BGolden;842851556 said:

---

+1

I was talking to a builder the other day. He said the 2016 CalGreen Energy Code requires apartments to be wrapped so tight that the buildings are going to sweat. Replacing the existing apartment stock in California will take 50 years before it makes a difference. Meanwhile, people in the new apartments will be subjected to an increase in mold and mildew.

---

Mold and mildew? How so? A properly located air barrier in the building enclosure actually helps control concentrated condensation.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that all fossil fuels are equal. The first thing that the oil companies in Alaska did was sell the 'new' oil to foreign countries so they could buy higher quality oil from the ME. Coal may even have a wider range of quality, not just BTUs per ton but also contaminants. The explosion of natural gas resources makes coal a very poor fuel alternative. Consider a steam power plant; with coal you have a huge infrastructure, a rail yard for mile long unit trains, you have hazardous waste (coal ash) to be shipped out for disposal, and you have all manner of emission suppression equipment that you don't have with natural gas. And natural gas doesn't tear up the plant equipment compared to coal. The life expectancy of our coal reserves has increased dramatically because the need (or demand) has dropped dramatically; the less used the longer it will last. Any industry/economy based on coal will likely collapse by 2030; it will not be competitive to continue to invest in coal-fired industries once long term contracts expire.

Cal88;842851482 said:

---

1- we aren't running out of fossil fuels. They are a cheap, enormously abundant source of energy. We have several centuries worth of coal in the US alone, and peak oil has yet to materialize, meaning that estimated global reserves are still rising today. North America alone (US, Canada, Mexico) has at least a century's worth of oil reserves.

2-we're not in the middle east because we need their oil. We're there because since the early 70s, the Dollar is tied to the oil market (petrodollars instead of gold reserve currency). Gulf countries have subsidized the US$, their currencies have been pegged to the US$ for the last 4 decades. When Japan buys oil from Saudi, they have to buy US$ for this transaction, this props up our currency and our deficit-driven lifestyle. Iran is not on board. Hence they are the bad guys we need to fear.

Beyond this, control of middle eastern oil has geostrategic goals, as a chokehold on the economies of much of the industrialized world and of our chief economic rivals (China, Japan, Germany/Europe, Inida,...) The US has domestic resources to achieve energy independence, most of our rivals don't.


It's not about conservatives not "embracing the change" or resisting the adoption of promising new green technologies, it's the fact that their growth is driven by subsidies which will come at an economic cost that is most heavily borne by the middle classes of industrialized nations like the US. Energy costs in Germany today are about 3 to 4 times higher than those in many parts of the US. Those sustainable energy sectors often are not economically sustainable. Some sectors are, and those will continue to grow.

---

Cal88;842851485 said:

---

Have you been to Europe this winter Sebastabear?



Skopelos Greece



Budapest

Record level ice formations off eastern Canada, levels unseen in over a century. Record high sightings of polar bears. And of course back home in California, the picture this year is quite different from that of the permanent global warming drought narrative...

Scandinavia used to have significantly warmer weather than it does today, we know this because the treeline from centuries ago was much further north than the current one. Greenland was significanlty warmer and settled by Vikings during the medieval warm period. So glaciers receding in Norway is not a cause for alarm.

Bottom line, you shouldn't confuse weather with climate, and you should be weary of confirmation bias, by sticking to unbiased, unaltered historic statistical data to gauge the actual level of climate change.

In the continental US, where the weather has been well documented, the temperature levels today not nearly as hot as they were in the 1930s. The great majority of heat records from that era sill stand today:



The chart shows the max temp records across 50 states that still stand today, grouped by decade. The fact that so many records from the 1930s are still standing today despite the relatively modern phenomenon urban island heat effect brought about by urban sprawl means that it's not even close with today's temperatures.

the chart also shows the level of CO2 growth in the dotted curve, CO2 levels in the 1930s were minute compared to today's, yet the temperatures were much higher...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/14/newly-found-weather-records-show-1930s-as-being-far-worse-than-the-present-for-extreme-weather/

---

I assume that you are posting the photos as part of an argument that Global Warming does not exist or is grossly overstated
But Global Warming means that the average temperature are rising. It does not mean that there will not be snow and ice and ice in the winter.
In fact many experts say that winters will be worse because of changes in the traditional Atlantic and Pacific currents.
But overall the average annual temperature will go up and more polar ice and glaciers will melt. Thus raising the global sea level.

