APS and the Global Warming Scam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Really, when have I ever done that except in your imagination?

Before you said you got tired of these types of discussions because they degenerated into mudslinging, and that you would prefer for the forum to not degenerate into "kindergarten level" discussion. There's a lot of good arguments made by both sides here, even if the discussion gets a little pointed at times, but what you're doing is counterproductive, not only to others, but to everything you said you wanted.

If you want to express your opinion on how terrible and stupid and deluded "AGW truthers" are, why not make your own thread about it? This is the Science and Mathematics subforum, I assume it's called that because it's for people who want to discuss math and science. If you wanna piss on people you don't like, then the politics subforum is for you.

Irritated are ya'?

It's probably going to get worse.

btw - If you don't like my forum, you could start your own and see who shows up...

Just a suggestion...

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

You don't understand even the basics of the science involved. You don't even show any attempt to understand it. You don't contribute positively to the discussion in the slightest. [....]

Not so. Michael doesn't have scientific training, but he's showing a much better grasp of the science than you have. For example, his initial explanation on the "null" hypothesis in the climate issue was cloudy, but he had the idea and straightened out the wording, whereas you, for all that you've probably taken courses in statistics, are wrong in your explanation.

(Also on your explanation of accounting for X variance at Y confidence level, a discussion you're having with Jonathan.)

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Really, when have I ever done that except in your imagination?

Repeatedly on this very thread.

You have also lied in people's faces, played Wikipedia Warrior, avoided answering questions even after being asked the same one several times, used several propaganda tricks, refused to correct your errors, and on and on.

I intensely dislike intellectual dishonesty. I dislike aggressive intellectual dishonesty even more.

So I treat it (meaning you) just like you have done to the posters on OL.

I could have banned you outright, but that would have given you the aura of martyr by censorship. This way is much better because the reader can see you dish out a whole bunch of crap in post after post, but then squeal like a baby when you get the same back.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I have no interest in being banned.

Participating in this thread stopped being fun or interesting a while ago.

I'm tired of it.

[Selene]

Disregarding her unsourced bullshit below...

The Medieval Warm Period was restricted to parts of the north hemisphere, while the global temperature overall was lower than today.

The Medieval Warm Period was restricted to parts of the north hemisphere, while the global temperature overall was HIGHER than today.

"Yeah, I win, your electic bill just went up by 8%...

However, I feel better about myself Naomi Nevermore said."

A...

[Wolf DeVoon]

I think this whole matter can be concluded happily and peaceably.

Global warming is good. We're running out of cheap oil, but there is an abundance of clean-burning natural gas. The big CO2 emitters -- India and China -- are not going to cut back, which is okay, because it will grow more plant life, taller rainforests to hide in and foodstuffs of all sorts. Democrats and greens are feeling pretty sassy at the moment, but that's subject to change. Entitlement spending is going to hit a brick wall and Americans aren't quite as stupid as we often seem to be. IPCC's days are numbered.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Participating in this thread stopped being fun or interesting a while ago.

I'm tired of it.

That is what you cause others to feel in your posting behavior. In addition to irritation.

Now do I have your attention?

Or do you have some more games to play?

Michael

[Selene]

I think this whole matter can be concluded happily and peaceably.

Global warming is good. We're running out of cheap oil, but there is an abundance of clean-burning natural gas. The big CO2 emitters -- India and China -- are not going to cut back, which is okay, because it will grow more plant life, taller rainforests to hide in and foodstuffs of all sorts. Democrats and greens are feeling pretty sassy at the moment, but that's subject to change. Entitlement spending is going to hit a brick wall and Americans aren't quite as stupid as we often seem to be. IPCC's days are numbered.

Let's not forget hemp...

Obiwan's "Justice Dept." allegedly intercepted a shipment of hemp seeds to a legat grower in Kentucky[?]. pretty sure it was on Drudge.

A...

