Global Climate Change Science News

[Seth]

2/3 of the globe is covered in oceans, Mr Good Faith.

Yup.

[piscator]

2/3 of the globe is covered in oceans, Mr Good Faith.

Yup.

You haven't heard? The oceans have warmed up considerably in the last 17 years. And 30 years is about the minimum time span for "Climate". Check it out.

[Seth]

2/3 of the globe is covered in oceans, Mr Good Faith.

Yup.

You haven't heard? The oceans have warmed up considerably in the last 17 years. And 30 years is about the minimum time span for "Climate". Check it out.

And I would believe your claim why, exactly?

[Animavore]

Do denialists have their own version of this?
It's a .pdf copy of the IPCC's, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. It is a tome of over 1,500 pages documenting the evidence of man-made climate change in areas like the atmosphere and surface, the oceans, paleoclimate, and the cryosphere.
It's just I've looked everywhere and I can't find a denialist book which collates their evidence in this manner. All I can ever seem to find are denialists flaunting single papers from maverick scientists which are said to crumble the whole edifice of climate science somehow by challenging one single area. Or articles whining about how "Big Science" is somehow suppressing outsider views.
I'm just wondering if anyone knows where I can obtain a body of evidence like this for the other side so I can fairly evaluate both sides?

GIGO.

We have the definitive rebuttal: No global warming for the last 17 years.

That's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking for a definitive body of evidence which the other side have collected which shows that man is not causing claimate change but is in fact some other cause or causes as it usually claimed.

Anyway, you're wrong about that.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warm ... -years.htm

[Animavore]

2/3 of the globe is covered in oceans, Mr Good Faith.

Yup.

You haven't heard? The oceans have warmed up considerably in the last 17 years. And 30 years is about the minimum time span for "Climate". Check it out.

And I would believe your claim why, exactly?

The real question is why you wouldn't believe that.
Which corporation are you in the pocket of anyway?

[Seth]

2/3 of the globe is covered in oceans, Mr Good Faith.

Yup.

You haven't heard? The oceans have warmed up considerably in the last 17 years. And 30 years is about the minimum time span for "Climate". Check it out.

And I would believe your claim why, exactly?

The real question is why you wouldn't believe that.

Because "climate science" has been caught in way too many lies lately for me to believe it anymore. I've been hearing the global warming propaganda since the 1970s. We're all supposed to be dead right now and the planet is supposed to have an 800 degree, lead-melting atmosphere just like Venus as of, oh, about 20 years ago. The predictions of the Warmist cult just keep not happening. And now with the UN and leftists all over the world interested in destroying (in particular) the United States and our economy as a part of an ideological war against us, the US keeps getting blamed even though we've factually cut carbon emissions more than any major nation on earth in the last 25 years. But that's never enough for the Marxist Progressives, and now Obama is racheting up the attack on US oil independence by vetoing the Keystone XL pipeline, which won't prevent the tar-sands oil in Canada from being extracted, sold and used. It just means that the US won't get any of it. His veto isn't about AGW, it's about his hatred of America and his desire to destroy our preeminent position in the global economy and political sphere. He's a fucking Marxist traitor who need to be impeached and removed from office...at the very least.

There are simply too many political and financial reasons for "climate scientists" to lie about AGW for me to believe them any longer. Everything they say is suspect now because they have shouted "THE SKY IS FALLING" far too many times. For more than 40 years in my particular case.

The most egregious lie is that, even if AGW is happening, that it's an "emergency" that requires drastic political, social and economic action that must be taken right now, quick, before the Democrats lose the White House...like shutting down 30% or more of American coal-fired electrical generation plants while China continues to on-line coal-fired electrical generation plants on what seems like a daily basis.

"Climate scientists" have blow their cover and destroyed their credibility by buying into the hysteria and manipulating the data to make things look like a dire emergency when, if it's even true at all, isn't an emergency at all.

Which corporation are you in the pocket of anyway?

The Corporation of the United States of America.

[Seth]

Here's a good reason why I don't believe them anymore:

Daily Caller News Foundation
Environmental activists hold placards as they protest during the 19th conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP19) in Warsaw November 21, 2013. REUTERS/Kacper Pempel Environmental activists hold placards as they protest during the 19th conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP19) in Warsaw November 21, 2013. REUTERS/Kacper Pempel
Dem ‘Witch Hunt’ Forces Scientist Out Of Global Warming Research
11:22 AM 02/25/2015



Photo of Michael Bastasch
Michael Bastasch

See All Articles
Send Email
Subscribe to RSS

An investigation by Democratic lawmakers into the sources of funding for scientists who challenge details of the greater global warming narrative has already forced one scientist to call it quits.

University of Colorado climate scientist Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. has been targeted by Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking liberal on the House Natural Resources Committee, for his research challenging the claim that global warming is making weather more extreme.

This investigation, and other attacks, have forced Pielke to stop researching climate issues. He said the “incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues.”

“I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject,” Pielke wrote on his blog.

Pielke is one of seven academics under Grijalva’s investigation for allegedly taking money from the fossil fuels industry in exchange for research. Pielke says he’s never been funded by fossil fuels interests — a fact to which Grijalva already knows since Pielke disclosed as much when he testified before Congress.

Grijalva’s investigation into climate scientists who scrutinize conclusions about man-made global warming comes after the New York Times published a piece critical of Harvard-Smithsonian scientist Wei-hock Soon for not disclosing his funding from energy companies in his research.

