Ahem. A Duke study of 1,000 years of observed climate data and not climate models concluded temperature variance due to "natural variability" and that temperature shifts are because of "ocean-atmosphere interaction and other natural factors."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/global-warming-duke-warming-temperature/2015/04/24/id/640540/

Rushinbear, as I have said before, you don't know that your chosen media sources are lying to you.

The study's author says:
"Our study confirms that the warming of the past century could not have happened without human-caused increases in greenhouse gasses. This is because the warming over the past century is much larger than what could have come about due to natural variation."

And more:
"Laden concluded that the study's findings do not provide a "change in how we think about global warming," but rather a "refinement." But he warned that the results are likely to be "abused by denialists" and are being misrepresented, "willfully or through misunderstanding, by climate science contrarians."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/24/duke-researcher-denounces-rush-limbaughs-ridicu/203410

I certainly know what the possible motivation is of those who deny man's role in climate change. Please advise what the ulterior motive is of the majority of scientists who proclaim global warming and man's responsibility therefor to be a fact.

bearister;842487125 said:

---

Please advise what the ulterior motive is of the majority of scientists who proclaim global warming and man's responsibility therefor to be a fact.

---

Why of course it's because these scientists have a vested interest in insuring that the liberal media continues it's stranglehold on the news.

Rushinbear;842487123 said:

---

Ahem. A Duke study of 1,000 years of observed climate data and not climate models concluded temperature variance due to "natural variability" and that temperature shifts are because of "ocean-atmosphere interaction and other natural factors."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/global-warming-duke-warming-temperature/2015/04/24/id/640540/

---

Seriously newsmax?

NYCGOBEARS;842487129 said:

---

Why of course it's because these scientists have a vested interest in insuring that the liberal media continues it's stranglehold on the news.

---

It's the scientists and Jerry Brown's fault.

Boot;842487136 said:

---

It's the scientists and Jerry Brown's fault.

---

Don't forget Al Gore and the Buddha.

bearister;842487125 said:

---

I certainly know what the possible motivation is of those who deny man's role in climate change. Please advise what the ulterior motive is of the majority of scientists who proclaim global warming and man's responsibility therefor to be a fact.

---

The majority of scientists who hold that view are suffering from STD ([U]Severe Tea Deficiency[/U]).
They really MUST go to more tea parties, especially if a person from Regent or Liberty university is the honored, guest speaker.

When their tea level is sufficient, they too can reverently genuflect before the huge picture of Pat Robertson at the Norfolk, Virginia airport when arriving for their pilgrimage to either of those esteemed, revered institutions of right thinking, beloved by those whose tea intake grants them powers of proper wisdom.

I had tea this morning. Don't you dare throw mine overboard.

dajo9;842487124 said:

---

Rushinbear, as I have said before, you don't know that your chosen media sources are lying to you.

---

How you know a story is false... If slanted sources (Newsmax, Fox or even MSNBC) are the only sources, be skeptical. It is the brilliance of the right wing media to have adopted the trope that only they tell the truth. Then, of course you must reject contradicting reports.

Go!Bears;842487150 said:

---

How you know a story is false... If slanted sources (Newsmax, Fox or even MSNBC) are the only sources, be skeptical. It is the brilliance of the right wing media to have adopted the trope that only they tell the truth. Then, of course you must reject contradicting reports.

---

I really disagree with the notion that MSNBC is on the level with Newsmax and Fox. Yes, MSNBC is liberal (except for three hours every weekday morning when a conservative republican hosts a show) but it displays its liberalness by covering material that is important or relevant to liberals. For example, it will give scrutiny to a conservative politician engaged in wrongdoing. However, MSNBC is not in the business of spreading lies and false misinformation, which is what Newsmax and Fox do all too often. That is a completely different level of partisanship.

I eagerly await Rushlimbear's response. Unless you're taking money from the Koch brothers directly, I don't know why you'd be pushing their agenda. It's amazing how big business and other special interests have co-opted politics on both sides and gotten people to take positions against their true interests.

Newsmax is an even more Fair And Balanced News Source than Fox News.

God Bless 'Murica!

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/24/duke-researcher-denounces-rush-limbaughs-ridicu/203410

:patriot

bearister;842487125 said:

---

I certainly know what the possible motivation is of those who deny man's role in climate change. Please advise what the ulterior motive is of the majority of scientists who proclaim global warming and man's responsibility therefor to be a fact.

---

The vast majority of scientists agree about global warming, but that does not mean all scientists are not open to idea that much of global warming is "natural variability" or whatever you call it. The concern as I understand it is the pace of warming is alarming, suggesting to most scientists that its not natural. As for the reliable sources issue, its amusing to see who discounts what, and clearly reflects their own individual biases. One thing a Cal education used to provide was the view to be critical of everything.

wifeisafurd;842487166 said:

---

The vast majority of scientists agree about global warming, but that does not mean all scientists are not open to idea that much of global warming is "natural variability" or whatever you call it.

