Climate change: A cooling consensus

A problem, one of many, with multiproxy reconstructions is that no care is given to how solid the science is behind the proxies. A scientifically solid proxy like isotope ratios is treated the same as a weak proxy like tree rings. Everything just goes into a statistical meat grinder with no care given to the science behind the proxies. More often than the weaker proxies are given far greater weight in the final reconstruction.

 

Proxies are obviously not perfect but they are all we have for past indicators. Some use proxies and date shift them. Some normalize them with other data, or like with the hockey stick, cherry pick the ones that give you what you want to see. All in all, they are not to be ignored as they do tell a story.

That does not mean they should be used for what they are being used for now and that is for political purposes. They are scientific in nature only and should be used only to further understanding the past.

 

Weatherbell.com meteorologist Joe Bastardi talking about the cold air blast we've been getting.

On alarmists trying to claim it is the result of global warming, "... what answer don't they own??", lol...

He goes on to say, "... just tell me one thing that could happen, that I could say, 'okay, that's not a sign of global warming'. It's astounding the world they live in, it's certainly not the world of reality that we have to deal with."

[video]http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3023354281001/the-science-behind-the-polar-vortex-in-the-us/?playlist_id=932683241001&intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips&v=3023354281001[/video]

They'd be funny if they weren't causing so much harm to society. Driving up energy prices, and therefore daily cost of living for everyone. They have no shame, no honesty.

And we'll never be rid of these fraudsters. Their psychological makeup is such that once this fraud is exposed once and for all, they will simply move on to the next apocalyptic fairy tale and use that to try and control and harm society.

 

“The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC],” says Professor Bob Carter, environmental scientist at James Cook University, “show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 [and]… lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979… In one of the more expensive ironies of history,” Carter says, “the expenditure of more than $US50 billion … on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.”

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...ecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

 

But as I said if you look at the science behind temperature proxies most all are poor, very poor. Pretty much the only solid proxy we have are ice cores. The problem is that ice cores are always drowned out by the (*)(*)(*)(*)ty proxies.

To make an anology the ice cores are like an NFL player on a team with pop Warner kids but the coach doesn't give the NFL any playing time.

 

How cold is it?

Its, so cold, I saw a Democrat with his hands in his own pockets this morning.

Amazing.

 

It makes me smile when climate catastrophists tell us how much fossil fuel corporations spend on "climate denial" and the like, which is a pittance when compared to the billions governments spend on climate science.

That 0.75º Centigrade rise in global temperature over the last 160 years, must be the most costly fraction of one degree in the history of the world.

 

Aren't you lucky - it is so hot over here we are considering importing some American right wingers to stir up the breeze

- - - Updated - - -

Got ANY proof of that statement?

 

The world invested almost a billion dollars a day in limiting global warming last year, but the total figure – $359 billion – was slightly down on last year, and barely half the $700 billion per year that the World Economic Forum has said is needed to tackle climate change.

Now we are talking real money.

 

And the declared profits for Exxon and CO - all those energy and power companies world wide - we are talking waaay more than that

oil company profits alone

 

The majority of money spent on Climate Change is by governments and if you think a scientist will give up the government teat, you are only fooling yourself.

 

Actual reliable data.

LINK....http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

AboveAlpha

 

Yet temps have not followed the CO2 curve like predicted. What's up with that?

 

Watch the top of that sites page and every 20 seconds or so a different graph will come up....including one specific to Temps.

AboveAlpha

 

Well, lol... oil company profits, at least here, are at about 6%, and let's say a gallon of gas costs $3, that comes out to 18 cents/gallon.

The government by comparison, as it says right on the pump here, takes 49 cents/gal. Over 2 1/2 times more "profit" than those eville oil companies.

All of the other costs?? Overhead... most of which is incurred from government overregulation.

Do those high costs have much of an impact on the rich?? Of course not - who do they hurt the most?? You surely didn't guess it - the poor.

So the answer becomes, why do you hate the poor so much that you would work so devilishly to load ever more expense on their backs and stress on their lives??

 

Yes, lots, all of which is easy to find and if you're seriously interested, you can find it yourself.

 

What have oil corporation profits got to do with what Hoosier was talking about?

Oops, that's right, nothing.

