Thanks, Mother Jones
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
You can’t argue with people’s dogma and fashion!
Yes, it’s well known to anyone educated in the hard sciences that Climate Change is real just as John Oliver pointed out!
You got repukes who deny, obstruct and point fingers without meaningful reason, like self-interest (they are more interested in faithfully serving their masters then their families)!
I agree with John Oliver, it’s perception(s) people gain from staged one on one TV debates (doesn’t that sound reasonable, one on one) that drives their bogus dumb beliefs.
==Yes, it’s well known to anyone educated in the hard sciences that Climate Change is real just as John Oliver pointed out!==
No one denies the climate is changing. No one can point to any period where the climate hasn’t changed.
What bothers me most is the number of times the term has changed: Global Cooling in the 1970s, Global Warming in the 1990’s-2010. Climate Change in 2013, and now even ‘Climate Destruction”, as if the entire atmosphere could become like the Moon.
I suppose if you keep moving the bar there’s little chance the ignorant people will bother to follow up.
The fact remains: those who rely on the hockey stick metaphor and the assorted other ‘proof’ are chasing falsehoods.
Are you really going to argue about semantics vs. science, really?
The science or facts doesn’t care what you or I think or argue for. Semantics on the other hand is all about what you believe and will argue for. Either you respect facts or science or you deny and try and invent your own false reality with semantics. No wonder most of the time you’re so confused; always searching for meaning, purpose, reason…..Just sad!
You haven’t heard or learned “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” or is oft misquote ‘a rose by any other name is still a rose’.
Pukecono UpChuck says:
5/14/2014 at 6:34 am
==Yes, it’s well known to anyone educated in the hard sciences that Climate Change is real just as John Oliver pointed out!==
No one denies the climate is changing. No one can point to any period where the climate hasn’t changed. //// The POINT since you missed it is that the climate HAS NEVER CHANGED SO FAST ALL AS THE RESULT OF HUMAN ACTIVITY. Can you see the point, or do you have no brain at all?
What bothers me most is the number of times the term has changed: /// You are that concerned with mere labels huh? No wonder you are so easily led.
Global Cooling in the 1970s, /// THAT is not a change in terms, but a change in ideas/theory. How are you so easily controled by labels you don’t even understand?===Amazing. btw–there was no scientific consensus on Global Cooling in the 70’s. And in fact, as I do assume you are abysmally ignorant, WITHOUT human carbon burning, the Earth would be in a cooling phase right now. But we are heating up. Imagine in a few years when the cooling influence passes and its balls to wall heat wise?
Global Warming in the 1990′s-2010. Climate Change in 2013, /// Exacting the same thing. Different emphasis so low IQ voters won’t be confused about the globe warming just because they had to throw on an extra blanket last night.
and now even ‘Climate Destruction”, //// No one has ever said that. Thats a thing about pukes, you start lying for no good reason.
as if the entire atmosphere could become like the Moon. /// The moon has no atmosphere. THE POINT IS the Earths atmosphere will become loaded with co2 and heat up with all the other concomitant effects. The Earth and the Atmosphere will continu on its Merry way—just not with Billions of People.
Its already a done deal. The variable is merely the time frame. 50 to 100 years? With enough variables, it could happen next year… or maybe even 200 years from now. Lots of feed back loops and still some unknowns.
………………BUT ………… the CONSEQUENCE of burning coal and oil is that the atmosphere will heat up and ICE on the land will melt into the sea: just as it is doing right in front of you eyes.
Just look.
I suppose if you keep moving the bar there’s little chance the ignorant people will bother to follow up. /// The bar is moving with the estimated time of destruction coming ever sooner. Will you bother to follow up? Google hydrogen sulfide extinction events.
The fact remains: those who rely on the hockey stick metaphor and the assorted other ‘proof’ are chasing falsehoods. /// The hockey stick metaphor has been confirmed. You gotta follow up more.
…………….. Right in Front of your Eyes.
What’s right in front of my eyes are ad hominem attacks.
Nah he got you. Only he accused you of lying when you merely misheard. The term is ‘Climate Disruption’ You aren’t in favor of Climate Disruption are you?
Yes, yes…. to each as they deserve.
Call it a plea for you recognize just how far from reality you have gone.
It is SCIENCE for f*@K sake.
What do you think WILL HAPPEN when you put a green house gas into the atmosphere?
Magic?
So he says the planet is getting warmer, sea temperatures are rising, yet if you look at the charts you see a flat line at the end.