---

Even if this is true, it does not naturally follow that we shouldn't be concerned about our creation of greenhouse gases. We know that greenhouse gases have an effect just like we knew catalytic converters would reduce smog and we knew banning CFCs would reduce the hole in the ozone layer. Ironically, ozone is a greenhouse gas and the hole actually may have helped reduce global warming. Whether global warming is primarily manmade or natural variation, we can take action to reduce our impact.

Rushinbear;842487123 said:

---

Ahem. A Duke study of 1,000 years of observed climate data and not climate models concluded temperature variance due to "natural variability" and that temperature shifts are because of "ocean-atmosphere interaction and other natural factors."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/global-warming-duke-warming-temperature/2015/04/24/id/640540/

---

To all my fellow skeptics: it all depends whose ox is being gored. I never said that there is no change in the climate; just that:

1. Warming is not proven by the deception of the IPCC, Al Gore or their acolytes, to the extent that there is warming (or cooling - see 1980);

2. To the extent that there is warming and cooling, it is first and most massively, a complex natural process that is impacted by many more forces than those being argued by the CC believers. The climate changes...all by itself;

3. To purport to be improving temperature change by giving big money to phony environmental corps like Solyndra solely because of their campaign (and other) donations, only to have them pocket the money and declare bankruptcy, is criminal;

4. To purport to be improving temperature change through the taxation of every form of fossil fuel use and "carbon footprint" only to have the money go to the general fund coffers of the state is criminal;

5. To discount the skepticism of an increasing number of scientists who are bucking the arm twisting of their peers is dishonest. The scientific community not controlled by the carrot-and-stick approach of the Administration (and, to some extent, I blame the prior ones, too), is beginning to speak out in opposition yet the vilification continues, even in the face of hard data that contradicts the conventional "wisdom."

6. If anyone believes that the world is burning too much fossil fuel, change your career to diplomacy and see how you do presenting your rationale to China and India - they're the dirtiest ones. The USA is pristine by comparison.

I posted the Duke study, not because it came from NewsMax, but because the NewsMax story about it concedes the two sides to the issue, as does the study. As I've said many times, we need to be good stewards of the planet, but not use that stewardship as a pretext for the state takeover of our lives.

I've read over the statements by many of you in the last thread (Glob) and those going back some time and I've found precious little hard evidence in support of your position - lots of name calling and legerdemain, but little that's objective. For example, no one has yet even recognized, let alone tried to defend, that the IPCC relies on surface temperature readings to the exclusion of historic periodicity, solar, oceanic, and electromagnetic data. May I point out that surface temps are only a symptom (and poorly detected, at that) while the causal factors are ignored (perhaps because they cannot be accounted for in your calculations or that they may prove your claims false). Even in the responses in this thread, NewsMax is attacked as an unbelievable source, despite their merely reporting on a reputable study from a reputable source.

And, you expected the Duke people, who had up to now drunk the Kool Aid, to come out and admit that they were dead wrong, completely, unequivocally and forever more? If you believe that, you don't understand people and higher ed financing principles. It took time to convince them that they should support Gore's and IPCC's position. It will take time for them to back away from it.

And, for the record, I am not a Koch; I'm not in any way affiliated with them; I don't know them; I don't read any of their blogs or those of their followers. I've been studying this for 30 years from the day I first read NOAA data that showed them choosing the higher temperatures in every case of anomaly. I'm not offended that you might question my efforts on this. I just continue to hope that we can have a rational discussion about it.

Slam the messenger instead of trying to understand the message. Understandable when you don't like the message. Here is virtually the same press release on the Duke University website:

https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models

The extreme IPCC models are wrong, wrong, wrong. Using empirical data to check the models, not using computer models to check other computer models. Shouldn't we see this a good news? The Doomsday predictors, as always, are wrong.

No, it can't be - Duke must be a pawn of the Koch Bros. and Fox News! :p

goldenokiebear;842487202 said:

---

No, it can't be - Duke must be a pawn of the Koch Bros. and Fox News! :p

---

And Coach K and the men's lacrosse team.

bearister;842487125 said:

---

I certainly know what the possible motivation is of those who deny man's role in climate change. Please advise what the ulterior motive is of the majority of scientists who proclaim global warming and man's responsibility therefor to be a fact.

---

Kind of like how Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer spent 70 million in the 2014 in the mid-terms to Dems as long as they took up his cause. Going green is big money- ask your boy Al Gore. You're a smart guy and to buy into the propaganda surprises me. Why can't people just think critically instead of towing the company (progressive) line?

