Happycamper's House of Denial brought to you by ExxonMobil

[Happycamper]

The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode, and in the past century, has switched back forth between these two modes every 25-30 years (known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO).

The switch of PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation)cool mode to warm mode in 1977 initiated several decades of global warming. The PDO has now switched from its warm mode (where it had been since 1977) into its cool mode.

The establishment of the cool PDO, together with similar cooling of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), virtually assures several decades of global cooling and the end of the past 30-year warm phase. It also means that the IPCC predictions of catastrophic global warming this century were highly inaccurate.

Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling on a generally rising trend from the Little Ice Age about 500 years ago.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.

 

[Frickr]

happycamper, sometimes i wonder if maybe we are the only 2 on this forum that are open to this idea. i came acrost this, thought i would share.

Without the source data for their experiments, nothing climate scientists say about global warming is viable, or even relevant. Without the source data, all conclusions are simply CRU opinions, and why would we care at all to hear that nonsense? Show me the source data!

But where is the source data? Apparently, NASA refuses to reveal it, while the CRU claims they accidentally threw it all away!

copy and pasted from: http://neithercorp.us/npress/?p=205

 

[Happycamper]

The main guy behind a lot of media frenzy is James Hansen. He coined the phrase 'we are at the tipping point'. He heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.He consistently exaggerates all the dangers... Hansen has turned his science into ideology.

But you have to realise how extreme he is. He is a passionate climate activist, and has been involved in many protests. He was arrested for (non peacefull) protesting again just recently. It seems his passion for environmentalism over shadows his science and maybe explains some of his behaviour and the extreme things he says (that many of his peers don't back him up on but yet still gets printed in the press).

 

[Purple-Days]

Uhh, NASA hasn't been around 128 years, maybe a typo?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
-Survival of Tibetan Glaciers
-Can the Oceans Keep Pace with Industrial Emissions?
-How do Global Soot Models Measure Up?
-Ocean Temperature Variations and Rainfall

Top four articles today.

Was reading an interesting article on Asian soot and the arctic albiedo (sp? it's the reflectivity of the ice) the other day, not from that site, but based on NASA data. If I was young I might think about buying some arctic ocean-front property. High ground of course.

 

[rayski]

@ Rayski regarding sun not effecting global temperatures: As the sun goes even quieter and January, 2008 saw the greatest year to year temperature drop ever (128 years of NASA GISS data) and thru the end of 2008 remains relatively cool, it is clear cooling needs to be considered as a very plausible future.

You don't see long term trends if you follow short term variations. That is why stock pickers will look at the 30 day average. Same goes for long term global trends. Year to year fluctuations don't tell very much. And when you use the peeks of the highly variable monthly figures--like from your chart--you are looking at what scientist call noise. Your conclusions using monthly variations are not sound. This is bad science.

 

[Frickr]

rayski, i reccomend this artical for you. it doesnt have much to do with this climate change, but maybe it will open your eyes a little bit.

http://neithercorp.us/npress/?p=182

 

[rayski]

rayski, i reccomend this artical for you. it doesnt have much to do with this climate change, but maybe it will open your eyes a little bit.

http://neithercorp.us/npress/?p=182

Doesn't it concern you that some of the arguments you use for non-global warming are plainly wrong? Is it hard to see because your part of that herd? Are the herd-masters playing to your willful ignorance?
You listen to a guy who embellished his credentials, but I bet Al Gore's embellishments led you to call him a liar. I think your world view exhibits a distaste for government that's closing your mind to things.
In my opinion the world is getting warmer and this could be very costly in the long run. Man, in all likelihood, is contributing to some degree. I listen to the climate scientists because they are the experts. And they think it would be prudent to curb man's contribution to global warming. That's the direction we should take.
If things start to chill, as you think, we could easily just change course.

 

[reece]

I listen to the climate scientists because they are the experts.