As for his 97%, the paper by cartoonist Cook that he refers to is based on data that has not been released in full for evaluation, and the data that has been released has shown the paper to be way off, with even skeptic papers being classified as in support, and the 97% is for a different claim than what the authors are claiming now. Namely, are humans responsible for the majority of climate change? The 97% number did not evaluate papers on the basis of what fraction are humans responsible.
In other words, John Oliver was lied to.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/13/more-pear-shaped-trouble-for-john-cooks-97-consensus/
One paper that strongly endorses global warming:
This work shows that carbon dioxide, which is a main contributor to the global warming effect, could be utilized as a selective oxidant in the oxidative dehydrogenation of ethylbenzene over alumina-supported vanadium oxide catalysts. The modification of the catalytically active vanadium oxide component with appropriate amounts of antimony oxide led to more stable catalytic performance along with a higher styrene yield (76%) at high styrene selectivity (>95%). The improved catalytic behavior was attributable to the enhanced redox properties of the active V-sites.
One scientist in the field who announced that a little skepticism is in order given the abject failure of models, on which he himself has been involved.
“I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.”
No wonder there is a 97% ‘consensus’ given the bullying done to those who disagree. We have seen an editor forced to resign merely for approving a paper for publication that said warming from global warming is not as high as predicted by models.
Link?
or a lie?
Your argument follows the form of the OP though. One scientist claims AGW is false. 98 still working scientists have the whole fabric of science pointing to the AGW position.
Want me to find a young earth scientist for you?
Want me to find a spontaneous appearance scientist for you?
EVERY SINGLE QUALIFIED SCIENTIFIC organization is silent on the subject or in support of the IPCC general conclusions. ONLY individual crackpots speak against it===them and the entire Puke Party.
When you are surrounded by fools,…….. guess what?
I see the growing split in the Science Denying Puke party these days: half deny global warming is even happening, the other half agree it is warming with a split there as to whether or not humans are “contributing” to the warming.
But REGARDLESS of how far up their asses their heads are, all PUKES deny the unavoidable consequences of human activity…. because they want to save jobs for the average American.
Real Humanitarians those Pukes. Looking out for the Working Man. Hoooo Raaaaaah!
http://350.org/about/science/
We are now at 400ppm going faster and faster to 450 ppm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
………can’t find a google more on point than just above but if the ocean warms enough to release the methane calthrates, then the ocean releasing hydrogen Sulfide will not be long behind. The first event wipes out Hooman Civilization with pockets of humanity remaining. The second event wipes out 96% of all life… or more…… you know: depending.
And we are doing it to ourselves. SCRATCH THAT: have done. We HAVE DONE this to ourselves. All that is needed now is the lag time to self execute.
Just look.
Funny how such things haven’t happened before, and the latest IPCC report talks of these and other tipping points, and concludes AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN.
You going to get around to linking any of your vague summations?
Last two times you linked to support your statements, your links SAID JUST THE OPPOSITE.
Are you lying Mickey, or just that blinded.
WHAT are you blinded by Mickey? Just don’t like bad news? Is that what it is Mickey????
REALITY says we need to reduce our carbon pollution for MANY reasons–not just heating, ocean rise, pollution etc.
Why do you deny the science? Why do you think catastrophe happening a few years later than the estimates is some kind of “win.”
Silly rabbit.
You going to get around to linking any of your vague summations?
Last two times you linked to support your statements, your links SAID JUST THE OPPOSITE.
Why, so you can claim the links didn’t work, or so you can suffer reading comprehension as usual?
I say your links did not support your arguments.
So…… to prove me wrong, you refuse any links at all????
BWAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Just living up to your moniker huh Lying Mike???
POST YOUR LINKS—-so everyone can determine for themselves who is lying and who is off their nut.
Ha, ha. btw==my position did become Alarmist right after, but not because of, your LINK to studies showing more people who believe in AGW are psyche cases. See how that works? Post your stupid opinion and it means nothing. Find at least some supporting material, and it causes other people to think.
Its your choice, but why stand around with your pants down on the ground embarassing yourself when you could show some aptitude?
Learn, grow, READ your own links. Thats how your education continues beyond BA school. You know: a real education.
Table 12.4 of IPCC AR5 WG1,
only scenario they say is likely possible is disappearance of summer Arctic sea ice. MOC collapse, ice sheet collapse, permafrost release, clathrate release, megadrought, monsoonal circulation, tropical forests, boreal forests, not so much.