Cal88;842851515 said:

---

The climate was significantly hotter in the 1930s than it is today, that's a well-documented fact in north America.

---

Is that so? I've read that 1934 was the hottest of these cherry-picked years and yet is only the 49th hottest year on record globally.

The fact that there were hot years in North America in the past is not an argument against AGW. The 16 hottest years ever recorded have occurred since year 2000. This is global, not local.

Of course you know all this. The reason cherry picking is counter productive, and a main goal of your propaganda campaign, is because if you can get people to fight with you on cherry-picking you can delay or avoid any discussion about how to deal with the problem. This is not an accident.

Cal88;842851547 said:

---

The main problem with data adjustments and revisions is that the process is not done in an open and transparent manner. In some instances we've only gotten an insight through FOIA, whistleblowers and leaked emails of how the official climate data adjustment sausage was made, and it wasn't pretty.

If you haven't seen this video I've posted earlier on another thread, this is Cal prof Muller (who's actually a warmist not a "denier", and the head of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group) showing the deceptive approach to the "hockey stick"/Climategate deception carried over by top administrators at some of the leading weather institutes like Phil Jones, head of CRU, and Cal '89 grad Michael Mann, director of ESS.

This video illustrates a staggering disregard for scientific ethical standards in those circles, summarized in 5 minutes:

[video=youtube;8BQpciw8suk][/video]

---

The data falsification scandal was huge, yet the many climate extremists here gloss over it and use bluster and group think bullying to paint those skeptical of the extreme alarmism as ignorant boobs and tools of the republican party.

Typical Berkeley arrogant mentality and tactics.

Keep up the good fight, Cal88 (not that they'll ever listen or have a rational dialog).

Unit2Sucks;842851579 said:

---

Of course you know all this. The reason cherry picking is counter productive, and a main goal of your propaganda campaign, is because if you can get people to fight with you on cherry-picking you can delay or avoid any discussion about how to deal with the problem. This is not an accident.

---

That is exactly what's going on here, and it's done with the framing of "you just need to have an open mind" and "don't trust the establishment." Exactly the kind of thing that educated Berkeley folks might fall for.

I have an open mind. I have enough of an open mind to look for information on what ALL scientists are saying, broadly as a group, not at individual cherry-picked examples from contrarians. When I broaden my scope even a little bit there is no question about what the majority of scientists think.

Unit2Sucks;842851579 said:

---

Is that so? I've read that 1934 was the hottest of these cherry-picked years and yet is only the 49th hottest year on record globally.

The fact that there were hot years in North America in the past is not an argument against AGW. The 16 hottest years ever recorded have occurred since year 2000. This is global, not local.

Of course you know all this. The reason cherry picking is counter productive, and a main goal of your propaganda campaign, is because if you can get people to fight with you on cherry-picking you can delay or avoid any discussion about how to deal with the problem. This is not an accident.

---

The graph/dataset used to claim that the 16 hottest years were from the last 17-18 years is the one you can see at the end of prof Muller's 5min video I've posted above. I've posted a link detailing the evolution of this data through the ages, with successive alterations by NASA's Hansen of historic data, revising downwards historic temperatures, lowering the high temperature period from the 1930s/40s and bumping up current temperatures to record levels. Muller said he wouldn't take that data at face value, and neither would I.

I'm not denying that we're in a warm plateau, just stating that this current plateau is not exceptional, it is comparable to the most recent peaks from the last century, when the temperatures in N America and the N. Atlantic were consistently warmer than they are today (we don't have as good a records from many other parts of the world, so we rely on proxies). As well, the most important measure of the current climate level (ie whether it is really too hot) is agricultural output and we've have record years of the cereals that feed the world, wheat and rice. This is partly due to the rise in CO2 levels, which result in increase in crop growth rates.

