Happycamper's House of Denial brought to you by ExxonMobil

[Purple-Days]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ&feature=player_embedded

 

[vtac]

Nice link, Tom. Looks like a well done series of videos.

Here's the first one: Weather is not Climate

"I looked outside, and it was snowing, therefore, there is no climate change."
If that's what passes for rational thought in your social group, you owe it to yourself to watch this edition of Climate Denial Crock of the Week.

Couple covering climategate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4

Still waiting for someone to respond to my post about falsifiability (#265, 267).

 

[Happycamper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ&feature=player_embedded

Tom, look more closely at the 'top 2500' that the IPCC keep stating they have in support of manmade global warming. The IPCC started all this 'all these scientists think it's true so you must'. I think the key point is imo (from endless research I have done which I realise i present from my side) most scientists are actually in the middle, (with a few who are totally one side or the other). The other point is a lot of scientists are saying hang on, it's not as bad as that. The ones we hear (from both sides) are the ones who like to shout the loudest and have to keep saying something a little more extreme each time to get the headlines.

Two very credible, highly respected and important scientists who were actually on the panal of the IPCC.


John Christy:
1991 NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (with Roy Spencer)
1996: AMS Special Award "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate." (with Roy Spencer

Christy was a lead author for the 2001 report by the IPCC[4] and the US CCSP report Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Understanding and Reconciling Differences.[5] Christy helped draft and signed the American Geophysical Union statement on climate change.[6]

In an interview with National Public Radio about the new American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."[6]

In October 2007 Christy gave a lecture at Auburn University in which he reviewed areas of the global warming debate that he deems most significant and offered his evaluation of them.[7] ((See the lecture here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWpH0lmcxA really worth watching) Sound is a little low, better on headphones. I think is probably the most unbiased talk (from either side) and based on actual scientific facts that you are going to find on the internet.))

While he supports the AGU declaration and is convinced that human activities are one cause of the global warming that has been measured, Christy is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels

He felt that the IPCC were grossly exagerating the effects of climate change and the predictions taken from the scienticifc evidence given to them. To this day Christy (who takes temperatures in the atmosphere), says that the atmosphere is not warming as it should to prove the global warming we are experiencing is caused by an increase in the greenhouse effect due to more greenhouse gasses. (The Troposphere should be warming at about 10km and it's still not).


Paul Reiter: Paul Reiter is a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France. He is a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control. He was an employee of the Center for Disease Control (Dengue Branch) for 22 years. He is a Fellow of the Royal Entomological Society. He is a specialist in the natural history, epidemiology and control of mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever, West Nile Virus, and malaria

Reiter says he was a contributor to the third IPCC Working Group II (Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) report, but resigned because he "found [himself] at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of [his] speciality". After ceasing to contribute he says he struggled to get his name removed from the Third report[2]

"After much effort and many fruitless discussions, I decided to concentrate on the USGCCRP and resigned from the IPCC project. My resignation was accepted, but in a first draft I found that my name was still listed. I requested its removal, but was told it would remain because "I had contributed". It was only after strong insistence that I succeeded in having it removed."
Reiter is sceptical about the IPCC process, as seen in his April 25, 2006 testimony to the United States Senate:

"A galling aspect of the debate is that this spurious 'science' is endorsed in the public forum by influential panels of 'experts.' I refer particularly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every five years, this UN-based organization publishes a 'consensus of the world's top scientists' on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. The complexity of this process, and the uncertainties involved, are a major obstacle to a meaningful understanding of scientific issues by non-scientists. In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and scepticism that are intrinsic to authentic science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse." [3]
Paul Reiter presented Malaria in the debate on climate change and mosquito-borne disease[3] on April 25, 2006. The four primary points of his presentation here were:

Malaria is not an exclusively tropical disease
The transmission dynamics of the disease are complex; the interplay of climate, ecology, mosquito biology, mosquito behavior and many other factors defies simplistic analysis.
It is facile to attribute current resurgence of the disease to climate change, or to use models based on temperature to predict future prevalence.
Environmental activists use the big talk of science to create a simple but false paradigm. Malaria specialists who protest this are generally ignored, or labelled as sceptics.


In The Great Global Warming Swindle, Reiter says "this claim that the IPCC is the world's top 1500 or 2500 scientists, you look at the bibliographies of the people and its simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists."

