Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...able-lobby-takeover-push-gas?CMP=share_btn_fb
Fossil fuel firms accused of renewable lobby takeover to push gas

Fossil fuel companies have taken up majority positions in key renewables trade groups steering them towards a pro-gas stance that influenced Europe’s 2030 clean energy targets, industry insiders claim

‘From being system-relevant, renewables were suddenly becoming system-dominant. The big companies decided that ‘if you can’t beat them, join them. And if you join them, slow them down so that you can survive in the market’.’ Photograph: Carlos Barria/Reuters

Arthur Neslen, Brussels

Thursday 22 January 2015 12.15 GMT

Major fossil fuel companies and energy utilities have used their financial power to take control of key renewable energy lobby groups in Europe in an effort to slow the continent’s transition to clean energy, according to industry insiders.

Big energy firms such as Total, Iberdrola, E.On and Enel have together adopted a dominant position in trade bodies such as the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) and European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA). Their representatives now constitute a majority on both group’s boards.

Officials in EPIA were told to argue for a renewable-gas alliance as the answer to Europe’s energy security concerns, while EWEA lowered its 2030 clean energy ambitions by a third, according to ex-staffers, renewables experts and policy insiders. They argue that the more pro-gas stance influenced the 2030 climate targets adopted by EU governments last year.

“One of the advantages the fossils still have over renewables is capital and that is why they say that the perfect match is between renewables and gas,” the Green MEP Bas Eickhout told the Guardian. “The strategy is familiar. It ends with a fossil fuel takeover.”

With emissions roughly half that of coal, natural gas is often seen as a bridge to a low-carbon future. In the period to 2030, it could provide a flexible back-up for renewables, on windless or cloudy days.


“In the short to medium-term, gas and renewables together are an essential part of Europe’s energy make-up to guarantee security of supply,” Oliver Joy a EWEA spokesman said. “From a systemic point of view, gas and wind actually complement each other quite well.”

But scientists argue that a large majority of fossil fuels, including gas, will need to remain in the ground if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. “This is a clear choice that needs to be made. Putting gas at the same level as renewables risks displacing investments from renewables into gas, thereby locking in carbon emissions over a long period of time,” Wendel Trio, the director of Climate Action Network Europe.

In 2009, energy utilities and fossil fuels firms had been blindsided by the EU’s announcement of renewable energy targets for 2020. “Suddenly, it was a reality and their market shares were diminishing dramatically,” said one source in the renewable industry. “From being system-relevant, renewables were suddenly becoming system-dominant. The big companies decided that ‘if you can’t beat them, join them. And if you join them, slow them down so that you can survive in the market’.”

Perhaps the most striking result of the alleged fossil fuel takeover was its apparent influence of the renewable trade groups’ position on EU climate goals agreed by governments in 2014. EWEA had previously supported calls for a 45% renewables share in Europe’s energy mix by 2030 but as the issue came to a head last year, representatives of all the major corporates on its board – apart from Alstom – opposed a higher target than 30%, with Iberdrola, Enel and other utilities wanting no target at all.

“The secretariat were under quite a bit of pressure to not be too ambitious and be what they called ‘realistic’,” one source with knowledge of the debate told the Guardian.

EWEA compromised with a pitch for a binding 30% goal – followed rapidly by EPIA. A 27% target was eventually agreed by EU leaders, that countries could ignore.

EWEA loyalists maintain that they had little realistic choice once the positions of countries such as the UK and Poland became clear, and say that the 30% goal was a “logical progression” from the 2020 goals. But environmentalists believe that as a low opening gambit, it created a fait accompli by not pushing the politicians to be more ambitious.

“The renewable energy associations were not effective,” a commission source said. “The big utilities won that battle and steered it their way.”

Energy utilities and fossil fuel firms began moving into the renewable associations in 2010 as part of an intensifying effort to influence policy lobbying in Brussels, according to Brussels insiders.

In March 2011, the French oil and gas company, Total, bought a controlling share in the solar manufacturer, SunPower. That company’s marketing director, Oliver Schaefer, was elected as EPIA’s president two years later, while another Total executive, Arnaud Chaperon, became EPIA’s vice president.

In all, five of EPIA’s eight board members now represent big energy and chemical concerns, such as Enel, Dupont, and Wacker Chemie.