Furthermore, temperatures have been flat during the last two decades according to satellite and other measurements, when about 1/3 of all CO2 produced in the history of mankind has been added to the atmosphere. The Pause is an argument against CO2-driven AGW. As is the global cooling period from 1950-78.

sycasey;842851582 said:

---

I have an open mind.

---

Exactly. These people always frame the discussion as if we have some vested interest in AGW.

I wish it weren't true and that there was no risk of the planet becoming inhospitable to large-scale, world-wide civilization. I'm not anti-progress and I don't wish for a return to the pre-industrial age.

I've hiked through snow fall on Kilimanjaro and had an opportunity to enjoy the great ecological and biodiversity we have all over the planet. I am hoping that my children's children will be able to say the same.

BGolden;842851556 said:

---

+1

I was talking to a builder the other day. He said the 2016 CalGreen Energy Code requires apartments to be wrapped so tight that the buildings are going to sweat. Replacing the existing apartment stock in California will take 50 years before it makes a difference. Meanwhile, people in the new apartments will be subjected to an increase in mold and mildew.

---

Just like with the Government those who worship the religion of climate change never heard of the law of unintended consequences. In their world the problems created by wildly impractical attempts to deal with CO2 don't exist.

metabear;842851574 said:

---

Mold and mildew? How so? A properly located air barrier in the building enclosure actually helps control concentrated condensation.

---

We have seminars on the stuff. It works if there are no failures and it is properly installed.
The point is pushing energy efficiency to the limit can have unintended side effects.
http://www.galeassociates.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Avoiding-Air-Barrier-Pitfalls-BHN.pdf

GivemTheAxe;842851578 said:

---

I assume that you are posting the photos as part of an argument that Global Warming does not exist or is grossly overstated
But Global Warming means that the average temperature are rising. It does not mean that there will not be snow and ice and ice in the winter.
In fact many experts say that winters will be worse because of changes in the traditional Atlantic and Pacific currents.
But overall the average annual temperature will go up and more polar ice and glaciers will melt. Thus raising the global sea level.

---

I posted the photos because Sebastabear found the weather to be unusually warm recently in Scandinavia, so I was just showing as a counterpoint that this has not been a warm year across continental Europe. It was warmer and drier than usual in the British Isles and Norway, because of a strong Jet Stream (no breakdown there), but by and large it was colder than usual across Europe.

~90% of the planet's ice is in Antarctica, where the weather hasn't gotten warmer. The northern polar ice cap floats, so its fluctualtions do not affect sea levels. Greenland has a large ice cap (much smaller than Antarctica's though), but we know that the climate there not too long ago was much warmer (tree stumps, ice cores), and sea levels didn't rise up to bury Holland under water.

BGolden;842851587 said:

---

We have seminars on the stuff. It works if there are no failures and it is properly installed.
The point is pushing energy efficiency to the limit can have unintended side effects.
http://www.galeassociates.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Avoiding-Air-Barrier-Pitfalls-BHN.pdf

---

Of course. It's new technology and there is a learning curve but that's not what you wrote:

"Meanwhile, people in the new apartments will be subjected to an increase in mold and mildew."

Btw, poor construction is poor construction and mold/mildew is often the result no matter what technology was intended.

sycasey;842851582 said:

---

That is exactly what's going on here, and it's done with the framing of "you just need to have an open mind" and "don't trust the establishment." Exactly the kind of thing that educated Berkeley folks might fall for.

I have an open mind. I have enough of an open mind to look for information on what ALL scientists are saying, broadly as a group, not at individual cherry-picked examples from contrarians. When I broaden my scope even a little bit there is no question about what the majority of scientists think.

---

The kind of bias Berkeley educated folks are prone to fall for more than anything else these days is the tribal instinct to distance ourselves from anything associated with Trump. This reduces political thought to a most visceral, tribal form of politics.

So it's about a primal reverence to science, scientists, experts! and the comfort of consensus, vs. deniers, anti-science conservatives, cherry-picking contrarians... All your arguments and those of many others here boil down to this, they are on an emotional level.

