Anthropogenic Global Warming 101

Via Deltoid.

Quote :

The most damning thing about Christopher Monckton's testimony to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming on global warming science (video here), is the fact that the Republicans could not or would not get a single scientist to testify.

Once again, given the opportunity for debate with actual scientists (read: people who know their shit) rather than idiots like Al Gore, "skeptics" scatter like cockroaches exposed to light.

Classy.

Which reminded me...

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Seems you spend more time trying to convince everybody that Global Warming is real, than discussing possible solutions.

The above seems to highlight why. Clearly there are people still out there who are not yet at the "what do we need to do" stage of the discussion.

NewScientist has a special report called "Living in Denial". "From climate change to vaccines, evolution to flu", it's a collection of articles taking a look at the ins and outs of denialism. From corporate disinformation campaigns to the human mind's ability to believe ridiculous conspiracy bullshit and how to fight back.

A good read for anyone interested.

Quote :

Attending Heartland's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change were seventy-three distinguished scientists, economists, and policy experts from twenty-three countries. The speakers were all united in thought that the time is now to reconsider the science and economics of global warming. New scientific discoveries cast doubt on how much of the warming during the twentieth century was man-caused, and how much was due to natural causes. Governments around the world have begun to recognize the astronomical cost of reducing emissions, and how the cost of slowing or stopping global warming might exceed the societal benefits. Even so, not all seventy-three of the invited guests agreed on the causes, extent, or the consequences of climate change.

http://www.freedompub.org/profiles/blogs/heartlands-fourth

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Quote :

The speakers were all united in thought that the time is now to reconsider the science and economics of global warming. New scientific discoveries cast doubt on how much of the warming during the twentieth century was man-caused, and how much was due to natural causes.

http://www.freedompub.org/profiles/blogs/heartlands-fourth

Of course they were "united". Let's take a look at the sponsors of this crank fest.....
Conservative and free market organizations and think tanks like American Policy Center, Americans for Prosperity, Americans For Tax Reform, Atlas Economic Research Foundation Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, Competitive Enterprise Institute, George Marshall Institute, Institute for Free Enterprise – Berlin, National Center for Public Policy Research, Tennessee Center for Policy Research,The Right Wing Christian group Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. Climate change denial activist groups such as Science and Public Policy Institute, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, International Climate Science Coalition, Icecap, Iceagenow.com, European Institute for Climate and Energy, Climate Science Coalition of America, Climate Sceptics, and so on.

The above is from The heart of opposition to climate science

I'm sure Heretic will have a lot more to say.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Quote :

Attending Heartland's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change were seventy-three distinguished scientists, economists, and policy experts from twenty-three countries. The speakers were all united in thought that the time is now to reconsider the science and economics of global warming. New scientific discoveries cast doubt on how much of the warming during the twentieth century was man-caused, and how much was due to natural causes. Governments around the world have begun to recognize the astronomical cost of reducing emissions, and how the cost of slowing or stopping global warming might exceed the societal benefits. Even so, not all seventy-three of the invited guests agreed on the causes, extent, or the consequences of climate change.

http://www.freedompub.org/profiles/blogs/heartlands-fourth

Thoughts on the actual conference? Did you even read any of the material presented? Or just spamming us as usual before running away again, Brave Sir Robin?

Heretic wrote:

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Quote :

Attending Heartland's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change were seventy-three distinguished scientists, economists, and policy experts from twenty-three countries. The speakers were all united in thought that the time is now to reconsider the science and economics of global warming. New scientific discoveries cast doubt on how much of the warming during the twentieth century was man-caused, and how much was due to natural causes. Governments around the world have begun to recognize the astronomical cost of reducing emissions, and how the cost of slowing or stopping global warming might exceed the societal benefits. Even so, not all seventy-three of the invited guests agreed on the causes, extent, or the consequences of climate change.

http://www.freedompub.org/profiles/blogs/heartlands-fourth

Thoughts on the actual conference? Did you even read any of the material presented? Or just spamming us as usual before running away again, Brave Sir Robin?

Yeah, well I'd comment, but I wouldn't want to get accused of "piling on" again. I seriously doubt if he is going to respond anyway, but I'll refrain from commenting... for now. .