[william.scherk]

I am still lurking this thread of endless homework. It's amazing how many roots, trunks, and tendrils of argument over anthropogenic global warming abound in the world. As Michael has noted at least once, any particular strong scientific assertion is likely to attract a discussion, answer, rebuttal, or review. The internets call-and-response/reaction and response looks like a cousin to an allied process in the scientific literature, where reasonable (though passionate) people furiously work to find fault in published research, against a phalanx of information that aims to convince, influence and/or agitate.

Then there are the government sites, from NASA on down. Then there is a mass of websites devoted to education or lobbying or countering orthodoxy -- these come in all blends. There is also an enormous blogosphere (ranging from WattsUpWithThat to DeSmogBlog).

The roots, trunks, branches and tendrils of all these places faces back at us. Which particulars to attend to, to compare, analyse, trace?

Earlier, Michael referred to Dennis Hartmann, who had written a climatology textbook, cited by a certain "AGW truther" who lurks much less than I.

I'm starting to skim around about Dennis Hartmann just for curiosity and he seems quite a figure.

Here is a recent panel (2013) he participated in:

"HUMANS ARE DOMINANT CAUSE OF CHANGES IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM": IPCC SCIENTISTS IN CLIMATE WEEK NYC LIVESTREAM

There's a video at that link, but I'm not going to watch it. (I'm not eternal and have no interest in trying to "win" an argument, whatever the hell that would mean, against a petulant little girl on a forum.)

Just skimming over the language at that page sends up massive warning signals to my antenna that there is a religious fanatic in the house--meaning Hartmann himself, but also his peers.

His approach on skimming looks like a conclusion in search of theories and arguments.

I took the hidden dare to click play on the video, though it's 40 minutes, if only to imagine MSK watching these three high priests of the scientific myth cult, speaking on expensive technology live from Stockholm! They should be squirming under scrutiny, no? Officially, they are three of the "coordinating lead authors" of the first chapter of the IPCC (AR5) Assessment Report.

The video is long but fairly crisply laid out. The three cult leaders switch off to speak to their own areas of expertise. First the Australian, Nathan Bindoff, he introduces himself and colleagues and tries to describe the fabulousness that is AR5. He fires off some numbers. 110 nations have 'agreed.' The IPCC report has been cooked down: 108 bullets, 22 pages, 18 headline statements distilled out of one million words.

Takehome: Earth is changing, it is unequivocal. 110 nations have agreed. Evidence for human influence on the climate system is clear ...

Hartmann then gets the mike and takes observational evidence first. He says that warming is unequivocal, supported by many independent lines of evidence. From instruments and various natural recording systems. He says he will give highlights.

Highlights

Global averaged annual estimate of anomalies (surf temp/atmosphere/ocean).
for the average over the last three decades, each of those has been progressively warmer than all preceding records. The most recent 30-year period is the warmest we have been in 1400 years. Warming seen in the trophosphere. In the ocean, we can measure increase in temperature at depth. Arctic sea ice decline. Ice sheet decline. Greenland is losing ice -- the last decade shows recent acceleration in ice loss.

Sea level is rising, increasing at a more rapid rate in recent years, rate greater than any time in the two millenium. Approx 2/10th metre rise.

We can measure with great precision the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. C02 (Methane, Nitric Oxide) concentrations are 40% more than pre-industrial era (1750) judging from ice-core data. It is estimated that CO2 concentration is higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years.

Yikes.

He ends with this precis of what he has just said.

"A light summary of the observational evidence that warming is unequivocal, based on these multiple lines of evidence that I have given to you ... "

Next up of climate zealot professors is Bindoff, who I expect will present "human fingerprint" attributions. Jochem Marotzke is the third corrupt maven of the overlords. I don't know if I will make it to him. Thought I would post this to salt the path as I watch as much as I can of its hideous boring length. I may report on the 'fingerprint' story, as fishy as it sounds from the get-go.

Open question for all: is it worthwhile to take acrimony out of this debate? If so, any pointers or best practice? (one could argue that the acrimony is necessary for the debate, but don't expect to see it in replies)

To take the mind from musing on climate -- weather, pure weather:

Edited May 30, 2014 by william.scherk

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Participating in this thread stopped being fun or interesting a while ago.