Having a proper education means using your brain to look critically and skeptically at established dogmas. The science of climate isn't settled, the observations we've had (particularly from the last two decades) have veered completely away from what the models developed by the scientific establishment have been predicting. The Climate Pause and many other elements are cause for a pause, particulary if we're going to spend trillions imposing drastic energy austerity programs that will hit the middle class and developing world the hardest.

Cal88;842851600 said:

---

The kind of bias Berkeley educated folks are prone to fall for more than anything else these days is the tribal instinct to distance ourselves from anything associated with Trump. This reduces political thought to a most visceral, tribal form of politics.

---

Please. This has been an argument since long before Trump.

As long as the GOP continues to take the position of "climate change doesn't exist," then yes it will remain tribal. Trump is just the natural result of this kind of anti-intellectualism.

Cal88;842851547 said:

---

This video illustrates a staggering disregard for scientific ethical standards in those circles, summarized in 5 minutes

---

Here we go again. This video is of Richard Muller who was a fan favorite of the deniers circa 2011 and presumably since you are putting him forth as an expert who we should listen to you must think he has some credibility. You acknowledge that he was the head of BEST but left it at that. BEST was organized as a reaction to his concerns about falsification of data but when they did the work and crunched the numbers, it turns out that BEST agreed with all of the previous "questionable" data and Muller wrote an op-ed in the #failing NYT about it in July 2012, less than 1.5 years after that video you posted. So not only do you cherry pick data and experts, but even within the output of a given expert, you cherry-pick only the work which confirms your beliefs, or I guess religion as NVBear has said.

Quote:

---

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

---

sycasey;842851582 said:

---

That is exactly what's going on here, and it's done with the framing of "you just need to have an open mind" and "don't trust the establishment." Exactly the kind of thing that educated Berkeley folks might fall for.

I have an open mind. I have enough of an open mind to look for information on what ALL scientists are saying, broadly as a group, not at individual cherry-picked examples from contrarians. When I broaden my scope even a little bit there is no question about what the majority of scientists think.

---

I find it very interesting that when dealt R. Muller's video you disparage him (who is not a denier) and fellow Cal grads rather than looking at the data as part of multiple data points on both sides of the issue to form an informed opinion. When Al Gore was spouting off in the early part of this century, libs were glad to listen and enjoin his erroneous pontifications. To me, I find R. Muller, as a believer, and his data interesting in helping me form my thoughts. Does not mean I believe everything said, nor that it does not need contradiction (if available), but when I hear something that seems logical from an opposition viewpoint (surprise) then it is important to listen. I guess R. Muller is some cherry picked contrarian, or is he?

Unit2Sucks;842851611 said:

---

Here we go again. This video is of Richard Muller who was a fan favorite of the deniers circa 2011 and presumably since you are putting him forth as an expert who we should listen to you must think he has some credibility. You acknowledge that he was the head of BEST but left it at that. BEST was organized as a reaction to his concerns about falsification of data but when they did the work and crunched the numbers, it turns out that BEST agreed with all of the previous "questionable" data and Muller wrote an op-ed in the #failing NYT about it in July 2012, less than 1.5 years after that video you posted. So not only do you cherry pick data and experts, but even within the output of a given expert, you cherry-pick only the work which confirms your beliefs, or I guess religion as NVBear has said.

---

Thank you unit2.....Appreciate this type of response much more than some of the above. Helpful.

OdontoBear66;842851612 said:

---

I find it very interesting that when dealt R. Muller's video you disparage him (who is not a denier) and fellow Cal grads rather than looking at the data as part of multiple data points on both sides of the issue to form an informed opinion. When Al Gore was spouting off in the early part of this century, libs were glad to listen and enjoin his erroneous pontifications. To me, I find R. Muller, as a believer, and his data interesting in helping me form my thoughts. Does not mean I believe everything said, nor that it does not need contradiction (if available), but when I hear something that seems logical from an opposition viewpoint (surprise) then it is important to listen. I guess R. Muller is some cherry picked contrarian, or is he?

---

The issue is that we have been around this bend with Cal88 before. He will present extremely cherry-picked data, and when it is refuted or placed in proper context (as Unit2 did), will he stop? No. Next time there is a climate change thread he'll be back with more of the same. At what point do you stop taking someone seriously? There is a reason he's getting dismissive responses, and it's not just because the "libs" are closed-minded and unwilling to listen.