At the same time, the complexion of the organisations was changing. “Most [policy officers] were made redundant or left because they no longer fitted in. These were associations where people used to work for beliefs and with their hearts but now it’s all about big noise and big money,” said one source.

As security of supply concerns rose across Europe last year in response to the Ukraine crisis, Schaefer instructed EPIA officials to advocate gas as part of the energy security solution.

“It is true that EPIA has not been very outspoken on this topic,” one informed source said. “Oliver Schaefer put forward the line that the solar and wind sectors should see gas as a partner – a flexible technology that can serve as backup – for sure, he also wanted the association to say this.”

EPIA’s CEO James Watson, denied that any staff members had been told to advocate a partnership with gas on energy security. “EPIA believes that we need flexibility in the EU energy system and gas is a technology that can provide this,” he said.

Schaefer is politically and personally close to Thomas Becker, EWEA’s CEO since 2012, who former employees describe as dazzled by major corporate players.

“I think Becker brokered a deal with EWEA’s ‘lead sponsors’ – the major corporates – that fund it much more than the national wind associations,” an ex-staffer said. “They’ve become a lot more influential and that has an advantage in creating resources and the capacity to lobby. But, politically, there’s a price to pay for that.”

EWEA’s board structure, always finely balanced, tilted decisively in favour of big energy firms in recent years, he said. Fifteen firms such as Alstom and EDF now have seats on EWEA’s board, compared to just three national associations. In 2012, there had been 19 national associations on the board.

Becker himself told an EU conference last November that “renewables and wind cannot do it [the clean energy transition] alone. That’s an illusion, obviously. We need an energy mix much more broad. I, of course, see gas as something very interesting, combined with renewables.”
The wind association had previously argued that a 100% renewable energy future was possible (with beefed-up hydro-power storage) – and indeed necessary after 2030 – even if it was a little more expensive than an alliance with gas.

A EWEA spokesman declined to comment on whether the association still believed in a fully renewable post-2030 future, or whether a deal had been done with its lead sponsors.

“Originally gas was seen as a bridge technology for a few years but not a long-term solution and I think that may have changed in the public discourse,” a well-placed source said. “The gas people are interested of course. There has been a lot of pressure in EWEA’s board, especially since June to give a larger role to gas – mostly coming from the big utilities.”

EWEA did not respond to a request for comment on this allegation.

In the last year, EPIA and EWEA have been in regular talks with the lobby group, Gas Naturally about forming a common front. “There have been meetings with EWEA, EPIA and Gas Naturally at a high level with a view to making something together, whether in the form of a paper, an association or something else,” said one informed source.

In an interview last June, Schaefer said: “We are currently discussing whether it does not make sense to forge for a transitional period, an alliance between wind energy, photovoltaics and gas power plants, because it fits together simply, reflects the reality of the past 15 years, and technologically matches.”

Watson, a former director at the Weber Shandwick public relations firm, said that it was too early to speculate about the talks’ outcome, while a EWEA spokesman said that “no arrangements” with Gas Naturally were yet in place but the talks would go on.

A source said: “The strategy on the gas side would be to kill coal, and of course to greenwash. On the renewables side it would be to partner with big business rather than the small players and NGOS, as they did in the past, and conquer a bigger, more conservative and more powerful auditorium.”
 
I do post news and the occasional Op Ed in a newspaper, for sure - you are right, OBD.

However, I post quite a bit of peer-reviewed science, OBD.

The bloggers you post (and the assumed science contained within) are not peer-reviewed. If they really had these concerns over any particular piece of science - any article - they could either publish themselves and/or publish a comment in the same journals that published the original article with their critiques. They do neither because the sh*t they pull in cherry-picking data and truncating graphs would be spotted in an instant by anyone with Science skills. Their blogs, then - are the only place that they can get "published". Be careful OBD - there is quite a bit of "opinions" not backed-up with the most relevant and current Science out there. ALWAYS go back to the peer-reviewed Science - no matter who's opinion you like.

That's the point I was making.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150205095237.htm

Heavy rainfall events becoming more frequent on Big Island, Hawaii
Date: February 5, 2015
Source: University of Hawaii at Manoa
Summary: A recent study determined that heavy rainfall events have become more frequent over the last 50 years on Hawai'i Island. For instance, a rare storm with daily precipitation of nearly 12 inches, occurring once every 20 years by 1960, has become a rather common storm event on the Big Island of Hawai'i -- returning every 3-5 years by 2009.

