Mainstream climatologists were right after all (once again)

www.theguardian.com...

One important area to consider is the troposphere. It is the bottom portion of the atmosphere where most weather occurs. Tropospheric temperatures can be taken by satellites, by weather balloons, or other instruments. In the past, both satellites and weather balloons reported no warming or even a cooling.

However, that original work was shown to be faulty and now even the most strident sceptics admit that the troposphere is warming. But obtaining an accurate estimate of the rate of warming is difficult. Changes to instruments, errors in measurements, short term fluctuations all can conspire to hide the “real” temperature.

There is an illusion among skeptics and pseudoskeptics that one or two apparent observations which go against the consensus assumption intrinsically prove the whole theory to be wrong.

Scientists who work in the field also understand how interpretation, processing and collection of experimental data can have their own very complex difficulties. And quite often, some experimental result which appears to contradict theory, even if it's an oversimplified 'cartoon' theory of the real system, turns out to be misleading.

And so far, the general physical picture of the primary processes in greenhouse-driven global warming, which was mostly understood by 1980, has continued to turn out to be correct.

I don't know anyone that doesn't think the climate changes. The people I know question that it is man-made or that throwing money at it will make a difference other than make some people rich(er).

a reply to: Metallicus
Didn't take you long to chime in. This has been discussed. We started hearing the term climate change instead of global warming when Bush Jr. took office. One if the reasons why the term climate change was used is so uninformed folks like yourself would essentially parrot exactly what you wrote.

The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".

To claim that that human activity is not causing climate change is ignorant. Also the theory that our activity is causing this planet to warm keeps on getting stronger as we have more data available.

There is an illusion among skeptics and pseudoskeptics that one or two apparent observations which go against the consensus assumption intrinsically prove the whole theory to be wrong.

No, there is an illusion among believers that skeptics dont do any research! They do!

Even after all these years, since the likes of Gore spouted that we'd all be under water or the atmosphere would burn, I look out my window - just like anyone else can no matter where they are, and I see a completely normal world with normal variable weather.

If you wanna stick fear into people post a thread about fracking!

a reply to: Metallicus

Tell that to the people extracting 10 Million dollars a minute (you read that right) from us... you know, the oil dudes.

a reply to: mbkennel

Sorry but are you just saying they were "right after all (once again)" on your own accord? The source material you quoted seems to apply more doubt to the theory of global warming than anything else. I'm confused and hope you will enlighten me.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Metallicus
Didn't take you long to chime in. This has been discussed. We started hearing the term climate change instead of global warming when Bush Jr. took office. One if the reasons why the term climate change was used is so uninformed folks like yourself would essentially parrot exactly what you wrote.

The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".

To claim that that human activity is not causing climate change is ignorant. Also the theory that our activity is causing this planet to warm keeps on getting stronger as we have more data available.

It's actually funny how AGCC supporters accuse AGCC deniers of the things the AGCC supporters are doing, "parroting.

To claim that that human activity is causing all climate change is ignorant. Also the theory that our activity is causing this planet to warm keeps on getting more political and tax invasive as we have more data available via our paid off, grant hungry scientists.

AGCC supporters remind me JW's, as soon as you let them in the door once, they just won't go away.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle
Cool debate tactic there. Instead of addressing the data, you just accuse others of the same thing you are guilty of. Way to generalize AGCC supporters versus AGCC deniers. Also, I take note that someone almost always replies quickly with this is all a hoax to raise taxes. The 'scientists' who come up with the anti human induced climate change talking points get paid a hell of a lot more than the scientists who fall within the the ~97% consensus.

Have you been outside recently?
Have you noticed all the changes our species makes to the environment?
What do you not agree with in terms of human impact on the climate?

a reply to: bobs_uruncle
Someone else explains this much better than me. Also was it really necessary to quote my entire post there? Especially when your reply was on the same page?

originally posted by: mc_squared


The irony is that the real reason the public terminology was rebranded is so people like that would go around saying stuff like "climate change? climate changes all the time - it's obviously just a natural cycle!!"

Frank Luntz himself explains the exact reasoning right here at the 2:47 mark:

I don't think even Luntz realized just how well this strategy would ultimately work though. Especially when you factor in the added bonus that it also caused these very same oblivious parrots to turn right around and then exclaim "remember how they used to call it global warming lolol"

I think Fyrebyrd's post summed it up already:

But low education people who lack critical thinking and discrimination skills are easily hoodwinked by prograganda and other rhetorical tactics that confuse.