(By the way, using words like "libs" does not buttress your credentials as a down-the-middle moderate.)

iceland's receding/melting glaciers at an alarming rate
http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?101282-cal-s-monster-class-deux/page397

sycasey;842851615 said:

---

The issue is that we have been around this bend with Cal88 before. He will present extremely cherry-picked data, and when it is refuted or placed in proper context (as Unit2 did), will he stop? No. Next time there is a climate change thread he'll be back with more of the same. At what point do you stop taking someone seriously? There is a reason he's getting dismissive responses, and it's not just because the "libs" are closed-minded and unwilling to listen.



(By the way, using words like "libs" does not buttress your credentials as a down-the-middle moderate.)

---

I have said repeatedly that Neo con and extreme lib postures are a roadblock to getting anything done in this country. Polarization is counter productive to progress----from either end of the spectrum.
A RINO.

Just stumbled across this article which, coincidentally, was published just today.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/06/leading-climate-scientist-science-debate-un-american/

Curious what my liberal friends have to say about the red team v. blue team idea. Seems like exactly the type of open debate, followed by legislative hearings (and perhaps action) that we should be having.

Its rather telling to me that some prominent climate scientists are unwilling to participate because they view the exchange of ideas as "dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science." If the "settled science" is so clear and compelling, it seems to me that they could explain why that is and answer questions from the other side.

Anyone who characterizes any challenge to their views as "dangerous" is discrediting themselves. I submit that that type of approach is "dangerous" - particularly in academic institutions.

BearGoggles;842851629 said:

---

Just stumbled across this article which, coincidentally, was published just today.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/06/leading-climate-scientist-science-debate-un-american/

Curious what my liberal friends have to say about the red team v. blue team idea. Seems like exactly the type of open debate, followed by legislative hearings (and perhaps action) that we should be having.

Its rather telling to me that some prominent climate scientists are unwilling to participate because they view the exchange of ideas as "dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science." If the "settled science" is so clear and compelling, it seems to me that they could explain why that is and answer questions from the other side.

Anyone who characterizes any challenge to their views as "dangerous" is discrediting themselves. I submit that that type of approach is "dangerous" - particularly in academic institutions.

---

+1.snowflakes melt at the thought of debates. If you believe what you preach and have done real research what are you afraid of.

Cal88;842851547 said:

---

The main problem with data adjustments and revisions is that the process is not done in an open and transparent manner. In some instances we've only gotten an insight through FOIA, whistleblowers and leaked emails of how the official climate data adjustment sausage was made, and it wasn't pretty.

If you haven't seen this video I've posted earlier on another thread, this is Cal prof Muller (who's actually a warmist not a "denier", and the head of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group) showing the deceptive approach to the "hockey stick"/Climategate deception carried over by top administrators at some of the leading weather institutes like Phil Jones, head of CRU, and Cal '89 grad Michael Mann, director of ESS.

This video illustrates a staggering disregard for scientific ethical standards in those circles, summarized in 5 minutes:

[video=youtube;8BQpciw8suk][/video]

---

Prof. Muller was my Physics H7A professor in 1988, my freshman year, the hardest class I ever took. At the time I wish I had just taken 7A which would have been hard enough, but now I'm glad I put myself in the grinder with people sometimes as smart or mostly way smarter than me.

Anyway, he is one of the most intelligent and intellectually honest men I have ever had a chance to speak with. He was absolutely right to castigate those that deceptively altered their results. There are unethical people in all walks.

BUT - Cal88, you HAVE to include the conclusion Muller reached and wrote about AFTER conducting his study that he initiated once he initially became a skeptic after seeing problems like the one above. [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html"][U]Here is what he wrote afterwards[/U][/URL].