This is what the AGU currently say:

The AGU issued a position statement on climate change in December 2003 [1], and revised and reaffirmed the statement in 2007 [2]. The revised statement begins:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system--including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons--are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.
The statement was drafted by Marvin Geller, John Christy and Ellen Druffel [3] and revised and reaffirmed[4] by the AGU Council

Even though Christy backs this and was involved in making the statement, he is also currently saying man is one of the things that looks to be having an effect on climate change but it's not that bad. He has problems with the IPCC predictions for the rate that they say the temperature will climb. The graph he uses to show long term temperatures using the Ice core data show how the temperature has been much warmer in the past 10000 years. Obviously before a team of scientists have worked on it to 'flattern out' the warm periods.

 

[Happycamper]

I dont think warmer is really that bad. Most of the Plants and Animals live in the warmer areas of the planet compared to the colder areas. Life is easier in warmer climates, always has been always will be.
There will always be winners and losers due to climate change, but you cannot expect temperatures to remain static.

Without Energy Life is Brutal and Short.

 

[Happycamper]

VTAC: I realise about localised weather. However, when large areas of the world are experiencing lower than normal temperatures and the MET office keeps grabbing the headlines (and did so at Copenhagen when they got up and said 2010 is probably going to be the hottest ever year on record) I take issue.

There is no way this year is going to be the hottest on record (as we are already experiencing), and in fact the 15 year mean temperature cooling trend is going to continue. I think the only place that is slightly warmer than normal at the moment is Canada.

Also I love it when scientific bodies/climatologists (and also the met office) correct people that what you see in your area does not count, but yet when it comes to what they present in the media for the scare tactics it becomes double standards. They point to heat waves as one example (as they did to the small one india had last year) as evidence, but yet this is local weather as well.


I will get around to your post about falsifiability, but i think the same argument can be used for both sides. You call it falsifiability (well actually technically a lack of falsifiability?), i call it going round in circles. Both sides are making claims. I would say conspiracy theories have been put out for both sides. Consensus is not science. No matter what piece of evidence i could show you, it would never be enough. And speaking of that, what do you think to the longer term temperatures taken from the ice core samples?

 

[Happycamper]

A perspective on Temperature: (what the Greenland ice core data shows)

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif

 

[Purple-Days]

Happy says, "Tom, look more closely...".

Sorry Happy, I don't have time to become a climate scientist. I cannot 'look more closely', it would do me no good, to study data that I cannot understand. I must rely on real scientists, to form hypothesis, test hypothesis, analyze test data and present conclusions.

BTW I do not watch ABC news, NBC news, CBS news, Fox News, CNN news or the Weather Channel. Most scientific info I receive on this subject comes from NASA (and it's associated organizations) and NOAA. Some other scattered sources such as Explorers Web provide anecdotal information from the High Mountains, Ice Caps and Oceans.

The link I provided shows the relationship between Dr. Seitz and the current American News Media (and political) agenda, and their reliance on him and his 'survey' of 32,000 "leading scientists".

My opinion:
There aren't 32,000 'leading scientists' in the whole flippin' world. So using the term 'leading scientists' is unscientific to start with, and throws into question any further conclusions based on his survey. Say what? Yeah, go on down to Antarctica and ask around. How many 'leading scientists' are here? I bet the answer, from knowledgeable 'workers' is that there are a 'handful' of 'leading scientists' on the whole world. Not 32,000 +.

-----
Here is an article about some real scientists. Doing real research.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=33213
"In recent years, the ice shelf has thinned, allowing Pine Island Glacier to speed its flow toward the ocean.

The concern is that the faster the ice flows, the faster sea level could rise, flooding low-lying areas and coastal regions around the world in the coming century. A recent report from the Scientific
Committee on Antarctic Research suggested that global sea level could be 1.4 meters higher than today by 2100. Pine Island Glacier and nearby Thwaites Glacier could be responsible for much of that increase."

----

I live by the ocean and see it almost every day. It is not a placid pool. It has some amazingly powerful and destructive force. Current wave height (here) is 17 feet, toss in a high tide and it is spectacular. Add 5 feet of ocean to that? Crap. (I also lived on the Florida coast and the Mississippi coast, where most of the coast would be permanently covered by such an increase, and know of hurricanes and the effects of warmer water on them).

----
I don't keep tossing reindeer of the roof. I don't keep looking for ghosts (or conspiracies). I am assuming the real scientists know what they know. And I assume that politicians (and the media that supports them) have hidden agendas (are in the pay of certain groups, to put it bluntly).

 

[Happycamper]

Tom I hope you don't watch too much BBC. My link for the long term temperature record graphs are from the NOAA which clearly show we have been much warmer in the past.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif

The temperature in the Artic has been hotter than today in the late 1930's. Not just a blip, it was a warming trend, much like our recent one only it was actually hotter there. Only then we didnt have satelites showing the retreat of the ice cap.