I'm tired of it.

That is what you cause others to feel in your posting behavior. In addition to irritation.

Now do I have your attention?

Or do you have some more games to play?

Michael

Perhaps I do play too roughly with the other children.

I guess I'll try to be more.....uhh... what's the word?..... n...... n... ni--... nice....

even though I find such nonsense absolutely disgusting...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I took the hidden dare to click play on the video, though it's 40 minutes, if only to imagine MSK watching these three high priests of the scientific myth cult, speaking on expensive technology live from Stockholm! They should be squirming under scrutiny, no?

William,

You're a better man than I am. I didn't watch that video, but I suppose I'll have to go through the damn thing just to maintain some kind of consistency.

But squirming?

Heh.

How about basking in the attention from their target audience all the way to the bank? That sounds more like it to me.

(Ah yes, don't forget "power" in the trifecta of traditional human values: money, sex and power. As to the sex part, the imagery of the guest speakers goes to places in my mind that are too awful to dwell on, so I'll simply concede on that one. )

Open question for all: is it worthwhile to take acrimony out of this debate? If so, any pointers or best practice? (one could argue that the acrimony is necessary for the debate, but don't expect to see it in replies)

I would like nothing more.

Here's a start for a best practice. When found in error, just say, "Oops," or whatever and make the correction. Nice and polite. Don't make shit up out of thin air to try to cover the error, then preach and posture as if you had won the argument.

That irritates people who take ideas seriously.

At the very worst, if admitting an error is just too damn painful, simply ask, "Can we agree on this meaning (or fact or whatever)?" And use words that both reflect the correction and smooth over the surface to somewhat cover the person's ass.

This should be obvious, though.

Is it even necessary to state that as a best practice?

Michael

[Selene]

William:

We have a hospice situation here.

I only had time to read your opening paragraph and it was refreshing as usual:

I am still lurking this thread of endless homework. It's amazing how many roots, trunks, and tendrils of argument over anthropogenic global warming abound in the world. As Michael has noted at least once, any particular strong scientific assertion is likely to attract a discussion, answer, rebuttal, or review. The internets call-and-response/reaction and response looks like a cousin to an allied process in the scientific literature, where reasonable (though passionate) people furiously work to find fault in published research, against a phalanx of information that aims to convince, influence and/or agitate.

All my mind could ever expect.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Naomi,

I wish not being nice were the problem.

That's easier to fix.

Michael

[william.scherk]

I have no interest in being banned.

Participating in this thread stopped being fun or interesting a while ago.

I'm tired of it.

I expected you to bail a lot earlier in the general dogpile.

This is one of those situations they call a 'hostile house.' AGW is deprecated here. General opinion blows hard against the scientific orthodoxy. For me, I am grateful you offered your post #258 in this thread. I will likely return to muse on it, so don't go too far if you are taking a break from engaging. At least one person found your posts interesting, and on balance, you weren't a fraction of the hectoring bitch cretin cult worshiping fanatic depicted in some comments.

We all get zany, sometimes ranty, sometimes bleakly apposite, sometimes -- sad to say -- sneering. I'd say some of the hostile house took issue with your tone or style. It was seen as either arrogant or hostile in itself. If one is perceived like this, in/out group conflict can take on one of its eerie forms, as scarecrows and effigies come out to play. Not to say it's your fault or your manner induced reaction, just that social effects can multiply.

I for one would love to see lower temperatures in OL climate discussion. Ultimately, I hope I live long enough to see this issue become resolved to general satisfaction. As Bob and Ellen have zeroed the discussion, the house is still considering 'how much' putative warming was caused by humans.

The youngest among us will see the most data, the graphs playing out in real, non simulated time, against expections. In the fullness of time beyond our individual allotments, we will better understand the 'human experiment' with CO2. There will come a time when we here now will be forced to agree one way or another, even if only as ghosts hanging around these topical threads.

