I keep asking but nobody is able to find me any science with actually challenges the general consensus amongst climate scientists. I asked you once and i all i got back was tabloid nonsense containing previously debunked bullshit. I'm still waiting (and searching).



I agree, we do not have a perfect understanding of the earths systems. But you said it in a way to suggest that because its not perfect we need not act. The fact is we know enough to act. Indeed, its mainly just common sense not to fuck with the planets systems without knowing "fully & completely" what we are doing.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

Sure...



Climateaudit showed that he used a very small subset of available trees that gave him a hockey stick. If he used all of the trees, there is actually a decline in temperature.


He documents on his page the email correspondence of the organizations and people who refuse him data and code. Go there and read some of them for yourself.


Some of "the actual science" has issues and dishonesty and there are some in your camp that are looking at AGW as a means to cause a convergence of incomes and GDPs on a global scale.

Kramer

__________________
“We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. … The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.”

TheNation, June 7, 2007

You said that movie moved you and when I tried to point out it's scientific inaccuracies, you realized you were pinned in a corner and then deflected the discussion.

Kramer

__________________
“We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. … The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.”

TheNation, June 7, 2007

Here we see the religious aspect of this topic that I referred to earlier.

It's convenient for each of us to shrug off what the other says and believes with statements like:

"I asked you once and i all i got back was tabloid nonsense containing previously debunked bullshit. I'm still waiting"

I can say the same thing about anything you post.

Yes, the fact is, is that you believe we know enough to act.

I can accept that as a fact

And I don't necessarily entirely disagree with your belief that we may be having some negative effects of some kind.

My take on it is that, like in all areas concerning living things on earth, there are "controls" already set in place (by God or natures process of evolution, it doesn't matter, the controls are there). We're probably not aware of them because this planet is a pretty cool and very complex system.


What always happens when one organism becomes so common and overpopulated ?

Nature puts the breaks on.

Somehow.

I think it's very likely we're past the point of "no return" already. It's just a theory mind you, but nature always corrects these kinds of things on her own. Us "doing something" is unlikely to have any effect.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

You are still not getting it. I'm not posting opinion or religious gobbledygook when it comes to the stated conclusions of the peer reviewed science. I'm merely stating the facts as they are in the state of the science. There has been no legitimate challenge to that.

(this is not to say i don't also post opinion, but i know how to separate it from the facts).

I don't disagree with that in principle. So long as you understand that nature does not 'correct itself' in favor of humans or in favor of anything in particular.

Given that the science indicates we are the main (or only) driver of modern climate change, it behooves me to inquire why you would sit back and let nature correct what is still in our power to mitigate?

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

There were no fundamental scientific inaccuracies.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

Sure there has, you are just unwilling to accept it.

You will continue claiming that this is the scientific "consensus" no matter who shows you different.



Oh, I'm well aware of that. We're way "out of balance" here on Earth.

Should we start panicking and scuffling around trying to "save ourselves" when we haven't the foggiest idea what, when or how something "might happen" ?

First of all, the science does not indicate that at all. Some scientists say that some scientists don't say that.

Which scientists do you wish to worship ?

Second, I don't think there is anything that we can do that will have any effect at all.

Sure, we could all start living like the Amish people and stop driving cars and burning fossil fuel etc etc. It's silly to think that doing something like this would change anything about the Earths climate.

Though it would probably cause a big die off.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

The Wegman report was not peer reviwed and it was politically motivated solicited by biased politicians, and the main criticism seemed to be based on the type of people Mann hangs out with, apparently not enough statiticians. How ridiculous can you be?

All of this is moot anyway, Mann did another study in 2008 taking into account all criticisms and it still produced a hockey stick shape.

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia ? PNAS

and here is a lay explanation of the controversy for those interested in facts as opposed to spin.

Hockey stick was debunked

Not the case at all. You should really back up claims of scientific fraud with evidence. Regardless, the Russians who own the data recently came out and said that even if all the trees are used it makes no difference to the shape.

And its moot anyway because the same shape is revealed when you use multiple proxies, not relying on tree rings at all.

I have. The data is available to all. The reason it was initially withheld is because Briffa did not own the data, and when the code was released McCkintyre did nothing at all with it. Do you dispute these basic points?

