subscribe

Once a day
Get Articles by e-mail:

Also
Get Today's Climate by e-mail:

Donate to SolveClimate News

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

Not really. Such short term

Not really. Such short term trends are meaningless in the big picture. Put any 30 year or even 100 year trend in the context of the ice core data rollercoaster and that becomes clear as a bell.


This will become more blindingly obvious if we are entering into another cooling trend as some suggest. If so the AGW supporters will be explaining that short term trends don't matter.


Then in the next warming phase they will say they do matter again.


See. Its a cycle.


  

Anthropogenic global warming

Anthropogenic global warming is a total fraud, an international effort of power and money grabbing based on the marxist concept of "wealth redistribution".
On April 28 1975 Time magazine had on its front cover the title THE BIG FREEZE!!, with an article, signed by climate scientists, concluding that the Earth is cooling to the point it will all be covered in ice and all living creatures will die of freezing.
The “scientists” even came up with a solution: collect all the ashes and residues generated by coal-burning power plants and spreat it over the North Pole, to capture the heat generated by the sun….
This could only have come from sick, perverted minds, but at the time it was viewed as a real option.
After a few years, when it obviously turned out that such a theory was nonsense, the so called climate scientists, in their quest for government grants, have invented a new fantasy, that of global warming......the world is warming due to us, human beings and we are all going to die unless we give up all of our liberties to one big world government which is going to regulate every single aspect of our lives, how many times to flush our toilets, what kind of cars to drive, where, for what reason and how far, how many children to have , what kind of food to eat, etc.
In 1992 Al Gore said that "the time for a debate is over, the science is settled".....
This obviously is a lie for the time for a debate is never over and the science is far from being settled.
Science does not work as a democracy , meaning that in science, the majority does not rule as it does in a democracy.
If 1000 scientists have a debate and 999 of them agree on the subject, but only one of them disagree, it may very well turn out , as it has so many times in history, that the lone scientist is the only one that is right.
I could give you many examples, such as that of Charles Darwin.
When he first presented his theory of the evolution of species, all the scientists laughed at him and ridiculed him...in the end he was right and they were wrong.
When Galileo said the Earth is spinning, the rest of the scientists accused him of heresy...but it turned out he was right and they were all wrong.
After 15 years of advancing a false theory based on fraudulent data, the "scientists" noticed that the planet is not warming, but is actually cooling, so they changed the name of their theory yet again from global warming to "Climate Change", just in case, to have all possibilities covered.
Soon the whole thing will be unequivocally exposed for a premeditated fraud.
People like yourself will then be held responsible for the enormous psychological, social and financial damage that your actions have caused.
Just like when a doctor who gives out the wrong diagnosis and causes harm to the patient as a result, just like in such a case the doctor has the license suspended and has to pay damages or even go to prison, people like you will soon face the consequences of the lies you have imposed on the world for so many years.
There must be parents out there whose children have suffered mental trauma because of this great scam.
All these parents should get together and get a pit bull of a lawyer to file a class action law suit in a civil court and take the global warming crooks to the cleaners.

April 28 1975 Time magazine

Do you have any more recent information on climate change?

 

Terrorists are being brought

Terrorists are being brought to justice in criminal courts these days... Al Gore and the global warming alarmists such as left wing politicians, pseudo scientists, journalists, the Hollywood idiots, have been inflicting psychological terrorism upon a whole generation of children all over the world for the last 20 years. These charlatans should be brought to justice as the perpetrators of the biggest scam in the history of this planet. The social,financial and psychological damages that they caused are beyond comprehension. No criminal organization in history has ever come even close to having such a dezastruous impact on so many people, for such a long time, and make so much money in the process. They should not be permitted to get away with it. Hundred of billions have been wasted on a fraud, social and economical policies have been altered based on a fraud….the moral authors of this fraud should be in jail for the rest of their lives and their fortune seized.

Corporate Shill Commentary is Dishonest

Hello, BP, Texaco, Enron, and other energy sector shills.  NIce of you to drop by a attempt to bully your opinion on the internet.  Too bad it won't work here.  You can't bribe us unless you can get our e-mail address and open a Paypal account.  Speaking of which I wouldn't be entirely objectionable too, but it would take hell of a lot of money.  Most of which I would donate to disaster relief services.

