subscribe
view counter

Donate to SolveClimate News

Once a day
Get Articles by e-mail:

Also
Get Today's Climate by e-mail:

Climate Science Links

U.S. Government

International

Academic, Non-Governmental

Google Takes on Climate Change Skeptics with New Technology Effort

The search giant has brought together a team of 21 climate researchers to improve the way the science of global warming is communicated using new media

By Maria Gallucci

Mar 18, 2011

Where is the objectivity?

I will now use another search enghine. If Google had bothered to search the internet they would have seen that they are proposing the same Global Warming rebranding exercise that has already been attempted at web sites like Realclimate and what they would have seen is that the "science" behind Global Warming is bogus and sloppy at best, often dishonest and down-right fraudulant at times.  Google should try and grasp why so many people do not buy the party line and should do so with an unbiased attitude.  Until then I will take my curiosity elsewhere.

From reading some of the

From reading some of the comments already posted the new Climate Science Communication Committee has its work cut out!


This all sounds like the Nazi propaganda  machine set up in the 1930's to social engineer Europe to the "true" way of thinking. I somehow think that the general public can smell a rat.


 


 

They are bringing in

They are bringing in scientests, not marketing people.  I think you are thinking of Fox "News".

 

 

 

 

You have no clue,most have no

You have no clue,most have no credentials in climate.What does politics have to do with science.Check the facts climate change  man made is a fraud.

Really?

Right. They're bringing in scientists. Like bringing in scientists somehow makes Google's message so much more believable than, say, Al Gore's message, also backed by the same scientists? They would do better to bring in marketing people and a few dancing chimpanzees.

"should I take, therefore,

"should I take, therefore, your words as "a clear sign of losing"."

The comment to which you were referring was truly hypocritical. But for a moment I thought it was going to be a "warmist" attack on skepticism. It is frustrating and ridiculous how low the 'debate' has sunk. Both sides are mightily culpable.

"I would be thrilled if you could demonstrate that the Theory of Global Warming is wrong. To date, there is no other explanative discussion that meets what is going on in the real world."

That doesn't mean there isn't one. Sometimes the only honest answer is "we don't know". What really grates on me is:

- the insularity americans have on this argument. It is divided along political boundaries which don't exist in other countries. I am pretty skeptical, but I am pretty left wing in my politics. If I were in the US I would likely vote democrat. There is a presumption that skepticism is entirely political in its motivation but I can assure you that is a uniquely american phenomena.

- the presumption that skepticism equates to ignorance of the science. I was very much a 'believer' until I started to investigate the science (in fact to counter arguments from my skeptical retired engineer father). It turns out to be the opposite - the more you look into it the more you realise that the science really does not support CAGW.

The are other competing hypotheses as to what has influenced our climate. Some of them are just as plausible if not more so as the feedback mechanisms required for CO2 emissions to have a dangerous effect on climate.

The main reason why the "Theory of Global Warming" as you put it is wrong is because observation does not fit with the theory. For CO2 forcing to be dangerous, climate sensitivity must be high - higher than natural forcings. But over the last decade there has been no warming and in fact even a slight cooling, yet CO2 levels have continued to increase. That means that natural variability is more dominant. Just because it is not understood exactly what causes the warming (and not warming and sometimes cooling) does not mean it is by default CO2. For the 'alarming' theory (ie CAGW) to be correct, we most certainly cannot have had a decade of no further warming while CO2 was increasing. Since we didn't the theory has been falsified. There are other reasons why the theory is doubtful - but that one alone quite sufficient.

Other science investigating the influences on our climate variability are concerned that we may actually be entering a cooling phase. Cooling is not good. Cooling means shorter growing seasons during a period where the worlds population is going to reach its maximum. The extra CO2 we are producing ironically may be beneficial; both warming us a little (but less than we have been led to believe) and providing fertilizer for plants. What's dangerous about getting the science wrong on global warming is that the policy decisions such as bio-fules (because they are considered carbon neutral) during a period where we are cooling and the attendant reduction in crop yeilds is potentially much more harmful than any imagined consequence of warming.

