries, much more importantly, their work has been verified by other scientists, PROVING it's correct.
Assuming you're not colorblind, just look at the graph. The other colors represent other studies by other scientists using other proxies. Despite lots of statistical variation (which no one would deny), the basic shape of the hockey stick is obvious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_T...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Records_of_... (NOAA,_Jansen_et_al).png
We weren't "told" Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. There was ONE error in ONE small part of the IPCC's report that was NOT repeated in other parts of the report.
You LIE about James Hansen. Why don't you look at his original 1981 Science paper? He was remarkably accurate, both for temps in 2000 & today. No need for Scenario C or anything else. We're actually on the warm end of his projection today.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hans...
This was written YEARS before others had figured out what was going on. Yet he was RIGHT.
Historical data sets haven't been "changed" - that's a LIE. Again, the process of science militates against the lying that other people do. When they make various adjustmenst, they're up front about what was done & why. That's the way science works.
Climatological projections are NOT based on models, they're based on what happened on the earth in the past. Just try watching one of Hansen's videos. He says it explicitly here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =sJp3_DcN1i4XX
AGW/CC was predicted by Arrhenius in 1896. Thousands of scientists' works over more than a century have verified his basic outline. We have measured higher temps than we've had since the Eemian (~124,000 years ago). The basics of AGW/CC are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The work following up Mann's study, among many other things, has proven it.
Lastly, there is NO SUCH THING as "climategate." Believing it means either (1) you're an ignorant fool (not true for you, knowing your other posts), or (2) a lying denier.
In science, a "trick" isn't anything nefarious or deceptive, it's a way of analyzing or combining disparate data. "Mike's trick" referred to combining modern, measured temps with tree ring data that were proxies for temps going back a millenium.
Most trees show wider rings & less dense wood with higher temps. However, SOME northern trees show narrower rings when we know measured temps are higher. So Mann et all threw these data out, a perfectly reasonable thing to do. They were "hiding the decline" in tree ring width. This is the "divergence problem," much discussed in the scientific literature.
In their paper, they didn't hide it, THEY CALLED ATTENTION TO IT. They asked other scientists to investigate it, & several hypotheses have subsequently been proposed.
So you're just wrong, wrong, WRONG.
Well if that's how you feel, then there's no sense in continuing a discussion. Best of luck in your fantasy land.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#14 Mar 1, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Fun "Facts"
Everything you say is a lie.
I just explained to you how the process of science minimizes the normal human foibles everyone has. It works. Scientists simply CAN'T lie like you do.
The hockey stick scientists (Mann et al) have not only been "cleared" by no less than 6 formal inquiries, much more importantly, their work has been verified by other scientists, PROVING it's correct.
Assuming you're not colorblind, just look at the graph. The other colors represent other studies by other scientists using other proxies. Despite lots of statistical variation (which no one would deny), the basic shape of the hockey stick is obvious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_T...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Records_of_... (NOAA,_Jansen_et_al).png
We weren't "told" Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. There was ONE error in ONE small part of the IPCC's report that was NOT repeated in other parts of the report.
You LIE about James Hansen. Why don't you look at his original 1981 Science paper? He was remarkably accurate, both for temps in 2000 & today. No need for Scenario C or anything else. We're actually on the warm end of his projection today.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hans...
This was written YEARS before others had figured out what was going on. Yet he was RIGHT.
Historical data sets haven't been "changed" - that's a LIE. Again, the process of science militates against the lying that other people do. When they make various adjustmenst, they're up front about what was done & why. That's the way science works.
Climatological projections are NOT based on models, they're based on what happened on the earth in the past. Just try watching one of Hansen's videos. He says it explicitly here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =sJp3_DcN1i4XX
AGW/CC was predicted by Arrhenius in 1896. Thousands of scientists' works over more than a century have verified his basic outline. We have measured higher temps than we've had since the Eemian (~124,000 years ago). The basics of AGW/CC are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The work following up Mann's study, among many other things, has proven it.
Lastly, there is NO SUCH THING as "climategate." Believing it means either (1) you're an ignorant fool (not true for you, knowing your other posts), or (2) a lying denier.
In science, a "trick" isn't anything nefarious or deceptive, it's a way of analyzing or combining disparate data. "Mike's trick" referred to combining modern, measured temps with tree ring data that were proxies for temps going back a millenium.
Most trees show wider rings & less dense wood with higher temps. However, SOME northern trees show narrower rings when we know measured temps are higher. So Mann et all threw these data out, a perfectly reasonable thing to do. They were "hiding the decline" in tree ring width. This is the "divergence problem," much discussed in the scientific literature.
In their paper, they didn't hide it, THEY CALLED ATTENTION TO IT. They asked other scientists to investigate it, & several hypotheses have subsequently been proposed.
So you're just wrong, wrong, WRONG.
Sorry, 2nd link above is dead. I can't seem to make it work right. It's from this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_con...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#15 Mar 1, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, 2nd link above is dead. I can't seem to make it work right. It's from this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_con...
Try this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Records_of_... (NOAA,_Jansen_et_al).png
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#16 Mar 1, 2013
Same problem occurred. How about this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPCC_2007_A... (b)_(c).png
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#17 Mar 1, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, 2nd link above is dead. I can't seem to make it work right. It's from this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_con...
So, if composite, link no go.

:-)
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#18 Mar 1, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>to another poster:
Well if that's how you feel, then there's no sense in continuing a discussion. Best of luck in your fantasy land.
It's not a question of how he feels but how you feel.

The reply to you was rational. You could not handle even one point from it.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#19 Mar 1, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>So, if composite, link no go.
:-)
Me thinks this should work

;-D

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#20 Mar 1, 2013
Well, it worked!

Here's more on tree carbon.

“Forests store about 45 percent of the carbon found on land. Widespread tree death can radically transform ecosystems, affecting biodiversity, posing fire risks, and even harming local economies. Rapid shifts in ecosystems, particularly through vegetation die-offs could be among the most striking impacts of increased drought and climate change around the globe.”- See more at: http://carnegiescience.edu/news/tree_dieoff_t...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alternative Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Let's have a balanced plan for producing the el... 2 hr Solarman 49
APS will move ahead with free solar 19 hr Solarman 1
NY's bad move on fracking 20 hr Solarman 1
National View: Rooftop solar panels facing the ... Thu Solarman 1
PSE, RES Americas to develop battery storage pr... Dec 17 Solarman 1
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) Dec 17 Brian_G 27,952
Frustrated by vandals, thieves WPEC seeks commu... (May '11) Dec 17 Annual Winter Sol... 13
More from around the web