oiuHere you go again. Blaming me and all the Republicans for climate change. and here you go again with the lying about what I'm saying. What I am blaming you and all current Republicans for - is your easy acceptance of fanciful LIES and MISREPRESENTING very clear science and explanations!!! I am also blaming you people for the brain-dead attitude that allows you to steadfastly ignore all learning opportunities. You bring up that malicious Oregon Institute fraud. That it's a fabrication and perversion of honest debate, let alone the scientific process of learning, let alone the available information at the time, doesn't bother you in the least. Instead all your moral indignation is for me, that I'm not stupid enough to fall for the various idiotic turd balls you toss out. Then you believe being a full-time liar is your 'free speech Right' - that is what I condemn you and your GOP handlers for.What if the scales have not been balanced for science and carbon is not the driving force behind Global Warming. Yes, is holds heat and creates a little heat itself. But what do the scientists say that are not after the money and political agenda? While polls of scientists actively working in the field of climate science indicate strong general agreement that Earth is warming and human activity is a significant factor, 31,000 scientists say there is "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause "catastrophic" heating of the atmosphere.you keep forgetting that is make believe fantasy talking. That is not the real world we live in. We know this for sure, even if you never acknowledge the evidence.Ignore it all you want, but we know much for CERTAIN this is where our fundamental understanding comes from ! But you can't afford to absorb tight sort of information too much cognitive dissonance,... worried your head might explode, I imagine. Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, Cambridge Research Labhttp://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CO2 Science - Why We Can Be Sure. http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/12/co2-science-just-facts.htmlOh your petition is another precious example of your base dishonest and disregard for learning from incoming information. Your petition was accompanied by a vicious opinion piece written by Fred Seitz, masquerading as a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper. This thing is one of the most blatant crimes against We The People's right to hear the true story - yet Mike believes in it. The disconnect from honest reality is amazing Debate is fine, but it needs to be an honest debate where both sides are bound by the evidence and learning from mistakes. Rather than the sort of endless obfuscation MikeYohe and the Republican party have to offer. Science Academy Disputes Attack on Global Warming By WILLIAM K. STEVENSAPRIL 22, 1998 http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/22/us/science-academy-disputes-attack-on-global-warming.htmlApril 20, 1998 http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998 The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy. In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus study on this issue, entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1991,1992). This analysis concluded that " ...even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. ... Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." In addition, the Committee on Global Change Research of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS and the NAE, will issue a major report later this spring on the research issues that can help to reduce the scientific uncertainties associated with global change phenomena, including climate change. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES COUNCIL Bruce Alberts (president) National Academy of Sciences Washington, D.C. ................. Richard N. Zare Marguerite Blake Wilbur Professor Department of Chemistry Stanford University Stanford, Calif.The Oregon Institute - The Oregon Petition 32000 Scientists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQAnd this is the sort of crap that MikeYohe and his Republican pals treat as their gold standard of truth. All the time evading the simple questions being asked of him.
Here you go again. Blaming me and all the republicans for climate change. You said the science was complete, back in 2010, correct? The problem you had was all these stupid scientists that just would not get in line with your hypotheses. Your science is consensual science whose results are controlled by a union.What a truly idiotic statement, do you think that when Eugene Wigner did the theoretical science that was then directly applied to the semi-conducting transistors that allow you to even post here he was being controlled by this science "union" you seem to think exists. If something doesn't work in the natural world then it's not science, there is no science union. There's the scientific method which tests empirical data under rigorous conditions. For instance if the theory of semi-conducting materials that allow the transit of electrons in one direction but not the other didn't work in the real world then transistors like the ones in whatever device you're using to be here wouldn't work. The exact same principles have been demonstrated over and over for many years that explain precisely why CO2 warms the Earth.
