When delay becomes denial

You sound confused at a minimum

Since you offer no time line that's kind of meaningless. In recent decades AGW has been the overwhelming contributing factor.

Industrial soot on ice, not volcanoes.

Fossil fuel burning anthropogenic.

 

My timeline is the same as the IPCC uses. Start at 1750.

Cause an effect are immediate in a large system like our planet. It takes decades to see some changes. If you understood these sciences, you would know that.

 

Gosh, that sure makes sense.

 

Ooops.

I meant cause and effect "are not" immediate.

 

Agreed. Particularly relating to the "popular science" disciples. I recall articles in 1979 by that mag which stated with great certainty that by 1994 fuel cells would be commonplace technology. I know they exist, but I do not know anyone that has one 20 years later.

Human behavior is largely controlled by the unconscious mind, meaning if we do not endeavor to create a robust understanding of it, we may never overcome the denial and engage effective counter measures to pollution. Your mention of acid rain is the one certainty described that is attributable to man. Global warming, climate change, yea they happen. There is not enough imperical record keeping to know well what causes it.

We know what causes toxic pollution. Here is a thread about our unconscious and its relationship to behaviors that can cause our extinction.

http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...nconscious-implications-human-extinction.html

 

That is your ignorant uninformed opinion, based apparently on the propaganda being pushed by the fossil fuel industry and your own incomprehension of the science, but without any basis in reality. Scientists understand quite well that it is the human caused 43% increase (from 280ppm to over 400ppm) in atmospheric CO2 levels over the natural pre-industrial levels (that had not varied higher than 300ppm in several million years) that is causing the continuing abrupt warming trend and it's consequent climate changes. You're just in denial about the reality of AGW for some weird ideological and/or political and/or economic reason that has nothing to do with the scientific facts of the matter.

BTW, there is no such word as "imperical", and the real word 'empirical' doesn't mean what you apparently imagine it does.

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[54] and revised and expanded in 2013,[55] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."​

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:

"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.[66]"
​

 

You are incorrect. Kobashi in 2011, doing that SCIENCE thing, decided that current trends would have to continue to about 2100 before humans can say that temperature fluctuations aren't outside the current range of natural variability.

Pretending there is certainty (as with the "science is settled" comments) when there is most certainly NOT is the hallmark of folks advocating, not doing science. This idea was put into the public record as a means of gaining compliance by Stephen Schneider back in the late 80's I believe, when he made it very clear what was going to start happening. He was then proven correct. And YOU apparently fell for it like most others. It took 20 years for Mann to be discredited, how many more before those who do understand uncertainty in complex systems have their day with the "science is settled" fools?

The charter quote from Schneider, pay close attention to it. Because it didn't take Mann long to come along, and the IPCC to "disappear" centuries of paleoclimate work one afternoon when they needed to capture the public's imagination. Al Gore got a prize for doing nothing but following the plan.

 

Ooops.

I meant "are not immediate"

- - - Updated - - -

This should read:

My timeline is the same as the IPCC uses. Start at 1750.

Cause an effect are not immediate in a large system like our planet. It takes decades to see some changes. If you understood these sciences, you would know that.

 

Denier cult twaddle with no meaningful content. Dr. Mann is "discredited" only in the delusional fantasies of the anti-science reality-challenged denier cultists. In the real world, Dr. Mann is a world renounced scientist, honored by his peers.

Michael E. Mann (born 1965) is an American climatologist and geophysicist,[1] currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, who has contributed to the scientific understanding of climate change over the last two thousand years. He has pioneered techniques to find patterns in past climate change, and to isolate climate signals from "noisy data."[3]

As lead author of a paper produced in 1998 with co-authors Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes, Mann introduced innovative statistical techniques to find regional variations in a hemispherical climate reconstruction covering the past 600 years. In 1999 the same team used these techniques to produce a reconstruction over the past 1,000 years (MBH99) which was dubbed the "hockey stick graph" because of its shape. He was one of 8 lead authors of the "Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report published in 2001. A graph based on the MBH99 paper was highlighted in several parts of the report, and was given wide publicity. The IPCC acknowledged that his work, along with that of the many other lead authors and review editors, contributed to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, which was won jointly by the IPCC and Al Gore.

He was organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences Frontiers of Science in 2003 and has received a number of honors and awards including selection by Scientific American as one of the fifty leading visionaries in science and technology in 2002. In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union. In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, and awarded the status of distinguished professor in Penn State's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.

Mann is author of more than 160 peer-reviewed and edited publications, and has published two books: Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming in 2008 and The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, published in early 2012. In 2013 the European Geosciences Union described his publication record as "outstanding for a scientist of his relatively young age". He is also a co-founder and contributor to the climatology blog RealClimate.

As for the rest of your clueless drivel....

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press - Big Story
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
(excerpts)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill. They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous. They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent. And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough. There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say. That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951. One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent. Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say. But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty. "Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control.