 

Anti-intellectualism

On the one hand we have educated scientists, working at places like NASA, studying the science and confirming what should be common sense: that when we put the carbon back into the atmosphere that was there eons ago, the temperature on the planet will go up like it was eons ago.

 

On the other hand, we have uneducated media clowns like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, who are obviously progaganda agents for the interests of big business, assuring us that the guys with the PhDs are wrong.

 

And the punchline is the anti-intellectuals, who choose to believe their uneducated, anti-intellectual heros.  Not only do they reject climate science, half of them think the earth is only 6000 years old, and that humans cavorted with dinosaurs.  In that, they reject the sciences of geology, paleontology, genetics, evolutionary biology..  Its time to take America back from the those who distrust science; who try to make villians of the educated and heros of the ignorant.  Let the rightwing nutjobs stand on a hill and wait for jesus to return.  We need to get the republicans out of office so that educated people grounded in reality can solve serious problems.

 

Rebuttal

Anti-intellectuals say things like hurricanes are increasing in strength and number due to global warming. They are most definitely not. Search for the term accumulated cyclonic energy and see how low we have been as of late. Anti-intellectuals say that a graph representing hundreds of thousands of years of temperature (proxy) records and CO2 show that CO2 drives temperature, when the graph and the data supporting it actually show quite distinctly that CO2 increases lag temperature increases on a historic scale by upwards of 800 years. Anti-intellectuals use debate tactics like calls to authority and ad-hominem attacks. But alas, I must clearly be an idiot who cannot understand science. Because I demand that observations be used (without rampant manipulation) to support or falsify a THEORY rather than just believing some NASA scientists, that makes me more of a scientist than those you claim are smarter than the rest of us and therefore more worthy of paying attention to.


Many  very learned PhDs are on the skeptical side. Many more physicists, engineers, geologists, etc. have signed petitions tating that the evidence clearly does NOT point to CO2 than have put their name to the pro-CAGW theory. The media, run by people with very similar BELIEFS as you, have been a willing player in trying to force this shameless anti-humanity rhetoric upon us for years. Mother Nature, however is having (and will ultimately always have) the final laugh. Come back in 2018 and let me know how much you are enjoying all that (negative) warming. NASA scientists will still be screaming about how much the globe has warmed while the rest of us are trying to deal with cold like we haven't seen in a while. And no, I am not implying that the next glaciation is upon us. I'm merely stating that the globe will be more like it was in the time period between the American Revolution when Washington and the boys crossed the icy Potomac and when Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol. 

"should I take, therefore,

"should I take, therefore, your words as "a clear sign of losing"."

The comment to which you were referring was truly hypocritical. But for a moment I thought it was going to be a "warmist" attack on skepticism. It is frustrating and ridiculous how low the 'debate' has sunk. Both sides are mightily culpable.

"I would be thrilled if you could demonstrate that the Theory of Global Warming is wrong. To date, there is no other explanative discussion that meets what is going on in the real world."

That doesn't mean there isn't one. Sometimes the only honest answer is "we don't know". What really grates on me is:

- the insularity americans have on this argument. It is divided along political boundaries which don't exist in other countries. I am pretty skeptical, but I am pretty left wing in my politics. If I were in the US I would likely vote democrat. There is a presumption that skepticism is entirely political in its motivation but I can assure you that is a uniquely american phenomena.

- the presumption that skepticism equates to ignorance of the science. I was very much a 'believer' until I started to investigate the science (in fact to counter arguments from my skeptical retired engineer father). It turns out to be the opposite - the more you look into it the more you realise that the science really does not support CAGW.

The are other competing hypotheses as to what has influenced our climate. Some of them are just as plausible if not more so as the feedback mechanisms required for CO2 emissions to have a dangerous effect on climate.

