Posted by Tina
Scientists have acknowledged a cooling trend with many believing that cooling has been occurring for 17-18 years. This (debated) period of cooling is referred to as a “hiatus,” “pause,” or “slowdown.”
Using the same methodology John Cook used to arrive at the “97% of scientists” consensus opinion, Paul C. Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels, Center for the Study of Science – Cato Institute, determined to answer the question, “Is it the ‘consensus of scientists’ that this ‘hiatus’ is real, or is it just a manifestation of the ‘skeptical’ global warming naysayers?”
Guess what? They found they could say with a straight face, that “100% of scientists” acknowledged “in some way” that a “hiatus, pause, or slowdown in global warming was occurring.”
It should be noted that these men of integrity also acknowledge the methodology used by Cook is “debatable.”
Check out the full article at WUWT.
Side note: President Obama just pledged $3 billion to fight global warming.
Reminds me of the times you linked to an article claiming that a study found only 36% of climate scientists believed in global warming, when in fact the study did not involve any climate scientists.
You never admitted the error.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2014/06/21/evidence-warming-records-manipulated/
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2013/09/29/global-warming-activism-historians-write/
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2013/08/18/ofa-targets-climate-denier-republicans-fails-miserably/
Oh, geez, Tina, would you not waste our time. WUWT is not a reputable source. You go find one … then we’ll talk.
And that reminds me of all the times you have insisted that the global warming fake science and deceitful practices used by the phonies you follow and favor are right.
It reminds me of all the times you, with your literature degree, have dismissed PHD scientists, as if you know better.
What a pill!
AND, you apparently completely miss the fantastic joke, the truth, in this article. It does not bother you in the least that the methodology used to get that 97% figure you tout so arrogantly is questionable at best and most likely deceitfully intended and used.
Those interested in more information might consider this Forbes article. An excerpt:
Be sure to visit ICCC – 7, the International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute which will lead you to the various presentations.
The twin stooges check in. Their fear is palpable.
On an unrelated side note, Obama earns an upside down Pinocchio from one of the head stooge’s go-to publications. No Gruber here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/18/obamas-flip-flop-on-using-executive-action-on-illegal-immigration/
The Heartland Institute is not a reliable source either.
I did not read the WUWT article so I do not know if they replicated Cook’s methodology accurately. I do not see the need to until you address your previous misrepresentations of science. You can start with the study I mentioned earlier or your recent link to Climate Depot which misrepresented the views of a scientist from the Pulkovo Observatory to claim he said that reduced solar activity would likely cause global cooling, when in fact he was saying the opposite–that the impact of solar cycles was negligible.
Until you address your own misrepresentations, your critiques of widely accepted science are meritless.
The only fear I have is that our world will not realize the severity of this problem until it is too late to fix. I fear that we will not listen to the well-founded concerns of NASA, NOAA, and the national scientific bodies of every industrialized country in the world simply because some oil-funded interests don’t want to change any of their behaviors.
Off topic.
Obama earns an “Upside-Down Pinocchio” on immigration from WP fact checker.
An Upside-Down Pinocchio:
“A statement that represents a clear but unacknowledged “flip-flop” from a previously-held position.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/18/obamas-flip-flop-on-using-executive-action-on-illegal-immigration/
Please disregard the previous post. It was sent by mistake.
There are two questions here. First, is there warming? Second, is it caused by man? There was evidence of warming prior to 18 years ago and it lead to a theory that CO2 was the cause. Since then the warming has abated. Some people like to say it is a pause but we will not know if it is a pause or a stop until such time that it starts again, if that even happens.
As I stated, the idea that this is all caused by CO2 is just a theory. Many scientists have attempted to explain how CO2 could possibly be the cause but to date there is no proof at all that CO2 plays a factor. In fact, the stop (or pause) in the warming tends to indicate CO2 is not involved because CO2 levels have continued to rise as the warming stopped. It IS possible that CO2 is involved but in a much more complicated way with a host of other factors.
We all know weather is very difficult to predict because of the complexity of systems that create weather. What meteorologists do today is predict based on weather that is occurring else ware. I can stand on a highway overpass and predict a blue car is going to pass under the overpass in 1 minute if I know that a blue car has passed under another overpass one mile down the road. That is, by no means, predicting when blue cars will pass a particular overpass. That is essentially what meteorologists are doing. They are predicting based on information available about weather patterns in areas that are upstream in the jet stream. Take away that information and the reliability of the predictions falls off sharply.
Climate is far more complicated of a system than weather. I believe that scientists are just fooling themselves if they think they can predict climate change and explain why it is happening. They might be able to do so in the future but to assume a theory is correct without proof is not science, it is self deception.
