Another Day, Another Climate Skeptic Exposed As Fossil Fuel Industry Stooge

I want to throw this in the thread for anyone interested in reading more on the subject at hand.

Arguing over cause as well as pointing fingers isn't doing any good. Even if we all stopped using fuel, it may be too late. Have a plan is the best we can do unfortunately.

The Meridian Report “The Feedback Crisis in Climate Change”, outlines a new conceptual
model of the complex, interactive set of positive feedback mechanisms which are already
driving runaway climate change, initially triggered by the still-accelerating emission of
greenhouse gases. The analysis indicates that there is a critical threshold beyond which the
process becomes self-sustaining and can no longer be brought back under control by any
reduction in GHG emissions. Should that threshold be crossed, the resultant “extreme event”
in the climate system could lead to the extinction of life as we know it within the global
biosphere.

www.apollo-gaia.org...

The following is also of importance to note.

In his lead article preparing for the Summit in the
current issue of Climate Alert, John Topping (The Director of the Climate Institute and
Summit Chair) noted: "We will need something far more ambitious than the Kyoto
mechanisms if the world is to meet the climate change challenge...... It may well be that
we are already experiencing positive feedbacks as warming begets more warming.....
There is a real chance of the rapid climate change underway spiraling out of control
with devastating implications for humanity and countless other species."

The problem thus far imo has been politcal pressures in the Science community. They are pressured in a big way.

The situation raises several critical issues. Strategically, if the scientific community fails to hold
its ground, and waters down its understanding of reality to a level that is politically and
economically acceptable, then it fails to provide any context in which significant learning can
take place. It removes the tension between the skeptics’ defense of vested interests and the
scientific delineation of a reality that demands significant change. In so doing it colludes in
repressing evidence of system boundaries and constraints within which economic,
technological, social, cultural and political decisions must be kept if environmental sustainability
is to be achieved. The pressures to compromise are immense, and the costs of sustaining
scientific integrity can be very high, but we do our civilization a great disservice if we abdicate
our responsibility at this juncture.

a reply to: FPV2015

I gave the sources(the link i provided in my previous post) but you are too lazy too check it out. Do I really have to spoon feed you the exact argument refuted or are you intelligent and computer savvy enough that you can simply click on the link I provided, figure out which one(s) of the 170+ common climate myths* provided addresses your talking points and figure it out?

It seems like you are just trying to ignore the evidence presented, as this evidence that refutes what your wrote has been shared over and over again in these climate threads. The burden of proof lies on you to back your claims up.

It is like you ignore the evidence presented and create your own 'truth' and narrative.

*Each on the 170+ common climate myths discussed is backed up by links to actual studies and peer reviewed papers.

Where is the evidence that supports what you wrote?

a reply to: Cynic

It's not closed minded, it is called looking at the information available. The evidence is overwhelming here yet some of you get hoodwinked by the think tanks clever arguments that are not backed by science or observed data.

I have argued against AGW many times, but I have taken it upon myself to do my own research and I have come with my own conclusions, as have the overwhelming consensus of the scientist who actually study this.

Here is a little YouTube of the Artic loosing over the past 20 years or so:

originally posted by: FPV2015
The problem, Mama, is the ice ISN'T melting. Global ice coverage is pretty well unchanged since the satellite record began.

Sea levels are rising around the world, and the latest satellite data suggests that three feet (one meter) or more is unavoidable in the next 100-200 years, NASA scientists said Wednesday.

Read more at: phys.org...

Predicting how much time we have is the biggest question.

Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than ever, and oceans are warming and expanding much more rapidly than they have in years past.
Rising seas will have "profound impacts" around the world, said Michael Freilich, director of NASA's Earth Science Division.
"More than 150 million people, most of them in Asia, live within one meter of present sea level," he said.
Low-lying US states such as Florida are at risk of disappearing, as are some of the world's major cities such as Singapore and Tokyo.
"It may entirely eliminate some Pacific island nations," he said.
There is no doubt that global coastlines will look very different in years to come, US space agency experts told reporters on a conference call to discuss the latest data on sea level rise.
"Right now we have committed to probably more than three feet (one meter) of sea level rise, just based on the warming we have had so far," said Steve Nerem of the University of Colorado, Boulder and leader of NASA's sea level rise team.
"It will very likely get worse in the future," he told reporters.
"The biggest uncertainty is predicting how quickly the polar ice sheets will melt."


Read more at: phys.org...

Climate is in chaos. Have you noticed? You don't even have to research that issue. It all goes hand in hand.

We can see the climate affecting all species. Seeing should be believing.

Now this I agree with. Kind of.

We are in the midst of a big money dupe, and there is no financial incentive to over turn it because all the money is going in the pockets of researches willing to do anything to shore up the thesis that man's co2 is destroying the world

There is great wealth to be had when the ice melts. This is for sure. They will take a bad situation and exploit it for their own good.

You can bet though they aren't alarming us.... they are distracting us.

a reply to: jrod
I have never said that the climate is not changing, but I am, and will never be, convinced that AGW is the root cause.

Earth has had drastic changes in climate over its 4 or so billion year history and will continue to do so.
100 years or so of smoothed data doesn't prove a thing.

There was a time in our planets history that the atmosphere was deadly to most life as we know it. Climate change corrected that. And we had absolutely nothing to do with it.

You must be a Creationists wet dream.

Cynic: 9,000 years ago, the Niagra Falls didn't fall at all, and the great lakes themselves did not join one to the other because the climate had shifted to become incredibly arid, all without the help of man. If we look at the geological record, we can clearly see the Earth is a constantly shifting place. The amazing thing to me is that this generation, so divorced as it is from the land, has the audacity to think all the sudden we have the answers.

The fact is there is no proof co2 causes climate change. However, there is ample evidence to show man effects climate. Look at the Aral Sea, of the heat island effect of cities on local and regional weather patterns to see, clearly, we have an effect.

Think of how many forests we have felled, to grow mono-cultured GMO crops. That is climate change. It is also the climate change that is conveniently and completely ignored in the the ludicrous AGW debate, which is why I say true environmentalism is dead, though I'd like to see it revived.

How many of you sit in your city homes, in your basements or computer rooms, and have no idea what the actual natural world is as an experience, rather than an idea you have formed from brief visitations to it? This generation is so out of step with the natural order it is almost laughably beyond belief.

Phage: The arctic has been completely ice free in its history, and we know this on a geological scale. And ice in the Arctic absolutely has trended downwards since the 1979 high. Prior to the high, ice, however, was indeed thinner and younger, like it is today. It recovered, and fairly quickly.

You also asked about ice prior to 1950. To go further back, we have to rely on direct observation and experience. Things like the Northwest Passage being open long enough for Amundson to discover it, or accounts from the 1920's of a rapidly retreating arctic ice front from mariners. There is all kinds of this, and it is instructive.

However, geology reveals that Arctic ice is not a stable thing, and it shouldn't be when you think about it. It is entirely floating in salt water, and thus would be very sensitive to overall pattern changes.

Also, the increase in arctic ice volume in recent years shows that the arctic can make a recovery, and it can do so in a matter of years. Remember when it was supposed to be ice free by the summer of 2013? Or how about all the dire predicitions for this very year issued in 2006 by scientists covered in the media (which, also, have not occured).

Or how about those 90 odd climate models that have been trying, and failing, to predict the future of global temperatures, and almost all have failed? Heck, they cant even predict the past right.

No, rather than trying to stop climate change, or even concerning ourselves with it, we should stop denying that we live on a dynamic world, spinning through the cosmos, with so many different forces working on us that the idea of stability in any way should be discarded by any rational individual.