The main reason why the "Theory of Global Warming" as you put it is wrong is because observation does not fit with the theory. For CO2 forcing to be dangerous, climate sensitivity must be high - higher than natural forcings. But over the last decade there has been no warming and in fact even a slight cooling, yet CO2 levels have continued to increase. That means that natural variability is more dominant. Just because it is not understood exactly what causes the warming (and not warming and sometimes cooling) does not mean it is by default CO2. For the 'alarming' theory (ie CAGW) to be correct, we most certainly cannot have had a decade of no further warming while CO2 was increasing. Since we didn't the theory has been falsified. There are other reasons why the theory is doubtful - but that one alone quite sufficient.

Other science investigating the influences on our climate variability are concerned that we may actually be entering a cooling phase. Cooling is not good. Cooling means shorter growing seasons during a period where the worlds population is going to reach its maximum. The extra CO2 we are producing ironically may be beneficial; both warming us a little (but less than we have been led to believe) and providing fertilizer for plants. What's dangerous about getting the science wrong on global warming is that the policy decisions such as bio-fules (because they are considered carbon neutral) during a period where we are cooling and the attendant reduction in crop yeilds is potentially much more harmful than any imagined consequence of warming.

I wonder if Google will use

I wonder if Google will use their search engine to ensure we all have the correct thoughts about Global Warming, just as Wikipedia's William Connolley did.

That and ideology is what it

That and ideology is what it is all about,

Money Trail

Follow the money trail. The Google boses have made a bet on the economy, and invested there money in Green Tech. They stand to lose a fortune if belief in AGW at the Government level collapses, and the Government subsidies are withdrawn. Look at Al Gore's almost palpable fury when the Chicago Carbon exchange collapsed with nearly a billion in profits up in smoke. (Read up on which Leading US polititian had a large part in setting it up - conflict of interest in US politics seems to be a problem).

So expect Google exec's to spend a lot of money on AGW, it is in there financial best interests. And yes, you can search for this on Google and read about it.

So follow the money people.

not a lack of communication.

How utterly stupid. The media have been ignoring and ridiculing skeptics since the early 1990's. The fasle and proven false declarations by the wamists have been hammered down by reality for over 20 years. Funding for the scaremongering has been huge, even to the absurd point of declaring CO2 a pollutant when in fact it is essential for life on earth.

Get a life you nobs, it is not bad communication, it is the fact that it is a scamand people have woken up to it.

Perhaps Google can bring truth & facts instead of F.U.D. & Fraud

So Google is going to jump into the Global Warming fray?  That is all well and good, so long as Google is not just jumping on the Global Warming bandwagon, and blindly taking the word of the likes of James Hansen, Al Gore, and Michael Mann.  We sure don't need another biased group, parroting positions for political-gains, notoriety, and/or financial gains.

Perhaps Google with all its search capabilities, and computing powers can do some serious data mining to separate mere claims from actual science.  The last thing that is needed is more "rubber-stamping", F.U.D. declaring, like we already have with media outlets looking to sell copies.

Perhaps, Google can also show who (as in Scientists) are basing their positions on proven science vs. merely using Global Warming as a means to gain funding for job security, pay, and financing of new equipment/tools (aka toys).

In short, Google could really help, assuming it enters into the fray, unbiased, open-minded, demands statements are back by real science and facts; and does take the word of people or organizations based on "majority vote" or "the in thing" science or the all to abused "peer-review" articles <i>(you review mine, I'll review yours, and we both agree each is right)</i>.

 

So the brainiacs at Google aren't so smart

Really, why does the CEO of a computer company choose to force his political and religious superstitions upon his customers; he will lose customers. He should stop dining with Al Gore.


OK SOme basic points:


1. Global planetary temperature is a meaningless measure - it's interesting to note that the most "warming" has occured in regions with the fewest thermometers.


2. CO2 is cool! It is plant food and essential to ALL LIFE on this planet.


3. Climate models do not do clouds well.


4. The argument from ignorance "The warming can't be due to anything we know of, therefore it must be due to human produced CO2" is, well, ignorant.