PR professionals like Luntz have always understood this. It's why we have leaked memorandum showing this has been their target audience since the very beginning:

It's a waste of time trying to reason with individuals like this, because reason is simply not a mindset they subscribe to. It's best to just let them keep talking in circles and shoving their own foot further and further down their cakehole.

At least that way the more reasonable fence-sitters here can see for themselves which side of this argument actually aims to deny ignorance, and which side tends to seek refuge in it.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
Cool debate tactic there. Instead of addressing the data, you just accuse others of the same thing you are guilty of. Way to generalize AGCC supporters versus AGCC deniers. Also, I take note that someone almost always replies quickly with this is all a hoax to raise taxes. The 'scientists' who come up with the anti human induced climate change talking points get paid a hell of a lot more than the scientists who fall within the the ~97% consensus.

Have you been outside recently?
Have you noticed all the changes our species makes to the environment?
What do you not agree with in terms of human impact on the climate?

You did it, I even used your statement as a template. I just threw your statement back at you, are you "special?"

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
Someone else explains this much better than me. Also was it really necessary to quote my entire post there? Especially when your reply was on the same page?

originally posted by: mc_squared


The irony is that the real reason the public terminology was rebranded is so people like that would go around saying stuff like "climate change? climate changes all the time - it's obviously just a natural cycle!!"

Frank Luntz himself explains the exact reasoning right here at the 2:47 mark:

I don't think even Luntz realized just how well this strategy would ultimately work though. Especially when you factor in the added bonus that it also caused these very same oblivious parrots to turn right around and then exclaim "remember how they used to call it global warming lolol"

I think Fyrebyrd's post summed it up already:

But low education people who lack critical thinking and discrimination skills are easily hoodwinked by prograganda and other rhetorical tactics that confuse.

PR professionals like Luntz have always understood this. It's why we have leaked memorandum showing this has been their target audience since the very beginning:

It's a waste of time trying to reason with individuals like this, because reason is simply not a mindset they subscribe to. It's best to just let them keep talking in circles and shoving their own foot further and further down their cakehole.

At least that way the more reasonable fence-sitters here can see for themselves which side of this argument actually aims to deny ignorance, and which side tends to seek refuge in it.

To quote your funny little "labeling" pic, I am not under-educated and have been in charge of R&D (physics and engineering) for companies, university/military/weapons/government programs/projects since 1985 (prior from 1975 I was an engineer and project manager), you can see my work from space. I come from a moderate household, as far as siblings, only two (twins) and we are 7 years apart. All three of us are in the field of computer engineering, bio-mechanics/genetics or physics and I don't think I need to get into the number of patents and copyrights I've done.

So, I guess one out of three isn't bad, I am older, which has afforded me through my 40 year career the ability to witness the actual corruption FIRST HAND within the areas of politics, sciences, banking and the military. Being a whistle blower in the 1997 to 2000 university/government minister/stock market 150 million dollar public funds and tax frauds has certainly given me an in-depth understanding as to how governments protect their own when they commit crimes against their own colony's (Canada is not a country) people.

I owe the government nothing, therefore they can't make me spin their BS.

So spare me your hyperbole. I have an opinion, maybe not an expert opinion since it is not my field, but I can certainly smell BS, I don't need it coating my olfactory senses to garner a clue.

Climate science these days is a lot like astrology. Sometimes it's a little right, sometimes a lot wrong and it can be completely wrong, but it is NEVER 100% right. So if you want listen to a bunch of people on the political payroll justifying tax increases and using a thumb-suck, top-down, let's-make-the-data-fit-the-desired-outcome and Bayes Theorem in support of their theories, well, go for it. I however, will not.

Cheers - Dave

What a ridiculous paper.

They homogenized the homogenized data. LOL

Once you change the data, it is no longer data, it is an artifact of analysis.

The funniest part is that their claim isn't even based on climate models, it's purely based on statistics, ie - Iterative Universal Kriging. Universal Kriging is one thing, but ITERATIVE?!?! Talk about washing out the data... And it makes sense because they are using far less reliable and much more sparse radiosonde data (perfect for Kriging), instead of the far more reliable satellite data, because that's the only way to make the data look the way they want. (when really, it takes a combination of BOTH)

Radiosonde data has almost no coverage in ocean and high latitudes, you can see for yourself here: Source - Section 3.2 if you need me to point it out.