Quote:

---

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER
JULY 28, 2012

Berkeley, Calif.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

---

Muller is a brilliant man and he clearly did not have a dog in the fight since he was absolutely willing to call out the people that fudged their data, and rightly so. You call him a "warmist." He wasn't a "warmist" in the video you posted. He was still a skeptic at that time. He now has studied the matter in depth. And his subsequent objective finding was that "...global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

Of course, he was suddenly beloved of the Koch brothers when he became a skeptic, and shunned by them when he stopped being one. Go figure.

OneKeg - thank you for that reminder about Muller. Now I remember why he looked and sounded so familiar! Like you I also took an honors physics lower division class (although not from him) and decided once was enough so I reverted to the normal track to fill out my Physics prereqs. It was a long time ago but I do remembering having enjoyed his class even if not realizing it was the same guy.

BearGoggles;842851629 said:

---

Curious what my liberal friends have to say about the red team v. blue team idea. Seems like exactly the type of open debate, followed by legislative hearings (and perhaps action) that we should be having.

---

Sounds great. Let's do it for healthcare, the muslim ban, tax reform, the expansion of the military, the dismantling of the state department, the investigation of Russia's election interference, gerrymandering, voter ID laws and any other number of topics. Let's make sure we're not just having these debates in order to filibuster or introduce delay into the governing process for those things that we know we cannot defeat through appropriate channels either.

OneKeg;842851632 said:

---

Prof. Muller was my Physics H7A professor in 1988, my freshman year, the hardest class I ever took. At the time I wish I had just taken 7A which would have been hard enough, but now I'm glad I put myself in the grinder with people sometimes as smart or mostly way smarter than me.

Anyway, he is one of the most intelligent and intellectually honest men I have ever had a chance to speak with. He was absolutely right to castigate those that deceptively altered their results. There are unethical people in all walks.

BUT - Cal88, you HAVE to include the conclusion Muller reached and wrote about AFTER conducting his study that he initiated once he initially became a skeptic after seeing problems like the one above. [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html"][U]Here is what he wrote afterwards[/U][/URL].



Muller is a brilliant man and he clearly did not have a dog in the fight since he was absolutely willing to call out the people that fudged their data, and rightly so. You call him a "warmist." He wasn't a "warmist" in the video you posted. He was still a skeptic at that time. He now has studied the matter in depth. And his subsequent objective finding was that "...global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

Of course, he was suddenly beloved of the Koch brothers when he became a skeptic, and shunned by them when he stopped being one. Go figure.

---

He then says

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we've tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don't prove causality and they shouldn't end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.

That is quite a qualifier. Even though you only gave a piece, I'm glad that Mullers later view is included.

Unit2Sucks;842851635 said:

---

Sounds great. Let's do it for healthcare, the muslim ban, tax reform, the expansion of the military, the dismantling of the state department, the investigation of Russia's election interference, gerrymandering, voter ID laws and any other number of topics. Let's make sure we're not just having these debates in order to filibuster or introduce delay into the governing process for those things that we know we cannot defeat through appropriate channels either.

---

+1

From this discussion I'd say it's impossible to have a rational discussion or move this issue forward politically. I'll say it again "climate change" is too charged and not a compelling political issue with our current polarization. As long as renewable electricity and alternate transport modes progress it doesn't matter that much whether we agree politically though it would certainly help. Let the states take the lead to protect themselves. Since a lot of red states- Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alaska- will be the leading edge of disasters and stand fast in refusal, let the games begin

oski003;842851637 said:

---

He then says

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we've tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don't prove causality and they shouldn't end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.

That is quite a qualifier. Even though you only gave a piece, I'm glad that Mullers later view is included.

---

I don't see a problem with the qualifier. That is how science works. Science is all about best available explanations that fit the data, even if not perfectly.

Gravity is a theory. Yet it does not explain how at current relative velocities, the stars of the Milky Way don't fly apart. There is just not enough mass, even counting the super-massive black hole at the center.

So this led to the hypothesis of dark matter, which is a much shakier proposition. You can poke all kinds of holes in that, much more so than with gravity, since the observables are more indirect. Yet dark matter is probably (someone can correct me here) the best available explanation. Is it BS? Maybe, but it's what we got. And gravity is most certainly not BS, though maybe some more complete analysis that fits the overall dataset will come along later.