Thank you for bringing some reality to the equation.

Rushinbear;842487196 said:

---

To all my fellow skeptics: it all depends whose ox is being gored. I never said that there is no change in the climate; just that:

1. Warming is not proven by the deception of the IPCC, Al Gore or their acolytes, to the extent that there is warming (or cooling - see 1980);

2. To the extent that there is warming and cooling, it is first and most massively, a complex natural process that is impacted by many more forces than those being argued by the CC believers. The climate changes...all by itself;

3. To purport to be improving temperature change by giving big money to phony environmental corps like Solyndra solely because of their campaign (and other) donations, only to have them pocket the money and declare bankruptcy, is criminal;

4. To purport to be improving temperature change through the taxation of every form of fossil fuel use and "carbon footprint" only to have the money go to the general fund coffers of the state is criminal;

5. To discount the skepticism of an increasing number of scientists who are bucking the arm twisting of their peers is dishonest. The scientific community not controlled by the carrot-and-stick approach of the Administration (and, to some extent, I blame the prior ones, too), is beginning to speak out in opposition yet the vilification continues, even in the face of hard data that contradicts the conventional "wisdom."

6. If anyone believes that the world is burning too much fossil fuel, change your career to diplomacy and see how you do presenting your rationale to China and India - they're the dirtiest ones. The USA is pristine by comparison.

I posted the Duke study, not because it came from NewsMax, but because the NewsMax story about it concedes the two sides to the issue, as does the study. As I've said many times, we need to be good stewards of the planet, but not use that stewardship as a pretext for the state takeover of our lives.

I've read over the statements by many of you in the last thread (Glob) and those going back some time and I've found precious little hard evidence in support of your position - lots of name calling and legerdemain, but little that's objective. For example, no one has yet even recognized, let alone tried to defend, that the IPCC relies on surface temperature readings to the exclusion of historic periodicity, solar, oceanic, and electromagnetic data. May I point out that surface temps are only a symptom (and poorly detected, at that) while the causal factors are ignored (perhaps because they cannot be accounted for in your calculations or that they may prove your claims false). Even in the responses in this thread, NewsMax is attacked as an unbelievable source, despite their merely reporting on a reputable study from a reputable source.

And, you expected the Duke people, who had up to now drunk the Kool Aid, to come out and admit that they were dead wrong, completely, unequivocally and forever more? If you believe that, you don't understand people and higher ed financing principles. It took time to convince them that they should support Gore's and IPCC's position. It will take time for them to back away from it.

And, for the record, I am not a Koch; I'm not in any way affiliated with them; I don't know them; I don't read any of their blogs or those of their followers. I've been studying this for 30 years from the day I first read NOAA data that showed them choosing the higher temperatures in every case of anomaly. I'm not offended that you might question my efforts on this. I just continue to hope that we can have a rational discussion about it.

---

75 % of accepted freshmen at UC during the last three decades of the 20th century were required to take Subject A English.

“By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the ‘big picture’ right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,” Brown said. “Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.”


https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models

Rushin Bear
Thanks for the above. In the end it is about the truth and manipulation of data has no place. Climates gave changed long before fossil fuels. It is implied by the media that somehow it is now all man made since the former is never brought up.
I am all for being good stewards of the environment and have met an expedition leader to Mount Everest who sees changes om the mountains there and believe him. I also come from Holland where my family as farmers and nursery owners depended on nature to make a living. They would still say that Mother Nature has a way of adjusting itself within the cycle and can tell from looking at the sky what kind of wheater is in the offing. So I believe to have a fair assessment of it all is to allow all view points to be discussed. To say that anyone who is skeptical about a media driven view is a stupid conservative or misguided individual is hypocritical.

Ncsf;842487210 said:

---

..... Going green is big money- ask your boy Al Gore...

---

I don't doubt for a minute that there are hucksters like Al Gore that have lined their pockets promoting "going Green," but the money to be made by big business denying man's involvement with climate change exponentially dwarfs any financial gain realized by the Green crowd. Always follow the money. Is the proper pronunciation of Koch "cock?"

Stop questioning science!!

I think what we've established is that the one thing that liberals and conservatives can agree on is that the other side lacks reading comprehension.

I particularly enjoy the call for a "rational discussion" because that's clearly what the intent is from Rushlimbear and others. The goal is to deny deny deny for as long as they can get away with it. The next delay tactic is to engage in "rational discussion" for as long as can be. Then you eventually agree that climate change is happening when even those on your own side can't pretend otherwise with a straight face, and then you will agree that something needs to be done but draw out for as long as possible what steps should be taken.