A recent study by University of Hawai'i at Mānoa researchers determined that heavy rainfall events have become more frequent over the last 50 years on Hawai'i Island. For instance, a rare storm with daily precipitation of nearly 12 inches, occurring once every 20 years by 1960, has become a rather common storm event on the Big Island of Hawai'i -- returning every 3-5 years by 2009.

Storm chasing
In a paper published in the International Journal of Climatology, Ying Chen, a UH Mānoa graduate student at the time of the study, and Dr. Pao-Shin Chu, professor of atmospheric sciences at UH Mānoa and head of the Hawai'i State Climate Office, analyzed extreme precipitation events and the frequency with which they occur on three islands in Hawai'i -- Oʻahu, Maui and Hawai'i Island.

While heavy rainfall events have become more frequent over the last 50 years on the easternmost island in Hawai'i, the opposite behavior is observed for Oʻahu and Maui to the west. There, rainfall extremes have become less frequent in the last five decades. This study, therefore, also reveals a regional -- that is, east to west -- difference in how precipitation patterns are responding to a changing climate.

"In the past, the frequency of heavy rainfall events was assumed to be fairly constant. However, because climate is changing, the assumption of stable precipitation climatology is questionable and needs to be reconsidered," said Chu.

"Changes in the frequency of heavy rain events have repercussions on ecological systems, property, transportation, flood hazards, and engineering design -- including sewage systems, reservoirs and buildings."

This study also provides clues about why and how the frequency of precipitation extremes has changed. Chu and Chen found a greater number of extreme rain events during La Nina years and the opposite during El Nino years.

In this study, the number of rain gauges used was limited -- the researchers used information from 24 weather stations on the three islands. For future work, Chu hopes analyzing data from additional stations will provide a more detailed assessment of changing rain patterns across the Hawaiian Islands.

Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by University of Hawaii at Manoa. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference: Ying Ruan Chen, Pao-Shin Chu. Trends in precipitation extremes and return levels in the Hawaiian Islands under a changing climate. International Journal of Climatology, 2014; 34 (15): 3913 DOI: 10.1002/joc.3950 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.3950
 
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever


When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Watch: Climate change explained in 60 second animation
Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.

Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.

Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.
 
ahhh...OBD?

There areliterally hundreds of thousands of temperature recorders on this planet recording temperatures - maybe even millions - then there are the other satellite-equipped temperature infersions from optical satellite data.

The only scandal is guys are allowed to post the crap which you cut and paste from - and someone takes them seriously.
 
2014 Fall Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Federal government is not doing enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change
<iframe width="1138" height="640" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xJZHxiv5V20" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
http://www.alternativesjournal.ca/energy-and-resources/more-methane-surprises

More Methane Surprises
High concentrations of methane plumes found rising from the floor of the East Siberian Arctic Ocean and along the US Atlantic Coast.
BY JANET KIMANTAS
DEC 2014 | WATER 40.5
CATEGORIES: CLIMATE CHANGE

METHANE HAS BEEN in the news for some time now as a source of climate alarm. The potential release of this powerful greenhouse gas from melting Arctic permafrost had considerable traction in the news over the last year.

The impact of methane on climate change is more than 20 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 100-year time frame, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In July 2014, researchers from Stockholm University investigated plumes of methane rising from the floor of the East Siberian Arctic Ocean. The plumes themselves were not a surprise to the scientists, but their high concentration was unexpected.

Chief scientist Örjan Gustafsson speculates that the gas may be coming from collapsing methane hydrates – pockets of methane that are trapped in frozen water. Fears of methane release have most often focused on melting permafrost releasing the gas byproducts of rotting organic matter. Methane also leaks from vents and fissures in the seabed.

Methane hydrate pockets form under highly specific conditions of high water pressure and low temperature, where they generally remain stable. Gustafsson explains that a tongue of Atlantic water may have warmed up enough in recent years to start destabilizing the hydrates.

Methane hydrates have recently become the focus of efforts by India, Japan and Korea to develop as a source of future energy. There could potentially be more fossil fuel in them than there is in conventional reserves of coal, oil and gas. But if climate warming causes them to destabilize they could escape directly into the atmosphere.