Maybe the experiment will actually bring on consequences that are only plausible here now, or maybe CO2 increases works out fine for everyone, and no balance was unstruck, our GW spike but a minor anomaly, an interlude in an otherwise stable interglacial climate.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

At least one person found your posts interesting, and on balance, you weren't a fraction of the hectoring bitch cretin cult worshiping fanatic depicted in some comments.

We all get zany, sometimes ranty, sometimes bleakly apposite, sometimes -- sad to say -- sneering. I'd say some of the hostile house took issue with your tone or style. It was seen as either arrogant or hostile in itself. If one is perceived like this, in/out group conflict can take on one of its eerie forms, as scarecrows and effigies come out to play. Not to say it's your fault or your manner induced reaction, just that social effects can multiply.

William,

It's funny when soft words still don't work to cover over the real issue or convince folks, ain't it?

So out it starts coming.

Let's clarify instead of beating around the bush, shall we?

The problem is not Naomi's hostility. It is not scientific orthodoxy. (On the contrary, you will find that almost all on OL support "scientific orthodoxy." Progressive orthodoxy posing as scientific orthodoxy not so much.) It is not because of objection to a "hectoring bitch cretin cult worshiping fanatic." It is not a lathered up crowd dogpiling. It is nothing to do with any of that at root.

The real problem is as I said it was: aggressive intellectual dishonesty.

If I felt up to it, I could take a bunch of Naomi's posts, one by one, and point out the outright lying and manipulations. as compared to what she said right after or earlier.

In fact I did several times and, looking at your post just now, I see it still goes back to the mythological frame, the "us against them" mode, when AGW proponents (as the keepers of the rational flame, science and saviors of humanity) realize they did not convince the unwashed masses in this particular corner of the universe.

But from this end, discussing things with Naomi is like arguing with Creationists and Scientologists (not the gentle kind of either) and people like that.

It's a question worth pondering, don't you think? Why do you enlightened folks not convince the unwashed masses on OL?

Oh... maybe it's the innate hostility of the OL community against the scientific orthodoxy for whatever reason, maybe some kind of true-believer mentality run rampant due to the nature of the Randian subcommunity, Naomi's tone, groupthink, whatever.

It could not be OL people get really pissed at being lied to in their faces, then talked down to by the liar.

Ohhhh nooooo... That could never be the reason.

I suggest you maybe don't see it, or maybe you simply excuse it as rhetorical excess because Naomi touts a position you happen to agree with. Something to do with hardened schemas in neural pathways, cognitive biases, core story or world view...

I'm not in your head and I only have your words to go on, but that's what it looks like from my end. We disagree on much, but I judge you to be an honest person.

The real issue for everyone who is hostile to Naomi in this thread (and frankly in other threads that have nothing to do with AGW) is not a question of science, misunderstanding over terms, tone, or any other rationalization. People are even happy to disagree and let her have her own view. Agree to disagree, so to speak.

Maybe not all people on all issues, but most...

The real problem is a question of Naomi's bad character based on her actions.

People don't like it.

Nor do I.

It's a question of character.

Now which of you are going to come back and, once again, pretend I did not say that?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well, I saw the video. A few comments on the parts I was able to understand.

1. The "unequivocal" comment by Hartmann I have been having some fun with refers to global warming, not man-made global warming. Still, he came out with it a few times over the entire video, not just one. And he kind of savored that adjective as he said it.

2. The odd part about this "unequivocal" warming is that the surface of the earth is not warming, well only a little. Much less than it should be according to their models. It seems everywhere else on earth is warming except the surface, except maybe it isn't when you look deeper at each specific thing at a time. But, to be honest, when they talked about exactly where the planet is warming, with the exception of Greenland which I know is a country (of all things), and the Arctic, I didn't understand half of what they said. I need to simply understand it in a way that makes sense to me to make any kind of evaluation.