Where are your datum points and datum lines in your science? What the hell kind of science are you backing? Didn’t you learn anything in school? Without datum point and lines your science can move around and you never will get from a hypothesis to a theory. Oh wait, your science set its 2100 goals of 1.5 degrees. That was a bold move. Mainly to help the political goals. And look what happen this last week. Science proved that the goal of 1.5 degrees could not be met. So, what did your science that has spent a couple hundred billion so far to reach their conclusions do? They moved the data points to match the results they are after. Ran the new data points through the models and bingo, the goal of 1.5 degrees is possible now. Oh yea, we were told the models were running hot before. What they are doing is criminal or political, what’s the difference?More meaningless denier BS, we don't need to be able to precisely predict what temperature changes will be at precise points to understand that if we don't decrease the flow of energy into a system while impeding the flow of energy out of that system then the overall energy in that system will increase. If you built a dam across a river then claimed that there would be no increase in water volume behind the dam would that be accurate... over even sane? That is exactly what climate change deniers like this do constantly, they claim that the blocking of the flow of heat out of the Earth's atmosphere by CO2 won't warm the planet... it is functionally insane.
For years your CO2 was said to stay in the atmosphere for at least an average of 400 years. And as more tests results came in, the number kept increasing. The average went from 400 yrs to 600 to 800 years. And then 800 to 1,000 years was used a lot and is still being used today and even 2,000 years has been claimed. But this became a problem for setting the 1.5-degree goal. So, the IPCC is using the average of 5yrs to 200 years average for calculating the 2100 goal. I want to ask you about the 400 to 800-year lag of the carbon following the heat in the Ice Core data. But in thirty years there has not been an acceptable answer. Science that ignores questions that don’t have good scientific answers is a problem.Yohe isn't asking anything here, his "questions" make no sense at all from an informational standpoint. You just have to go over the input of this one poster to see how utterly idiotic climate change denial is. Or look at colossal fools like Rush Limbaugh who tried to claim that killer hurricanes hundreds of miles across didn't even exist. Before running from his life from one. It's called denial for a reason, because it is the denial of reality. It makes zero sense because it is the rejection of sense. Just stop, we have zero room for this insane behavior anywhere now. If you don't believe that climate change is real then come on up to BC and go out into our forests where some of the largest fires ever recorded are still burning, or go down into the Caribbean and stand unprotected in the path of the largest storms ever seen. Put the courage of your convictions to a real scientific test, if you're right then you won't be burned up or blown into the side of a building at 100 mph. This is not a game people are dying and our very future is being placed in jeopardy, if complete cowards are unable to face that then that is their problem. Stop trying to to involve the rest of us in your pathetic withdrawal from the real world.
Where are your datum points and datum lines in your science?Debating datum points is for experts who understanding the complex math involved. But you idiot you want to debate them, when you don't even understand the difference between creating heat and transferring heat. But, you got god and greed on your side so any bull shit goes. You want serious datum point, you need to do some homework. For starters go read those studies and what others have written about them with 20/20 hindsight. But you aren't serious, so instead you ask impossible questions and pretend that makes you superior and correct. All it makes you is a totalitarian. You want datum points:
By Phil Plait Did I Say 30 Billion Tons of CO2 a Year? I Meant 40. I’ve pointed out that in fact, humans throw about 30 billion tons of it into the atmosphere every year, 100 times as much as volcanoes do. I got that number from a paper published a few years back. Well, I just found out that paper is out of date. Guesss what the more accurate, current number for the human-made CO2 pollution put into the air every year is? 40 billion tons. Yeah. 40. As in billions of tons. 40. ... http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/08/20/atmospheric_co2_humans_put_40_billion_tons_into_the_air_annually.html https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/6/235/2014/essd-6-235-2014.pdf
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate W.F.J. Evans, and E. Puckrin https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
Climate change: How do we know? https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
What the hell kind of science are you backing? (well it sure isn't science in a vacuum-sealed echo-chamber) Didn’t you learn anything in school?Sure basic physics. Rational learning and logical reasoning. Appreciating that my success is in the eyes of the beholder and not within my own self-aggrandizing imagination. Incidentally, I do a great deal of handyman home repairs these days, and everyone is a different adventure with different surprises, many a bit of nightmare, but I'm there and things must be dealt with. I can't afford to trust myself unquestioningly or I'd be a failure. I need to assess the situation and be ready for surprises and reappraisals, sure fix strategies often run into difficulties when faced with the real world reality. Listening to others and being willing to reappraise my own approach in light of new information. My success or failures is determined not by my own ego, but by the job I leave behind and client satisfaction. What I'm trying to get across is that I live a self skeptical life, and active living has taught me how to recognize the bullshitters and predators but also to listen attentively and think about what others are sharing and that I will always have a lot to learn, not to mention all things that I need to be re-reminded of. Pragmatic realism demands respecting the opinions of real experts who understand these complex issues - listening to every lip flapping phony is a sure fast road to ruin.