If even a small fraction of Arctic sea floor carbon is released to the atmosphere, we’re f’d.
—Jason Box, Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland climatologist

Jason Box, a climatologist at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, was closely following the research expedition. He was moved to tweet that “If even a small fraction of Arctic sea floor carbon is released to the atmosphere, we’re f’d.”

In August, researchers released a report describing the discovery of hundreds of methane plumes seeping from organic sediments along the US Atlantic coast. They also found patches of methane hydrate. This was quite unexpected for this particular environment and the scientists speculated that if the East Coast could harbour so many methane pits, there could be tens of thousands more awaiting discovery.

The Atlantic methane mostly dissolves in the ocean and doesn’t release to the atmosphere, but it still adds to the ocean’s carbon content. Some of the difficulties in predicting the behaviour of these phenomena include the rate at which the climate is changing in the Arctic, the unprecedented nature of the unfolding processes and the complex combinations of rapidly changing events. Peter Wadhams, internationally renowned Arctic expert and head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge University, points out that climate models need to represent very fine-scale processes to include all the possible effects. These effects include the break-up of sea ice due to unusually large waves that develop on newly ice-free Arctic water, and surface meltwater pools that melt all the way through ice sheets. Only with sophisticated models like this, he says, can we accurately see the possibilities of offshore permafrost melt – including methane hydrates.

Methane hydrate, also known as methane clathrate, is ice composed of crystalline cages called clathrates that trap methane gas molecules. Hydrates form when temperatures are cold enough and/or pressure is high enough, as in deep water. The source of the methane can be either thermogenic – created by deep-earth heating, or biogenic – created by microbial action in top layers of sediment and in soil. When clathrates melt, they release their trapped methane from the ground, or from bubble plumes when underwater. In the Arctic, clathrates also form on land both above and below the permafrost line.

Janet Kimantas
Janet Kimantas is A\J's associate editor, and a lifelong environmentalist and artist.
 

Attachments

  • 650x278xmethane,P20diagram.png.pagespeed.ic.1TN4zJyT-l.jpg
    650x278xmethane,P20diagram.png.pagespeed.ic.1TN4zJyT-l.jpg
    21.1 KB · Views: 28
So OBD how is that Hoax thing working out for your team?
Perhaps your team can pass the hat around to pay for this, after all your team has "truth" on your side. LOL:rolleyes:

Canadian Paper Found Guilty of Defaming Climate Scientist Andrew Weaver with "Climategate" Smears


Posted by <cite style="font-style: normal;">Brad Johnson
http://www.hillheat.com/articles/20...ientist-andrew-weaver-with-climategate-smears
</cite>


The conservative Canadian newspaper National Post and several of its reporters have been found guilty of defaming a climate scientist in numerous articles that attacked his character. The defendants - the Post, its publisher Gordon Fisher, and its journalists Terence Corcoran, Peter Foster, and Kevin Libin - have to retract all their articles about climate scientist Andrew Weaver and pay $50,000 in general damages jointly.
She did not find the defendants guilty of malice, merely that they "deliberately created a negative impression of Dr. Weaver" because of their climate-change denial and "have been careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts."
Dr. Andrew Weaver is one of the world's pre-eminent paleoclimatologists, a professor at the University of Victoria since 1992. He has spent considerable time working to educate the public on climate change, writing Keeping Our Cool: Canada in a Warming World in 2008 and acting as a lead author for every IPCC report since 1995. During the


In a series of articles and editorials, the Post claimed Weaver, as "Canada's warmist spinner-in-chief," was part of a global scientific conspiracy to concoct fear about fossil-fueled global warming. This "Climategate" smear against varied climate scientists was promoted by conservative media worldwide during the 2009 Copenhagen climate talks. While other scientists were being smeared following the hacking of a set of email correspondence, Weaver was the victim of an office break-in. The Post then falsely claimed Weaver blamed the oil industry for the burglary. The Post also falsely claimed Weaver was trying to dissociate himself from the IPCC and was generally corrupt and deceitful. In 2010, Weaver filed suit against thePost, after years of asking for corrections and retractions.
The judge in the case, Justice Emily Burke, found the defendants' claims that their articles did not defame Weaver's character completely unconvincing. She found, instead, they lied and defamed Dr. Weaver. According to Burke, they "altered the complexion of the facts and omitted facts sufficiently fundamental that they undermine the accuracy of the facts expressed in the commentary to the extent the facts cannot be properly regarded as a true statement of the facts."
As she wrote in her decision:

Essentially, the allegations of the defamatory character of the words in the four articles can be summarized as the following innuendos or inferences that Dr. Weaver

a) attempted to divert public attention from the IPCC and Climategate scandal by fabricating stories about the involvement of the fossil fuel industry with respect to the break-ins at his office, theft of emails from a UK University, and hack attacks at the Centre;
(b) engaged in deceptive misconduct in the news media to do so;
(c) engaged in willful manipulation and distortion of scientific data for the purposes of deceiving the public in order to promote a public agenda;
(d) in doing so, is motivated by a corrupt interest in receiving government funding and financial rewards;
(e) is wilfully concealing scientific climate data;
(f) knows or believes the IPCC reports concerning global warming are unscientific and fraudulent and seeks to avoid personal accountability for the manipulation/distortion of those reports by disassociating himself from that organization;
(g) has deceitfully or incompetently linked current weather and temperature events with global warming;
(h) authored a deceitful and manipulative work of agitation propaganda known as The Copenhagen Diagnosis; and
(i) is untrustworthy, unscientific and incompetent.
As of this writing, the National Post has not yet removed the offending articles from its website.
The full judgment can be found here.
 
Oak Bay MLA Andrew Weaver wins defamation suit against National Post

http://www.timescolonist.com/oak-ba...famation-suit-against-national-post-1.1755767

The National Post has been ordered to pay Oak Bay MLA and internationally known climate scientist Andrew Weaver $50,000 in damages for defaming him in four articles published in late 2009 and early 2010.
“I’m thrilled. The judgment is absolutely wonderful,” said Weaver, the Green MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.
“They attributed statements to me I had never made. They accused me of things I had never done and they attacked me for views I’d never held. They refused to retract it, so I had no choice.”
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Emily Burke concluded the National Post newspaper, and its writers Terence Corcoran, Peter Foster and Kevin Libin “have been careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts. As evident from the testimony of the defendants, they were more interested in espousing a particular view than assessing the accuracy of the facts.”
Burke found the defamation was serious and that a significant award was appropriate. “The evidence establishes Dr. Weaver was deeply affected by what he perceived as a barrage of articles impugning his integrity and academic reputation,” Burke wrote in her 62-page judgment.
She ordered the National Post to remove the offending articles from any electronic databases under the control of the newspaper and to withdraw consent to third parties to republish the defamatory material.
Burke also ordered the National Post to publish a complete retraction of the defamatory material in the hardcopy National Post, on Internet sites and in electronic databases — in a form agreed to by Weaver.
“That’s something that’s very important to me,” Weaver said.
His lawyer will approach the newspaper next week to discuss the retraction and the costs of the court case, he said.
“I’m reasonably confident I’ll get costs,” Weaver said.
“But I think when all is said and done, it will become a wash in terms of the award. At least, I’ll get my expenses back because this is not a trivial amount.”
The National Post could not be reached for comment.
In late 2009 and early 2010, the newspaper published four articles with the headlines Weaver’s Web, Weaver’s Web II, Climate Agency Going Up In Flames, and So Much for Pure Science.
At the time, Weaver was a professor in the school of earth and ocean sciences at the University of Victoria.
In April 2010, Weaver brought an action for libel against the newspaper. He said the articles implied he attempted to divert public attention from a scandal involving “Climategate” and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by fabricating stories about the involvement of the fossil fuel industry with break-ins at his office.
Weaver also claimed the articles suggested he was untrustworthy, unscientific and incompetent, and that he distorted and concealed scientific data to promote a public agenda and receive government funding.
He also complained about defamatory comments posted on the National Post website.
ldickson@timescolonist.com
The judgment is available online at courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/15/01/2015BCSC0165.htm
 
‘BREATHTAKING’ ADJUSTMENTS TO ARCTIC TEMPERATURE RECORD. IS THERE ANY ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ WE CAN TRUST?