I suspect their measurements are correct of what they did measure (they mentioned 250 scientists worked on the report, which got three separate reviews by over 600 other scientists). But I also suspect there will be room for all kinds of different interpretations of what those measurements mean.

For instance, CO2 measurements for the past come from analyzing air trapped in ice. I need to understand this more before I am going to go around saying it means or doesn't mean this or that. From my recent bopping around on the Internet, it seems like there is some controversy over this point between different experts and I am curious about what that controversy is.

3. Oddly enough, to show how objective they were, they touted how conservative the IPCC is. They mentioned a report that criticized the IPCC for vastly underestimating the sea level rise. In other words, criticism from places like the NIPCC is not their worst nightmare. The AGW fanatics are. At least they made it seem this way. And, of course, they said the higher sea level rise report has been thoroughly debunked. However later they said that higher level could be true if everything ends up happening at the highest projected levels instead of the medium projected levels. So instead of thoroughly debunked (as they said earlier), they changed to unlikely.

Also, in the vein of proving how conservative they are, they did a mea culpa and mentioned how sloppy the previous IPCC report had been in missing the hiatus (the missing surface heat) because each chapter of the report had its own unique group working on it, and each group assumed the other groups were dealing with that issue. A bureaucratic snafu, so to speak. I have to admit, owning up to an in-house procedure shortcoming sounds a hell of a lot better than saying nobody thought of the problem at all and it caught all of them by surprise. But from what I can tell, there is no way to verify either, so we just have to take them at their word.

4. At one point one of the guys flat out stated that they have no way of knowing what the effect the CO2 level in the atmosphere is going to be on global warming, if any, over the next decade or so (I think I got that right--it was near the end of their talk right before the Q&A).

5. Because of the hiatus in surface warming (the missing heat), now they like sunspots. The sunspots must have done it. The guy actually said this surprised him. And some obscure volcanos in the 90s that squirted aerosol into the air. And the chaotic variability for short spans of natural causes. Another possible reason is the heat is being hidden in the deep parts of the ocean and nobody's found it yet, albeit that is merely a tantalizing possible explanation so far, one they will be pursuing.

6. They do not understand why the vast majority of their models still say the surface climate should be much warmer than it is. I think they said only 3 models do not project that. A mystery they will be looking to solve.

7. They are 95% sure man is the major cause of the "unequivocal" warming of the planet right now.

8. One part that made no sense to me was when they talked about the salinity of the ocean. The salty parts are getting saltier and the unsalty parts are getting unsaltier. OK. I got that. Check. Where there's salt, more salt is coming. Where there is little salt, it's going away even more. Now the conclusion. This fact, taken with the rest of the information, leads them to conclude the 95% certainty of AGW.

Huh?

This conclusion was said more or less like this, right after talking about the salt. I guess they believe salt level in the different parts of the ocean are indications (or markers) of man's impact on global warming, but I don't see how from my limited knowledge and they didn't say.

There's some more stuff, but that is enough time on this one video for me.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

There are details in your posts which have had me wondering for some while if you're unaware that there's a current issue of "What happened to the warming?" You talk as if possibly you think that the "average global mean temperature" is still increasing.

Here are two examples from the current thread:

[....] The question is how much of the warming is due to natural drivers and how much to human activity. No one denies that CO2 has an effect [on] atmospheric temperature, but how much does CO2 concentration determine the average atmospheric temperature?

[....]

There is no doubt that there has been a warming of atmosphere and oceans as evidenced by the shrinking of the Greenland glacier and the decrease of floating ice in the arctic. No one is arguing these facts. The entire dispute is over the causes of these changes. Is the cause mostly human activity, in particular, man made effluence of CO2 or do other causes, in particular natural causes account for what we see. Clearly human activity has some influence on the warming, but -how- much-???

And see for an example from an earlier thread which you started and titled "How to deal with Global Warming."

On that thread you posted as "a solution to the problem" an idea for cloud seeding which could have the dangerous result of starting an ice age.