Big Oil

Big oil funds AGW. There is a lot to be made, just ask BP and Shell in particular. Appart from Government handouts, they put more money in to this than Google.

Where is my check???? You do

Where is my check???? You do know that Exxon funded the new earth science building at Stanford which many alarmists call home to the tune of $100 million dollars. That one grant dwarfs any so called skeptic funding that has even remotely occurred of the last 30 years. Look the plank in you own eye first.

Who are you shilling for?  BP

Who are you shilling for?  BP wants climate controls and it would not suprise me to see other oil and GAS companies advocating for the same thing.  The most llike outcome of legislation to reduce greenhouse gases would be to convert coal fired powered plants natural gas.  (In fact, all new base load generation is natural gas.)  BP wins and Peobody coal loses.  Exxon also wins as it has large reserves of natural gas but little oil.  And by the way, you don't need to pass legislation to push this conversion.  Natural gas has plummetted so much in price that you can buy the same amount of heating for one quarter the price of oil. Economics took care of this one for you.

How Terrifying

How terrifying to see how well organized the people denying climate change are (and how badly they spell!), that a few of them are hijacking this comments board with their idiotic faux science. Just the fact they they insist on viewing climate change only in terms of temperature change shows how ill-informed they are. The earth's environment is a delicate balancing act, and we humans have been throwing it out of balance for centuries. This past winter's fierce storms are only one of many manifestations of that. So discouraging that the ignorant minority shouts more loudly than the informed majority. Good for Google for this important initiative!

Ignorant minority?

"the ignorant minority shouts more loudly "

So, the warmists are funded 1000 times the skeptics and the media ia all about climate change. And you are whining about us being organized and too loud. It is out truth and real science that you cannot deal with!

All of the global warming

All of the global warming liers,co2 does not control the climate.The pdo,amo,volcanoes,opps maybe the sun.I remember in the 1970s ice age comming ohhhh,what happened there.Wake up there are many climate scientists who do not buy into this baloney.Science is never decided,name calling seems to be the way of shouting down truth.

Talk about baloney ...

Global Cooling was never more than a 'hypothesis' (yes, one hyped by such leading scientific journals as Newsweek and Time, but nothing more than hypothesis). Do you know the difference between Scientific Theory and a hypothesis?  See and See

By the way, your post is incredibly revealing. Do you even read what you write?  Sentence 1: "global warming liers" and then last sentence "name calling seems to be the way of shouting down the truth."  Those words are about the only truthful ones in your post.

 

 

AGW was never more than a

AGW was never more than a hypothesis (yes one hyped) too. So...

Google Takes on Climate

Is this another George Soros Funded effort?

I too shall quit using anything associated with GOOGLE.

Do they (Google) completely ignore the peer reviewed studies disproving more than 90 percent of the AGW theory and phony basis for the AGW conclusions? There is at least an equal number of degreed scientists that are not "in consensus" with the AGW theology as those that push this propaganda.

At least Wikipedia saw the light and got rid of the blatant lies (most but not all) from their website. Some of the ministers of AGW spent as much time spreading lies on Wikipedia as supposedly doing research. They removed all references to or discussion of "The Little Ice Age," "The Mediaeval Warming Period," etc, etc., anything that went against their propaganda. Is this what the 21 GOOGLE Fellows are going to do? Reeducate us on the lies we were taught, and facts that have been proven over and over again for 50 years that do not support the AGW Theology?

Yeah, sure...

I too shall quit using anything associated with GOOGLE.

Well, that's about as realistic as the rest of your take on things.

I'm impressed by the

I'm impressed by the hard-headed folks articulating dubious justifications for their decision to deny factual evidence. Getting people to examine data more closely through reasoned debate is an important part of the scientific process and intellectual development. I commend Google for improving the way science communicates with the public because a great swath of people simply aren't literate in science which, both now and later, is a serious hinderance to human progress across a broad number of issues.

Hear, hear!

Very well said.

Warmista have no physical hypotheses, so no science.

