Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

[Hand of God]

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

From your link " This new 2009 255-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus”"

Ok now for some truth:

400 Prominent Scientists Dispute Global Warming - Bunk

Climate change denial lives - though not nearly to the extent that Swiftboater Marc Morano would have you believe in his latest overstatement about "prominent scientists" who dispute man-made global warming.

Morano's list of "over 400" alleged climate quibblers includes the usual deniers for hire Fred Singer, Tim Ball, Christoper Monckton, PR people who have no credibility on issues scientific and who each have a handsome record of saying things widely and demonstrably at variance with the truth.

There is also a group of second-order "scientists," who are not scientists at all.

There's "Dr. Richard Courtney, a British coal journal editor whose PhD is rumoured to have issued from a Crackerjack box. There's Stephen McIntyre, the one-time mining promoter and amateur statistician who has earned unending fame by constantly attacking the same, remarkably resilient climate reconstruction.

There's the climate quibbler's latest star, "Dr. John Mclean," apparently another amateur who has neither a PhD nor any specific training in climate science. One might also legitimately question whether a panel of TV weather forecasters actually qualify as "prominent scientists."

Finally, Morano includes a group of legitimate scientists who are not deniers at all, but who are often quoted out of context.

For example, Morano quotes Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen, Director of the Danish National Space Centre offering this banal statement of the obvious:

The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will therefore affect climate."

Morano, however, neglects to mention that Dr. Friis-Christensen says, quite clearly, that change is solar radiation CANNOT be demonstrated to have caused the climate change of recent years.

In fact, he says:

There is no reason to neglect a contribution from man made greenhouse gases."

Giving credit where it's due, Morano is a tireless and creative writer of fiction.

Given the quality and credibility of Morano's previous work, it seems fair to assume that this, too, is an ideologically driven document with no merit whatsoever, either as a piece of research of, even more laughably, a reliable comment on science.

[JRS]

Hand of God wrote:

<quoted text>
LMAO,“Deniers hate facts!”
Many economic models have attempted to capture the costs of
climate change for t......o solving one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century.

"“Deniers hate facts!”"
----------

Let's review the behavior of "deniers" “Deniers hate facts!”

Deniers head for the basement when the tornado warning sounds.

"deniers" head inland when the hurricane warnings sound.

"deniers" head for higher ground when the floods come.

"deniers" bundle up the children and watch them carefully in the bitter cold of winter.

"deniers" laugh at the idiot AGW crisis peddlers very active doom prone imaginations.

MIT’s Richard Lindzen called fears of manmade global warming ‘silly"

Lindzen mocked fears of global warming by comparing them to children’s imaginations. "I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves," Lindzen said.

Lindzen, a past UN IPCC contributor, also explained how only a dozen scientists were involved in writing the 2001(Third Assessment Report) IPCC media hyped Summary For Policymakers that purported to speak for thousands of scientists.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

[Pachelbel]

Tinker with climate at "YOUR (?)" own risk. More likely at the risk of the innocent.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/A...

Heavy snow storms in northern China kill 40

(AP)– 11 hours ago

"BEIJING — Unusually early snow storms in north-central China have claimed 40 lives, caused thousands of buildings to collapse and destroyed almost 500,000 acres (200,000 hectares) of winter crops, the Civil Affairs Ministry said Friday."

...

"Chinese state media say some of the snow was induced through cloud seeding, "

[Pachelbel]

Hand of God wrote:

<quoted text>

The message seemed clear.
natural variations in the long term warming might be misinterpreted,
by the media. out of ignorance, or malice.
Climate deniers were quick to take Latif's remarks, and begin
doing exactly that.

Your first link is itself a crock. I watched it once. No need to do so every time you post it.

As to Latif's remarks, I watched the video. Straightforward enough. He wasn't conceding the AGW position, but honestly recognized the difficulties raised by certain factual developments.

Concern expressed in your cited text had to do with "natural variations in the long term warming might be misinterpreted, by the media."

The next statement seems to conflate ALL climate "deniers" with the media. Surely, not all who are labeled as deniers are media.

It is sufficient to note that Latif recognized that certain "inconvenient facts" existed. That alone is a remarkable departure from the standard warmist alarmist line which you yourself obsessively spout.

[Pachelbel]

Hand of God wrote:

<quoted text>
So you agree that carbon fuels are causing Global warming. I'm glad you finally admitted it, lol.

Don't wet yourself. My comment implies an allowance for the stated warmist alarmist position as a starting point, nothing more.