5. The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%, of which, 5% is, contraversally attributed to humans. That is insignificant. The planet Mars contains 15 times the amount of CO2 than the Earth does, so don't go quoting Venus.


 


 

1. Global planetary

1. Global planetary temperature is a meaningless measure - it's interesting to note that the most "warming" has occured in regions with the fewest thermometers.

Global planetary temperature is actually the most meaningful measure of global warming.  And it's interesting to note that the satellite records agree quite well with surface records.

2. CO2 is cool! It is plant food and essential to ALL LIFE on this planet.

Yes, it would be bad if there were no CO2.  That does not mean that dramatically increasing atmospheric CO2 can have no negative effects.

3. Climate models do not do clouds well.

This is still a source of uncertainty, but most recent research into this issue has concluded that clouds will not be a significant negative feedback, and may be slightly positive. See , , and for example.

4. The argument from ignorance "The warming can't be due to anything we know of, therefore it must be due to human produced CO2" is, well, ignorant.

Fortunately, it does not represent an argument that climate researchers actually make.  That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not an assumption, but an empirical observation.  The recent warming trend is consistent with what would be expected based on the recent increase in CO2 and the physics of the greenhouse effect.

5. The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%, of which, 5% is, contraversally attributed to humans. That is insignificant. The planet Mars contains 15 times the amount of CO2 than the Earth does, so don't go quoting Venus.

Such proportions are not really meaningful by themselves, because they ignore the fact that over 99% of the Earth's dry atmosphere consists of gases that are not greenhouse gases (O2, N2, Ar).  Thus it is the changes in those trace gases that CAN positively affect the earth's energy budget (such as CO2) that are important with regard to global climate change.  And by the way, basically all of the recent ~35% increase in CO2 is attributed to human activities.

Clouds

Dr Roy Spencer (drroyspencer.com) tends to think clouds are a net negative feedback.

Spencer: "The “best fit” I got after about an hour of fiddling around with the inputs is represented by the blue curve in the above chart. Importantly, the assumed feedback parameter (5.5) is solidly in “negative feedback” territory. IF this was the true feedback operating in the real climate system on the long time scales of ‘global warming’, it would mean that our worries over anthropogenic global warming have been, for all practical purposes, a false alarm."

 

One would naturally assume until proven otherwise that there would be predominantly negative feedbacks in a system that is stable. Afterall, positive feedback systems tend to quickly end up at one extreme or the other. Positive feedback systems are inherently unstable. This doesn't prove CO2 does not lead to positive feedbacks and catastrophe, but certainly are going to need some real proof to show otherwise.

What I've read of Dr.

What I've read of Dr. Spencer's work with clouds did not particularly impress me.  I'll leave it at that because it's yet another topic unto itself.

A greenhouse gas feedback such as water vapor or CO2 does not lead to a runaway warming scenario in part because, as one of the "skeptics" (JM) pointed out earlier, the effect of increased greenhouse gases is logarithmic, such that each unit of increase has a correspondingly smaller heating effect.  It is a positive feedback, but inherently self-limiting. 

I think everyone agrees that both CO2 and temp on Earth have been dramatically higher in the distant past (in fact the Quaternary has been cooler than the majority of the Earth's history), so there's no reason to think that a warmer climate is implausible.

all that money

do you realize how much good could have been done with all the money wasted on the AGW boogeyman?


clean drinking water for everyone on the planet is but one item.

You've gotta understand...

Clean drinking water for everyone would extend human life spans.


Totally contrary to the Environmentalist agenda.


 


See


Oh Pahleeze!

Now GOOgle has been hoodwinked?  Over to BING I go. Buh bye leftists.