As explained in great detail by Roy Spencer in his book "The Great Global Warming Blunder," those who believe that manmade CO2 will cause a serious rise in temperature lack the physical hypotheses which could be used to explain and predict the "forcings," such as changes in cloud cover, that increased CO2 concentrations are supposed to bring about. Without such physical hypotheses, there is no science which holds that increased CO2 will cause a serious rise in temperature or in "climate disruptions." The ball is in the Warmista's court. Produce the physical hypotheses or have the honesty to admit that you do not at this time have a science that is up to the task of predicting and explaining the effects of rising manmade CO2 on Earth's environment. There it is guys. It could not be simpler. I have been begging folks to produce those physical hypotheses for years now and the only thing I get as a response is "What do you mean by physical hypothesis?" If you have to ask what a physical hypothesis is, you should not be pursuing a career or avocation in any field of science.

The problem with reasonable

The problem with reasonable debate is that a debate usually involves two points of view, not a real point of view (real science) versus opinion (junk science and political agendas). To debate a warmist is to actually suggest that they have even a slightly valid stand, which they do not.

The warmist, bedwetter tactic when they start to lose a "debate", as they will always, is to attack the opponent's character and motivation the ad hominem attack is not debate, it's a clear sign of losing, as is when they declare that the "debate is over."

My motivation is integrity and promulgating honest real science. It is hard to discuss junk science with people who cannot afford to have their (junk) science be wrong. This is not unlike religion in which religious people cannot admit when their religious construct is not perfect. You cannot debate religion is an Orthodox Jew because they are incapable of ever accepting a middle ground or changing any of their thinking - it is against their religion.

Seriously ...

Do you read what you write?

 

The warmist, bedwetter tactic when they start to lose a "debate", as they will always, is to attack the opponent's character and motivation

That is not, as you put it, an 'attack [on] the opponent's character"?  Should I take, therefore, your words as "a clear sign of losing".

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. 

Burden of proof

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. 

Sure! Right after we've proved that, contrary to various highly educated priests and popes, God doesn't exist. This is, after all, what distinguishes religion from science: In science the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the hypothesis, not on those who are sceptical of it.

It is here, in your request - and in its recent corresponding demand from leading climatologist Kevin Trenberth - where the distinction is made between the science of climate and the religion of catastrophic anthropogenic climatological impact, AKA global warming, AKA climate change, AKA global climate disruption.

Let's end the pretence that CAGW is anything but junk science with cultish religious designs. The truth is that, beyond the basic theory that the climate changes naturally and cyclicly, climate alarmism is in fact entirely derived from pseudo-scientific scarelore and fearmongery.

"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.

The reversal of proof is

The reversal of proof is indicative of the atrocious warmist use of post normal science. You have to prove your hypothesis, not the other way round.

You can start by admitting the very basis of your modeling - the concentration of CO2in ppmv is deliberately wrong and therefore all your posturing and posing amounts to a fart in a hurricane.

Open letter to Al Gore

Open letter to Al Gore Anthropogenic global warming is a total fraud, an international effort of power and money grabbing based on the marxist concept of "wealth redistribution". On April 28 1975 Time magazine had on its front cover the title THE BIG FREEZE!!, with an article, signed by climate scientists, concluding that the Earth is cooling to the point it will all be covered in ice and all living creatures will die of freezing. The “scientists” even came up with a solution: collect all the ashes and residues generated by coal-burning power plants and spreat it over the North Pole, to capture the heat generated by the sun…. This could only have come from sick, perverted minds, but at the time it was viewed as a real option. After a few years, when it obviously turned out that such a theory was nonsense, the so called climate scientists, in their quest for government grants, have invented a new fantasy, that of global warming......the world is warming due to us, human beings and we are all going to die unless we give up all of our liberties to one big world government which is going to regulate every single aspect of our lives, how many times to flush our toilets, what kind of cars to drive, where, for what reason and how far, how many children to have , what kind of food to eat, etc. In 1992 Al Gore said that "the time for a debate is over, the science is settled"..... This obviously is a lie for the time for a debate is never over and the science is far from being settled. Science does not work as a democracy , meaning that in science, the majority does not rule as it does in a democracy. If 1000 scientists have a debate and 999 of them agree on the subject, but only one of them disagree, it may very well turn out , as it has so many times in history, that the lone scientist is the only one that is right. I could give you many examples, such as that of Charles Darwin. When he first presented his theory of the evolution of species, all the scientists laughed at him and ridiculed him...in the end he was right and they were wrong. When Galileo said the Earth is spinning, the rest of the scientists accused him of heresy...but it turned out he was right and they were all wrong. After 15 years of advancing a false theory based on fraudulent data, the "scientists" noticed that the planet is not warming, but is actually cooling, so they changed the name of their theory yet again from global warming to "Climate Change", just in case, to have all possibilities covered. Soon the whole thing will be unequivocally exposed for a premeditated fraud. People like yourself will then be held responsible for the enormous psychological, social and financial damage that your actions have caused. Just like when a doctor who gives out the wrong diagnosis and causes harm to the patient as a result, just like in such a case the doctor has the license suspended and has to pay damages or even go to prison, people like you will soon face the consequences of the lies you have imposed on the world for so many years. There must be parents out there whose children have suffered mental trauma because of this great scam. All these parents should get together and get a pit bull of a lawyer to file a class action law suit in a civil court and take the global warming crooks to the cleaners.