I wrote this about last year's conference:

Quote :

Unwilling to play with the big boys, the "skeptics" had their second annual "It's a Conspiracy" pow-wow. The Heartland Institute hosted the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, though don't let the name fool you. What was billed as a conference regarding "new research that contradicts claims that Earth’s moderate warming during the 20th Century primarily was man-made and has reached crisis proportions" was nothing more than the usual regurgitated nonsense from a who's who list of deniers and fake experts. You know you're off to a bad start if you give away more seats than there were paying attendees (and of the 800 registered, only 600 showed, compared to the CC's 2,500).

You only have to look at their scattershot approach at debunking prevailing scientific theory... It's the sun. it's not the sun. It's natural. It's the cosmic rays. It's the oceans. It's the PDO. It's volcanoes. There is warming. There isn't warming. We get the whole litany of recycled/debunked nonsense we all have seen in each and every Skeptic Op-ed Of The Week in an incoherent mess where half the presenters contradict the evidence of the other. What's really surprising (well, not to anyone who's been paying attention) is that this orgy of mental deficiency hasn't changed at all from the previous year. With such an obvious level of confusion on the current state of things, you'd think that over time and with further research you'd see at least some form of a cohesive argument forming instead of simply throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. Instead you get exactly the opposite... The core "skeptic" argument hasn't moved beyond "Al Gore is a doodie head". They're simply united in their hatred for Gore, Mann, Hansen, and all things liberal.

You'll also notice that they aren't really contradicting global warming at all... No one is disputing the radiative properties of CO2. No one is disputing the fact that the planet is emitting less radiation than its absorbing from the sun. They either A) deny there's warming, wishing the excess energy out of existence, or B) they believe some sort mechanism will magically kick in preventing further warming, exactly as it didn't do so during similar climate shifts of the past.

Nothing any different than last year, which wasn't any different than the year before: a room full of "skeptics" that still cannot agree on anything other than Al Gore wears farty pants. They all managed to show up to preach to the choir, yet Republicans couldn't get any of these scientists to testify to Congress? Self imposed exile so they can claim conspiracy, censorship, and persecution. And as far as conferences go, it certainly wasn't the self congratulatory party they were expecting. Steve McIntyre disappointed the crowd when he shot down calls to have "warmists" jailed and condemned Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli's useless witch hunt against Mann. He stated he supports government regulation of CO2 emissions if they are found to be dangerous. Roy Spencer defended Phil Jones, even stating "Phil Jones has been looking at climate records for a very long time. Frankly our data set agrees with his, so unless we are all making the same mistake we're not likely to find out anything new from the data anyway." Both he and Lindzen recognize CO2 as a warming gas, with Lindzen acknowledging the planet is warmer thanks to CO2; they just think magical forces will kick in to prevent the planet from getting much warmer just like it didn't do the last time CO2 was this high. Sonia Boehmer Christiansen stated she supports energy taxes. There were the usual lies, of course, tied together at the end with the usual bit of conspiratorial insanity from Mr. Monckton, but that's to be expected.

Meanwhile, 2010 is the warmest on record so far and a gray whale was spotted on the wrong side of the world, thanks to an ice free Northwest Passage.

Hopefully BWG will actually have a comment or two on this or any one of my ignored posts when he gets back. Perhaps he'll explain why a "skeptic" worried about government data manipulated for profit would be so enamored by a conference funded by the oil industry and their "smoking is good for you" think tanks.

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge..

I wrote:

. . . tied together at the end with the usual bit of conspiratorial insanity from Mr. Monckton, but that's to be expected.

Here's the full story on that presentation:

Quote :

Monckton takes scientist to brink of madness at climate change talk

Christopher Monckton, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, had given a rousing speech to a crowd at Bethel University in Minnesota, near where I live.

His speech was on global warming and his style was convincing and irreverent. Anyone listening to him was given the impression that global warming was not happening, or that if it did happen it wouldn't be so bad, and scientists who warned about it were part of a vast conspiracy.

. . .