Here’s how it works;
Someone at ExxonMobil or Koch Inc. head office allocates a certain amount of money, it’s probably in the tens of millions each year, we don’t know for sure now because they hide the real amounts behind blind trusts. The money ends up in the bank accounts of fossil fuel lobby “think” tanks like Heartland, Cato, or Marshall. Then they contract the actual denial work to useless tools with nothing better to do than go around the internet and endlessly troll anyone who presents the facts of human forced catastrophic climate change.
Don’t blame people like Yohe, they are just mindless drones, the real criminals are those who are paying them. Ultimately the insanity is coming from the Koch brothers, Rex Tillerson and other complete psychopaths like that who don’t have a shred of humanity in them.
So Mike do you get paid on the quota system based on the number of posts or hourly.
That’s a far more interesting question than anything he will ever post on this subject.
I’m guessing it’s minimum wage on an hourly basis due to how lacking in any real skills or knowledge on his part.
sl…
In Lawrence Otto’s recent book , the War on Science, he lays it out in a little more detail than DougC above. Here’s an excerpt from a letter I wrote to a local conspiracy “journalist”
This system starts with an industry that is somehow threatened by established science facts. It funds and creates information that looks scientific, but isn’t. You can see where the Duluth Reader begins to play a role in this, somewhere around step 5.
1 – Create uncertainty about accepted views of science. Not with new science, but by cherry picking papers or experiments that were never confirmed or were proven false. Any isolated article will do.
2 – Spoon feed the press with this disinformation through non-profits and bloggers.
3 – Build and finance industry-aligned front groups that appear to be grassroots efforts.
4 – Recruit professionals into the campaign.
5 – Talk-radio and cable news and more from the earlier steps should pick up the story at this point. They might not realize the source.
6 – The political support is now there. Votes can be had by supporting the ideas. Questioning these unscientific sources can get you labeled as the one who hasn’t read the latest research.
7 – The industry behind the phony science can now step out of the shadows, supported by every aspect of mainstream society. They can appear to be neutral and positive voices in the debate. Maybe even play the victim.
How can we recognize this is happening? It’s not as hard as you think. You need to compare the stories that are published through all the steps with the actual science. You don’t need a degree in every possible science, but you need to learn what actual science looks like. It looks like the articles printed in accepted journals like Nature or Scientific American. It looks like what is being taught in Universities around the world.
You may not be able to evaluate every study but you can evaluate the methodology. You can see who did the study and see if they have knowledge and experience and if they are respected by others with similar knowledge and experience. You can see if something was predicted based on their knowledge that was later shown to be true. You can evaluate where they say their knowledge came from. Did it come from institutions of learning where you would send your children or are they someplace you’ve never heard of? If a study is quoted, get the name of it and who wrote it. Look it up and look up if it has been refuted or even retracted. Often, you need look no further than whatever article you are reading. Does it have a byline saying who wrote it? If there are sources, check a couple of them with the above tests. I have seen citations that actually don’t lead anywhere, or lead to studies that don’t say what the article says it does.