Just trying to create noise?

Here's some centrally relevant noise for confused readers who have not had the time or perhaps interest to delve into stacks if books on climate, namely the demonstration in a single glance that signal overwhelms noise in centuries old single site thermometer records in a way that bluntly demonstrates that recent warming is a totally boring extension of a historical trend:

All data is official and peer reviewed. I merely made plots of it. Boy was it hard to find these! They don't grace the covers of alarmist summary reports like Lying With Statistics tree ring graphs do. If they formed little hockey sticks I'm sure they would have been featured in the likes of Gore's movie, no?

Another temperature record

You can add Uppsala in Sweden to your list . Temperatures from 1722 -2005, one of the longest and best temperature series in the world, courtesy of SMHI, the Swedish Weather Service (which is rather pro AGW). “

Great !

I'll add it to my Planetary Temperature page .

I'm glad *somebody* likes it!

I'm glad *somebody* likes it! I've been posting this baby for two years after the Central England chart alone was ridiculed on alarmist sites as being meaningless due to only being one site. This one with multple sites is merely ignored. Oddly though it tends to be ignored by skeptical sites too. I think the urge to debate is too strong and this kind of puts a damper on debates about statistics. The latest comments-ready version of daily news on the Net (along with a quick tracking of to find each day's stories) allows little old starving artist and designer me to procrastinate till past noon and reach millions of people for free! If a site has no comments it's likely they lack readership interest as well so they can't exactly control comments well without losing a sense of participation in their site. I'm watching an episode of House M.D., literally naked, sipping a Yuengling beer, munching home made beef jerky and raddishes (great for Atkins diet maintenence), posting facts that nobody in the media deems fit to point out. I feel like a hick but actually I'm a closet hipster with emo moods.

I have another graphic that plays with the global average:

Amazingly, one of the Climategate e-mailers tried to turn the Central England graph into a god damned Hockey Stick. It took me a week or two to re-educate myself in how to analyze graphs to debunk his work of con art:

It's the evidence, stupid

It doesn't matter how AGW is communicated. The problem is the facts. The real world is not operating like a computer model. All the alarmists claims have proven false. There is nothing happening in climate that can not be explain by natural variation.

 

The problem for the AGW alarmists is the real world physical evidence does not support he CO2 theory.  Sorry.

It's the evidene

If Google communicates the real science of AGW then the public will learn that it is a complete scam.  So Google, what are you actually trying to communicate?

Not a COMPLETE scam

Some facts in the AGW debate are generally agreed on by both sides of the debate. One of those facts is that the concentration of CO2 has a logarithmic warming effect, where every doubling of CO2 causes roughly 1 degree Celcius in warming.

Under that model, it would take a quadrupling of CO2 from current levels to get 2 degrees C of warming, and a sixteen-fold increase in CO2 levels to get 4 degrees C of warming. A 2 degree C level of warming is universally agreed upon as safe, while fossil fuels would likely have run out long before a sixteen-fold increase in atmospheric CO2 levels could be realized.

What the debate is about is whether there are other factors that amplify or weaken the CO2 induced warming. The computer models predicting doom and gloom rely on the presence of strong amplifying forces. However, there appears to be little to no physical evidence that such amplifications actually exist, and just as much evidence for forcings causing negative feedback.

Another factor is that the earth was already in a warming phase (coming out of the little ice age) when people first started burning coal. Depending on whether you believe the earth would currently still be in a warming trend, or back to cooling down if left alone, anywhere between 10% and 130% of current warming is attributed to people. Using just the pure CO2 induced warming, without forcings, people attribute maybe 30% of the warming.