Better yet, read this and you will see that mcintyre is hardly being honest:

McIntyre had the data all along : Deltoid

Show me where the actual science has issues with dishonesty?

I don't have a camp and i am not associated with any politicians. I'm merely interested in the truth. You seem to be mostly interested in the denialist movement that is entirely based in disinformation and PR campaigns to confuse the public.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

Nobody has showed me anything except denialist talking points. Im still waiting. Find me a list of peer reviewed science that poses a serious challenge to the general consensus... please. I would be delighted.




Here you go again. Completely understating what we know.

We do have a good grounding on what will happen. Remember, climate has changed before and we have an understanding of what a hotter earth means. There is certainly some uncertainty, but so far things have accelerated beyond the worst case scenarios.

Yes it does say that.
Your the religious person. I don't have the capacity to worship anything.

You are wrong. We could easily scale back our economic activity with careful planning. Will we do it? Doubtful. But it is certainly within the realm of the possible.

Not to do anything is just unacceptable.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

I never said it moved me so I have to ask....... WhAT ?

__________________
The bush administration and bank lobbyists proudly killing our economic system - 2003.

The one who denies, says the other is in denial.

You've seen them, you ran from them and refused to admit they even existed OR you claimed they were from the National Enquirer or some such nonsense.

You overstate, I understate.

Maybe so. Is there anything we can do about it ?

That is where religious belief enters the picture.

You say it does. Al Gore says it does too. Many scientists say no such thing. Some scientists do. There definitely is no "consensus."

Except your faith in the theory that our planet is on a warming trend caused only by mans activities on Earth.

You tell me; "You are wrong." based only on your own unbalanced perception(s) of this issue. You cannot possibly know that I am wrong.

What was I wrong about ? Was I wrong when I said;

"Though it would probably cause a big die off." - All Earth suddenly deciding to live like the Amish people.

I'm pretty sure I'm right about that one.

Was I wrong when I said;

"I don't think there is anything that we can do that will have any effect at all."

That is only my opinion and I MIGHT be wrong there.

Was I wrong when I said; "we could all start living like the Amish people and stop driving cars and burning fossil fuel etc etc. It's silly to think that doing something like this would change anything about the Earths climate."

Again, that is only my opinion and I MIGHT be wrong there too.


See, that is our main difference. You have an unbendable religious faith in your belief that man is the only cause of any possible climate changes we might see.

I do not.

You believe we are of much greater significance and have a much greater effect than I do. I believe we are a very small and insignificant factor to the overall function of this planets climate cycles and cyclic climate changes. If we're a factor at all.

Of course I might be wrong.

You however, could not be wrong. ... that is what you believe.



Consider this in a different way.

Yes, we are foolishly overdependant on oil for transport and energy. We could and should cut back on our use of this limited resource. This limited resource that seems to have played a large part in allowing humans to stretch way beyond the carrying capacity of this planet to support. So we have used a limited resource to support an unsustainable sized population. When it runs out, then what ??? How in Gods name will we ship around all these different fancy foods to all the citizens ? How will we grow and create them ? What the hell will 6 or 7 billion people eat ?

We should be working on alternative energy sources. Solar, wind, Oceanic currents etc.


The oil won't run forever and I think it would be incredibly dumb of us to continue our wasteful use of it until it completely runs dry. Then we can all stand around our gigantic, really cool and really "safe" SUVs and monster trucks and say; "Ummm now what ?"

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

The Wegman report was lead by the head of the NAS and the reason it was "solicited" by biased politicians was due to McIntyre's findings. Think about it, how ridiculous would somebody be to bring this up to a liberal politician in the hopes he would do something?

Right, Hockey Stick II.

Based on fact that Mann obstructed and used bogus statistics in the first one, I wouldn't be surprised if this one ends up having issues. Time will tell.



And for those of you who want to know what McIntyre went through and what Mann and others did to try and stop him, here is the "lay explanation" of his efforts.

- Bishop Hill blog - Caspar and the Jesuspaper

You people should read both and decide for yourselves what you think is true.

Here's one: Up until about 3 years ago, I was constantly told and shown that those ice core graphs of temp and CO2 were indisputable proof that CO2 drives temperature because the changes in CO2 caused the changes in temp. This was until it was revealed that the temp in those graphs changes hundreds of years before the CO2 changes.


McIntyre used all of the data (after he finally got it) and it shows a reduction in temperature instead of a rise.