Not to mention that this paper goes against literally, millions of direct measurements that contradict the paper.

If you honored the data like you do your cause, you're heart would be breaking over witnessing the absolute torture of raw data to turn it into some Franken-theory that is rooted in and riddled with political and corporate corruption.

The Guardian has you gobbling it right up in true propaganda fashion.

Nom Nom Nom...

~Namaste

a reply to: bobs_uruncle
Sounds like you are stuck in your belief system and refuse to look at the data that we have been observing.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
Sounds like you are stuck in your belief system and refuse to look at the data that we have been observing.

My only belief is that if someone can turn BS into money, they will.

I have seen the climate change data, looks like a lot of people turning BS into money. Go figure. If you want to believe it and it floats your boat and makes you happy, hey, go for it. Just don't expect rational people that have examined the data to join the religion. That dog don't hunt here,

I will steadfastly remain a heretic until I see REAL UNADULTERATED TRUSTABLE DATA WITH NO POLITICAL MOTIVATION OR AGENDA AND NO DEMANDING HANDOUTS FOR THEIR BUDDIES THROUGH TAX SCAMS.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle
your great grand children will probably chisel "heretic" on your tomb stone
cause I suspect if you live a long lomg time, you will still be one
in this case anyway



ps
just got a really nice surplus extreme arctic parka good to 60 below (f)
though the camo green will be outta place in all that snow

originally posted by: Danbones
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
your great grand children will probably chisel "heretic" on your tomb stone
cause I suspect if you live a long lomg time, you will still be one
in this case anyway



ps
just got a really nice surplus extreme arctic parka good to 60 below (f)
though the camo green will be outta place in all that snow

Yep, like northern manitoba got hit with only 2 feet in snow drifts today LOL. I remember in 2009 I was in an RV near Terrace Bay and we got 6" of snow on June 1st. Yeah, that snows going away real fast.

It's called weather, use the KISS principle rather than the BSTAX principle.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: jrod


Climate change was just a word the big boys came up with to deflect from the fact that the earth is coming under the fierce and swift Right Hand of the Lord.

Soon in some places there will be big sales in human urine filters so you can, because you must, drink your own filtered urine several times at least it will be so bad. Hay but you are a survivor! You can improvise and adapt! Just keep watching those melting icebergs.....just keep watching. Its HARP anyway.....don't listen to those nuts on Short Wave.

a reply to: mbkennel

You are totally right. I am now a total AGW believer!

What changes now? Do I recycle with more pep?

Man, I gotta tell you...it feels good saving the environment. Believing in AGW won't change my habits as I already do all I can to save the environment, but now I can be a pretentious dirtbag online because my believing in AGW makes me better than everyone else!

I can't believe I waited so long to join the dark side!

originally posted by: mbkennel
www.theguardian.com...

One important area to consider is the troposphere. It is the bottom portion of the atmosphere where most weather occurs. Tropospheric temperatures can be taken by satellites, by weather balloons, or other instruments. In the past, both satellites and weather balloons reported no warming or even a cooling.

However, that original work was shown to be faulty and now even the most strident sceptics admit that the troposphere is warming. But obtaining an accurate estimate of the rate of warming is difficult. Changes to instruments, errors in measurements, short term fluctuations all can conspire to hide the “real” temperature.

There is an illusion among skeptics and pseudoskeptics that one or two apparent observations which go against the consensus assumption intrinsically prove the whole theory to be wrong.

Scientists who work in the field also understand how interpretation, processing and collection of experimental data can have their own very complex difficulties. And quite often, some experimental result which appears to contradict theory, even if it's an oversimplified 'cartoon' theory of the real system, turns out to be misleading.

And so far, the general physical picture of the primary processes in greenhouse-driven global warming, which was mostly understood by 1980, has continued to turn out to be correct.

Obviously only Republicans and other fools would discount Global Warming/Climate change. Thankfully, the world has taken notice and some are now arguing that Deniers should be subject to fines, ostracism and possible jail time. Man made Global climate change is too important to allow dissent and all dissenters should be made to pay for their heresy!

Thankfully, through the mechanisms of the Internet, those who are Deniers are being identified, cataloged and tracked and will be made to pay for their crimes against humanity.

a reply to: TonyS

And Vice Versa!