In Lawrence Otto's recent book , the War on Science, he lays it out in a little more detail than DougC above. Here's an excerpt from a letter I wrote to a local conspiracy "journalist" This system starts with an industry that is somehow threatened by established science facts. It funds and creates information that looks scientific, but isn’t. You can see where the Duluth Reader begins to play a role in this, somewhere around step 5. 1 – Create uncertainty about accepted views of science. Not with new science, but by cherry picking papers or experiments that were never confirmed or were proven false. Any isolated article will do. 2 – Spoon feed the press with this disinformation through non-profits and bloggers. 3 – Build and finance industry-aligned front groups that appear to be grassroots efforts. 4 – Recruit professionals into the campaign. 5 – Talk-radio and cable news and more from the earlier steps should pick up the story at this point. They might not realize the source. 6 – The political support is now there. Votes can be had by supporting the ideas. Questioning these unscientific sources can get you labeled as the one who hasn’t read the latest research. 7 – The industry behind the phony science can now step out of the shadows, supported by every aspect of mainstream society. They can appear to be neutral and positive voices in the debate. Maybe even play the victim. How can we recognize this is happening? It’s not as hard as you think. You need to compare the stories that are published through all the steps with the actual science. You don’t need a degree in every possible science, but you need to learn what actual science looks like. It looks like the articles printed in accepted journals like Nature or Scientific American. It looks like what is being taught in Universities around the world. You may not be able to evaluate every study but you can evaluate the methodology. You can see who did the study and see if they have knowledge and experience and if they are respected by others with similar knowledge and experience. You can see if something was predicted based on their knowledge that was later shown to be true. You can evaluate where they say their knowledge came from. Did it come from institutions of learning where you would send your children or are they someplace you’ve never heard of? If a study is quoted, get the name of it and who wrote it. Look it up and look up if it has been refuted or even retracted. Often, you need look no further than whatever article you are reading. Does it have a byline saying who wrote it? If there are sources, check a couple of them with the above tests. I have seen citations that actually don’t lead anywhere, or lead to studies that don’t say what the article says it does.The disturbing thing in this paradigm is that the private sector groups committing this intellectual and financial fraud are now steadily working their way into academia so that a large part of funding for universities and other centers of higher learning is now coming from a sector that wants certain messages put forward. Here in Canada the University of Calgary is closely associated with the fossil fuel industry funded climate change denial groups like the "Friends of Science". Pretty ironic title for an organization specifically set up to directly attack science. This is a pattern repeated over and over as Lausten details. This is a highly sophisticated and incredibly well funded attack on those institutions in society who's purpose is to provide us with crucial information that can mean the difference between life and death on an individual or even societal level. There's no question we're being lied to, why and by who. And they're damn good at it, it's to the point where people funded by these groups like Rush Limbaugh can tell his audience that the most powerful forces in the natural world simply don't exist and to not worry. And some will accept it because the deceptive messages have been programmed into society on multiple levels. That is climate change overall, a denial of a catastrophic reality that is looming higher over all of us.
All I know is that ten or twelve years ago, we kept hearing about plans to do something about excess carbon in the atmosphere. Some of the more ambitious actually involved launching a parasol into orbit that would have reflected sunlight. Others were simply about absorbing carbon from the air. Nowadays we don’t hear a word about things like that. All we hear about is somehow ameliorating the problem. Miami, Florida is building dikes because the sea level is rising. But this weekend there was a story on “60 Minutes” about a citizens group in Texas which has been suing the major of Houston for six or seven YEARS trying to get him to build a drainage basin which would have been a big help against the recent flooding there. It seems that politicians don’t want to spend money on something this believe is “fake news”.
Miami, Florida is building dikes because the sea level is rising.Those plans have been iced. They overlook an itzy-bitzy detail.
https://thinkprogress.org/scientist-miami-as-we-know-it-today-is-doomed-its-not-a-question-of-if-it-s-a-question-of-when-3b3212be388d/ ... Even worse, South Florida sits above a vast and porous limestone plateau. “Imagine Swiss cheese, and you’ll have a pretty good idea what the rock under southern Florida looks like," says Glenn Landers, a senior engineer at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This means water moves around easily — it seeps into yards at high tide, bubbles up on golf courses, flows through underground caverns, corrodes building foundations from below. “Conventional sea walls and barriers are not effective here," says Robert Daoust, an ecologist at ARCADIS, a Dutch firm that specializes in engineering solutions to rising seas.Not that they aren't working on it with other strategies. But it's a losing battle, http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article129284119.html
Here's how it works; Someone at ExxonMobil or Koch Inc. head office allocates a certain amount of money, it's probably in the tens of millions each year, we don't know for sure now because they hide the real amounts behind blind trusts. The money ends up in the bank accounts of fossil fuel lobby "think" tanks like Heartland, Cato, or Marshall. Then they contract the actual denial work to useless tools with nothing better to do than go around the internet and endlessly troll anyone who presents the facts of human forced catastrophic climate change. Don't blame people like Yohe, they are just mindless drones, the real criminals are those who are paying them. Ultimately the insanity is coming from the Koch brothers, Rex Tillerson and other complete psychopaths like that who don't have a shred of humanity in them. So Mike do you get paid on the quota system based on the number of posts or hourly. That's a far more interesting question than anything he will ever post on this subject. I'm guessing it's minimum wage on an hourly basis due to how lacking in any real skills or knowledge on his part. sl...That’s one pathway of thoughts. Just which industrial companies am I supporting and for what reason? Just what I thought, you’re up to bat and swinging and nobody’s even pitched. You might try understanding the subject, the issues and the science first before you come to conclusions Doug Comey. You guys, by guys I mean you want to be progressives need to step back and see yourselves for what you really are. Identical methods of dealing with science as the creationist. I can see no difference. There is an invisible line of science you just can’t step across or see across when the science comes in conflict with your political views or religious views in the case of creationist. Pretty sure that if my name was Obama I could get you to move the line without using any science.