Current theories about CO2 have not been proven and climate has not followed the climate models created using these theories. I can state that drinking water is the root cause of cancer because all people that have had cancer drank water. I believe the current CO2 theories are a more sophisticated than my example theory about cancer but without proof a theory is just speculation and may be as far off as the water cancer relationship theory.
Chris mentioned that he is concerned that if we wait that we might wait until it is too late. This is a very dangerous perspective. People influence the masses and get them to follow their agendas by playing to their fears using such statements. Actions to regulate CO2 may have a crippling effect on our economy and push many more people into poverty. How do we justify this when there is no proof. Worse yet, there have been some scientists that have come up with some very scary ideas for reversing any warming. One such idea is to launch reflective particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight, thus reducing sunlight that reaches earth thereby reducing the warming effect of sunlight. Can you imagine the disaster this would cause if there was no true warming?
Let’s not outlaw drinking water because there is a possibility it might cause cancer and to do nothing could lead to disaster. Let’s act on facts, not fears.
“The only fear I have is that ….”
But isn’t it so cute, how they get all hung up on temperature fluctuations … like that’s what we’re talking about?
Tina, when we have, via our inordinate CO2 production, acidified the ocean to the point it becomes unable to support sea life of the edible variety … we’ll be the next to go. And good riddance … such a stupid species.
Libby, you might like to watch this video, http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/acidification/aboutthefilm.asp
Here’s another: CRCP_Educational_OA_Presentation_201104-Finalv2PM.pdf
More Common Sense, the tone of your comment is sober and sensible, but I think you have the particulars all wrong.
“There was evidence of warming prior to 18 years ago and it lead to a theory that CO2 was the cause. Since then the warming has abated.”
This is not entirely true. Yes, the temperature of the past 17 years has been relatively flat. But it has been flat at record highs. Fifteen of the past sixteen years have been among the hottest years on record.
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2013/aug/25/steve-goreham/global-warming-skeptic-says-global-surface-tempera/
More here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
“As I stated, the idea that this is all caused by CO2 is just a theory. Many scientists have attempted to explain how CO2 could possibly be the cause but to date there is no proof at all that CO2 plays a factor.”
“Proof” is a very high standard when applied to science; almost no theory satisfies it. By the same logic, not only has evolution not been proven–neither has gravity. And yet both gravity and evolution are viewed by most working scientists as assumptions fundamental to our current understanding of science.
So while there may be no proof that CO2 is causing global warming, there is plenty of evidence. The nature of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and the effect that greenhouse gases have on the environment, have been well documented:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
“Misrepresentations of science”…”not a reputable source”…you two are such arrogant jerks!
Its a da*n shame that progressive opportunistic money grubbers have lied about and used this issue for their own political and self-serving purposes because they have given real scientist a big fat black eye and confused and frightened the public.
Talk about disreputable! The party you two favor and support has been taken over by radicals that have scare mongered and manipulated in order to effect tax law and create power over the people in terms of their energy and fuel costs, the vehicles they drive…even the types of light bulbs they are “allowed” to buy. In cahoots with the UN the ultimate goal is one world government under their elitist leadership, global warming (climate change) is just a vehicle.
You two don’t have a leg to stand on.
As to the oceans if this is a real problem, instead of another trumped up problem, get the hell out of the way and let the scientist and the innovators work on solutions that work.
If its just another IPCC hoax, and there are indications that it is, then fuggetaboudit!
The celebrated and award winning WUWT from 2009 quotes from the “discredited” BBC debunked:
More about the scam that’s been pushed for some time now by hysterical glowarming radicals. Also from 2009:
Beware those who immediately discredit credentialed and award winning alternative perspective scientists, as well as those who listen to them and believe that politics and consensus agreement is the basis on which science stands.
More Common Sense thank you!
Tina: “Its a da*n shame that progressive opportunistic money grubbers have lied about and used this issue for their own political and self-serving purposes because they have given real scientist a big fat black eye and confused and frightened the public.”
Until you address your very real and very obvious misrepresentations of science that I have already explained to you, this statement is completely meaningless.
If you are going to accuse NASA, the NOAA, the IPCC, and the national scientific bodies of every single industrialized country in the world of lying, you cannot support that extraordinary claim with lies of your own and expect to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.
But then, you’re not very interested in convincing anyone who doesn’t agree with you–you seem to be fully on board with the Republican party’s current strategy of throwing out red meat to the base while ignoring any chance of staying a viable party…
Tina, you’re still quoting Watts, and he is not a credible source. I mean, seriously, all you have to do is Wiki Ordovician, and read a few paragraphs to realize that the man is full of it. He’s all apples and oranges.