Scientific consensus-wise, human caused climate change is certainly not where gravity Is, but it's probably significantly better than where Dark Matter is. And if a huge population segment we're so inclined, they could even become gravity-deniers because, well, look how far it is from explaining the relatively cohesive spin of some galaxies. Cherry-picking for the win! But somehow that is not as sexy a thing to deny.

Reasonable skepticism is ok in my book. Do you apply the the same skepticism to the proposition put forth by some conservatives in this thread that taking some of the actions suggested by climate scientists or signing treaties would actually lead to significant impoverishment? That seems far less settled to me.

OneKeg;842851642 said:

---

I don't see a problem with the qualifier. That is how science works. Science is all about best available explanations that fit the data, even if not perfectly.

Gravity is a theory. Yet it does not explain how at current relative velocities, the stars of the Milky Way don't fly apart. There is just not enough mass, even counting the super-massive black hole at the center.

So this led to the hypothesis of dark matter, which is a much shakier proposition. You can poke all kinds of holes in that, much more so than with gravity, since the observables are more indirect. Yet dark matter is probably (someone can correct me here) the best available explanation. Is it BS? Maybe, but it's what we got. And gravity is most certainly not BS, though maybe some more complete analysis that fits the overall dataset will come along later.

Scientific consensus-wise, human caused climate change is certainly not where gravity Is, but it's probably significantly better than where Dark Matter is. And if a huge population segment we're so inclined, they could even become gravity-deniers because, well, look how far it is from explaining the relatively cohesive spin of some galaxies. Cherry-picking for the win! But somehow that is not as sexy a thing to deny.

Reasonable skepticism is ok in my book. Do you apply the the same skepticism to the proposition put forth by some conservatives in this thread that taking some of the actions suggested by climate scientists or signing treaties would actually lead to significant impoverishment? That seems far less settled to me.

---

Great that some here are now providing a chance to look deeper into this question. Appreciate this info and will be doing more reading.

GB54;842851641 said:

---

From this discussion I'd say it's impossible to have a rational discussion or move this issue forward politically. I'll say it again "climate change" is too charged and not a compelling political issue with our current polarization. As long as renewable electricity and alternate transport modes progress it doesn't matter that much whether we agree politically though it would certainly help. Let the states take the lead to protect themselves. Since a lot of red states- Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alaska- will be the leading edge of disasters and stand fast in refusal, let the games begin

---

Very interesting. I enjoy so many of your posts GB54, agree or disagree, but this is not cool. The red states don't agree so "F" them. With cr*p like that how do you expect anyone to exert compassion for the future of Mama Earth? Don't like my opinion, screw you. Not cool. I prefer to learn more about GW prior to giving up major, and I mean major, economic giveaways in the way of carbon taxes by the US vs. the likes of China and India. So I will withhold a "back atcha".

I still wait for one person to suggest why we, the USA, should so position ourselves with economic penalties vs. the rest of the world for the most part. We have made monumental strides in improving so much in our environment in our consciousness (look at LA from the 405 on any day compared to 1990, etc.). We are aware and becoming more aware by the day and making the right moves. Fiscal penalties, suspect.

OdontoBear66;842851646 said:

---

Very interesting. I enjoy so many of your posts GB54, agree or disagree, but this is not cool. The red states don't agree so "F" them. With cr*p like that how do you expect anyone to exert compassion for the future of Mama Earth? Don't like my opinion, screw you. Not cool. I prefer to learn more about GW prior to giving up major, and I mean major, economic giveaways in the way of carbon taxes by the US vs. the likes of China and India. So I will withhold a "back atcha".

I still wait for one person to suggest why we, the USA, should so position ourselves with economic penalties vs. the rest of the world for the most part. We have made monumental strides in improving so much in our environment in our consciousness (look at LA from the 405 on any day compared to 1990, etc.). We are aware and becoming more aware by the day and making the right moves. Fiscal penalties, suspect.