Mickey—if you were an honest truthful person, you would link to your lies.
Referring to your chart is one of “……..shameful pieces of cherry-picking I think I have ever seen. ”
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/why-table-12-4-of-ipcc-ar5-should-not-be-trusted/
Lying liars and the lies they lie.
Why do you lie so much Mickey?
You point to a blog post that refers to the Summary For Policymakers, not reviewed and made in the usual fashion but as to be more activist.
Lyin Mike says:
5/14/2014 at 6:48 am
So he says the planet is getting warmer, sea temperatures are rising, yet if you look at the charts you see a flat line at the end. /// Poor sad science denying little reptile. EVERY ZIG-ZAG chart in the world has level spots all over the place. You know what happens AFTER THE LEVEL SPOT?====Thats right, it follows the overall trend. In this case===>hotter, and hotter, and hotter.
The graph zig zags because of the earths tilt, eliptical orbit, and sun spots in the main. El Nino coming next year. Melt the socks off your feet. 12 of the hottest years for the last xyz 1000’s years in the past 14 years.
Mickey===last time we engaged your “alternate theory” for WHAT HAPPENS TO ALL THE GREEN HOUSE GAS WE ARE CREATING was that it was heating up the earth===just slower than what the scientists were saying. course…. the scientists are saying it is heating up FASTER than previous predictions.
MAGICAL THINKING! We can burn coal and gas and “nothing bad will happen.”
How stupid can you idiots get? Republican Candidate for President Stupid?????
Silly Hoomans.
MikeN says:
5/14/2014 at 7:19 am
Funny how such things haven’t happened before, and the latest IPCC report talks of these and other tipping points, and concludes AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN. //// Lying on each point.
Pick any single point and rephrase it with more specificity so you can be shown a liar on your strongest position.
Go. Fool……. go.
Here’s Rubio debasing himself in order to win his nomination….. or he is just that stupid:
http://www.inquisitr.com/1248438/climate-change-marco-rubio-makes-strong-statement-video/
You say you agree with human caused climate change and then have ABSOLUTELY NO SOLUTION OR ANSWER FOR IT except to add to the problem… aka… the Tar Sands Pipeline …. because you know, it will create jobs.
Worse kind of miscreants in the world.
The very worst.
http://steynonline.com/6333/michael-e-mann-liar-cheat-falsifier-and-fraud
This so-called 97% consensus based on more general things like CO2 causes the planet to warm, doesn’t mean that the predictions of scientists’ models are accurate. The models have failed, and what does the IPCC do, they put up a spaghetti chart, showing that maybe a few models aren’t too far off, therefore all of the models are accurate.
http://climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig9-8.jpg
Mickey—what happens to all the co2 gas we are putting into the atmosphere?
aka===does it heat up the atmosphere or not?
2===What is your position? That AGW is not happening at all, or that it is happening slower than those who study it say, or that like Rubio something vague but we can’t do anything about it anyway so lets drill for more oil?
Do you have any organized system of thoughts that lead to sustainable energy policy at all or can all you do is take lying potshots at disputed or proven false accusations?
Why Mickey?
How about this, let’s switch to nuclear energy.
Unlike Climate Scientists, Amazon is standing up for free speech. When a company threatened to sue someone for a negative review, Amazon kicked the company off of Amazon. Meanwhile Michael Mann is busy suing people for saying his science doesn’t hold up.
I wonder if the truth or falsity of the claims made makes any difference?
Do YOU understand/care about that difference Mickey?
Do YOU see any difference between a general book seller and a scientist defending his professional life’s work?
Poor Mickey.
What happens when you put green house gas into the atmosphere Mickey?????????????
Do you still claim bananas were made to fit human hands?
How deep does it go?
The scientist wishes the government to declare that he cannot be criticized.
Since Mickey doesn’t want to pull his pants down for himself, I’ll do it for him:
“The allegation against Mann appears to be something of a tempest in a teapot — or, to mix metaphors, a grasping at straws.”
In other words: Mickey===you lie. You lie after you know you have been caught lying. The whole Hockey Stick is a lie told by liars. You have worn out a whole bunch of people though…… the Puke voting base.
http://climatesciencewatch.org/2014/02/25/setting-the-record-straight-on-misleading-claims-against-michael-mann/
((I note on a recent thread that the full www. address was accepted and linked without a problem. Another: why dude?))
The whole Hockey Stick is a lie told by liars.