George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense. "There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance." With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less. They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close." Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly. "What is understood does not violate any mechanism that we understand about cancer," while "statistics confirm what we know about cancer," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist. Add to that a "very high consensus" among scientists about the harm of tobacco, and it sounds similar to the case for climate change," he said. But even the best study can be nitpicked because nothing is perfect, and that's the strategy of both tobacco defenders and climate deniers, said Stanton Glantz, a medicine professor at the University of California, San Francisco and director of its tobacco control research center. Other experts said the 95 percent figure is too low. Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect. But the role of nature and all sorts of other factors bring the number down to 95 percent when you want to say that the majority of the warming is human-caused, he said.

 

Obviously, if you are defending Mann, you are not an objective participant in the debate. Or are completely unfamiliar with how a scientist manufactures, by accident or on purpose, the result they desire.

I recommend some learning on the topic. Certainly the cheer leading propaganda ain't it as of late.

 

More delusional twaddle from an ideologically motivated denier who neither knows anything about the science supporting AGW, nor cares two hoots what the science says.

 

Do you know what the accuracy of the proxies Mann used are?

 

Your silly attempts to nitpick scientific material you don't understand are meaningless. Dr. Mann's reconstruction of surface air temperatures over the last thousand years or so has been replicated by over a dozen other scientific teams using a wide variety of proxies and statistical techniques. They have all reached substantially the same conclusion - that the current warming of the Earth is happening much faster and reaching higher temperatures than has happened for at least the last two thousand years and probably much longer.

Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick
By Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf, Co-Chair of Earth System Analysis, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
JULY 11, 2013


Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.

78 researchers from 24 countries, together with many other colleagues, worked for seven years in the PAGES 2k project on the new climate reconstruction. “2k” stands for the last 2000 years, while PAGES stands for the Past Global Changes program launched in 1991. Recently, their new study was published in Nature Geoscience. It is based on 511 climate archives from around the world, from sediments, ice cores, tree rings, corals, stalagmites, pollen or historical documents and measurements (Fig. 1). All data are freely available



For the scientific community, the confirmation of the old hockey stick is no surprise (except perhaps for the closeness of the match); many other climate reconstructions with a similar time evolution have already appeared since. Mann et al. at the time cautiously assumed a wide margin of uncertainty (light blue) because of their limited data base and a possible underestimation of the variance by their method; later reconstructions run largely within this margin. The work of Mann and colleagues has gained the highest recognition. For example, Bradley was honoured in 2007 with the Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union and Mann likewise in 2012, and both were (as well as Hughes) elected as fellows of the American Geophysical Union. Politically motivated attacks on their work were immense, however – both Bradley and Mann have published books about that experience:
* The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines by Michael E. Mann
* Global Warming and Political Intimidation: How Politicians Cracked Down on Scientists As the Earth Heated Up by Raymond S. Bradley

 

Same data, same methodology and interpretation, same results.

 

There you go!!

 

Same ignorance of science, same denial of reality, same denier cult delusions.

 

Live free ---above you actually quoted the works of M Mann , in an attempt to support other works of.....M Mann.

and you claim these other posters are ignorant of the scientific method?????....rofl

 

YES!!! Most of the AGW deniers, including emphatically you, are very obviously completely ignorant about not only the 'scientific method' but also pretty much all of modern science.

 

And another typically vacuous 'JustCrazy' response to the truth of the matter.

 

IPCC AR5 has moved away from mitigation and towards risk management. Why? Because it is apparent that man cannot mitigate climate change. The continued push to decarbonize is purely political and not based on known capabilities or science.

 

Just the Facts ma'am, just the facts....................you got................NoThiNg

 

Including those of us who actually have done it as a paid profession? Pray tell, what is your experience with science? I've got 15 years in it (oil and gas research) and 100+ publications to my name, or that of my coauthors. I've been presenting at conferences of various types, domestically and internationally, discussing said science, in two different centuries, and 3 different decades.

I am not only familiar with science, have been paid to do it, but I specialize in quantifying uncertainty in complex systems. And if you don't think such a specialty is quite of interest in not only doing oil and gas research, predicting ranges of outcomes in things that not only don't exist but haven't even been FOUND, as compared to the plethora of information available to climate change folks, you really should not be throwing stones in a glass house....not that you can even find the glass house....should you even have any experience with "science", as compared to some others.

 

You keep trotting out all these impressive credentials but won't make one reference to anything you wrote. Hey everybody I've received the Nobel prize but I can't let you in on anything that would identify me. JUST BELIEVE IT!

Even this high school dropout can see your estrangement from basic science. But then again you might have some technical abilities that you confuse with real science. I knew this helicopter prop expert who insisted the sun was no more than 10,000 years old. He had all sorts of fancy sounding data to prove it.

 

Perhaps there are confidentiality rules? Ever hear of that? you all are really pieces of work.