 

The temp anomaly graph on that page is from one station in the US, not a very good example for global anomaly.

First I would like to say that I believe that man contributes to the climate but disagree with CAGW. Not enough is known as the failed IPCC predictions have proven.

Sun's Current Solar Activity Cycle Is Weakest in a Century

Surface Air Temperature anomalies have basically not increased since 1998 with any statistical significance. We are in one of the weakest solar maximums that we have seen in 100 years so there will be a lot to learn. The duration of cycle 24 is also longer than normal. Some believe we may go into a Dalton minimum. The temperature anomaly is roughly following sunspot activity so only time will tell.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

 

Nope! that is not how it works - you make a statement and you back it up otherwise it is merely an opinion of an anonymous person on the internet - inherently worth nothing

 

Motive

You claim there is motive for government to "scam the people" despite the fact that no government anywhere in the history of humanity has increased it's popularity through raising taxes - and yet you ignore the blatant profiteering that the oil and energy industry have indulged in as well as the clear evidence (not supposition) but evidence that they have funded multiple denialist sites in an effort to discredit climate change science

Your friends at CO2 science are some of them

 

Yes the Solar minima has bought us some reprieve from the global temperature rises - however as your last graph shows we are coming out of the solar minima at the moment - which means hotter (average) temps and more (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up weather

 

Every major oil company is on the warmmonger side. They have bern since ENRON invented carbon trading. They haven't bern in tge skeptic camp dince the early 90s.

What is wrong with warmmongers and their obsession with the 90s?

 

rubbish!!

There is clear evidence that Exxxon has funded multiple denialist campaigns - and even admitted doing so

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

rest of the article goes even further into the funding
http://www.good.is/posts/nine-of-out-ten-climate-denying-scientists-have-ties-to-exxon-mobil-money

 

Wow Wikipedia did you write it yourself or one of your friends.

Quoting Wikipedia is pathetic.

Stop quoting wiki. Think for yourself.

 

You claim there is motive for government to "scam the people" despite the fact that no government anywhere in the history of humanity has increased it's popularity through raising taxes - and yet you ignore the blatant profiteering that the oil and energy industry have indulged in as well as the clear evidence (not supposition) but evidence that they have funded multiple denialist sites in an effort to discredit climate change science

Recent (2011) company profit margins suggest that oil company profit margins are all that great. http://www.gravmag.com/profits.shtml
Exxon = 11%
Conoco/Philips = 8%
-----------------------------
Citigroup = 33%
Microsoft = 32%
Coke = 21%
P&G = 14%
GE = 11%

I've seen evidence that Exxon - up until two years ago - provided a total of $23 million to AGW/Climate Change over some 10 years. If you have evidence of them (or other oil companies) financing "multiple denialist sites" I'd be interested in seeing that data. Newsweek came out with an article on the subject in Feb 2012. But they didn't come up with huge numbers and even then soon afterward, one of Newsweek‘s own journalists dismissed the cover story as “highly contrived” and “fundamentally misleading.” .

You are aware, I assume,
1. That Time magazine revealed that, "between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from…Chesapeake Energy – one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S."
2. The Washington Post reported that British Petroleum, had donated nearly $10 million to the Nature Conservancy in recent years. For a time, BP’s chief executive, John Browne, sat on the board of another green group, Conservation International – which received $2 million from the oil giant.
3. The Environmental Defense Fund, which has a policy of not accepting corporate donations [nevertheless] joined with BP, Shell International and other major corporations [in 2007] to form the Partnership for Climate Action…And about 20 energy and environmental groups…joined with BP Wind Energy [in 2008] to form the American Wind and Wildlife Institute.

And there are additional examples.

As I posted on another thread...

"I wonder why it's only the skeptical scientists who are biased by their funding sources?

If all scientists are pretty much the same as far as ethics go, one could conclude that the majority would have even more morally challenged scientists. So, that 97% would have 33 times as many ethically challenged scientists. Further, that the ones with more money would be more biased. Because AGW/Climate Change believers have recieved hundreds of times as much funding, there would be hundreds of times as many opportunities for bias.

But this is apparently not the case. All AGW proponent scientists are scrupulously honest and all skeptical ones are biased."