Red States Are Way Ahead of Congress on Global Warming

[homersapien 11,392]

The science is never settled.

Well, it's settled to a confidence level of 95%.

It will probably be too late to react by the time its 100% because that means it's a "done deal" by definition.

More like 3%

http://wattsupwithth...se/#more-113104

I am not interested in dismantling stuff from denier sites because I am not going to persuade anyone they are wrong about this any more than I can persuade someone their political or religious beliefs are wrong.

I used to refute these arguments but it's an exercise in certain futility. A fool's errand if you will. Once you deny the science of anything, there's nothing left to argue.

Having said that, I'd like to know exactly what you mean by 3%. Can you explain please?

[AFTiger 282]

The science is never settled.

Well, it's settled to a confidence level of 95%.

It will probably be too late to react by the time its 100% because that means it's a "done deal" by definition.

More like 3%

http://wattsupwithth...se/#more-113104

I am not interested in dismantling stuff from denier sites because I am not going to persuade anyone they are wrong about this any more than I can persuade someone their political or religious beliefs are wrong.

I used to refute these arguments but it's an exercise in certain futility. A fool's errand if you will. Once you deny the science of anything, there's nothing left to argue.

Having said that, I'd like to know exactly what you mean by 3%. Can you explain please?

I know, you would only like to use alarmist sites. The problem with the study is that it depends on the interpretation and opinion of the authors.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

[homersapien 11,392]

The science is never settled.

Well, it's settled to a confidence level of 95%.

It will probably be too late to react by the time its 100% because that means it's a "done deal" by definition.

More like 3%

http://wattsupwithth...se/#more-113104

I am not interested in dismantling stuff from denier sites because I am not going to persuade anyone they are wrong about this any more than I can persuade someone their political or religious beliefs are wrong.

I used to refute these arguments but it's an exercise in certain futility. A fool's errand if you will. Once you deny the science of anything, there's nothing left to argue.

Having said that, I'd like to know exactly what you mean by 3%. Can you explain please?

I know, you would only like to use alarmist sites. The problem with the study is that it depends on the interpretation and opinion of the authors.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

Why would any one expect for any given "climate paper" - presumably limited to a particular topic of research - to explicitly state "man caused most of the warming since 1950". That's an absurd premise to start with.

Using that as a parameter and concluding that only 41 of these papers don't generally support the theory of AGW is beyond ludicrous. It's a game design to confuse people who are scientifically "illiterate".

BTW, the 95% number I cited had nothing to do with the percentage of qualified scientists who support AGW. It refers to the confidence limit (CL) applied to the conclusion by the various scientific organizations that AGW is valid.

But even the deniers will admit the former (% of scientists who agree) is in the 90's. (Please don't make me look that up. It came from legal testimony given by one of the big time deniers during a hearing or trial.)

[AFTiger 282]

The science is never settled.

Well, it's settled to a confidence level of 95%.

It will probably be too late to react by the time its 100% because that means it's a "done deal" by definition.

More like 3%

http://wattsupwithth...se/#more-113104

I am not interested in dismantling stuff from denier sites because I am not going to persuade anyone they are wrong about this any more than I can persuade someone their political or religious beliefs are wrong.

I used to refute these arguments but it's an exercise in certain futility. A fool's errand if you will. Once you deny the science of anything, there's nothing left to argue.

Having said that, I'd like to know exactly what you mean by 3%. Can you explain please?

I know, you would only like to use alarmist sites. The problem with the study is that it depends on the interpretation and opinion of the authors.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

Why would any one expect for any given "climate paper" - presumably limited to a particular topic of research - to explicitly state "man caused most of the warming since 1950". That's an absurd premise to start with.

Using that as a parameter and concluding that only 41 of these papers don't generally support the theory of AGW is beyond ludicrous. It's a game design to confuse people who are scientifically "illiterate".

BTW, the 95% number I cited had nothing to do with the percentage of qualified scientists support AGW. It refers to the confidence limit (CL) applied to the conclusion by the various scientific organizations that AGW is valid.

But even the deniers will admit the former (% of scientists who agree) is in the 90's. (Please don't make me look that up. It came from legal testimony given by one of the big time deniers during a hearing or trial.)

95% confidence level???

Then why are the models so wrong?

[homersapien 11,392]

The science is never settled.

Well, it's settled to a confidence level of 95%.

It will probably be too late to react by the time its 100% because that means it's a "done deal" by definition.

More like 3%

http://wattsupwithth...se/#more-113104

I am not interested in dismantling stuff from denier sites because I am not going to persuade anyone they are wrong about this any more than I can persuade someone their political or religious beliefs are wrong.

I used to refute these arguments but it's an exercise in certain futility. A fool's errand if you will. Once you deny the science of anything, there's nothing left to argue.

Having said that, I'd like to know exactly what you mean by 3%. Can you explain please?

I know, you would only like to use alarmist sites. The problem with the study is that it depends on the interpretation and opinion of the authors.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

Why would any one expect for any given "climate paper" - presumably limited to a particular topic of research - to explicitly state "man caused most of the warming since 1950". That's an absurd premise to start with.

