Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by TheChatch, Apr 25, 2015.
Are we faced with a choice?
politicizing something like this is fucking dumb, guys
Kinda funny that this global warming thread is already turning out exactly like BTH's before the crash.
I can't tell if some posting ITT is serious or not
Companies should have regulations regarding pollution, but making those regs too strict winds up having the exact opposite effect by creating more pollution when industry decides it's cheaper to go overseas to a country (China) that has no semblance of environmental stewardship. Not to mention the fuel used to transport those goods over the earth's largest ocean. Good intentions and whatnot...
That being said, the shift to renewable/cleaner energy is happening, just not at the rate people would like to see.
Your whole party's nominees are funded by the Koch brothers. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't LOVE to see the world run on renewable energy.
There isn't much choice for us, the planet's going to do what it's going to do and while humans have some effect they don't have nearly the effect that the alarmists portray.
I'm much more concerned with fucking up ground water than climate change.
Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry
The Yavari Valley rainforest, Peru Photo: Alamy
By Christopher Booker
8:14PM BST 25 Apr 2015
Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.
An adjusted graph from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.
My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.
So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.
The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.
Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.
Below, the raw data in graph form
For this the GWPF panel is initially inviting input from all those analysts across the world who have already shown their expertise in comparing the originally recorded data with that finally published. In particular, they will be wanting to establish a full and accurate picture of just how much of the published record has been adjusted in a way which gives the impression that temperatures have been rising faster and further than was indicated by the raw measured data.
Already studies based on the US, Australia, New Zealand, the Arctic and South America have suggested that this is far too often the case.
But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.
More details of the Global Warming Policy Foundation's International Temperature Data Review Project are available on the inquiry panel's websitewww.tempdatareview.org
The Global Warming Policy Foundation is not a reputable source for any sort of study. The conclusion is already foretold.
Good thing they aren't conducting the study.
we are in global boiling right now. I just hope we get it solved in time so that we don't get overcooked and come out too chewy.
you can't just ignore this or else we will boil over and there will be water all over the stove
Except they pretty much are.
For arguments sake, let's supposed you're correct. What's the problem?
So it turns out the scientists that conducted the study from Duke that TheChatch in the OP posted are having to comment on the misinterpretation of the study.
Rush Limbaugh grossly distorted a new study from Duke University, claiming it shows that "there isn't any [global] warming going on." But one of its authors noted that the study actually confirms humans' role in driving global warming and said that Limbaugh's claim is "ridiculous."
[O]ur study confirms that the warming of the past century could not have happened without human-caused increases in greenhouse gasses. This is because the warming over the past century is much larger than what could have come about due to natural variation.
Rush is wrong in his interpretation. The solar contribution to recent temperature change is probably minimal and/or negative (i.e., the sun has probably caused cooling, but human increases in greenhouse gasses have overwhelmed that small cooling to cause a net warming).
This has been known and I purposely withheld Limbaughs distorting quotes on the data.
Nothing really. I would doubt any conclusion from the study in the first place. Yes I know that it's fallacious to discredit a paper based on the authors but I feel comfortable doing so based on the history of said financiers. The idea that the paper won't be in line with the Global Warming Policy Foundation's positions would be naive.
Yet your title and comments would suggest otherwise.
Unless you are the buzzfeed of posters and need the validation of clicks for your posts.
And who, exactly, would those financiers be?
I think this is where "trolling" gets claimed. Classic Chatch.
Because they are listed as a charity and thus don't have to give up their "donors" most are unknown. But Exxon Mobil is one.
Based on the article originally cited and the threat title it is either a troll attempt or he did not read the article and understand the implications.
lol If you can't see just a little bit of trolling in the thread title and my comments in the OP, then I don't what to tell you.
They've publicly stated that they do not receive funding from energy companies or indivoudals associated with those companies.
And why would you believe this?
The will never open their books to prove this to be the case. So in essence we would have to take them at their word.
Like 30 seconds of Google would make you look a lot less stupid.
"900 papers" claim; subsequent analysis shows Exxon ties, Energy and Environment papers
In mid-April 2011, the GWPF provided "900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm". The blogCarbon Brief analyzed them, and found that -
9 of the top 10 authors had ties to ExxonMobil
"prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past", and
the most-cited journal was Energy and Environment, a journal with a very low impact factor whose editors are AGW deniers.
And FTR I figured I'd just get a reactionary response from soulfly and ale with the thread title.
Because it was in the internet.
I'm not seeing anything here about the foundation itself receiving oil money but that's probably because I'm so stupid.
Are you really not making the connection or is this a "troll" too?
Of course I see the connection that you're trying to make.
This page is awesome because someone said this is where he will claim troll status and the chatch went full chatch and did just that.
You really can't tell that I was using humor in the thread title, as well as my comments in the OP? Really?
what should the temperature of the earth be?
This topic really shows that everyone is required to take a specific political stance on every issue imaginable. How this is a political issue is baffling. I am pretty sure favorite colors could divide families based on political affiliation.
over 9000 degrees
You say this...yet you seriously try to debunk throughout the thread
Why troll about something like global warming?
lol look at all these people caring about our planet! Fools!
so can I keep having tire fires or not?
If science cant even agree if global warming is happening or not forgive me for not panicking or giving a shit in general
The ultimate manifestation of global warming would be an ice age. Ice caps melt which would cause a mass infusion of fresh water in the North Atlantic Deep Water. The resulting desalination would cause the NADW to become less dense than the water below and thus not "sink" anymore. This would result in the cessation of the thermo-haline circulation, which would mean that latent heat would not be distributed throughout the planet and we would fall into an ice age. Whether global warming ever occurs on that scale is clearly an unsettled issue, but global warming and an ice age are very much linked.
Not super liberal and I don't care much about saving polar bears (my friends in the north land say they're huge assholes), but this isn't true: there is a lot of evidence that renewable energy will soon achieve price parity, and it is, by definition, sustainable. In Australia, the LCOE for wind fell below that of coal and gas two years ago. And just this week, Bloomberg New Energy Finance reported that the cost of lithium batteries has come down WAY faster than expected. We're already at a price point that we recently didn't think we would hit until 2025. And of course the LCOE of solar is plummeting.
Ok i'll rephrase. Forgive me for not giving a shit in general.
You tell that mean ocean, Futureman.
People seem to really care about up until the point doing something about it would really inconvenience them.