We know the climate changes. It always has, and it always will. Co2 is the least of our concerns.

a reply to: FPV2015

You also asked about ice prior to 1950. To go further back, we have to rely on direct observation and experience. Things like the Northwest Passage being open long enough for Amundson to discover it, or accounts from the 1920's of a rapidly retreating arctic ice front from mariners. There is all kinds of this, and it is instructive.

But it is insufficient to determine sea ice extent.


I notice that you changed the goalpost though, from this:

1979 is a disingenuous start date for ice tracking graphs because it is the high point in the record.

And this:

If we go back further, to the pre-satelite record, we can see that ice was lower than it is today through most of the 1960's and 1970's.

Good work.

Co2 is the least of our concerns.

False.

Phage: Forgive me, I thought the two things were related. I mean, saying 1979 is a disingenuous start date, and then saying if we go back further to the 1960's and 1970's, isn't changing the goal posts so much as expanding on what I said previously. I was trying to take it further, to further explain what I said in the first place.

Calling that goal post shifting is also disingenuous.

You are completely correct that it is insufficient to determine, for a fact, sea ice extent. But absence of conclusivity does not work in your arguments favour anymore than it does mine. Lack of conclusive evidence is a knife cutting both ways.

Thus, what we are left with is building a case from what evidence we have, and what evidence we have lends the realist argument more favours than the alarmist, which is my point.

a reply to: FPV2015

Calling that goal post shifting is also disingenuous.

No it isn't disingenuous, it is accurate. When provided with data which conflicted with your claim, you revised your claim. That is called moving the goalpost.

Thus, what we are left with is building a case from what evidence we have, and what evidence we have lends the realist argument more favours than the alarmist

I disagree.

I think the thing you are choosing to miss is that I did not revise my claim. My friend, I expanded on it in a way that did not at all change it, but lent more detail to it.

Are you sure you read it right? I often find people emotionally attached to their selected bias have a hard time reading things as written, and thus, identifying the correct implication, as opposed to what they wish it said.

Surely, you must see there was no goal post shifting. For your sake, let me bring it altogether for you in a nice handy paragraph.

It is disingenuous to select 1979 as your start date because it is the high point in the available, empirical record which extends further back. If you include data from further back (earlier 1970s. 60's, etc), you see there is no discernible trend in sea ice levels.

Note how the later part of the paragraph supports, and expands, the first.

This is further defining the thesis, not changing it.


Huah?

a reply to: FPV2015

If you include data from further back (earlier 1970s. 60's, etc), you see there is no discernible trend in sea ice levels.

False.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

For the sake of better conversations ahead, you win, and I yield. For now at least.

I've got my five posts, and now I can make threads (at least I hope I can). We will revisit this in future threads where I will define the case in much more detail.

Pausing this a moment, would anyone be so kind as to explain what all the numbers mean under my avatar? Or is there a forum page that explains it?

Good chatting tonight. I really look forward to the future.

Upon further reflection, the OP was about scientists being oil shills, and the important part of my response relative to it was the alarmism is awash in both oil money, as well as environmental activists (and thus, just as biased as the "shill in the bed of big oil" when it comes to motive to promote a fiction rather than a non-fiction).

But, one last laugh from the old days on sea ice. A geologist in Australia sent me this as a laugh once upon a time. Not sure if it was his or not, but it was funny all the same.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: FPV2015

Not sure if it was his or not, but it was funny all the same.

I don't get it. The graph is for global sea ice, which would seem to include Antarctic sea ice.
There are no polar bears in Antarctica. If you find it funny, perhaps it's out of ignorance. Or just a straw man.

Neither. But it did get your attention, immediately, even though the previous response didn't, helping me further define just who I'm dealing with.

Have a good night, mate, look forward to future chats.

a reply to: FPV2015

Neither. But it did get your attention, immediately, even though the previous response didn't, helping me further define just who I'm dealing with.

I'll give you a big hint. I'm interested in data.