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

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
40,141 - 40,160 of 46,227 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42716
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

There's no experimental evidence man can change the composition of the atmosphere; it's too big. The sky is the biggest thing on Earth.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42717
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
There's no experimental evidence man can change the composition of the atmosphere; it's too big. The sky is the biggest thing on Earth.
There's all kinds of evidence that Man IS changing the composition of the atmosphere.

You are the biggest fool on Earth.

Since: Jul 13

Neptune, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42718
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mothra wrote:
>>But what did the NAS report and the authors actually say about the Mann hockey stick? In fact, the NAS report validated all of the significant criticisms of McIntyre & McKitrick (M&M):
1. The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).
2. In subtle wording, the NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.
3. M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or “strip-bark” records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th century warmth is not robust—in other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).
4. The NAS said " Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.
5. The NAS said Mann downplayed the "uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al.(1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’
Mann never mentions that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’– and panel member Peter Bloomfield who Mann says above came to the opposite conclusions as Prof Hand, were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.
WALLACE:‘the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’(Am Stat Assoc.)
Thus, despite Mann's incredible spin, Dr. Bloomfield did not "come to the opposite conclusion as Dr. Hand", nor those of Dr. Wegman, Steve McIntyre, and Dr. McKitrick.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/the...
A blogspot is not scientific evidence of anything. Try quoting a scientific, peer reviewed paper to support your comments.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42719
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

bligh wrote:
<quoted text>
A blogspot is not scientific evidence of anything. Try quoting a scientific, peer reviewed paper to support your comments.
A waste of time with mothballs & co, they are all shooting blanks now and they know it. Before this denier science (using term loosely) came along Climate science was all about the warning for the future. Now they have had time to discredit EVERY one of these BS arguments by fossil fuel funded organisations on top of conducting new research. These sites and fake climate organisations were designed with one purpose in mind. Delay or disrupt any measures that might come about to address CO2 emissions. The game is up, they have nothing only hearsay and opinions. It's like trying to hang on to the horse & cart after the invention of the automobile. Clean energy is our future , dirty is our past. It's just a pity that politics like those of the self destructing Republicans keep trying to flog the past as their future..
No way Jose

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42720
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Global climate change is real, dude.

Seems like every year now, there are record cold temperatures, record rainfall, record drought and record heat waves. It never STOPS!

Be green. Lower your city's density. More trees, less concrete, less glass, less steel.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42722
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Another fantasyland denier, by the way who funds mothballs key hero's M&M one was a fossil fuel industry man & they give lectures under some bull$hit climate research organisation funded by Exxon Mobil. So go figure YOU would be paying for that as well, do you think Exxon do it as being a GOOD corporate citizen, no they are doing it to screw both your world and mine for GREED.
So feeding the ignorant with BS about the hockey stick graph gone wrong which has since been proven that is was correct. The wonder boys M&M who found errors in the dataset to try and pull the graph apart made errors themselves. So the hockey stick graph still stands.
What you idiots don't get that all your wild theories to try and explain the warming to some other source other than man have ALL been discounted. Now it's you that have turned denying into a religion because you have to believe in some myth other than fact.
There He Goes Again: Mann Claims His Hockey Stick was Given "Clean Bill of Health"

Mann has been repeating this arrogant duplicitous spin continuously since Climategate and refuses to acknowledge any problems whatsoever with his infamous doomsday hockey stick graph. Mann always refers to the subtly worded US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report as his ally because he knows McIntyre & McKitrick, the Wegman Report, Hans von Storch, et al, and now the Head of the Royal Statistical Society have minced no words debunking his hockey stick. But what did the NAS report and the authors actually say about the Mann hockey stick? In fact, the NAS report validated all of the significant criticisms of McIntyre & McKitrick (M&M)

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/the...

Funding argument again?

Lame.

"evil" oil company?

Lamer.

Al Gore is global warming hypocrite.

An inconvenient truth.

LOL
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42723
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a dummies guide for the Bristlecone Pine controversy;
Perhaps it will help if you take the time to read it.
http://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/Dummies%20guide%...
I'm aware of the "controversy", but more interested in the admission of error on the part of the warmists.

It's such a rare occurrence in their "science". Why do you suppose that's true? That warmists never hold themselves accountable?... and only toss those under the bus who dissent from the "consensus"?

Yeah... there's some real "science" for ya.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42724
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

bligh wrote:
<quoted text>
A blogspot is not scientific evidence of anything. Try quoting a scientific, peer reviewed paper to support your comments.
Eventually in 2003, McIntyre and McKitrick published an article entitled “Corrections to the Mann et al.(1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series” in the journal Energy and Environment raising concerns about what they had found in Manns Hockey Stick paper. By this point following further work analysing Mann’s paper McIntyre and McKitrick showed that the data mining procedure did not just pull out a random group of proxies, instead it pulled out a single eccentric group of bristlecone pine chronologies published by Graybill and Idso in 1993 called the Sheep Mountain series.The original authors of the bristlecone study have always stressed that these trees are not proper climate proxies, their study was not trying to do a climate reconstruction and that they were surprised that Mann included it in the Hockey Stick data set. McIntyre and McKitrick had discovered that just removing this odd series from Mann’s proxy set and then applying Mann’s own eccentric statistical averaging caused the Hockey Stick shape to disappear. This revolutionary new model of the recent climate past was that fragile and it revealed the Hockey Stick graph as just a carefully worked artificial creation.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/01/the...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42725
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

3

OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
... denier science
... by fossil fuel funded organisations
.
Al Gore is a global warming hypocrite.