Experts chosen by the new world order to disseminate mis-information to sheeple like you. You see, only those who believe as I are analytical thinkers. The rest are lazy, gullible, stupid...you get my drift. So, now that I've presented my argument, that's the part where I called you stupid, can't you see the error of your ways?

 

[rayski]

I listen to the climate scientists because they are the experts.

Experts chosen by the new world order to disseminate mis-information to sheeple like you. You see, only those who believe as I are analytical thinkers. The rest are lazy, gullible, stupid...you get my drift. So, now that I've presented my argument, that's the part where I called you stupid, can't you see the error of your ways?

They're coming to take us away...ha,ha...they're coming to take us away.

How about Nathan Myhrvold's 250 million dollar solution: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2511875/nathan_myhrvolds_anti_global_warming.html

 

[Frickr]

so if these experts told you that they had a bright pink elephant that barked like a cat, you would believe them becaues they are experts? my point being, just because someone is a supposed expert, doesnt mean everything they say is true. your putting faith into what they are saying is true. instead of looking at the issue, your choosing to believe what your told. you didnt even bother to read the link i posted did you raski? i can tell just by your answer you chose to ignore it. after all im just some crazy nut who believes that this is some huge conspiricy to take over our minds right?

 

[stickstones]

In my opinion the world is getting warmer and this could be very costly in the long run. Man, in all likelihood, is contributing to some degree. I listen to the climate scientists because they are the experts. And they think it would be prudent to curb man's contribution to global warming. That's the direction we should take.

I agree with this (except that I'm not so sure the earth isn't supposed to be warming up right now, anyhow). My problem with the global warming movement is the politics behind it. We're allowing (in the US, at least) some pretty poor legislation to be passed because of the hysteria caused by it. We can fix this thing without creating more government and without causing the relatively innocent to pay for it.

 

[Beezleb]

I basically believe their are ways to address to the issue without reinventing the system and politics of the world.

 

[rayski]

so if these experts told you that they had a bright pink elephant that barked like a cat, you would believe them becaues they are experts?

No! Cats don't bark.

you didnt even bother to read the link i posted did you raski?

I did a quick read before my first reply as can be seen by my wording.

I can tell just by your answer you chose to ignore it. after all im just some crazy nut who believes that this is some huge conspiricy to take over our minds right?

No. I read it again. Maybe I'm trying to be the realist here when I point out what I consider to be weak points. As far as the 10%, I don't think many climate scientists are part of that group. What's their motivation for being untruthful?

 

[Frickr]

i think in this business money talks. if your getting funding to proove that global warming exists, and you come out and say no, it doesnt, nothing to be alarmed about, why keep funding your research? its not right, but it seems to be the way of the world anymore.

 

[vtac]

vtac, you crack me up every time this comes up!

siding with the fringe is exactly what every one of us has done with our vaping pothead habits.

I don't think you have a very open mind to the possibility of this being bullshit. But maybe you have done a shit ton of research that I haven't. I'll say it again...there is no doubt in my mind that political agendas are blowing this way out of proportion.

Science has shown us how safe cannabis is. To me, denouncing global warming as bullshit is akin to stating that cannabis is dangerous and has no benefits. To be ignorant to the best science we have. It seems that most of the skeptics have a problem with government and are jumbling politics with science on a scientific issue.

For a logical and easy to understand look at the issue check out this video (click Introduction > How It All Ends). Seriously check it out, there are a few videos especially for you hardcore skeptics as well.

And since we're copy pasting common skeptical arguments, here's a site that rebuts them all in detail.

Here's a quote from the above video that I think applies to some of the folks in this thread:

Falsifiability is an idea in science that establishes whether a claim someone makes is even worth examining. Heres how it works. Lets say I claim aliens existsthe truth being out there and alland you claim they dont. Its not even worth your time to try to convince me that Im wrong, because no matter what your evidence or reasoning, I can always counter with Well, we just havent looked hard enough.