Humanity did not arise until those CO2 laden oceans receded and the planet cooled. If our current oceans become CO2 laden again (and who would do a thing like that?), humanity will recede.
Why do you waste our time?
Chris: “…this statement is completely meaningless.”
It isn’t original thought. Tell it to the very qualified scientists of all disciplines, that have expressed exactly the same thing.
Blah blah blah…threaten and harrumph…you cannot support that extraordinary claim with lies of your own and expect to convince anyone…blah blah”
A. I have told you not to “believe” anything I say.
B. I have no delusions of convincing others.
C. I do hope to inspire curiosity that brings others to investigate and realize for themselves what the truths, and there are many, are.
“you seem to be fully on board with the Republican party’s current strategy…blah blah blah.
Blow it out your various orifices and quit pretending you are not “on board” with a political strategy. The green movement is the number one progressive political vehicle and the world is full of progressives.
“throwing out red meat”
HA! The issue IS red meat for the left every single minute of the day.
You are under the illusion that the Democrat Party is strong, superior, and in tact. Please don’t believe me.
Libby: “you’re still quoting Watts, and he is not a credible source
The progressive stand by argument. Get bent.
“humanity will recede”
Wasn’t it you shaking that finger at Jack for trying to frighten people…phony!
“Why do you waste our time?”
Why do you try to position as my superior? If your time is wasted the simple solution is, either don’t read my comments or get your own blog.
PS to Libby…time, someone once said, is simply an invention to explain change. In reality we are doing a lot of guessing, smart guessing for sure, but still, in the much greater picture, we don’t have a clue how we got here or much about the “big wow” of how it all happened. Your lecturing is as tedious as Chris’s.
Tina: “Tell it to the very qualified scientists of all disciplines, that have expressed exactly the same thing.”
The problem, Tina, is that some of the scientists you claim agree with you actually don’t. The first link from the Climate Depot article you cited earlier this week misquoted a scientist to falsely claim that he believed in global cooling, when he did not. Previously you have also posted distortions of a study, claiming it said that only 36% of scientists believe in AGW, when the study polled no climate scientists. You have never conceded either error.
So your knowledge of which scientists agree with you isn’t even correct.
Chris first of all scientist don’t “believe in” their theories. Second, big whoop, one believing scientist was misquoted in error and I repeated it. If this constitutes proof of superior position then the “believing” scientists have stacked up a lot of proof! They’ve been purposely deceiving the public for personal gain and influence for decades.
Third, it is your ignorant opinion that the scientist polled did not qualify as “climate scientists.” Climate science is a newly created branch created for the cause. It draws from every legitimate branch of science. There is no error on my part.
Tina: “Second, big whoop, one believing scientist was misquoted in error and I repeated it. If this constitutes proof of superior position then the “believing” scientists have stacked up a lot of proof!”
The problem is that you didn’t even notice the error, and when it was explained to you multiple times, you refused to acknowledge it. This shows that 1) you’re not very good at reading critically, and 2) you’re not willing to admit when you are proven wrong about something. Neither of these traits gives your opinions on climate change much weight.
“Third, it is your ignorant opinion that the scientist polled did not qualify as “climate scientists.”
Ahahahaha no. It is a fact. The people polled in the study were geoscientists and engineers in Northern Alberta. Your James Taylor article claimed it was a representative study of climate scientists. Even the study’s own authors took Taylor to task for misrepresenting their work.
See what I mean? You lack basic factual information, and then when this is pointed out to you, you mistake it for mere differences of opinion.
Chris, why haven’t you or Libby commented about my article on ocean pollution? Give Tina a break, lets talk ocean acidity.
I did, though only to thank you for posting it. It’s exactly the kind of rational, fact-based article I’d like to see more of at Post Scripts.
Chris so much of what you claim is factual is not factual at all it is merely opinion, opinion that is widely believed and supported politically due to a lot of money and media support.
You claim you have shown me I am wrong but you rely on opinion just as I do. The difference between you and me is that you insist that you are right. I am confident in my opinion but I don’t pretend to be right. An arrogant attitude doesn’t win the argument.
You deny the egregious trickery that’s been used to fool the public.
You refuse to acknowledge there is legitimate scientific disagreement, in fact, you insult credentialed, respected, sometimes award winning, scientists who disagree with your belief.
You buy into the “climate denier” cause to discredit and demean, which definitely falls outside of the tradition of scientific inquiry.
You refuse to acknowledge there is scientific evidence that the warming cycle has been absent for what some scientists say is up to 18- 20 years.
You refuse to take seriously the opinion that the sun or volcanic activity is a primary force in climate change preferring the notion that humans have more influence. I find that amazing given the power of the sun and the obvious design and natural balance in the universe.