1000 years ago the Greenland borehole temperatures show it was still conciderably hotter than today (or the 1930's). And still it did not melt away.The ice is 1. something millions miles square, 3 miles thick. It hasnt gone anywhere for at least 100,000 years and its been through much warmer climates.

While you hear horror stories of the ice cap melting, they never talk about the South poles gains.
The Antartica sea ice growth is in an upward longterm trend. Within the last couple of years it has reached it's all time record gain of sea ice. It has never been this large before. No climate model can reproduce this. For the last 4 decades the temperature has fallen in the Antartic.

The Sea level is always either rising or falling, and at the moment it is in a slow rise of about an inch per decade. The Antartic is projected to suck up the water from the ocean and contribute to sea level falling and offset greenland melting a bit.

With regards to the glaciers are melting stories:

I know I am happy to live in an era where glaciers are not advancing, if they were we really would have something to worry about.

 

[DevoTheStrange]

I think more people care about the north pole because of how near it is too those worried about it melting.

 

[Happycamper]

I think more people care about the north pole because of how near it is too those worried about it melting.

It's not about 'people caring' as to where the mainstream media goes. 'Record gains in Antartica Ice cap' simply while this obsession is gripping the planet do not make big headlines. (In the 70's when it was all about cooling it would have done). The media is not interested at the moment in showing the other side to the story. They want big dramatic 'poo your pants' type headlines.

The polar bear thing, another example. Their numbers have been growing not declining. But they are cute and fluffy and no one wants anything bad to happen to them. Well, it already did when the people started hunting there with guns (I mean better hunting equipment generally) By over hunting they took the food away and thats why the polar bears numbers dropped.

Also what happened in the 1930's when the temperature in the Artic was hotter than today?

 

[rayski]

Also what happened in the 1930's when the temperature in the Artic was hotter than today?

I don't know, but the NOAA chart showing the annual mean Arctic temperatures says your making stuff up:http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html.

 

[stickstones]

Well said, Tom.

 

[Happycamper]

That isnt what my data set says and i cant get the picture to show here. however if you go onto this report and onto page 9. Figure 5. (and graphs onwards as well all show longer term much warmer periods using the borehole data)
http://www.americanexperiment.org/uploaded/files/climate_change_christy_june2008.pdf

Actually I just noticed my chart is to 2006, I thought it was later than that. Ok so aparently 2008 might have been the hottest year as far as that chart goes back but the artic borehole data shows it has been through much warmer climates in the past.

An interesting point. What would happen if we were able to suck out the manmade co2 out of the atmosphere now?

John Christy:

My conservative estimate is that
16 percent of the world?s food production is due
only to the enhanced carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. That is to say, one out of every sixth
item of food exists because of the extra carbon
dioxide we put in the atmosphere. If you took
away one-sixth of the world?s food production
right now, you?d have a catastrophe

 

[rayski]

John Christy:

My conservative estimate is that
16 percent of the world?s food production is due
only to the enhanced carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. That is to say, one out of every sixth
item of food exists because of the extra carbon
dioxide we put in the atmosphere. If you took
away one-sixth of the world?s food production
right now, you?d have a catastrophe

Cover an island nation with water and you'd take away all of their food production.

 

[Happycamper]

You are talking about 1 inch a decade? Until it peaks and the sea levels start to drop, like they have always done?

As to a global average that can be teased out of the data, it seems that overall, the ocean level may be rising about .1 inch per year or 1 inch per decade. This would give a 10 inch rise in 100 years. Others say increased rates may make this 18 inches by 2100. Predictions of dramatically greater rise than this (3 feet to 20 feet) are based on effects which have yet to be noted, such as the nearly complete melting of Greenland. If such changes are to take place any time soon, we should see a big increase in the RATE of rise very soon. If happening, this is very slight. Like the temperature, the seas have been rising slowly since long before humans began to put CO2 into the atmosphere. Ocean levels are constantly being monitored and any surge in the levels will be noticed many years before they pose a great threat to human life.

 

[The_Other_Shoe]

I am aware, that this is from FOX news, but it has some interesting and relevant information if you wouldn't care to look at it.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010...oming-say-leading-scientists/?test=latestnews

"From Miami to Maine, Savannah to Seattle, America is caught in an icy grip that one of the U.N.'s top global warming proponents says could mark the beginning of a mini ice age."