[Pachelbel]

Mr Charlie wrote:

One of the most annoying clueless posters on topixs goes under the initials HOG. Which in retrospect is very ironic because it hogs up a lot of space by posting a bunch of pig slop that that stinks of true blame humanism for everything. It can't see the truth that what it posts is pure pig crap and a majority of the people laugh in it's general direction.

I think I can see his strategy. By posting the slop, he hopes no one will notice the really pointed questions asked of him, those that he can't cover over with more slop.

[Pachelbel]

Hand of God wrote:

<quoted text>
LMAO, your clown and you discredit your self every time you post, LMAO.
Now for the truth, lol
Statisticians Confirm: No Global Cooling Despite Skeptic Spin
In a massive blow to the climate skeptic movement, the Associated Press has conducted a blind test of statisticians that unequivocally confirms that no global cooling trend exists.
Despite the best efforts of a small handful of climate skeptics, who argue that the globe has cooled rather than warmed since the record hot year of 1998, no such cooling trend has taken place.
The Associated Press conducted the blind test by sending global temperature data from NOAA and NASA to four independent statisticians who were not told what the data represented, but simply asked to perform a common statistical analysis to look for trends in the data.
The statisticians “found no true temperature declines over time,” and in fact identified “a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers,” the AP reports.
Several statisticians quoted in the AP piece slam the climate skeptics who “cherry-pick” data in a “particularly suspect” attempt to denounce global warming. Efforts to portray a global cooling trend since the record hot year of 1998 are “not scientifically legitimate,” and are the result of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," according to David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor who analyzed the data for AP.
"To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous," said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.
“Ridiculous” indeed, but that has not stopped the handful of loud-mouthed climate skeptics from spreading this false claim. Their efforts have proven successful at confusing the public, thanks in large part to the Drudge Report, FOX News and lazy journalists who fail to fact-check the skeptic arguments, providing oxygen to their baseless claims.
The Associated Press conducted a simple exercise that any self-respecting news outlet concerned with the facts rather than the confusionist spin could duplicate easily. Don’t expect this news to silence the skeptics, but if you are a journalist, please let the skeptics talk amongst themselves, rather than polluting the public discourse any further. And if you are a concerned news consumer, please do hold accountable any news outlet that continues to ignore this starkly obvious fact: there is no global cooling. There definitely is global warming.
It really is that simple. Now can we talk about the critically important matter of how to address climate change

Now I warned you that if you keep on "LMAO" (LYAO) people wouldn't take you seriously. Prophecy fulfilled. No magic to that, it only logical. Look up "logic". I'm sure it will be a new concept.

[Eighthman]

RayOne wrote:

<quoted text>Being leader of the free world can cause sleep loss.
At least Big Al knows how to make a buck.

Father Al Gore certainly is a bigtime capitalist. Yet outwardly he condemns capitalism. I guess he lied as a child. They say you never change. If you lie as a child you will be a liar when you grow up. I'm afraid Father Al falls into that category.

[observer]

Hand of God wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting link, LMAO, if your ignorant. Lets examine the list shall we.
A New List of Climate Quibblers: Paid Deniers, Dead Guys and Ill-informed Fellow Travellers
The latest list of "650 International Scientists (who) Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming" seems to be more of the same: dead guys (Fred Seitz, Marcel Leroux, Reid Bryson ...), paid deniers (Fred Singer, Tim Ball, Sallie Baliunas ...), and a much larger group of weather forecasters and "experts" from unrelated fields, many of whom (eg., Edward Wegman) don't even disagree with the scientific consensus that human activity is causing climate change.
The apparent author of this list, Swiftboater Marc Morano, even included the names of Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, an historian and an anthropologist who have made themselves famous by advocating for renewed and more vigorous policy action against the threat of climate change.
It's possible that some of the people included in this list sincerely doubt that human activity is promoting potentially catastrophic climate change. For example, the 79-year-old Nobel laureate (Physics, 1973) Ivar Giaever may, legitimately, have fallen behind in his reading. For that matter, it's possible, perhaps evening likely, that Giaever has never taken any direct interest in atmospheric science.
Still, Morano deserves some credit for guile in the way he presented this list: The short sheet he passed out at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Poland last month didn't include a single name that was recognizable as being among the "usual suspects" - the deniers for hire with whom Morano and his ex-boss, the Republican Senator for Oil and Gas James Inhofe, generally spend their time.
But if you look past the first dozen or so anonymous quibblers, you soon get to experts like James Peden, a web designer who still advertises himself as an "atmospheric physicist" regardless that he has long since abandoned the field. Peden can no more call himself a scientist than I can claim to be a big city newspaper reporter or, for that matter, an expert practitioner of high-pressure water blasting
The question we keep asking is this: if Morano and company truly believe that they have science on their side, why continue to consort with people like Fred Singer, who has taken money in his colorful career to deny everything from the health effects of smoking (Philip Morris) to the truth of global warming (Exxon Mobil)?
One answer is that Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project is listed as principal sponsor of this most recent disinformation flyer.
There is an old adage that if you tell a lie often enough, people will start to regard it as the truth. But an old lie is still a lie. And people who are careless (or crafty) enough to hang around with old liars deserve to have their own credibility judged accordingly.