Plus you reference "the shrinking of the Greenland glacier and the decrease of floating ice in the arctic" as your evidence.

Where are you getting your Greenland and Arctic information?

Are you aware that local isn't global, and that there hasn't been evidence of "average global temperature" increase in some 15-17 years?

(Also, a minor point, but for the sake of accuracy: It isn't true that "No one denies that CO2 has [an] effect on atmospheric temperature." There are some few (percentagewise among the disputants) who claim that there's no such phenomenon as a "greenhouse effect," either the atmospheric misnamed effect or in an actual greenhouse.)

Ellen

A sudden increase in glacier and sea ice melt can shut down the Gulf Stream which will lead to very cold weather in the Northern Atlantic which can produce over a period of decades and centuries increases in glacier ice. In terms of geological time or climate time this is a very rapid change.

You must keep in mind that human life time is small. The glaciers grow at the same rate as our nails grow. Almost imperceptably to humans but quite rapidly compared to other changes on earth or in the heavens.

My "feeling" is if there is going to be a fast climate change over it will be toward colder climate.

Human judgment is biased. Civilizations have emerged only in the current interglacial period. Humans have done some things to extend this interglacial a bit. Human cultivation, river diversion and such has affacted large land areas of the planet and have caused some changes to the albido (reflectivity) of the planet. Based on the infered lengths of prior interglacial periods we are a tad overdue for a shift to colder climate (i.e. the next period of glacier growth). There are natural drivers that will take us in that direction in any case.

I do not buy the notion we are about to change Earth into the next Venus. We do not have either the technology or the inclination to force cloud cover growth of such an extent as to "shut the blinds" on sunlight and reflect large amounts of light back into space. That would indeed lower the temperature and rather rapidly as such things go (decades and centuries rather than millenia)

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

You must keep in mind that human life time is small. The glaciers grow at the same rate as our nails grow. Almost imperceptably to humans but quite rapidly compared to other changes on earth or in the heavens.

My "feeling" is if there is going to be a fast climate change over it will be toward colder climate.

Human judgment is biased. Civilizations have emerged only in the current interglacial period. Humans have done some things to extend this interglacial a bit. Human cultivation, river diversion and such has affacted large land areas of the planet and have caused some changes to the albido (reflectivity) of the planet. Based on the infered lengths of prior interglacial periods we are a tad overdue for a shift to colder climate (i.e. the next period of glacier growth). There are natural drivers that will take us in that direction in any case.

Good points Bob.

I am continually astounded by the myopic mystical view that the Global Cooling, Global Warming Climate Change converts apparently hold which is that there is a "temperature" that is optimum for Earth.

A...

[BaalChatzaf]

Good points Bob.

I am continually astounded by the myopic mystical view that the Global Cooling, Global Warming Climate Change converts apparently hold which is that there is a "temperature" that is optimum for Earth.

A...

There are temperature ranges which are "optimum" or at least workable for human civilization. We need a temperature range which allow plants and fish to thrive. That will support land animals including humans. Humans can manage below freezing provided there are fish and sea mammals to eat, for example the innuit. They do very nicely below zero.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

I think this whole matter can be concluded happily and peaceably.

Global warming is good. We're running out of cheap oil, but there is an abundance of clean-burning natural gas. The big CO2 emitters -- India and China -- are not going to cut back, which is okay, because it will grow more plant life, taller rainforests to hide in and foodstuffs of all sorts. Democrats and greens are feeling pretty sassy at the moment, but that's subject to change. Entitlement spending is going to hit a brick wall and Americans aren't quite as stupid as we often seem to be. IPCC's days are numbered.

Thorium is plentiful enough so we could make electricity with thorium reactors, which have the advantage of not producing plutonium waste or any other bomb grade fissile waste.