Using that as a parameter and concluding that only 41 of these papers don't generally support the theory of AGW is beyond ludicrous. It's a game design to confuse people who are scientifically "illiterate".

BTW, the 95% number I cited had nothing to do with the percentage of qualified scientists support AGW. It refers to the confidence limit (CL) applied to the conclusion by the various scientific organizations that AGW is valid.

But even the deniers will admit the former (% of scientists who agree) is in the 90's. (Please don't make me look that up. It came from legal testimony given by one of the big time deniers during a hearing or trial.)

95% confidence level???

Then why are the models so wrong?

I don't understand the question nor do I understand the graph. Please elaborate and explain if you don't mind.

[AFTiger 282]

[quoute]Using that as a parameter and concluding that only 41 of these papers don't generally support the theory of AGW is beyond ludicrous. It's a game design to confuse people who are scientifically "illiterate".[\quote]

Only 41 supported AGW.

The spaghetti is the plot of all the climate models plotted from 1983. The black line is the average of projected temperatures from the climate models that so much hysteria is based upon. The green line is the track of surface temperature by Hadley CRU. The Blue line is the lower troposphere temperature from UAH.

I'll be more than happy to help you read complicated material.

[homersapien 11,392]

[quoute]Using that as a parameter and concluding that only 41 of these papers don't generally support the theory of AGW is beyond ludicrous. It's a game design to confuse people who are scientifically "illiterate".[\quote]

1) Only 41 supported AGW.

2a)The spaghetti is the plot of all the climate models plotted from 1983. The black line is the average of projected temperatures from the climate models that so much hysteria is based upon. The green line is the track of surface temperature by Hadley CRU. The Blue line is the lower troposphere temperature from UAH.

2b) I'll be more than happy to help you read complicated material.

1) As your source specified, only 41 "explicitly stated" they supported AGW theory. As I said, that's hardly surprising. In fact, I am surprised that 41 did. It's not really an appropriate thing to say in a research paper submitted for publication. Most journals wouldn't allow it.

2a) i) Confidence limits are determined by actual data so they are not really relevant to prediction models.

ii) The various models aren't identified so it's difficult to ascertain how much weight should be applied or if they should have been even included to develop a mean. I can't even tell how many there are. Certainly with that number many were included that done't really belong.

iii) If UAH means University of Alabama - Huntsville, that data has already been debunked as invalid.

iv) The HadlyCRU data has been reassessed and determined to be at the low end of the range of possible values due to cherry-picking of data to include areas that haven't changed dramatically (http://www.cato.org/...as-climate-data , http://onlinelibrary...j.2297/abstract)

2b) I don't need your help in interpreting charts. All I needed was a "Key" or "Legend" beyond what was stated on the graph.

http://www.icoachmat...ionary/key.html

Actually, If you need help in understanding what essential information should be included with a complex graph, I'll be happy to assist. :-\

Oh, and I almost forgot to mention, you didn't include the source of this chart. Where did it come from?

[DKW 86 7,429]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

Properties of Objects are really cool in aiding you knowing the source.

Pointer on object, right click. go to properties an left click.

UAH Debunked?

SOUCE DEMANDED.!

[Tigermike 3,039]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

Properties of Objects are really cool in aiding you knowing the source.

Pointer on object, right click. go to properties an left click.

UAH Debunked?

SOUCE DEMANDED.!

Damn, RED STATE citizens do know more.

[homersapien 11,392]

http://www.drroyspen...s-thru-2013.png

Properties of Objects are really cool in aiding you knowing the source.

Pointer on object, right click. go to properties an left click.

UAH Debunked?

SOUCE DEMANDED.!

Thanks for the tip, I didn't know that. However, it doesn't work for me on this particular chart.

Roy Spencer is one of the few truly credentialed "deniers". He is notorious for being very active in the denier community and is a frequent paid speaker for such organizations as the "Heartland Institute". He has been called "the climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh show". (He also is a skeptic of evolution. )

We have discussed him many times in the past on this forum. But more to the point, his research has been shown to be in error:

http://rationalwiki....i/Roy_Spencer (Please keep in mind the statements in this link are referenced)

http://davidappell.b...epic-fails.html

http://bbickmore.wor...s-junk-science/

http://climatecrocks...ng-way-spencer/

In fact, the editor of "Remote Sensing" in which Spencer published his seminal work resigned:

http://news.sciencem...n-climate-paper

Other more general references:

http://www.sourcewat...tle=Roy_Spencer

http://www.southerns...ustry-ties.html

http://climatecrocks...cientist-weird/

[DKW 86 7,429]

Well i am off to dine with my lovely bride...and i will peruse your links later.

Just remember that the UEA Profs are now discredited and that Michael Mann is as discredited as anyone on the planet.

[homersapien 11,392]

Well i am off to dine with my lovely bride...and i will peruse your links later.

Just remember that the UEA Profs are now discredited and that Michael Mann is as discredited as anyone on the planet.

UEA?

[autigeremt 6,646]

Rolling of the eyes.

As soon as you find a graph from 1200 AD let me know,

[AUDub 11,155]

UEA?

He's bringing up a little manufactroversy known as climategate, homeslice. University of East Anglia.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Homeslice.?.......I love it!!!