Where did you cut n paste this from. If I did not know better I could see this as an original thought.

[Pachelbel]

Hand of God wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting link, LMAO, if your ignorant. Lets examine the list shall we.
A New List of Climate Quibblers: Paid Deniers, Dead Guys and Ill-informed Fellow Travellers
The latest list of "650 International Scientists (who) Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming" seems to be more of the same: dead guys (Fred Seitz, Marcel Leroux, Reid Bryson ...),

You're sinking very low he. If we take you seriously, we will have to expunge considerable portions of science texts world wide.

We'd have to discredit ALL the "dead guys". I assume you didn't intend to exclude the women scientists from the list. So let's get started, Aristotle, Da Vinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Sagan, etc, etc, etc. would all have to be discounted. Why? Because they're "dead guys".

The only real disadvantage to them is they are no longer able to defend their own work. I guess that leaves wags like you free to make absurd comments about the "dead guys'" work without fear of retribution..... Maybe.

[Brian_G]

So far no warmist has engaged my evolution argument, if climate mitigation was possible then some plant or animal would evolve the ability to control climate. That hasn't happened, neither has nature evolved flying pigs. Climate mitigation is impossible, we evolve to adapt to climate, not change it.

[Pachelbel]

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/4091...

APS rejects plea to alter stance on climate change

Nov 11, 2009

The APS turned down the request on the recommendations of a six-person committee chaired by atomic physicist Daniel Kleppner from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

...

Although the APS council turned down the request, it has, however, agreed to one proposal from Kleppner's committee: that the society's Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) should "examine the statement for improvements in clarity and tone".

...

Kleppner also points out that the call for change came from a small minority of the APS's 47,000 members. "This is certainly not a majority opinion," he says. "Most other physicists have come to a different conclusion looking at the same evidence."

[Kleppner does not mention that the drafting and passage of the current position was originally adopted by the APS council, which is "certainly not a majority" of the membership.

One would hope that the proceedings of the Panel on Public Affairs would give due consideration to the opinions of the member scientists. Even then a majority opinion (consensus?) either way does not establish good science. Only evidence does.]

[Jeffery Wright]

If Greenland was warm enough 1,000 years ago (when there were no SUVs or power plants) to be colonized by the Vikings and sustain vineyards, then the current state of the climate (when most of Greenland is covered by ice) cannot rationally be blamed on human activity.

[JRS]

Jeffery Wright wrote:

If Greenland was warm enough 1,000 years ago (when there were no SUVs or power plants) to be colonized by the Vikings and sustain vineyards, then the current state of the climate (when most of Greenland is covered by ice) cannot rationally be blamed on human activity.

Reid Bryson says global warming is “a bunch of hooey.” Is he a radical Right-winger? Is he a pro-business drone?

No, he’s known as the father of scientific climatology.

There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the “Little Ice Age,” he said in an interview this week.

“However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We’ve been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It’s been warming up for a long time,” Bryson said.

The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.

So, if global warming isn’t such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it?

“Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?” Bryson shot back.

“There is a lot of money to be made in this,” he added.“If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants.

You can’t get grants unless you say,‘Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.’”

(enforced political correctness via control of money)

I’ve said before that global warming has become a religion to many (it requires faith just like a religion, and it’s disciples display a religious-like ardor), and apparently I’m not alone in that analysis:

“There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It’s almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts.”

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2007/06/father-of-...

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Pachelbel wrote:

<quoted text>
You need to sort out the "invited" reviewers/editors who were asked to provide input. Do you have a source which tells you who is who?