I read this and it doesn't show that he was being dishonest. In fact, he STILL kept asking Briffa for the data and Briffa still kept stalling. If Briffa had sent the data to McIntyre, he could have said in response to a later request from McIntyre, "Hey, I already sent you the data, why are you asking me again?" But he didn't and he kept stalling. Odd behavior for somebody who supposedly sent him the data already, don't you think?


I already mentioned the ice core graphs. Another one is the fact that the past 500 million years of Co2 and temp show CO2 did not drive temperature in the vast majority of this time which shows that Co2 is a very weak GHG.

What's dishonest to me is the UN apparently having green schemes designed to deliberately lower our economy and standard of living until they converge with the rising standards of livings of low income countries and NOT telling us about them. And they also haven't told us that they are planning on using a large portion of our carbon taxes to pay for the infrastructure development in these countries in order to drive their economic growth and bring them into a modern lifestyle. And to do these things, they (some, not all) are over-exaggerating the predicted consequences of AGW in order to scare us into signing our entire future away.

It's almost as if AGW was contrived as the way to end world poverty and to punish us laissez faire capitalist Christian free-market conservatives who had the audacity to build this country into the greatest, wealthiest, most powerful country ever without the help of big government.

Kramer

__________________
“We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. … The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.”

TheNation, June 7, 2007

Yeah, you didn't say "moved" but it was something similar. I was too lazy too click back a few pages to get the exact words.

__________________
“We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. … The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.”

TheNation, June 7, 2007

The criticism centered on who Mann's friends were. Stupid.

Regardless, its not a peer reviewed study. You have avoided responding to the fact that the NAS affirms the validity of the work, why? you take a politically motivated witch hunt over the NAS?

False accusations. There were no serious issues with the first one. The conclusion is supported by multiple sources in both the original and the update. Its been a year since the update, and the evidence that rapid warming has taken place is pretty clear, regardless of any one persons obsession with the hockey stick.

As i already showed you, McIntyre had the data all along anyway. This suggest he was just playing childish games.

McIntyre had the data all along : Deltoid

Here is a FAQ for those who think the hockey stick is a "make or break" point of evidence for rapid warming in the 20th century.

RealClimate: Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

and here is some context for where it really fits into the evidence.

Not Alike Open Mind

alexlockwood.net Hockey Stick: the first climate change metaphor



CO2 (and other GHG's) can and do drive temperatures. The results from the ice cores were neither surprising nor mysterious to actual climate scientists, it was just supporting evidence of a pre-existing theory for how glacial and interglacial periods evolve. The graph shows a strong correlation, and is strong evidence of the GHG feedback mechanism in previous interglacial episodes.

In other words, what the graph means did not need to be revealed to you if you actually investigated the science right from the start (rather than relying on public relations firms to feed you misinformation). Its been there since the ice cores were analyzed.

There is no fraud here, just your desperate need to find one.

lol... that is simply false. He did not use all the data to get his result, he used another set of data from Yamal that he "found on the internet". This showed a different result than the result briffa got.

Enter the Russians who own all the data and they say that using the entire data set reveals a shape almost identical to the one Briffa got, i.e. a hockey stick.

More importantly, tree rings are but one proxy of many, and the aggregate of all the proxies shows a hockey stick. That is the point you seem to be consistently ignoring in favor of you obsession over what amounts to a matter of minutiae.

McIntyre had the data though. Besides, i'm not sure what your point is anyway. Squabbles between scientist over the ownership of data is normal and bears no reflection of fraud. i know you like to think this point to some massive conspiracy, but it does not. ultimately, the evidence for rapid warming does not rely on this anyway.

Man, you really do struggle with a basic understanding of the AGW theory. Nobody claims that CO2 is a major driver of all past climate changes. The relative strength of CO2 as a GHG is well understood and well documented by climate scientists and is all over the literature.

Again, no fraud here.. just your need to find one.
Wow, i guess you should do something about that - it does not bother me in the slightest. None of this is relevant to the science though. Sounds like you have a political beef and you want to use (abuse) climate science to make your point.

.. sorry, im not a conspiracy theorist.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

because what I actually said in effect removes any support for the absurd point you were trying to make in the first place.

__________________
The bush administration and bank lobbyists proudly killing our economic system - 2003.