Just throwing it out there a little food for thought, it was an interesting read.

 

[nicelytoasted]

Global Warming Protest

 

[Happycamper]

LOL Toasted. I love the fact some of them look angry hehe.

The Other Shoe, he is far from alone in the scientific community in saying this.

Professor Bob Carter is another credible scientist saying that we may be heading for cooling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

 

[stickstones]

According to a history channel show I saw, we are entering an ice age. Of course, that's at least a 10,000 year event, so take it for what it is worth. But long term, whatever warming we are doing won't be able to counteract the ice age. We may all be dead by then anyhow.

Great pic, toasted. I can't believe someone took the time to make all those! I wonder how many people made them and how long it took.

 

[Happycamper]

Modern days Hitler Youth. I find it really disturbing how brainwashed these children are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b-vrBKMxy4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LPQrz6yACw

However when its the other way round and a reporter is asking a question that does not go down very well he gets an armed response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jDVIk7E2zY

 

[reece]

Modern days Hitler Youth. I find it really disturbing how brainwashed these children are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b-vrBKMxy4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LPQrz6yACw

However when its the other way round and a reporter is asking a question that does not go down very well he gets an armed response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jDVIk7E2zY

Yep, nothing bolsters credibility like comparing someone to Hitler.

And if they were protesting the other side they would be well informed rather than brainwashed "Obama Youth." And you want people to take you seriously? You put up this facade but really you're no different than the thread starter. Everyone but you and those who believe as you do are sheep, or brainwashed, or stupid, blah blah blah.

Did you hear Obama preempted a showing of A Charlie Brown Christmas to give a speech? That fucking Nazi.

What was that Stickstones?

As I said before, it's easier to character assassinate and write someone off.

Yeah, you definitely have a point there.

 

[rayski]

Professor Bob Carter is another credible scientist saying that we may be heading for cooling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

But that's not what Dr. Mojib Laiif says. From NPR:

RAZ: Just to clarify, you are not a climate change skeptic.

Dr. LATIF: If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming. So I really believe in Global Warming. Okay. However, you know, we have to accept that there are these natural fluctuations, and therefore, the temperature may not show additional warming temporarily. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120668812

Bob Carter is not a climate expert. He's a geologist who gets money from the fossil fuel industry.

 

[Happycamper]

Bob Carter is not a climate expert. He's a geologist who gets money from the fossil fuel industry.

Character Assassinations all round then.

Reece It's seems ok to call sceptical people 'deniers', which has obvious Nazi Holocaust Denier connotations. I hear it all the time.

Who pays the people who are the climate scientists? It certainly pays big time to get on the 'prove global warming crisis' payroll. Billions and Trillions are been pumped into this.

 

[reece]

Reece It's seems ok to call sceptical people 'deniers', which has obvious Nazi Holocaust Denier connotations. I hear it all the time.

If that is the connotation then it isn't ok. I have never thought of it that way, though. The word denier is certainly apt for some in the skeptic camp. Some deny there is climate change. Some deny that man has any effect on the environment (see some posts by the thread starter). In my mind, I have never associated opponents of climate change with holocaust deniers. I think it is a bit of a stretch to base this on the use of the word denier. It is debatable. However, I do not doubt there are some who do equate the two. They are wrong.



But so what if some equate skeptics with Holocaust deniers? Two wrongs don't make a right. If you want to be taken seriously, by serious people, the "they did it" defense is no defense at all.

The words you used were "modern day Hitler youth." No ambiguity there. The link you provided mentioned "Obama youth." No doubting the comparison there. You say they are "brainwashed." I guess I am brainwashed also. You pretty much said so many posts ago. Why? Because I don't agree with you. Certainly there are issues we agree on. Who is brainwashed in those cases?

Anytime ANYONE compares anything to Hitler or the Holocaust that person immediately loses all credibility. Why? Because Hitler was Hitler. Not Obama, not George W. Bush. No one since Hitler compares to Hitler. And if someone really believes these comparisons, they'll believe anything. And their opinion is not one to be taken seriously. Especially when they say, "They did it!"

 

[rayski]

Bob Carter is not a climate expert. He's a geologist who gets money from the fossil fuel industry.

Character Assassinations all round then.

Just addressing his credibility not his character.

Who pays the people who are the climate scientists? It certainly pays big time to get on the 'prove global warming crisis' payroll. Billions and Trillions are been pumped into this.

The fossil fuel industry's money has found it's way into the pockets of some of your experts. And the climate scientists, who are educators and researchers, really don't get paid like bankers.