No. Since the IPCC had NO 'invited reviewers'. The process was that ANYONE could ask for and review the pre-press document to add comments which would then be evaluated and considered for revision by the IPCC scientists.

This was a 'public review', not asking for 'real scientists' to review the work of the IPCC, which was CHOCK FULL of the TOP level scientists from hundreds of countries. Sort of a 'did we miss anything?' check.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Jeffery Wright wrote:

If Greenland was warm enough 1,000 years ago (when there were no SUVs or power plants) to be colonized by the Vikings and sustain vineyards, then the current state of the climate (when most of Greenland is covered by ice) cannot rationally be blamed on human activity.

Total crapola. Their is NO evidence that Greenland was any warmer during the viking expeditions. In fact, history documents that they lost the SAME percentage of ships to pack ice in the founding voyage as in the last supply voyagses.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/gr...
Is a fairly accurate report except for the implication of a long term cooling ( even scientists can get sucked into mythology ).

Fact is that multproxy reconstructions show that there were some(2?) short ( < 10 year) periods of unusually cool winters that may have played a role in the end, but generally it was the lack of iron for ships to gather meat and fish that forced too much reliance on the limited grassland, which was too much dominated by the church ( two thirds ) thus forcing overgrazing by the average citizen.

Stepping back, it was a colony heavily dependent on support from 'back home' that failed when they couldn't adapt to local resources and the supply link was cut by the plagues.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
Reid Bryson .., he’s known as the father of scientific climatology.

Meaning that he was an expert back when they didn't know dick.

The real research is being done by thousands of PhDs with much newer and more detailed understandings that have pushed the boundaries of knowledge WAY past his initial fumblings.

Now, he is a retired has-been with delusions of grandeur.

Nuff said.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Pachelbel wrote:

Kleppner also points out that the call for change came from a small minority of the APS's 47,000 members.

And almost NONE of the actual climatologists. Unfortunately, there will always be a few scientists of some type or another willing to put ties to the fossil fuel industry above their independence or ethics.

No suprise that the APS voted down this 'minority report' drivel.

[Pachelbel]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
No. Since the IPCC had NO 'invited reviewers'. The process was that ANYONE could ask for and review the pre-press document to add comments which would then be evaluated and considered for revision by the IPCC scientists.
This was a 'public review', not asking for 'real scientists' to review the work of the IPCC, which was CHOCK FULL of the TOP level scientists from hundreds of countries. Sort of a 'did we miss anything?' check.

Please reconcile your comment to this statement from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

The first round of review is conducted by a large number of expert reviewers—more than 2,500 for the entire AR4—who include scientists, industry representatives, and NGO experts with a wide range of perspectives. Lead authors are required to consider all comments and incorporate those with scientific merit—a process overseen by review editors (two per chapter) who have expertise in the specific topic covered by a given chapter. All review comments are archived together with the authors’ responses and/or resulting actions, and are available upon request.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_...

Use whatever verb you wish. These reviewers were an integral part of the process and were included in the number said to be a "consensus". If they were counted, it matters not how they became accepted as part of that number by the IPCC.

[Pachelbel]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Total crapola. Their is NO evidence that Greenland was any warmer during the viking expeditions. In fact, history documents that they lost the SAME percentage of ships to pack ice in the founding voyage as in the last supply voyagses.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/gr...
Is a fairly accurate report except for the implication of a long term cooling ( even scientists can get sucked into mythology ).
Fact is that multproxy reconstructions show that there were some(2?) short ( < 10 year) periods of unusually cool winters that may have played a role in the end, but generally it was the lack of iron for ships to gather meat and fish that forced too much reliance on the limited grassland, which was too much dominated by the church ( two thirds ) thus forcing overgrazing by the average citizen.
Stepping back, it was a colony heavily dependent on support from 'back home' that failed when they couldn't adapt to local resources and the supply link was cut by the plagues.

From you own source:

Greenland's climate began to change as well; the summers grew shorter and progressively cooler, limiting the time cattle could be kept outdoors and increasing the need for winter fodder. During the worst years, when rains would have been heaviest, the hay crop would barely have been adequate to see the penned animals through the coldest days. Over the decades the drop in temperature seems to have had an effect on the design of the Greenlanders' houses. Originally conceived as single-roomed structures, like the great hall at Brattahlid, they were divided into smaller spaces for warmth, and then into warrens of interconnected chambers, with the cows kept close by so the owners might benefit from the animals' body heat.

Sounds like deteriorating climatic conditions of the type you say didn't happen.