[AFTiger 282]

On Global Warming, Follow the Money

by John HinderakerJuly 13, 2014

There is a real irony in the Left’s repeated insinuation that climate realists must be funded, somehow, by the oil industry. In truth, there is plenty of money being distributed to climate scientists, but just about all of it comes from governments, and all government money goes to alarmists who promote government power. From this week’s The Week That Was, from the Science and Environmental Policy Project:

Based US government reports, SEPP calculated that from Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 to FY 2013 total US expenditures on climate change amount to more than $165 Billion. More than $35 Billion is identified as climate science. The White House reported that in FY 2013 the US spent $22.5 Billion on climate change. About $2 Billion went to US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The principal function of the USGCRP is to provide to Congress a National Climate Assessment (NCA). The latest report uses global climate models, which are not validated, therefor speculative, to speculate about regional influences from global warming.

Much of the remaining 89% of funding goes to goes to government agencies and industries claiming they are preventing global warming/climate change, even though they do not understand the natural causes of climate change and, likely, far overestimate the influence of CO2. These entities have a vested interest in promoting the fear of global warming/climate change.

It is time for the government to stop funding irrational fear of global warming/climate change based on a concept of climate that is not substantiated by the physical evidence. If we are to progress in our understanding of climate change, the paradigm must be changed from one that earth’s temperatures are largely controlled by atmospheric CO2, to one which recognizes that climate change is normal and predominately natural. Human CO2 emissions have little, if any, influence on temperatures and other climate trends.

One of the worst consequences of the global warming power grab by the U.S. government and others around the world has been the corruption of the scientific process, which has brought the discipline of climate science, and by association science in general, into disrepute.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/07/on-global-warming-follow-the-money.php

[homersapien 11,392]

On Global Warming, Follow the Money

by John HinderakerJuly 13, 2014

There is a real irony in the Left’s repeated insinuation that climate realists must be funded, somehow, by the oil industry. In truth, there is plenty of money being distributed to climate scientists, but just about all of it comes from governments, and all government money goes to alarmists who promote government power. From this week’s The Week That Was, from the Science and Environmental Policy Project:

Based US government reports, SEPP calculated that from Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 to FY 2013 total US expenditures on climate change amount to more than $165 Billion. More than $35 Billion is identified as climate science. The White House reported that in FY 2013 the US spent $22.5 Billion on climate change. About $2 Billion went to US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The principal function of the USGCRP is to provide to Congress a National Climate Assessment (NCA). The latest report uses global climate models, which are not validated, therefor speculative, to speculate about regional influences from global warming.

Much of the remaining 89% of funding goes to goes to government agencies and industries claiming they are preventing global warming/climate change, even though they do not understand the natural causes of climate change and, likely, far overestimate the influence of CO2. These entities have a vested interest in promoting the fear of global warming/climate change.

It is time for the government to stop funding irrational fear of global warming/climate change based on a concept of climate that is not substantiated by the physical evidence. If we are to progress in our understanding of climate change, the paradigm must be changed from one that earth’s temperatures are largely controlled by atmospheric CO2, to one which recognizes that climate change is normal and predominately natural. Human CO2 emissions have little, if any, influence on temperatures and other climate trends.

One of the worst consequences of the global warming power grab by the U.S. government and others around the world has been the corruption of the scientific process, which has brought the discipline of climate science, and by association science in general, into disrepute.

http://www.powerline...w-the-money.php

Nonsense.

No amount of money could corrupt the entire scientific community. You are either practicing science or you're not. There is absolutely no evidence that the practice of science in climatology and related fields has ceased to exist.

This guy doesn't have a clue, or more likely, is deliberately trying to push an outrageous lie.

"It is time for the government to stop funding irrational fear of global warming/climate change based on a concept of climate that is not substantiated by the physical evidence."

[AFTiger 282]

Yet, it is happening.

[homersapien 11,392]

Yet, it is happening.

AGW certainly is.

[AFTiger 282]

Yet, it is happening.

AGW certainly is.

For one who says he believes in science, you certainly ignore so much of it.

[homersapien 11,392]

Yet, it is happening.

AGW certainly is.

For one who says he believes in science, you certainly ignore so much of it.

For instance....

[AFTiger 282]

Yet, it is happening.

AGW certainly is.

For one who says he believes in science, you certainly ignore so much of it.

For instance....

All science counter to your belief in AGW.

[homersapien 11,392]

Yet, it is happening.

AGW certainly is.

For one who says he believes in science, you certainly ignore so much of it.

For instance....

All science counter to your belief in AGW.

Well no doubt there is at least a some research that may not provide positive evidence supporting AGW. And certainly there is a lot of misinterpretation of valid data to mistakenly claim it doesn't support it. But I don't know of any described body of work (i.e.: a literature review) that comes close to making a case it's not happening. For that matter, I not aware of a single piece of work that offers positive evidence to refute it, not saying it doesn't exist.

Did you have something particular in mind?

[Weegle777 78]

Why do we care?

[homersapien 11,392]

Why do we care?

Well, I guess if you're expecting to disappear in the rapture soon, you shouldn't.