He contended that polar bears are not really at risk (in fact they do better as weather warms); projections of sea level rise are a mere 6cm; Arctic ice has not declined in a decade; Greenland is not melting; sea levels are not rising; ocean temperatures are not increasing; medieval times were warmer than today; ocean acidification is not occurring; and global temperatures are not increasing.

If true, these conclusions would be welcome. But there is a problem with this kind of truth – it is not made by wishing.

So I began a journey of investigation (the full results of which you can view here).

I actually tracked down the articles and authors that Monckton cited. What I discovered was incredible, even to a scientist who follows the politics of climate change. I found that he had misrepresented the science.

For instance, Monckton's claims that "Arctic sea ice is fine, steady for a decade" made reference to Alaskan research group (IARC).

I wrote to members of IARC and asked whether this was true. Both their chief scientist and director confirmed that Monckton was mistaken.

They also pointed me to the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) for a second opinion.

A scientist there confirmed Monckton's error, as did Dr Ola Johannessen, whose work has shown ice loss in Greenland (Monckton reported that Johannessen's work showed that Greenland "was just fine".)

Next, I investigated Monckton's claim that the medieval period was warmer than today. Monckton showed a slide featuring nine researchers' works which, he claimed, proved that today's warming is not unusual – it was hotter in the past.

I wrote to these authors and I read their papers. It turned out that none of the authors or papers made the claims that Monckton attributed to them. This pattern of misinterpretation was becoming chronic.

Next, I checked on Monckton's claim that the ocean has not been heating for 50 years. To quote him directly, there has been "no ocean heat buildup for 50 years".

On this slide, he referenced a well-known researcher named Dr Catia Domingues. It turns out Domingues said no such thing. What would she know? She only works for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia.

In one last, and particularly glaring example, Monckton referred to a 2004 statement by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) which stated that solar activity has caused today's warming and that global warming will end soon.

The president of the IAU division on the sun and heliosphere told me that there is no such position of the IAU and that I should pass this information on to whomever "might have used the IAU name to claim otherwise".

After learning all of this, and much more than can be written about in this limited space, I felt like Alice who fell down the rabbit hole and emerged in an alternate reality.

The Champion of the Skeptics, everyone. A walking, talking mess of contradictions and lies. He'll show those stoopid warmists what for!!

Yeah, well it appears that sanity is prevailing in spite of the crazy denialist rhetoric...

A response spun from this post.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

You consider Climate Change as Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Climate change is the name for the global phenomenon. AGW is the name for the specific warming trend seen over the past few decades.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

I feel there are too many variables to blame 150 years of inaccurate record keeping as a man caused phenomenon.

Which is why I suggested you check out the redesigned NASA website months ago, since it demonstrates, clearly and easily, that it is not based on "150 years of inaccurate record keeping".

And you still seem to be contradicting yourself. Citing "inaccurate record keeping" suggests that the belief that we are warming is just the result of instrument or human error. Yet in the very next sentence you state that we are warming, but it's the result of natural cycle.

Do you believe we are warming or not? If you believe we are, how can you be sure with all the "inaccurate record keeping"?

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

I feel what is transpiring now is cyclic at best.

Then name the forcing mechanism. We know the causes of previous cycles as well as their timing. If it is a natural cycle, you should be able to identify the natural cause. The sun? Milankovitch cycles? Volcanoes? Magic? Aliens? Al Gore's beard?

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

There are just too many people getting rich with anthropogenic recorded and fabricated "facts".

And back to the conspiracy of absolutely epic proportions, one that puts 9/11 Twoofers to shame. A conspiracy spanning multiple administrations on both sides of the political spectrum, every scientific branch in our government, every notable scientific organization on the planet, our military, every notable scientific journal currently publishing, their entire staff, as well as 99% of all scientists currently working in universities, schools, labs, etc.

Yup. They've all collectively fabricated the lie, a lie that's decades older than most of the conspirators currently benefiting from its existence, that the world was not puffed into existence 10,000 years ago by the god of Abraham as described in the Bible... and all for a fat paycheck.

er... wait... that's not right. I'm sorry. What ridiculous conspiracy were you talking about again? I get confused; they all sound the same to me.

This is why this shit is important:

Climate Change and National Security