AGW

The AGW conconclusion that only CO2 explains current warming relies ENTIRELY on the widely discredited Hockey Stick. If the warming graph from IPCC 1990 is instead used, almost all the warming can be shown to be entirely of natural origin... not manmade. Using that 1990 IPCC graph also indicates we should now be entering a cooling phase for the rest of this century. ANd guess what, it has been cooling for the past 10 yrs now.

The AGW conconclusion that

The AGW conconclusion that only CO2 explains current warming relies ENTIRELY on the widely discredited Hockey Stick.

No, it doesn't.  It's relies on the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we've been increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, and that the natural factors that can affect climate have not been acting in a way that can explain the recent warming.

Using that 1990 IPCC graph also indicates we should now be entering a cooling phase for the rest of this century.

Also false, where do you get that idea?

ANd guess what, it has been cooling for the past 10 yrs now.

Besides the fact that this is blatant cherry-picking (it's the long-term trends that are important, and they are robustly positive), it's also false.  The 2010 increase blew this already specious "skeptic" claim out of the water.  All global temp records now show a positive linear trend for the past decade.  .

 

Woo.. nice one... stopped you

Woo.. nice one... stopped you graph right at the peak of the El Nino warming... why don't you do the honest thing and show the data thru March of 2011 and replot your line. Talk about cherry picking... geez.

I plotted it through the end

I plotted it through the end of 2010 - sorry, the tabular data from woodfortrees.org did not have the most up-to-date datasets, but just for you I have gone and looked for them.  The March 2011 monthly means are obviously not out yet. HadCRUT has released up through January 2011 and the rest are available up through February. But plotting to the most recent available data does not change the facts that the trends are positive, and agree well between the different records (again, these are 12-month running temp anomaly means, with offset applied to account for the different baseline periods for HadCRUT and GISS):


Still misleading...

This still is a misleading presentation of the latest data. The current temperature as of March is below zero... ie negative.... not 0.3+ . A more honest presentation if you want to include the 2010 El Nino peak would be to also include the 1998 El Nino peak. This way you start with an El Nino and you end with an El Nino event. If you do that, the trend is negative for the past ten years. Presenting a graph that cuts off the El Nino spike at the begining but adds one right at the end is not very honest and Im sure you are aware of that.

What you are describing -

What you are describing - looking for ways to make the trend negative - is a classic example of cherry-picking.  In 2009, and 2010, the "skeptics" often started their linear trendlines at 2001 (rather than 2000) to show the "decade of cooling".  Now that that no longer works, they're looking for new starting points to make the warming trend go away.  Like starting it at a peak that's way above the trendline, in 1998 (when the ENSO index was about twice as high as in 2010, and the second-strongest on record).  I notice that you didn't ask for the trend from a comparable El Niño in say, 1994-5 or 2007. Come on, man.

That La Niña/El Niño is responsible for a lot of the short-term variation around the trend is non-controversial.  However, what is important in the context of climate change is the long-term trend, and cherry-picking does not make that long-term positive trend go away.

Goo

Says Higgins: ""The vast majority of people don't know and understand the details of climate science," he said. "The science of climate change spans 20 to 30 disciplines and sub-disciplines, at least ... It is an enormous amount of information, and distilling it is a bit of a challenge."

The climate debate puts two groups of people against each other: the critical self-thinkers, and the authority-seekers. &nbsp;The above statement is patently absurd for those able to analyse things and determine their essential bits.

It is true for those who think that all information is equally essential, and that long study is required to get a grip on the subject. The first is about certainty of general principles, the second, certainty of detail.

Climate skeptics rightfully recognize that the CAGW case relies on only a few points:

1) that a SIGNIFICANT rise in world temperatures has occurred since 1850,

2) that the rise is UNIQUE to the post-1850 period in magnitude and style of rise,

3) that the co-committant rise in temperatures is linked in a CAUSITIVE WAY physically to CO2 increases as measured,

4) that the CO2 increases in magnitude and style of rise are ATTRIBUTABLE to fossil fuel burning, i.e. mostly anthropogenic in origin,

5) that the CO2-temperature rise linkage will increase the surface of the world to a SIGNIFCANT level at a SIGNIFICANT rate, such that

6) the effect of the temperature (and CO2) rise will be, on the whole, DETRIMENTAL to the multitude of life on Earth.