Glad you asked.....:rolleyes:

Nature has a temp gauge that does not need science papers or denial blogs to prove one way or another. It's called ICE. When it's below zero c you get ice, above that you get water. Looks to me that the Arctic is getting warmer. Are you in denial about that OBD?
Sea_Ice_Extent_v2_L.png


[jjwpOWeRZus]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjwpOWeRZus
 
Summary of OBD's last cut and paste:

"Ya Dude! I was like talking to this dude - and he was talking to this other Dude - who phoned this other Dude - and they were like "Dude!" So I was like chaaah "Dude!" Ya - and we were all like "Dude!"

That is not Science, OBD...ahhh...Dude.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<iframe width="854" height="510" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Hzv4ZCUSuaA?list=PLQ9B-p5Q-YOM4h_IeoMQRaOdL0dKUPohR" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
How the Koch Brothers Suppress Voters and Undermine Democracy • Koch Brothers EXPOSED 2014
 
Better start doing your homework.
First there are none in the oceans.
There are tons of places where there are none.


ahhh...OBD?

There areliterally hundreds of thousands of temperature recorders on this planet recording temperatures - maybe even millions - then there are the other satellite-equipped temperature infersions from optical satellite data.

The only scandal is guys are allowed to post the crap which you cut and paste from - and someone takes them seriously.
 
I see you argue well.

Summary of OBD's last cut and paste:

"Ya Dude! I was like talking to this dude - and he was talking to this other Dude - who phoned this other Dude - and they were like "Dude!" So I was like chaaah "Dude!" Ya - and we were all like "Dude!"

That is not Science, OBD...ahhh...Dude.
 
So show me the peer reviewed science that the satellights are wrong about the earths temperatures and the reason for this?
Show me why the world has not warmed up for 18 years plus and your science that says so.
Show me the facts.
Ok I'll take a stab at it.
First lets look at your facts.
You pick 18 years of RSS data with this graph.
You do know that the satellite data goes back further don't you.
Why do you like that 18 years?
Perhaps it's because it fits with what you want to see in the data.


image.php


Above is you data. Lets first reproduce this graph of your 18 year "no global warming"

trend


Yup .. I would say that's a match.... and your "no global warming" trend in in green
Now lets add the rest of the data.
trend


Let us now plot the trend in all the data.
trend

I see the blue trend line does not match your 18 year "Paws" trend there OBD
You would not be trying to pull a fast one on the good folks here on this website would you?
So there you go.... exposed with a fact, with your own data set (RSS).
Yes it's a classic trick called "cherry picking the data"
I suspect we are both looking for the truth and if I were you I would question the source of the 18 years without global warming.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The global scientific community agree that the earth has gone through at least 5 ice ages, not including the little one 200 years ago. Each time the ice melted...with no anthropogenic involvement. The human race is such an arrogant species, thinking we could influence climate on a global scale ! Wonder what happened to the wooly mammoth or the hairy mastodon ? The climate changed, they died. Was anthropogenic climate change to blame ? Obviously not. Are polar bears among others due for extinction in the next 50 years due to climate change ,probably. Was it anthropogenic....again obviously not.
 
I see you argue well.
It's a parody of the content of that last cut and paste of yours. If the so-called author of that blog really had some legitimate critiques - he could of posted in the peer-reviewed Science himself. He could of submitted a letter of comment in the Journals that had the data he says was manipulated. he didn't presumably because what he says is BS and would be recognized as such by the Science community. Instead it stands as a unsubstantiated rumour - as described by the parody I posted.
Better start doing your homework. First there are none in the oceans. There are tons of places where there are none.
Maybe you should do yours, OBD. Substantiate your claims.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First steelmadness - you recognize the effect we expect from elevated levels of anthropogenic sources of CO2 emissions is "global warming" verses ice ages. Kinda an important differentiation right there.

When you look at the historic CO2 levels (see below) and what happened - it is pretty telling looking at where we are right now. We are some 100ppm ABOVE where the CO2 levels melted the glaciers in the ice ages you were talking about - and increasing still. That's the problem. Whether or not the extra 100ppm of CO2 is due to human activities or not - which it largely is - we still have more CO2 emissions going into the air. If 300 ppm or less was enough to recover us from ice ages - shouldn't we be concerned BEFORE we approach 500?

If 300 ppm was enough to melt glaciers - what will 400 do? Or maybe 500 ppm - at our current levels of increase?

