Climate Change Denial, Anyone?

a reply to: Astyanax

green peace used the GBR as a separate funding campaign

www.greenpeace.org...

They used photographs taken of a reef in the Philapenes that had been damaged by a supercylone.

www.couriermail.com.au... b3db81ec65c9768ad4

That is just one activist group but, I hate to say this, the Great Barrier Reef was used by global warming movement to convince that the 0.8 degrees C of warming was causing irreparable damage to the earth. Kind of like the IPCC reporting that glaciers in the Himalaya's were receding, when in fact, they were growing

www.theguardian.com...

The Great Barrier Reef and the Himalyan Glaciers are both examples of when IPCC and people associated with IPCC tried to fool the population and stampede public opinion.

You can never underestimate the value of good public relations. They have to focus on public relations because there has been no significant warming from 1998 to 2014. As previously pointed out, the only global warming that has occurred because of the El Nino in 2015 and 2016. They are getting desparate.


Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
...
In 34 pages, I have not heard even one CAGW supporter admit that individual weather events cannot be used to either prove or disprove CAGW, even though you all pretend to be experts,

You may all have more scientific knowledge then me. I don't know. But you are all demonstrating that you are willing to accept untruths (lies) in your pursuit of being right.

This makes all of you, unreliable and untrustworty. Not one of you had the courtesy to speak a very very simple truth. That individual weather events cannot prove or disprove CAGW.

Worst, you have attacked me for daring to speak this simple truth.

You have amply demonstrated that truth is NOT part of your agenda. Why would anyone believe you now?

Tired of Control Freaks

Haven't you realized it yet? The AGW camp seem to be nothing but control freaks. They are afraid to admit mankind cannot control the climate, and neither does CO2 even when the evidence clearly shows this. They rather ignore the facts, even when scientists like Michael Mann have admitted that there has been a warming pause, or hiatus, despite the fact that CO2 levels have kept increasing.

These same people love to ignore other changes occurring on Earth which affect climate change... Heck, 2015-2016 Super El Niño is the cause for the most recent warming, yet the AGW camp keep trying to blame CO2 when ENSO events are affected by changes in the sun, and changes to Earth's magnetic field, which we have also been experiencing since about the 1840s.

The AGW NEED to "believe" that it must be mankind causing climate change because they need to believe to have control over the climate.

Seriously?

1997/8 was a stronger El Niño, and 'skeptics' like you have used that data point for years to say there has been no warming.

Now that it's even warmer in 2015/16, it's not really the case because it was a 'Super El Niño'?

Are you #ing kidding me?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
You can never underestimate the value of good public relations. They have to focus on public relations because there has been no significant warming from 1998 to 2014. As previously pointed out, the only global warming that has occurred because of the El Nino in 2015 and 2016. They are getting desparate.

The 1997-'98 'beginning of the pause' was an extremely strong El Niño!

Are you really so ignorant as to not realize that?

Greven,

Are you saying that individual weather events (Like an El Nino) cannot be used to prove or disprove climate change?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Are you going to pretend the record breaking hurricane seasons are not a significant event?

Why are you so damn sure human activity is not affecting the planet's climate in s significant way?

a reply to: jrod

Because it may be freezing in one country and boiling in another. Example India this summer and Peru this summer

There may be hurricanes in the Atlantic and calm waters in the Pacific.

A drought in one country and record rainfall in another.

Which event do you use to indicate climate change? There have been such events in the past and there will be such events in the future.

Why are you so sure that climate that has only changed by less than a degree over 30 years is affecting our climate?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Worldwide hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones appear to be more frequent, more intense, and longer seasons globally.....dont pretend this is not significant.

Go ahead and twist words around. My agenda is information and good observations, not casting doubt on hypotheticals.

a reply to: jrod

So you are stating that climate change is caused by an increase of hurricanes and other weather events, not CO2?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

And Greenpeace is a power conspiracy?