In Lawrence Otto's recent book , the War on Science, he lays it out in a little more detail than DougC above. Here's an excerpt from a letter I wrote to a local conspiracy "journalist" This system starts with an industry that is somehow threatened by established science facts. It funds and creates information that looks scientific, but isn’t. You can see where the Duluth Reader begins to play a role in this, somewhere around step 5. 1 – Create uncertainty about accepted views of science. Not with new science, but by cherry picking papers or experiments that were never confirmed or were proven false. Any isolated article will do. 2 – Spoon feed the press with this disinformation through non-profits and bloggers. 3 – Build and finance industry-aligned front groups that appear to be grassroots efforts. 4 – Recruit professionals into the campaign. 5 – Talk-radio and cable news and more from the earlier steps should pick up the story at this point. They might not realize the source. 6 – The political support is now there. Votes can be had by supporting the ideas. Questioning these unscientific sources can get you labeled as the one who hasn’t read the latest research. 7 – The industry behind the phony science can now step out of the shadows, supported by every aspect of mainstream society. They can appear to be neutral and positive voices in the debate. Maybe even play the victim. How can we recognize this is happening? It’s not as hard as you think. You need to compare the stories that are published through all the steps with the actual science. You don’t need a degree in every possible science, but you need to learn what actual science looks like. It looks like the articles printed in accepted journals like Nature or Scientific American. It looks like what is being taught in Universities around the world. You may not be able to evaluate every study but you can evaluate the methodology. You can see who did the study and see if they have knowledge and experience and if they are respected by others with similar knowledge and experience. You can see if something was predicted based on their knowledge that was later shown to be true. You can evaluate where they say their knowledge came from. Did it come from institutions of learning where you would send your children or are they someplace you’ve never heard of? If a study is quoted, get the name of it and who wrote it. Look it up and look up if it has been refuted or even retracted. Often, you need look no further than whatever article you are reading. Does it have a byline saying who wrote it? If there are sources, check a couple of them with the above tests. I have seen citations that actually don’t lead anywhere, or lead to studies that don’t say what the article says it does.Lausten that is a good move bring Lawrence Otto’s thinking to the table. I’m ready to use it in comparing what has and is happening with climate change. I especially like your quote “Look it up and look up if it has been refuted or even retracted." Good idea.
All I know is that ten or twelve years ago, we kept hearing about plans to do something about excess carbon in the atmosphere. Some of the more ambitious actually involved launching a parasol into orbit that would have reflected sunlight. Others were simply about absorbing carbon from the air. Nowadays we don't hear a word about things like that. All we hear about is somehow ameliorating the problem. Miami, Florida is building dikes because the sea level is rising. But this weekend there was a story on "60 Minutes" about a citizens group in Texas which has been suing the major of Houston for six or seven YEARS trying to get him to build a drainage basin which would have been a big help against the recent flooding there. It seems that politicians don't want to spend money on something this believe is "fake news".Weather can be a bitch. In the earth’s 100,000 cycle there is a period where the weather is stable compared to the rest of the cycle. This period happens at the end of the warming cycle before we go into the cooling cycle. It is called the intermediate period. We left the intermediate period in 1998 and started into the cooling cycle. Lot of guessing is going on right now as to when we will start cooling. Most reports on the subject are saying we will have at least extended the intermediate period by one hundred years do to the man-made carbon. Some are saying maybe a thousand years. Point being, modern man has evolved in the most stable weather the earth can offer. As far as carbon in the air 10 to 12 years ago. That is when Europe CO2 trading scheme was launched. Moved to $35 the first year. Down to $5 today.