It's like a child who refuses to go to bed - first they ask you to read them a story, then another. Then they have to go to the bathroom again. Then they want to have a discussion about their day. Then another story, etc. It's all just delaying the inevitable, but the victory is in the delay itself. Rushlimbear and his ilk know it's just a matter of time.

Bobodeluxe;842487217 said:

---

75 % of accepted freshmen at UC during the last three decades of the 20th century were required to take Subject A English.

“By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the ‘big picture’ right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,” Brown said. “Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.”


https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models

---

There you go again - of temperature only and omitting the natural forces in the "big picture." Can you, without looking it up, explain the Holocene Interglacial and Ice Age periodicity, for starters? Where are we with respect to their historic variance? When someone uses the term "Pacific Decadal Oscillation", are they referring to the El Nino/La Nina phenomena? If you don't know the answers to those, then you have no concept of the "scientific" context within which decadal temperature anomalies are judged. You accuse others of cherry picking when you rely so heavily on it yourself. Blindfolded, you feel an elephant's leg and think it a tree.

Unit2Sucks;842487232 said:

---

I think what we've established is that the one thing that liberals and conservatives can agree on is that the other side lacks reading comprehension.

I particularly enjoy the call for a "rational discussion" because that's clearly what the intent is from Rushlimbear and others. The goal is to deny deny deny for as long as they can get away with it. The next delay tactic is to engage in "rational discussion" for as long as can be. Then you eventually agree that climate change is happening when even those on your own side can't pretend otherwise with a straight face, and then you will agree that something needs to be done but draw out for as long as possible what steps should be taken.

It's like a child who refuses to go to bed - first they ask you to read them a story, then another. Then they have to go to the bathroom again. Then they want to have a discussion about their day. Then another story, etc. It's all just delaying the inevitable, but the victory is in the delay itself. Rushlimbear and his ilk know it's just a matter of time.

---

They used to be on the Affordable Healthcare Act is evil bandwagon--until they found out their own constituents like it-now they are incorporating it into their own platform and driving the "us against them fake issue" wagon to the next town.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Rushinbear;842487233 said:

---

There you go again - of temperature only and omitting the natural forces in the "big picture." Can you, without looking it up, explain the Holocene Interglacial and Ice Age periodicity, for starters? Where are we with respect to their historic variance? When someone uses the term "Pacific Decadal Oscillation", are they referring to the El Nino/La Nina phenomena? If you don't know the answers to those, then you have no concept of the "scientific" context within which decadal temperature anomalies are judged. You accuse others of cherry picking when you rely so heavily on it yourself. Blindfolded, you feel an elephant's leg and think it a tree.

---

Or we could just rely on the scientific concensus

Ncsf;842487210 said:

---

Kind of like how Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer spent 70 million in the 2014 in the mid-terms to Dems as long as they took up his cause. Going green is big money- ask your boy Al Gore. You're a smart guy and to buy into the propaganda surprises me. Why can't people just think critically instead of towing the company (progressive) line?

---

Amen. And its so odd to me that progressives and liberals never seem to question anything their leaders, government and media spoon feed them. Every conservative I know enquires deeply about the issues and reaches their own conclusions. Conservatives are often the toughest on their own yet I almost never hear a lib question Obama, Hilary, Reid, Pelosi particularly when they are shown to lie outright.

NVBear78;842487249 said:

---

Every conservative I know thinks Jeff Dunham is hilarious

---

Fixed that for ya.

NVBear78;842487249 said:

---

Amen. And its so odd to me that progressives and liberals never seem to question anything their leaders, government and media spoon feed them. Every conservative I know enquires deeply about the issues and reaches their own conclusions. Conservatives are often the toughest on their own.

---

You are being ironic, aren't you?

NVBear78;842487249 said:

---

Amen. And its so odd to me that progressives and liberals never seem to question anything their leaders, government and media spoon feed them. Every conservative I know enquires deeply about the issues and reaches their own conclusions. Conservatives are often the toughest on their own yet I almost never hear a lib question Obama, Hilary, Reid, Pelosi particularly when they are shown to lie outright.

---

Where were your brilliant inquiring minds when you let Bush/Cheney and their Neocon posse lead our Country down the path to destruction in the Middle East? If you were toughest on your own you would push to have those responsible for chalk boarding that pretextual war tried as war criminals. Please provide the list of lies you reference at the end of your post so I can conduct some research.

Unit2Sucks;842487250 said:

---

Fixed that for ya.

---

Pretty jerky to put words in my mouth.

p.s. Who is Jeff Dunham?

NVBear78;842487257 said:

---

Pretty jerky to put words in my mouth.

p.s. Who is Jeff Dunham?

---

My version was a lot closer to the truth than yours was. I'm sorry if you thought I was doing anything other than poking fun at your assertion which, as others have pointed out, is laughable.