Finally, you are getting at the truth.
Yeah, haste makes waste.
But you “know” …. so you just be lying again.
Why you do that Mickey????
I will also note your PUKE LYING WAYS: just constantly repeating the same lies you have told before. Nothing new. Nothing progresses except now you refuse to link.
PROGRESS MICKEY===>take your argument FORWARD.
What happens to an atmosphere when you add atmosphere heating gas to it?
C’mon Mickey====TELL US!!==WHAT HAPPENS??????? Half the Pukes already are on the record stating that gases that heat up the atmosphere will heat up the atmosphere. They just don’t want to do anything about it.
What do YOU want to do Mickey? What tune do you want to play while we poison ourselves?
Is it a nice ditty?
President of the Royal Statistical Society vs routine activist defender reiteration of talking points.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-the-oxburgh-panel/
Prior to that we had another expert statistician in Edward Wegman saying that the hockey stick was flawed, as well as the guy who wrote the book on Principal Components Ian Jolliffe agreeing with Steve McIntyre over Michael Mann and saying that Mann’s habit of yelling louder is not a proper way to answer critiques.
I suspect if the engineers at this blog got a look at the computer code, they would find lots of problems there as well.
This debate SO reminds me of the “smoking causes lung cancer” debate.
Say No Pardon—you have posted a lot of gibberish. The sarcasm is supposed to be funny I suppose, but Poe’s Law makes understanding your real message impossible.
Pick a single issue you think is strongest. Restate it as you wish.
I’m sure it will be as convincing as everything else Limbaugh has to say?
Hold ON!!!!!!!………..Imagine that……. using Limbaugh as a source of climate analysis. Even Mickey doesn’t do THAT!
While alfies names may change his stupidity is a constant along with his paranoia.
Back in my day, climate change was called weather.
No, it never was. Except for a small number of people who also called bubble gum brain food as well.
I was around for the last climate change claim, that being in the 70s when we were told we were heading into the next ice age. Then, in the 80s, we were being told the same thing we’re being told now. We were going to be under water by the 90s. Didn’t happen. Lived on the ocean, no change in our beach. Now live on Lake Erie, water levels haven’t been lower in my life time. This year, we had snow all winter. So much for “warming”.
Farmer view:
Look out hte window and DEAL with it..
(we really dont want to DEAL with it)
Planet changes, as any older person about the weather BEFORE..
WEATHER changes…ask anyone with pictures of the great lakes, FROZEN..
For what’s supposed to be a funny show, that was one big stern lecture that even the lefty audience didn’t like too much.
Now if Jon Oliver had asked Bill Nye why he faked an experiment for Al Gore…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/
An excellent read. Sadly every issue has flim flam around it.
Right now, you can take a bus to Tijuana and get Cancer Cure Treatment from a REAL DOCTOR by any modality you choose: diet, bee stings, intestinal worms, alien visitation. Spend $12,000, go back home, die from Cancer 6 months later.
The Cancer Cures are a fraudulent ripoff.
Question: does Cancer exist or not?
Unfortunately, The Cancer Industry is so lucrative, an alien with a universal cure would be the victim of a contract killing.
Better Question: What sub-industries would be the biggest contributors?
Contributors to the contract killing?
Well, you got the AMA right off the bat drilling down to all those in the Cancer specialty.
Mom died from Lung Cancer. Pity watching the American Healthcare System feed off her final days. She went quickly after racking up $90K in 2 months of covered car.
Sals exit would have been my own choice, which is why Sis held the Power of Attorney. Mom knew her son.
What does MOC mean in that context? “Abbreviation search returned 106 meanings.”
“Just look.” Do that & you may be projecting your own reality. (HT Carl Jung, 100+ years ago.)
Potshots. Thanks for that one. Has been added to the list of compound words—now at 1744 lines. Sunspots & potshots in the same day! [tongue-face]
controlled
elliptical
greenhouse
hellbent
lifetime
underwater
zigzag
HEY!!! Quit documenting my failures.
btw–how would you spell the shooting of more than one pot? Too many options for me.
btw (x2) —doesn’t CONTEXT provide most answers to most confusion and the plenitude of conumbra (a gift!) that confront us daily? How can MOC in context mean anything other than Meridional Overturning Circulation?
What are your other options?
Mike Hayes on “All In” (msnbc) just made a good review summing up Rubio the Science Denying Presnedent WannaBe But Cant Get Past His Own Primary:
There is now consensus on AGW in Science, in the Military, and in Business. Even many Republicans are coming over.