In fact, with this claim, theres no way even in principle for you to prove me wrongeven if you are correctbecause you could have all the star drives you want and search every rock and gas ball in the universe, and come back to me with that, and I could still sayYou missed a spot. Or They moved when you werent looking. Or Theyre invisible.

Unless I can provide you ahead of time with a test and a hypothetical result that I would accept as disproof of my claim, theres no use arguing with me, because my claim is not falsifiable.

Thats why conspiracy theories arent worth arguing about. They will always be around, because they are not falsifiable. Which is to say: even if theyre not true, that fact cannot even in principle be demonstrated. If you ask the conspiracy theorist: Well, wheres your evidence? they can always claim Its being suppressed. And if you try the other direction and say: Well heres evidence against your claim, they can say It was fabricated. Or biased. Or just faulty.

Please note: Im not saying that the means the conspiracy is wrong. Or that its right. Im just saying if the claim is not falsifiable, then theres no way to ever know, and so its just a lot of wasted effort to even debate it.

I often find myself thinking of this when Im debating hard-line climate skeptics whose claim is anthropogenic global warming is a hoax. No matter what the evidence I provide, they claim its biased, or just plain wrong.

So before we go further, stop and answer the question: What would convincing evidence look like to you?

How about a bunch of really smart people who are experts in the field working with supercomputers and a worldwide network of data sensors for 30 years? Weve got that. Maybe a public statement from the largest, most well-respected scientific body in the world, calling for action? Weve got that [AAAS]. A statement from an honorary scientific body, comprised of the most credentialed and respected scientists in the country, one-in-ten of which have a Nobel Prize? Weve got that [NAS].

Statements from the national science academies of other major countries? Weve got those [Google joint academies climate change]. A statement from a collection of businesses with vested interests in the fossil fuels themselves? Weve got that [USCAP]. Still not good enough? How about if the biggest, most notorious corporate holdout around finally publicly admitted that climate change is a threat, and it finally stopped funding climate skeptic think tanks? Weve got that [Google Rex Tillerson prudent].

Still not enough? How about a statement from the US military, not known so much for its environmental advocacy, but for its bottom line interest in preserving national security above all other concerns? Weve got that [Google Pentagon climate change].

Perhaps it would take unanimous support from anyone remotely connected to the issue, so that no journalist could dig up a single scientist, author, or think tank analyst who is ever willing to say that AGW might be bunk. Well, as youve seen in my video How It All Ends: Nature of Science, well never have that on ANY issue, simply due to the inherently uncertain nature of all science. So wouldnt that make your claim unfalsifiable?

 

[stickstones]

I was wondering if you were coming back!

 

[vtac]

Feel free to respond to my post as I did with yours, otherwise I don't see the point in continuing. :/

Oh, and my test for falsifiability? My claim is based on very thorough and broadly-based research, and so would need similarly thorough and broadly-based disproof. The main lynchpin would need to be an answer to the question: How could the most trusted and established scientific organizations in the world get it so wrong?

I would need to see persistent and thorough evidence along multiple lines that the both the scientific processes of AAAS and NAS as organizations and the careers of a significant number of their most trusted and established individuals had been corrupted or brilliantly mislead by a tremendously well-organized covert campaign of manipulation. The reporting of the evidence would need to be picked up by the major news networks and hold up under scrutiny for a long period of timesay at least a year.

It would need to be an expose of significantly greater caliber, extent, and expense than any other in history, because the conspiracy would have included more individuals by an order of magnitude than any other cover-up or conspiracy, ever. Remember that AAAS has 144,000 members, and the NAS has been around since 1863. In effect, it would need to be of significant enough import to damage the credibility of the human endeavor of science itself for 100 yearsessentially a paradigm shift away from the trust we place in science by using so much modern technology.

The claim of incompetence or corruption on the part of these organizations and the majority of the individuals comprising them is extraordinary enough, that I would need extraordinary evidence of an extraordinary cover-up. Thats an extraordinary number of extraordinaries. But it isin principlepossible. Which makes my claim falsifiable, and therefore, not dismissable.