7) that if any of the above 6 propositions can be determined to be untrue, CAGW is untrue, and AGW is either untrue or unimportant.

A critical thinker looking at the basis of the propositions knows that he can, with diligence and work, determine the certainty, if not the truth of each proposition; the self-confessing non-analytical, recognizing his inability to absorb and understand the detail required to make a determination, must place his confidence in the authority figure, whether in a lab coat like Mann or an Armani suit like Gore.

Almost all climate discussions are not about causes but about consequences.  They are also not about options except for one: stopping.  A look at the David Suzuki Foundation even briefly reveals not a moment about "if": all is about "what happens since";the DSF specifically does not take a stand on the truth, but only on what "peer-reviewed" work has revealed.

The DSF is a corporate example of the non-analytical authority-seeker, despite the attempt to clothe its leadership with the "Dr.", white-coat-of-science mantle. The skeptic is all about "truth", determining what is from what might be. The hallmark of the liberal eco-warmist is not truth, but "justice" or "fairness". Being "good to the planet/our children/the future" is a moral concern, of which the truth about one point - in this case CO2-induced detrimental planetary temperatures - is not terribly important.

There are many ways in which we can be truthful yet unjust or unfair, it would be said, ex. by saying someone knows eating DDT is harmful does not confer righteous innocence on the providers of DDT when someone does eat it. Even it's poisonous nature is not really important when moral values are involved: it might be poisonous, and any "right-thinking" person would stop a potential problem, not just an actual one.  Hence the Precautionary Principle.


The GOOGLE people, and the ones they supply with their info, are of the authority-seeking group.  They cannot be convinced with facts: the "issue" is greater than the facts to them, and largely irrelevant.  A small problem, or even a possible problem, demand similar treatment to an actual, large problem.  Morality or righteousness are not limited: a relative immorality is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a "somewhat damaged" planet Earth, or an "acceptably compromised" environment, people or animal.  In a practical, analytical world, morality, damages and compromises do have meaning, largely defined in terms of effort and displaced income. Therein lies the intractable conflict.


GOOGLE will do what they will do, and warmist sympathizers will learn what they have already learned: something bad and confusing is happening, the certainty of which has been determined by others smarter than themselves.  It is up to the skeptics specifically and the critical self-thinkers in general to keep our lawmakers grounded in the realities, not just the costs or ideals involved.  We can be "good" and yet not be CAGW supporters.
One day - personally I estimate it to be 2015 - the disconnect between the CAGW meme and the "truth" will be too large to dismiss.  Then what is will replace what if.  Until then the GOOGLEs around us will have to be resisted knowing there is no defeat, only delay until the world sorts itself out.

The science will be settled when..

Hey, Google.org – see what you can do to get this underway!!! From: Kip Hansen | 5:40 pm | I must be shown the following: 1) The hypothesis, which must be falsifiable. 2) What experiment has been done and that it has been carefully laid out well enough to falsify your null hypothesis (and thus support your original hypothesis). 3) What you did exactly, all the nasty details, how you controlled for every possible confounding factor (or didn’t control for this one and that…and why not, and how that might affect your findings). 4) Your conclusion and how it follows from your data (and not your beliefs, feelings, hunches, or desire to please your funding agency or university tenure board). Then, and only then, will I listen to your opinion about what it might mean.

All that computing power -

All that computing power - backed up by so little intelligence.

Google is corrupt

It is a multi-national that feeds off government regulation. Google was one of the earliest supporters of cap and trade.


Boycotting them is useless. Google is a huge traitorous monster who has turned its back on the system that nurtured it.


 


This is about money.  It is all all all about money.