Lausten that is a good move bring Lawrence Otto’s thinking to the table. I’m ready to use it in comparing what has and is happening with climate change. I especially like your quote “Look it up and look up if it has been refuted or even retracted." Good idea.If you thought it was a good idea, why didn't you do it for the "31,000 scientists" petition?
Weather can be a bitch. In the earth’s 100,000 cycle there is a period where the weather is stable compared to the rest of the cycle. This period happens at the end of the warming cycle before we go into the cooling cycle. It is called the intermediate period. We left the intermediate period in 1998 and started into the cooling cycle. Lot of guessing is going on right now as to when we will start cooling.Oh dear you silly, you forget something big happened around during the 18th, that kicked into high gear in the 19th, then into hyper drive in the 20th century, during the 21st we're going to watch it tear apart all we're so hubristically proud of. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8yOvmw8RL4 (Fred Dibnahs) A change that totally, yes, totally, changed Earth's future trajectory. Take a peek. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH6fQh9eAQE But you'll absolutely refuse to acknowledge or absorb any of that. Tragic.
Lausten that is a good move bring Lawrence Otto’s thinking to the table. I’m ready to use it in comparing what has and is happening with climate change. I especially like your quote “Look it up and look up if it has been refuted or even retracted." Good idea.If you thought it was a good idea, why didn't you do it for the "31,000 scientists" petition? Because I am not perfect. Why do you have no problem with the 97% data going all the way to the point of being repeated by the president, and now there are claims that it may have only been as much as 3%? We damn well know its no where near the 97%. Why do you expect more from me than from a guy who has 4,000 people making sure he gets it right?
Lausten that is a good move bring Lawrence Otto’s thinking to the table. I’m ready to use it in comparing what has and is happening with climate change. I especially like your quote “Look it up and look up if it has been refuted or even retracted." Good idea.If you thought it was a good idea, why didn't you do it for the "31,000 scientists" petition? Because I am not perfect. Why do you have no problem with the 97% data going all the way to the point of being repeated by the president, and now there are claims that it may have only been as much as 3%? We damn well know its no where near the 97%. Why do you expect more from me than from a guy who has 4,000 people making sure he gets it right? Are we talking about the same President? And the author is Shawn Otto. Guess I'm not perfect.
Lausten that is a good move bring Lawrence Otto’s thinking to the table. I’m ready to use it in comparing what has and is happening with climate change. I especially like your quote “Look it up and look up if it has been refuted or even retracted." Good idea.If you thought it was a good idea, why didn't you do it for the "31,000 scientists" petition? Because I am not perfect. Why do you have no problem with the 97% data going all the way to the point of being repeated by the president, and now there are claims that it may have only been as much as 3%? We damn well know its no where near the 97%. Why do you expect more from me than from a guy who has 4,000 people making sure he gets it right?You've already been asked to provide your source for that claim. Why don't you?
Weather can be a bitch. In the earth’s 100,000 cycle there is a period where the weather is stable compared to the rest of the cycle. This period happens at the end of the warming cycle before we go into the cooling cycle. It is called the intermediate period. We left the intermediate period in 1998 and started into the cooling cycle. Lot of guessing is going on right now as to when we will start cooling.Oh dear you silly, you forget something big happened around during the 18th, that kicked into high gear in the 19th, then into hyper drive in the 20th century, during the 21st we're going to watch it tear apart all we're so hubristically proud of. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8yOvmw8RL4 (Fred Dibnahs) A change that totally, yes, totally, changed Earth's future trajectory. Take a peek. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH6fQh9eAQE But you'll absolutely refuse to acknowledge or absorb any of that. Tragic. You leave me guessing at the point you are trying to make here. Yes, we are in an industrial age. Yes, there is more CO2 being put in the atmosphere. Your point being? I cannot connect the cycle being in the cooling cycle to what happened in the 1800’s. It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate). Aug. 30, 2017 https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ This is the latest from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. Read the news and climate change is causing the warming and hurricanes. Yet the scientists are say the climate change is not enough to even measure when it comes to items like hurricanes. Can you absorb what climate will be like in an Ice Age? Did you get the point that the CO2 heating may be stopping us from going into the Ice Age and give us better weather? Unless you know how to grow rice or wheat in snow. A warmer earth is better.