How about yours?

 

[Purple-Days]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI&feature=player_embedded

James Randi: You can't prove a negative

 

[Happycamper]

This is something that i think as living in a blinkered western society we have to realise.

There are now two belief systems about the climate.

A largely Western belief system about steady and maybe catastrophic warming and a rest of the world belief system about impending cooling. The former belief system holds human activity responsible. The latter belief system scoffs at the ability of human beings to influence climate cycles. Belief systems, of course, drive policy and strategy which drive investment flows.

Russia is absolutely obsessed that we are entering global cooling right now. That is what they fear, not warming. Cooling is far more catastrophic than warming. Far more people die in periods of global cooling than in periods of warming. They know this fact well and the prospect of another cooling cycle terrifies them.

 

[vtac]

Umm, what exactly are you basing that statement on?

This is from the link I posted above. Notice that the Russian Academy of Sciences is on the list.

Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

* the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
* the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
* the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
* if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
* a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.

This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ...

* Academia Brasiliera de Cincias (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academi des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

... in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

 

[Happycamper]

I know Russia is part of Copenhagen treaty. But it was all quite last minute and somewhat as a suprise that they even became invloved.
Even so, they are not offering to cut co2 levels as much as other countries are doing.

Also who do you think leaked the emails?

 

[vtac]

So what happened to the rest of the world 'scoffing at the ability of human beings to influence climate cycles'?

Until you address the question posed above regarding falsifiability I don't see much point in continuing here. There's too much vaping to be done.

To quickly address the actual topic of this thread.

The tactics are more like the Swift Boat campaign rather than Watergate and would be more accurately referred to as SwiftHack. People seem to forget that hacking's illegal. (To wit...)

edit: last time I'll address something covered in depth by the aforementioned How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming

China kind of said thanks but no thanks. I guess because they experienced thier coldest winter last year in about 100 years, or was it since records began? One of the two.

Surely it has nothing to do with their coal burning plants. Again jumbling politics with science, the Chinese national academy of science has signed the joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming.

Answer: Global warming is the long-term increase in globally and seasonally averaged surface temperatures. It is not the case, nor is it expected, that all regions on the planet, let alone all weather stations, will show the same changes in temperature or rainfall patterns. Many stations have shown cooling, and some small regions have shown modest cooling as well. This does not invalidate global warming theory; it is merely the result of regional variation, and an example of how varied and complex the climate system is.

All of the various global temperature trend analyses show significant warming in the average temperature:

* NASA GISS
* CRU
* Hadley Centre

These analyses agree with the expectations of climate theory, as well as all the other lines of evidence.

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
Stages of Denial: 1. b.

 

[Happycamper]

China kind of said thanks but no thanks. I guess because they experienced thier coldest winter last year in about 100 years, or was it since records began? One of the two.

There were a number of other small countries that did the same, just trying to find out but it's not that specific at the moment.

Edit: to change word worst to coldest. (and typos lol)

 

[Happycamper]

We have had rapid major cooling. Since 2007. When global cooling happens in the past, it is usually very rapid. So a rapid major cooling does actually mean something.

Edit before in another post i think i said rapid cooling is normal. I still believe that, and when we have cooled in the past it has always been rapid, normal but not nice.


Yep China did sign, but Gordon Brown is publicly blaming China for such a crap treaty.

 

[Happycamper]

Anyway, there is some good news for all you people who don't like/agree with some of the things i have claimed in this thread. (However little note it is just within this thread, lets be friends as normal out of this thread)

The good news is my propehcy means that we have to carry on cooling. So if it flips back up the other way, I will be reconsidering maybe Well, maybe not just one little flip back.



Edit: another interesting article called a year of cooling, came out at end of 2007, we have continued to cool to this date in 2009

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.

Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter. In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

Author avid Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.

We are having somewhat of an extremely cold snap here at the moment.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20091222/tuk-man-freezes-to-death-in-back-garden-45dbed5.html