“Companies with a direct financial interest in climate and air-quality standards are funding environmental research that influences state and federal regulation and shapes public understanding of climate scientists,” Grijalva wrote to the presidents of seven universities housing supposedly skeptical scientists.

So what’s Pielke’s connection to all of this? Grijalva’s staff wrote that Pielke “has testified numerous times before the U.S. Congress on climate change and its economic impacts.” One “2013 Senate testimony featured the claim, often repeated, that it is ‘incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.’”

Why is Pielke a target? Because White House science czar John Holdren has “highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke,” according to Grijalva’s letter to the University of Colorado.

“Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none,” Pielke wrote. “He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren’s incorrect views).”

Holdren said Pielke’s views were “outside the mainstream.” Pielke presented evidence to the Senate that global warming is not causing weather, like hurricanes and floods, to become more frequent or extreme. Holdren, disagreed, and singled out Pielke in a six page statement saying that global warming was making the weather worse.

The main problem with Holdren’s argument is that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which Holdren himself often defers to — has said the evidence favors Pielke’s argument that weather has not gotten more extreme.

The IPCC says that “[l]ong-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded.”

Pielke’s views have gotten him labelled as a “climate denier” by Grijalva and some in the media. But Pielke does not deny that mankind is causing the world to warm. In fact, Pielke wrote a book calling for a carbon tax and has come out in support of the EPA’s carbon dioxide regulations.

“All of this is public record, so the smears against me must be an intentional effort to delegitimize my academic research,” Pielke wrote.

“When ‘witch hunts’ are deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes, we will have fully turned science into just another arena for the exercise of power politics,” Pielke wrote. “The result is a big loss for both science and politics.”

[Animavore]

Because "climate science" has been caught in way too many lies lately for me to believe it anymore. I've been hearing the global warming propaganda since the 1970s. We're all supposed to be dead right now and the planet is supposed to have an 800 degree, lead-melting atmosphere just like Venus as of, oh, about 20 years ago.

Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool!

What a crock of shite. No one ever said anything like that.

Oh that has made my night. Seriously. That's the fucking funniest thing I've read tonight and I've just been treated to Schopenhauer's treatise, On Women.

If you're not going to take this topic seriously don't bother.

[Seth]

Because "climate science" has been caught in way too many lies lately for me to believe it anymore. I've been hearing the global warming propaganda since the 1970s. We're all supposed to be dead right now and the planet is supposed to have an 800 degree, lead-melting atmosphere just like Venus as of, oh, about 20 years ago.

Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool!

What a crock of shite. No one ever said anything like that.

Were you even alive in the 70s?

I was, and I lived through that climate hysteria, so you're wrong.

[piscator]

mad.jpg (99.32 KiB) Viewed 2104 times

[Animavore]

Because "climate science" has been caught in way too many lies lately for me to believe it anymore. I've been hearing the global warming propaganda since the 1970s. We're all supposed to be dead right now and the planet is supposed to have an 800 degree, lead-melting atmosphere just like Venus as of, oh, about 20 years ago.

Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool!

What a crock of shite. No one ever said anything like that.

Were you even alive in the 70s?

I was, and I lived through that climate hysteria, so you're wrong.

So nyeh.

Fuck off with that bullshit.

[Seth]

Fuck off with that bullshit.

Er...no.

Runaway Greenhouse Effect May Possibly Turn Earth Into Venus-Like Planet Sooner Than Once Thought
The Huffington Post
Posted: 07/31/2013 3:48 pm EDT Updated: 08/01/2013 1:54 pm EDT

Will a warming climate turn Earth into a hot, hellish place like Venus? Not anytime soon. But a far-looking new study suggests that Earth's atmosphere possibly could grow so hot that our planet will experience what scientists call the “runaway greenhouse” effect.

The phenomenon occurs when a planet absorbs more solar energy than it can give off in return. That causes surface water to evaporate, fill the atmosphere with steam, and heat the planet until it's no longer habitable -- kind of like what's seen on Venus.

For the study, a team of astronomers used computer modeling to calculate the thermal radiation limit of the "runaway greenhouse" effect.

The new measurements suggest that the effect may be easier to initiate than had been previously thought. Yikes.

What does that mean for our future on the third planet from the sun?

"It used to be thought that a runaway greenhouse was not theoretically possible for Earth with its present amount of sunlight," study co-author Dr. Colin Goldblatt, a professor at the University of Victoria in Canada, told National Geographic. "We've shown that, to the contrary, it is theoretically possible. That doesn't mean it's going to happen -- but it's theoretically possible."

But don't be overly concerned. The research suggests that Earth would not move into the runaway greenhouse stage for a billion and a half years or so. Previous studies placed the possible "runaway greenhouse" effect on Earth at happening in around 2 billion years.

For now, the study may influence where habitable zones around a star are measured. Such zones indicate where a planet may have the right atmosphere to host life.

And with the new finding, “the habitable zone becomes much narrower, in the sense that you can no longer get as close to the star as we thought before going into a runaway greenhouse,” study co-author Tyler Robinson, a University of Washington astronomy postdoctoral researcher, said in a written statement.

So nyah yourself.

[piscator]

They didn't think the runaway greenhouse effect was possible in the 70s. Read the 2013 article you just linked.


Bill Clinton in the 70s:

[Seth]

They didn't think the runaway greenhouse effect was possible in the 70s. Read the 2013 article you just linked.

You're wrong. While highbrow scientists might not have, such scare tactics were all over the place in the media, including, as I recall, Popular Science magazine. Might have been the late 60s rather than the 70s.

[piscator]

Was probably church, or a Klan rally, or something like that...