Lausten that is a good move bring Lawrence Otto’s thinking to the table. I’m ready to use it in comparing what has and is happening with climate change. I especially like your quote “Look it up and look up if it has been refuted or even retracted." Good idea.If you thought it was a good idea, why didn't you do it for the "31,000 scientists" petition? Because I am not perfect. Why do you have no problem with the 97% data going all the way to the point of being repeated by the president, and now there are claims that it may have only been as much as 3%? We damn well know its no where near the 97%. Why do you expect more from me than from a guy who has 4,000 people making sure he gets it right?You've already been asked to provide your source for that claim. Why don't you? “What if the scales have not been balanced…" the point I was trying to make was that the science has been unbalanced because of political reasons. Like the 97% fake science, yet when the other side of the issue does the same sort of thing. It is not a political issue. I bet you never hear of the 31,000 before, proving the scales are unbalanced. As far as: You’ve already been asked to provide your source for that claim. Why don’t you? You didn’t read the post did you. The link was posted.
Lausten that is a good move bring Lawrence Otto’s thinking to the table. I’m ready to use it in comparing what has and is happening with climate change. I especially like your quote “Look it up and look up if it has been refuted or even retracted." Good idea.If you thought it was a good idea, why didn't you do it for the "31,000 scientists" petition? Because I am not perfect. Why do you have no problem with the 97% data going all the way to the point of being repeated by the president, and now there are claims that it may have only been as much as 3%? We damn well know its no where near the 97%. Why do you expect more from me than from a guy who has 4,000 people making sure he gets it right? Are we talking about the same President? And the author is Shawn Otto. Guess I'm not perfect. Some time back I looked into that 97% to see what was going on. The data was correct by the scientists. The problem came from the journalist who did not know how to read the data. President Obama use the 97%.
the point I was trying to make was that the science has been unbalanced because of political reasons. … yet when the other side of the issue does the same sort of thing. It is not a political issue. I bet you never hear of the 31,000 before proving the scales are unbalanced. (What do you know, you can't even call it what it is Oregon Institute's Petition, krispy krist you got chutzpah. Oh yeah, confusion is the game),<span style="color:purple]Oh but since you brought it up">
December 14, 2013 The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Petition on climate change http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/12/oregon-institute-science-medicine.html January 21, 2014 Why trust Roy Spencer?...or the "NASA 50"…or the Oregon Petition for that matter? http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/01/why-trust-roy-spencer-nasa50.html;-)
Rather than the sort of endless obfuscation MikeYohe and the Republican party have to offer.Science Academy Disputes Attack on Global Warming By WILLIAM K. STEVENSAPRIL 22, 1998 http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/22/us/science-academy-disputes-attack-on-global-warming.htmlApril 20, 1998 http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998 The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy. In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus study on this issue, entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1991,1992). This analysis concluded that " ...even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. ... Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." In addition, the Committee on Global Change Research of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS and the NAE, will issue a major report later this spring on the research issues that can help to reduce the scientific uncertainties associated with global change phenomena, including climate change. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES COUNCIL Bruce Alberts (president) National Academy of Sciences Washington, D.C. ................. Richard N. Zare Marguerite Blake Wilbur Professor Department of Chemistry Stanford University Stanford, Calif.The Oregon Institute - The Oregon Petition 32000 Scientists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQAnd this is the sort of crap that MikeYohe and his Republican pals treat as their gold standard of truth. All the time evading the simple questions being asked of him. <span style="color:red]Mike"> and here you go again with the lying about what I'm saying. What I am blaming you and all current Republicans for - is your easy acceptance of fanciful LIES and MISREPRESENTING very clear science and explanations!!! I am also blaming you people for the brain-dead attitude that allows you to steadfastly ignore all learning opportunities. You bring up that malicious Oregon Institute fraud. That it's a fabrication and perversion of honest debate, let alone the scientific process of learning, let alone the available information at the time, doesn't bother you in the least. Instead all your moral indignation is for me, that I'm not stupid enough to fall for the various idiotic turd balls you toss out. Then you believe being a full-time liar is your 'free speech Right' - that is what I condemn you and your GOP handlers for.