---

Excellent points

OdontoBear66;842851646 said:

---

Very interesting. I enjoy so many of your posts GB54, agree or disagree, but this is not cool. The red states don't agree so "F" them. With cr*p like that how do you expect anyone to exert compassion for the future of Mama Earth? Don't like my opinion, screw you. Not cool. I prefer to learn more about GW prior to giving up major, and I mean major, economic giveaways in the way of carbon taxes by the US vs. the likes of China and India. So I will withhold a "back atcha".

I still wait for one person to suggest why we, the USA, should so position ourselves with economic penalties vs. the rest of the world for the most part. We have made monumental strides in improving so much in our environment in our consciousness (look at LA from the 405 on any day compared to 1990, etc.). We are aware and becoming more aware by the day and making the right moves. Fiscal penalties, suspect.

---

Wait, I thought you believed in personal responsibility. If the federal government is not going to do anything it is incumbent on local government states to protect their citizens. If some are willing to take this responsibility and others are not, then those that are willing to step up will have better outcomes. California is spending a lot of effort and money on climate change. Why should these other "welfare queens" get a free ride? Some of these states-in the height of arrogance- even refuse to allow local communities to develop local plans. Believe me, letting them drown is the height of "moderation."

Cal88;842851555 said:

---

The video I've posted above is a 5min rundown of the top top climate scientists (heads of the ESS and CRU) getting caught trying to deceive the public, explained by the top climate scientist (hierarchically speaking) at Cal.

Here's another short video showing the kind of deception the other top climate scientist (NASA/Goddard head James Hansen) was involved in to deceive Congress:

[video=youtube;wXCfxxXRRdY][/video]

Not nearly as egregious as drylabing data (which Hansen has done), but pretty funny and indicative of his approach to ethics.

---

Does that mean you are a climate scientist or are not a climate scientist?

Cal88;842851595 said:

---

I posted the photos because Sebastabear found the weather to be unusually warm recently in Scandinavia, so I was just showing as a counterpoint that this has not been a warm year across continental Europe. It was warmer and drier than usual in the British Isles and Norway, because of a strong Jet Stream (no breakdown there), but by and large it was colder than usual across Europe.

~90% of the planet's ice is in Antarctica, where the weather hasn't gotten warmer. The northern polar ice cap floats, so its fluctualtions do not affect sea levels. Greenland has a large ice cap (much smaller than Antarctica's though), but we know that the climate there not too long ago was much warmer (tree stumps, ice cores), and sea levels didn't rise up to bury Holland under water.

---

In 2015 there were conflicting reports whether polar ice caps were growing on a net basis or shrinking on a net basis. Calculations were difficult because the seasons are reversed in the north and south and since the ocean currents around the South Pole have unique characteristics.
The majority of experts appeared to support the net shrinking conclusion. Those that supported the net growing conclusion did so largely based on snowfall estimates (atmospherics appeared to show greater snowfall). However these scientists also hedged their bets by pointing out that there appeared to be an ongoing recent decline in snowfall levels in Antarctica.

Now in 2017 we got multiple reports in Nature and Time and in the NYT pointing out that the scientists have discovered previously unknown rivers of melting ice under the Antarctic ice sheets which could lead to massive losses of the Antarctic ice sheets in the very near future. Apparently the ground under the Antarctic is warmer than expected thereby melting the ice from below.

This factor (i.e. The melting Antarctic ice cap)is only one of the many factors pointing toward rapid global warming. While one may quibble with some of the arguments. It is extremely difficult to ignore the direction that the vast bulk of the evidence is pointing.

Cal88;842851510 said:

---

"Air pollution" was also the cause advanced to explain the global cooling from the 1960s-70s.









Back then, there was a scientific consensus that we were going to enter a new ice age, and that humanity should be mobilized to avoid man-made climate armageddon, with the usual assortment of global taxes and drastic global industrial curbs. Plus a change...


Prior to the 1990s, data showed that the 1930s-40s temperatures were about as high as today's. I would refer you to the chart for US temperature records I've posted above. Datasets like NASA's were "adjusted" by Hansen. Here's a good documentation of the evolution of NASA's history of tampering with its data:

https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/

---

That Time magazine cover is a fake. Here's Time's comments about that photoshopped forgery:

http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming

So, if that was faked, what can we believe of the rest of it? We're not dealing with honest people.