You are raving. Put some ice in your head and go lie down.

a reply to: Astyanax

So somehow you skipped right over the part where Green Peace committed fraud to fund raise? And IPCC used "gray" literature from some environmental activist without checking on the actual facts.

And exactly where did I say that Green Peace is a power conspiracy.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

So you actually skipped...

Of course I skipped. Your posts are long, tedious and full of false claims. I only ever read the first line or two.

Seriously, friend, if you really want to persuade others of anything, you are going about it dead wrong.

a reply to: Astyanax

Just wanted to say, that wild fire in Frt Mac happened in May and was human started.

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Humans start them but it's weather conditions that allow them to spread.

a reply to: Astyanax

No - Its poor forest management that allows them to spread. There needs to be fire breaks (ie clear cutting)

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
Are you saying that individual weather events (Like an El Nino) cannot be used to prove or disprove climate change?

I'm saying you can't take a massive high caused by an individual weather event as the starting point in a trend, then take the larger high caused by another similar event as the end point, but dismiss the warming trend because the end point was caused by an individual event - one weaker than the exact same thing the starting point was caused by.

It defies all logic and reason. Why have you done this?

a reply to: Greven

Talk to me again, when you are ready to admit that individual weather events cannot be used to prove or disprove global warming.

I am not quite so sure about El Nino and La Nino. As ocean currents, these events might actually be considered climate drivers.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Greven

Talk to me again, when you are ready to admit that individual weather events cannot be used to prove or disprove global warming.

I am not quite so sure about El Nino and La Nino. As ocean currents, these events might actually be considered climate drivers.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

Talk to me again, when you are ready to admit that individual weather events cannot be used to prove or disprove global warming.

I am not quite so sure about El Nino and La Nino. As ocean currents, these events might actually be considered climate drivers.

No. There is no weaseling out of this one.

This is what you wrote:

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
You can never underestimate the value of good public relations. They have to focus on public relations because there has been no significant warming from 1998 to 2014. As previously pointed out, the only global warming that has occurred because of the El Nino in 2015 and 2016.

Follow with me:
1) The basis of the 'pause' uses 1998 as it's starting point
2) 1997-98 was an extremely strong El Niño
3) 2015-16 has been a very strong El Niño
4) You say 2015-16 only shows warming because of El Niño.

WHAT ABOUT THE ONE IN '98?

I for one am tired of the hypocrisy.

Your 'pause' starts from a period where an "individual weather event" caused immense warming, yet the warmer present resulting from a similar "individual weather event" can be dismissed?

Why do skeptics keep using an "individual weather event" to say that there has been no warming?

Explain that one to me.

a reply to: Greven

NO - we have nothing to talk about!

BTW I am not the one saying that weather events have not links to climate. Its YOUR side that says so....unless, of course, you mean weather events that deniers point to are merely weather events but weather events that YOUR side points are completely differents and are actually linked to climate.

static.berkeleyearth.org...

I notice that heat waves are said to have "some climate links" but apparently not cold waves.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mbkennel

that does not answer the question. The question was about the statistics to prove individual weather events
"tend to support" global warming (In your words).

There's an extensive literature on this. Here is an example of a review article readable for non-scientists.

Weather Extremes

The references at the end point to the primary literature, looking through those and papers which link to and from them will help answer your question.

Here is an example of a conference on the topic: 13imsc.pacificclimate.org...

Here are the sessions: 13imsc.pacificclimate.org...

This is just a snapshot of current work, in one small part of a large field, for people who happen to be going to one single conference.

People, please look at the links and recognize that there is a huge current of ongoing serious science which has been active for many decades----when scientists say it is important enough for public policy action, there is a reason for it.

Ps. pH 8.1 is NOT acidification.

Acidification refers to the trend.

ts within the realm of natural variability and its alkaline not acid.

What 'natural variability' do you mean? What specifically is the mechanistic source of this variability (as in where do the molecules come from and why), and what is the theoretical basis and observational evidence which supports this mechanism?

And prove "increased greenhouse effect"

Measuring the infrared emission and absorption properties of the atmosphere over time.