It's a big roulette wheel that we don't know what will happen. But from all the available Science - it probably isn't a good thing - the effects will remain for hundreds if not thousands of years in the future - and maybe we don't have to go there if we act now.

I agree humans ARE arrogant AND prolific. Some 7.2+ BILLION and increasing. At Western levels of lifestyles - we would need some 4 more planets resources to keep us at this population level indefinitely. This is at the crux of the problem wrt greenhouse gas emissions.

Speaking of religion and theology verses Science:

The arrogance I see is not taking responsibility for one's actions.

The arrogance I see is blindly ignoring the Science - meanwhile clinging to the faint hope that the stock market and the Gods of Wall Street will somehow save us.

The arrogance I see is that I never gave any of the denier camp spokespeople permission to speak on behalf of my personal relationship with God.

The arrogance I see is spokespeople for the denier camp speaking for God.

You are right steelmadness - humans are incredibly arrogant.
 

Attachments

  • attachment.jpg
    attachment.jpg
    85.8 KB · Views: 43
Last edited by a moderator:
The global scientific community agree that the earth has gone through at least 5 ice ages, not including the little one 200 years ago. Each time the ice melted...with no anthropogenic involvement. The human race is such an arrogant species, thinking we could influence climate on a global scale ! Wonder what happened to the wooly mammoth or the hairy mastodon ? The climate changed, they died. Was anthropogenic climate change to blame ? Obviously not. Are polar bears among others due for extinction in the next 50 years due to climate change ,probably. Was it anthropogenic....again obviously not.

The true arrogance is to believe that we are so irrelevant we can't impact climate on a global scale. While certainly the past climate changes had little to nothing to do with anthropogenic involvement, to use those as examples of why anthropogenic contributions cannot have impact now is just plain stupid. Obviously something that wasn't occurring in the past, could not have affected the past. Your argument is the logical equivalent of arguing "There were massive die offs of organisms in the past and none of them involved nuclear weapons, so we needn't worry about nuclear weapons now".

We know we can influence climate on very large scales because we have already and we have in the past. If you don't want to think we can change climate on a massive scale by our own actions, I'd suggest you read about the combined natural and human forces that led to the famous Oklahoma dust bowl. The farming practices we implemented helped to create the dust bowl and dust storms that traveled 2000 miles from west to east and blackout the skies in cities like Washington DC and NY. The changes in farming practices largely eliminated such storms. We've also massively changed climates in many regions through deforestation. Much of the land mass of the earth looks nothing like it did prior to human industrialization so it's clear to anyone who looks around and thinks sensibly that we can have massive impacts on a global scale. We can also model the impact of throwing so much CO2 into the atmosphere and we know it can, does and has increased the global temperature. We are not so good at predicting/modeling short or even moderate term trends, but the overall rise in temperature is well modeled and well understood. The argument that we are "arrogant" by "thinking we could influence climate on a global scale" is the epitome of sticking one's head in the sand. We know we can have global impact on animal species (hunting, over fishing etc.), plant species (farming and deforestation), air quality (CFC's, Ozone, NO, etc), heavy metals (China recently reported that 16.1 percent of the country’s soil and nearly 20 percent of its arable land has been contaminated, largely by heavy metals such as cadmium, nickel and arsenic), etc., etc., etc. To think that we can't possibly screw with climate simply because it has high natural variability is IMHO, incredibly stupid.
 
LOL! pretending to be a scientist.
What else is there to say.




Ok I'll take a stab at it.
First lets look at your facts.
You pick 18 years of RSS data with this graph.
You do know that the satellite data goes back further don't you.
Why do you like that 18 years?
Perhaps it's because it fits with what you want to see in the data.


image.php


Above is you data. Lets first reproduce this graph of your 18 year "no global warming"

trend


Yup .. I would say that's a match.... and your "no global warming" trend in in green
Now lets add the rest of the data.
trend


Let us now plot the trend in all the data.
trend

I see the blue trend line does not match your 18 year "Paws" trend there OBD
You would not be trying to pull a fast one on the good folks here on this website would you?
So there you go.... exposed with a fact, with your own data set (RSS).
Yes it's a classic trick called "cherry picking the data"
I suspect we are both looking for the truth and if I were you I would question the source of the 18 years without global warming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top