Propaganda

As with everything Google, they are a propaganda machine to be feared and avoided. This incessant stubborn refusal to accept that Anthropogenic Global Warming is the greatest SCAM in world history is dangerous. These people need to be stopped at all costs. There are THOUSANDS of credible, educated and ethical scientists that have poked holes in every single aspect of the AGW SCAM. Is is a sad reflection on the stupidity of people in general that they can and will be manipulated by shallow and superficial attempts like this to brainwash them back in to believing this SCAM.

Good Luck World! We're up against Google now!

Science in decline?

Absolutely amazing!

After a couple hundred years of scientific progress, along with the development of a network of fabulous universities around the globe - allowing us to reach into the heavens and understand our place in the universe better than anyone could have dreamed - we now have a collection of quacks who believe there is a conspiracy among climate scientists in those universities, designed to con the public.  Why?

All the researchers I have met are honest hard-working folks, without any selfish objectives.  If anything, they are living miserable lives of stress and sleeplessness because any collection of facts or data they put forward are attacked with vehemence and vitriol.  All they want is to warn the world of the folly of continuing on the path we are on.  In most cases, it is not they that will suffer, but the millions living on the edge, who could not endure dwindling food and water, or rising sea levels and temperatures. 

What went wrong?

What these people need first

What these people need first and foremost is a cheap and abundant energy source. Without that they will forever be destitute. All of the "solutions" offered by the warmist crowd actually will make life even worse for the people you claim you want to help.

Two points: 1. Yes, they are

Two points:


1. Yes, they are hard working folks who will lose their well-paying job if they didn't investigate man-made global warming: that's how they get their money.


2. Government takeover of academic funding during the socialist period from the end of WWII 'til now. This has politicized science. The politicians and bureaucrats pay for the scientists to provide them with the answers they want. Scientists have become subservient to politicians and bureaucrats. That's wot went wrong.

what went wrong?

You have a great deal of catching up to do.


Start at judithcurry.com.  The past two weeks have pretty much covered every topic you can name.


Your fears are unjustified. Most people who can ask a healthy question already understand this.


 


Please, catch up.

what went wrong?

You have a great deal of catching up to do.


Start at judithcurry.com.  The past two weeks have pretty much covered every topic you can name.


Your fears are unjustified. Most people who can ask a healthy question already understand this.


 


Please, catch up.

Simple

It's very simple, none of the FACTS support any of their research or conclusions. Anything else you'd like to know?

The big lie will never

The big lie will never last.

$100 billion funding the global warming fraud vs. $20million and they still can't win the argument.  

More money and lying won't make it any better.

What gmail?

Just cancelled six gmail accounts - feels good.

Believers vs Deniers

Unfortunately, so much of the converstion is done between AGW 'belivers' vs AGW 'deniers'.  These two groups just talk past each other as we can see in some of these posts.  Fewer and fewer people who follow this subject are listening to these two groups, because neither group is listening to what is really going on in the current science and policy discussions other than to articles that support their respective hardened positions. There is another conversation going on, however, between the AGW 'convinced' vs the AGW 'skeptics'.  That is becoming a much more interesting discussion and some real progress is being made.  See Climate etc. blog to find some of this.  The tone and quality of discussion is quite different.  Google would improve their effort here if they had some of 'convinced' and the 'skeptics' involved in what they are doing, and not just the 'belivers'.

Bing is starting to look

Bing is starting to look better all the time. And, as far as I know, Bill Gates is too smart to be an AGW clone and has devoted his philanthropy to real issues.

Gates is far from a reich

Gates is far from a reich wing rethugliKKKan (sarc), but I trust him far more than the 'don't be evil' folks.  I started feeling that way when they were kowtowing to the ChiComs.  Nothing they've done since has changed my mind.