Anyone who says we have any energy shortage is either blind or lying.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jonathan]

It's difficult to answer your questions because answering them would require me to give you an entire course on statistics, specifically with regard to regression analysis, and on top of that I'm using a simplified example to explain very complicated and subtle concepts. But I guess I can try anyway:

When climate scientists report that "greenhouse gasses explain at least 50% of the variation in temperatures with 95% certainty", what that means is that, we can expect that 95% of the time, if a model (that accounts for only ghgs) predicts that the temperature will go up by 1 degree, then the observed temperature increase will fall within at most a 50% range of that prediction , i.e. between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees.

If the observed temperatures in reality don't fall within that range, are you saying that the model which predicted temperatures within that range is therefore falsified, or is it still just a "minor discrepancy"?

See, it would be nice if you would actually answer my questions, rather than bluffing and blustering while avoiding them. I have to wonder why you refuse to answer the questions. Is it because you know that once you actually identify precisely what you mean by "minor discrepancies" versus observations which would falsify a given model, then we can begin to apply your own stated standards to the "consensus scientists'" models, at which point you'd have to try to explain why so many of them are outside of your own stated acceptable range?

So, once again, the unanswered questions are: What standards are you using to judge a "discrepancy" to be "minor" versus "major," and, more importantly, how large can a "discrepancy" be before it would count as falsifying an AGW model. How far off from reality could AGW models be in their predictions before you would classify the models as falsified? Yes or no, if a model fails to "explain at least 50% of the variation in temperatures with 95% certainty," has that model therefore been falsified? If your answer is "no," then which observations in reality would falsify the model?

J

Yes, at the 95% level.

Thank you for the direct answer! Finally!!!

Okay, so, now, which single climate model and its single set of predictions represents the "scientific consensus" view and is considered to be "settled science"? Who created the model, when were its predictions made, and when were they announced publicly? How and when, and by whom, was it decided that the model's predictions had been going on long enough to have "settled" the science? How was the timeline derived for accepting the "settling" of the science? Was that timeline explicitly identified prior to the predictions being made?

Please post graphs of the model's predictions. Include visual indicators of when the predictions began, which areas are included in the "95% certainty" range, and a line representing observations recorded in reality.

Thanks,

J

[Selene]

Johnathin, you never cease to amuse me....

[Brant Gaede]

Johnathin, you never cease to amuse me...

Adam, you've turned "amuse" into funny as hell.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Bob,

I hope you realize that your post #392 does not address the questions I asked you.

(Incidentally, though a trivial point, our nails don't grow "[a]lmost imperceptably," or even almost imperceptibly.)

Still wondering - see my full post for the context of the questions:

Where are you getting your Greenland and Arctic information?

Are you aware that local isn't global, and that there hasn't been evidence of "average global temperature" increase in some 15-17 years?

Ellen

[Selene]

Now here is a perfect example of how corrupted the "Climate Change" scum work:

PBSG disclosed this information to Crockford ahead of the release of their Circumpolar Polar Bear Action Plan in which they intend to put a footnote explaining why their global population estimate is flawed.

“As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic,” PBSG says in its proposed footnote. “Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.”

“It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated,” PBSG continues. “Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations.”

“Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy,” says PBSG. “Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”

PBSG’s admission also comes after academics and government regulators have touted their polar bear population estimates to show that polar bear numbers have grown since the 1960s. PBSG estimates have also been used to show that polar bear populations have stabilized over the last 30 years.

Polar bear populations became the centerpiece of the effort to fight global warming due to claims that melting polar ice caps would cause the bears to become endangered in the near future. Years ago some scientists predicted the Arctic would be virtually ice free by now.

Polar bears became the first species listed under the Endangered Species Act because they could potentially be harmed by global warming. But some recent studies have found that some polar bear subpopulations have actually flourished in recent years.

“So, the global estimates were ‘…simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand’ and according to this statement, were never meant to be considered scientific estimates, despite what they were called, the scientific group that issued them, and how they were used,” Crockford said.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/scientists-admit-polar-bear-numbers-made-satisfy-public-demand/#xHX6MsWCOWPI0WTY.99

So we should be expecting all those Polar Bear tax frees to be returning their fraudulently secured contributions.\\

A...