Take your snark back to the third grade, son.

“Drink up! Summer's comin'”

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42726
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Scientists are baffled? LOL
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

The "sleeping" sun coincides with a bitter winter.

LOL Maybe if they just cracked open their physics books and stopped chasing grant money, eh?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42727
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
Scientists are baffled? LOL
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
The "sleeping" sun coincides with a bitter winter.
LOL Maybe if they just cracked open their physics books and stopped chasing grant money, eh?
Are you kidding us or what, it is called GLOBAL warming. Have you bothered to see what's going on in the southern hemisphere, heat records being broken daily.
Look at the Australian Open tennis

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/15/sport/tenni...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42728
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Al Gore is a global warming hypocrite.
Take your snark back to the third grade, son.
As usual Al Gore's name again and why ? because he can use the same tools the fossil fuel industry uses to get his message across.
Hypocrite, I'll tell you what is, dummy climate research organisations on the pretence of saving the planet but what they are really about is saving their profits. Those same profits that YOU & I pay for on a daily basis. Yet we all help kill our environment by doing so, rather than spend our money elsewhere to give us a far better outcome. That is the ultimate hypocrite especially when you know what you are doing is wrong!

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42729
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm aware of the "controversy", but more interested in the admission of error on the part of the warmists.
It's such a rare occurrence in their "science". Why do you suppose that's true? That warmists never hold themselves accountable?... and only toss those under the bus who dissent from the "consensus"?
Yeah... there's some real "science" for ya.
Of course, the errors by M&M don't count. LOL
But the whole ball of wax still held up when the relative minor errors were corrected. Give it up. All you have are platitudes, nothing solid to negate the massive amount of evidence that global warming is occurring and that burning fossil fuels is a significant contributor to the warming.
Rahm Jizzbucket Emanuel

Oswego, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42730
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

For all you global warming fecal stains, where is the walking abortion known as al gore? Hopefully he's finally been flushed down the toilet. Get a life losers! Better yet, get a polar bear skin for your wall.....they're look great!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42731
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

3

2

2

huh... The United States was the highest contributor, responsible for a global temperature rise of 0.15 degree Celsius – more than 20 percent of the total observed global warming.

“The United States is an unambiguous leader, with a contribution of more than double that of China, which falls second in the ranking,” the authors wrote

Read more at http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/11130494...
Truth Facts

Chillicothe, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42732
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
huh... The United States was the highest contributor, responsible for a global temperature rise of 0.15 degree Celsius – more than 20 percent of the total observed global warming.
“The United States is an unambiguous leader, with a contribution of more than double that of China, which falls second in the ranking,” the authors wrote
Read more at http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/11130494...
Quit smoking that sht!!!!!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42733
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
A waste of time with mothballs & co, they are all shooting blanks now and they know it. Before this denier science (using term loosely) came along Climate science was all about the warning for the future. Now they have had time to discredit EVERY one of these BS arguments by fossil fuel funded organisations on top of conducting new research. These sites and fake climate organisations were designed with one purpose in mind. Delay or disrupt any measures that might come about to address CO2 emissions. The game is up, they have nothing only hearsay and opinions. It's like trying to hang on to the horse & cart after the invention of the automobile. Clean energy is our future , dirty is our past. It's just a pity that politics like those of the self destructing Republicans keep trying to flog the past as their future..
If you want to know how it all started, why we are fighting the denial machine today, strangely enough, you have to go back to the subtle racism of Robert Welch and Ronald Rayguns.

http://www.google.com/url...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42734
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
There's all kinds of evidence that Man IS changing the composition of the atmosphere.
All kinds except experimental evidence, we have no experimental evidence we can change the climate or the composition of the atmosphere in any measurable way.

And no, life isn't an experiment. Just because you whistle in the dark and elephants never step on you doesn't mean if you stop they will step on you or if you turn on the light...

Look for the experimental work; who knows if carbon taxes, carbon sinks or mere conversation will cause the changes you require.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
You are the biggest fool on Earth.
At least I don't promote the nightmare of catastrophic climate change from man made greenhouse gas emissions or the promise of climate change mitigation. Wait for science to catch up to the religious fervor for salvation.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42735
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

4

3

2

Truth Facts wrote:
<quoted text>Quit smoking that sht!!!!!
hush .. you are the one smoking it!

Your name exposes your lack of interest in truth and facts:

The United States was the highest contributor, responsible for a global temperature rise of 0.15 degree Celsius – more than 20 percent of the total observed global warming.

“The United States is an unambiguous leader, with a contribution of more than double that of China, which falls second in the ranking,” the authors wrote

Read more at http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/11130494...
Top Climate Scientist

Fullerton, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42736
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I told you about this over and over. But nooooooo. You wouldn't pay attention to my posts. My research is conclusive and peer reviewed.
==========
The Sun's activity is at its lowest for 100 years, scientists have warned.
They say the conditions are eerily similar to those before the Maunder Minimum, a time in 1645 when a mini ice age hit, Freezing London's River Thames.
Researcher believe the solar lull could cause major changes, and say there is a 20% chance it could lead to 'major changes' in temperatures.

'Whatever measure you use, solar peaks are coming down,' Richard Harrison of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire told the BBC.
'I've been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I've never seen anything like this.'
He says the phenomenon could lead to colder winters similar to those during the Maunder Minimum.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••