But who isn't playing nice

But who isn't playing nice with China these days? Follow the money. Great to see Government Motors and Government Electric providing so many jobs there. (sarc)

The SUN

Why is it that the Ministers of Global Warming completely deny that the SUN could be the cause of the various recent warming trends? Why do they provide propaganda that the Suns irradiance only changes a minuscule amount, thus "proving" that the Sun has no effect - AND completely ignore all of the other forms of radiation given off by the sun. Recent studies shows that although there is little change in visible and infrared, Ultraviolet light decreases by over 6% during low sunspot activity. Then there is the big change in other forms of radiation given off by the SUN. Study, after study have shown positive, significant correlation with the change in sunspots - which the AGW ignore, deny. They then bolster their hypothesis with claims that the Little Ice Age did not exist, or it only affected the northern hemisphere and the southern was warmer, etc. etc. etc. all of which have been proven wrong by the skeptics. They just keep throwing out computer models output that claim that this or that will happen. The same sort of computer model that is accurate LESS THAN 50% of the time in predicting tomorrows weather!

I have developed the code for and written computer models - I can make them predict anything you want and know that they are not accurate unless you perform a "sensitivity" analysis. Where are their sensitivity studies? Without them the model is worthless! So far their model has had no verifiable correlation with either a historical or future temperature change. In fact the recent "unexplained" temperature decrease indicates that their model is worthless.

The Claims Don't Add Up.

The instrument record tells us that since 1850 the world's climate has warmed by a little over 0.7°C  That works out to a climate sensitivity of 1.5° per doubling of CO2.  Furthermore, common sense tells us that not all of that is due to CO2.  Afterall, it has warmed and cooled before the current rise in CO2.  

In order to get to higher sensitivity numbers positive feedbacks to temperature increases are claimed.  It doesn't add up.  Relatively stable systems such as world wide climate maintain that stability through NEGATIVE, feedbacks.  If negative feedbacks weren't in operation, the world would either freeze or bake.   That hasn't happend and there isn't any reason to believe that it's going to happen now.

 

Real climate change, but willful ignorance and greed

The comments here from climate change deniers is frightening. I applaud Google's efforts, while at the same time am concerned they are doomed. The article's premise that the public and politicians are uninformed is only half-true... The public is generally being misled by politicians who fully understand global warming is a real and human-caused phenomenon, but because they are beholden to the businesses that profit from producing greenhouse gasses, they lie. No amount of training scientists will overcome the powerful monetary inducement that causes right-wing politicians to falsely decry climate change science. And while gullible, selfish right-winger masses listen to climate change denials from their politicians, we'll continue to have this frustrating and pointless debate about whether or not this very real preblem exists - let alone what we should do about it.

Hallucinogenic perspective of Reality

Gee.. $75 Billion of taxpayer money thrown at 'Climate science' in the US over the last 25 years - $7 Billion in 2010 alone....Regional Cap & Tax initiatives..$Billions of taxpayer money thrown at everything from incentives to GE for money-losing wind power, tidal power and solar projects to landfill methane capture to electric cars to incandescent lighting bans to massive publicly-funded information campaigns in schools..Several $billions spent on TV, Radio, Internet and print media .. and you still assert ' The public is generally being misled by politicians who fully understand global warming is a real and human-caused phenomenon, but because they are beholden to the businesses that profit from producing greenhouse gasses, they lie '  ? ? Meanwhile, Exxon is chastised for giving CEI a total of $19 million over a 6 year period to promote a quote ' massive disinformation campaign' ?


 


You truly need to get OFF the hallucinogens, my friend.


 

Weak responses

The best you can do is throw up a drug-related insult?

Weak.

The vitriol and vehemence which your lot is spewing is frightening. Your children will inherit the world you're making now. The problem is, mine will also inherit the broken Earth you seem to have no problem ruining.

Have you no conscience or morals?

Can't argue with the Numbers

Everyone on this board notices you were unable to present any counter-argument in regards my comments about the funding disparity, however.


 


Any you were saying what exactly, about a weak response ?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <h1> <h2> <h3> <ul> <li> <ol> <b> <i> <p> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Youtube and google video links are automatically converted into embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options