If you don’t accept the AGW Science, you are just a dipshit. Sad, because you concern for jobs for poor Americans would have really helped in deciding how to best address the co2 Peril.
My own is a Carbon Tax to fund Alternative Energy in a MoonShot, we just got Jihaded by Al Quadda AGAIN effort to extablish WORLD WIDE Clean Energy Grid.
THEN and only THEN can we get to work on the real issue which is GLOBAL bacteria resistance. I dibs on investigating Jenny McCarthy’s Unamerican role in all this.
Yea, verily!
No need for a carbon tax. The moonshot has been achieved. It’s called nuclear energy, which might be a bit more expensive, but with fast permitting and newer designs, even these costs can be reduced. No carbon emissions beyond some cement manufacture, and maybe at the uranium mining stage, which itself can be powered by solar, or perhaps even nuclear.
Since when has the truth of anything been dependant on a vote though. Even if it was 99.9% on one side or the other, it doesn’t matter. All that matters is that there is some ultimate truth behind the assertion that mankind is affecting the climate in a significant way… or that mankind is not affecting the climate in any significant way… it’s not up for a vote… getting 51% on your side doesn’t mean that you can claim the other side has it wrong. One side or the other has the actual correct scenario, and it isn’t based on people. It’s based on facts. At one time, the majority of opinion was that the world was flat. As it turned out, it wasn’t. Same goes for the sun orbiting the earth. Or that you could turn lead into gold. Or that mankind could not fly like the birds of the air. Or that we would ever go to the moon. Fortunately, time is the ultimate decider of these things, not the current viewpoint of a great number of people.
Oh, and there was that time recently when it was predicted that ___________ (fill in the blank — example “there will be a record number of hurricanes this season”)…
Remember, time will ultimately reveal the truth, not a statistical count of opinions.
Exactly. So the IPCC report is using papers that are built on upside-down data, hot means cold and vice versa.
It is pretty straightforward for any reader here to download Michael Mann’s code, look at the original paper by Tiljander, and see for themselves if Mann is upside-down, or the critics are right. Now what does it matter if there are 97 or 99.9999% of scientists agreeing in favor of Mann?
Judith Curry is undoubtedly part of the 97%, yet she is also labelled as ‘anti-science’ for disagreeing with the climate mullahs.
Lennart Bengtsson is a respected scientist who was attacked for expressing skeptical thoughts, with one colleague saying he would not be a coauthor with him.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/14/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-from-the-gwpf/
http://drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
This is a real consensus.
If this wasn’t so seriously ridiculous it would be funny. It wouldn’t surprise me that the Flat Earth Society has put out something methodologically identical.
Consensus and its role in thinking.
The history of thinking is that on just about every issue you can name, mankind first gets it wrong, and then over time gets it more closely to the truth.
Ignorance – Observation – Magic – Gods – Copernicus – Galileo – Newton – Einstein – Under Construction.
At each stage, you have a model/hypothesis/theory on which to test reality. The truth slowly emerges.
What is the “theory” behind we can burn all the coal and oil we want to and nothing bad will happen? I put it at magical thinking with a dose of God giving us Dominion (without consequences).
Stop shitting on yourself, and deal with reality.
Yup, eventually the global warming theory will be recognized as failing and adjusted properly.
This is how you achieve 97% consensus:
The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying uncertainty’.
The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’
Prof Bengtsson, 79, said it was ‘utterly unacceptable’ to advise against publishing a paper on the political grounds.
He added:
“‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist.’
“”Given how often the “97 per cent” consensus figure is quoted by politicians and scientists alike to justify the extreme measures being adopted to “combat climate change”, you can well understand why the alarmist establishment is so eager to suppress this inconvenient truth. — James Delingpole
http://breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/16/Climate-McCarthyism-the-scandal-grows
>This debate SO reminds me of the “smoking causes lung cancer” debate.
Indeed. Michael Mann currently suing in court with lawyers for Big Tobacco. Just as they presented bogus science then, they present bogus science now ad call it a hockey stick.
Hmm, now some more scientists are complaining about the dictates of the bullies.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/16/leaked-memo-on-climatology-exposes-growing-worry-within-german-meteorological-society-unacceptable-unethical-developments/
I can’t believe you guys obsessed with Al Gore. You do realize that you sound like losers?
Why, he is a Nobel Prize Winner. Are you saying this Nobel Prize winner should not be taken seriously?