I could easily continue with this list but its quite long enough. I will not make accusations that you are dishonest (with the insinuation that no one should listen to you) and I am disappointed that you do. Both Jack and I have given you full voice to express your opinion at Post Scripts, I would think that would be sufficient.
There isn’t a single reason for me to bend to your bullying demand nor is there reason to show you the slightest bit of respect or answer to your petty niggling charges. We disagree, You have decided you are right and your sources are authentic and mine are not. That’s nothing but arrogance. All of this makes you look the complete adolescent fool; you fit right in with those who perpetrated consensus and the denier slur.
This entire “you’re a liar” exercise is incredibly stupid. I doubt you’d even give me that.
I have no idea if this article has been posted before. I don’t live to be the hall monitor. I do find it compelling.
CNS News:
Easterbrook “is professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University and author of 150 scientific journal articles and 10 books. He was an official reviewer of the IPCC reports”
Apparently the warming community believed he was qualified to express an opinion.
Roy Spencer, PhD, is a climatologst, author, and former NASSA scientist. His reasonable responses to climate change questions are worth reading, especially for the nontechnical person. Q& A number 12 is useful to this rebuttal:
So are #s 16, 17, and 18:
Matt Riddley, writing in the http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855“>Wall Street Journal:
As reported earlier no one showed up in New York in September for the climate summit.
Sometimes when they claim it’s “real” science it’s the same as when they say it’s “real” cheese.
Tina: “you insult credentialed, respected, sometimes award winning, scientists who disagree with your belief.”
Obviously, so do you; you constantly accuse scientists who argue that climate change is happening of lying, fraud, and of being in it for the money or a political agenda.
The differences are 1) You are insulting the vast majority of climate scientists, while I’m insulting a fringe minority, 2) I have actual evidence that the deniers are the paid hucksters, and you have no corresponding evidence of the massive, global conspiracy you assert exists among the majority of climate scientists and the heads of every single national scientific body in the world, and 3) I know how to read a scientific paper and check for flaws and you do not.
The other helpful difference is that I know the difference between fact and opinion, and you constantly try to blur that difference because it’s politically useful to you.
Don Easterbrook is paid by the Heartland Institute to lie on behalf of oil companies, the same way this Institute paid shifty scientists to lie about tobacco on behalf of tobacco companies in the 90s.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=23
Yes, I believe a think tank which puts the profits of corporations over public health is disreputable and discredited. Most people would think so. Disagree all you want; your disagreement is not rational.
Chris: “…so do you; you constantly accuse scientists who argue that climate change is happening of lyin”
Many of them have been shown to be liars, tricksters, and manipulators. I have no problem with scientists that do research and report their results. I have a problem with scientists who politicized the issue, manipulated the data, push an agenda from a biased position, and set out to destroy industries and impose draconian taxes and energy costs on the public for an unproven theory by exclaiming it’s a crisis, creating propaganda cartoons, and brain washing students.
The difference…: 1. See above paragraph, 2. Your biased conditioned opinion, 3. You are arrogant and full of $#%*, as Pie once demonstrated.
“Don Easterbrook is paid by the Heartland Institute to lie on behalf of oil companies”
Canned progressive response. Lefties green Zealots are paid (PROFIT) by foundations to push the green agenda. Ex VP Gore has made millions in profits for being a huckster on behalf of trickster scientists and the green organizational agenda.
“disreputable and discredited”
I’m sorry Chris, but for you to assume the superior ethical position because you think the HI is “disreputable and discredited” can’t be taken too seriously because you willingly buy and promote the BS “settled science” hawked by global warming zealots and hacks and because you demean qualified scientists, who take the scientific method seriously.
And here’s a little clue about that canned response, “profits over public health”:
If it were not for profits, you and the rest of us would still be shoveling horse dung from our dirt streets, using out-houses, hauling water from streams and wells, washing our clothes in the creek,and living in drafty hovels. Public health in America is superior because of freedom and the profits of those who used that freedom to be innovative and productive. OIL played a HUGE part in that you ungrateful little punk.
Human beings, meantime, are responsible for their own smoking habits and were sufficiently warned since the link between smoking and dangers to health were first announced! Tobacco companies became a deep pockets source for unscrupulous lawyers. Smokers too were exploited by legal hacks that convinced them that they were not responsible. Lawyers made millions for themselves and the smokers were still victims of their own stupid choices. Tobacco companies required and were entitled to a defense in the courts.
Your belief system is not rational or responsible. Grow up!
Tina: “Many of them have been shown to be liars, tricksters, and manipulators.”
No. They have been accused of being liars, tricksters, and manipulators…by liars, tricksters, and manipulators.
You have no objective criteria to evaluate which group is lying to you, because you simply accept what you want to hear.