In short, using just the agreed on CO2 warming, without the unproven positive or negative feedbacks, fossil fuel use will warm the earth slightly.  However, we would run out of fossil fuels before having caused disruptive warming.

It's the evidene

If Google communicates the real science of AGW then the public will learn that it is a complete scam.  So Google, what are you actually trying to communicate?

Playing politics

If Google INSISTS on playing politics about AGW then I will be forced to

play politics with my use of Google's services.

 

It's only one vote in millions and millions but it's all I've got.

I Heart Google

I could care less if Google shows youthful exuberance and responsibly reflects what most scientific bodies promote.

My ex-lover of 17 years is actually now their senior Adwords attorney in NYC. Million dollar contracts. Total hottie Korean chick with freckles, even. She politely chuckled at my early Global Warming Farce discoveries over dinners she paid for, out on the town. I loved those Grateful-Dead's-cook gourmet sandwiches she fed me from the Google cafeteria for a year. I wouldn't marry her since she was passive aggressive, but boy did she even both bring home the bacon and make me feel like a man. She was miserable in big city law firms. Now she's over 40, looking 28, hanging out in a youthful environment. Google rocks! She was too dependent on me, psychologically, to split, until Google took her on. I sent her firewalking and coached her to reject job offers from the likes of oppressive Nokia, until Google finally got back to her after many weeks after her couple of interviews. Long story! Google helped create a long overdue split with a gal I no longer got along with that well as a best buddy. Long live Google! Where else could I have sent her?

Uh oh, my unfair bias is showing!

Did I mention that Global Warming is a scientific fraud?

Goodbye Google

 If you decide to go down this road, Google, than I will just have to take my business to another search engine without an agenda. What's next, you're going to manipulate what sites come up when people search these subjects? You have betrayed your user's trust and I will be sure to let my friends and family know of your actions.

more GSS ( Global Statist Stupidity )

How can Google associate itself with such idocy as "Given the pace and scale of human-induced climate change ..." ? A change of perhaps 1/500th of our temperature over more than a century with no change in more than a decade ?

Any of Google's numerate employees should be able to look at the highly saturated CO2  spectrum in the graph below and see that the only appreciable effect of more of the molecule upon which all life is built will do nothing other than additionally "green" the planet .

Radiation Transmitted by the Atmosphere

 

 

more GSS ( Global Statist Stupidity )

How can Google associate itself with such idocy as "Given the pace and scale of human-induced climate change ..." ? A change of perhaps 1/500th of our temperature over more than a century with no change in more than a decade ?

Any of Google's numerate employees should be able to look at the highly saturated CO2  spectrum in the graph below and see that the only appreciable effect of more of the molecule upon which all life is built will do nothing other than additionally "green" the planet .

Radiation Transmitted by the Atmosphere

 

 

Google against the truth

Google can fight against the truth all it wants.   That will not change the truth.  CO2 is NOT a pollutant.  The REAL true 'consensus' of qualified scientists knows that CO2 is a life giving substance, necessary for all life on earth.  There is not a shred of REAL evidence linking CO2 to climate change. global warming. ice melting, polar bears disappearing, or any other such nonsense concockted by the left. 


 


 

Good examples

I am not sure this effort will work. The first four comments are good examples of what you are up against. The scientific evidence for climate change overwhelming. Spend a few hours at or and all of the denialist arguments crumble before the weight of the evidence. But if someone refuses to study and comes in with a closed mind no amount of additional evidence will make a difference.

Google will fail as long as

Google will fail as long as websites such as   


(and others) are up and running. As long as people with inquiring minds and a real interest in knowing whether AGW is real or not care to examine the data as discussed from both points of view, most will be convinced that AGW is NOT catastrophic afterall. Once you study websites from both sides, it is easy to see the warmists sites are moslty propaganda because they have a knack to hide, bury or ignore any data that goes against the AGW religion.


Until Google and the warmists can shut down the skeptic websites, they can't win, because the data  which would validate their computer models is NOT on their side. Truth, if it is heard, eventually trumps falsehoods everytime.

I too have been to

I too have been to RealClimate, and I also have the opinion that its mostly propaganda as well. Some science there but all filtered thru "AGW warming is a proven fact" pair of glasses. No discussion there at all on the possible short comings in the models... like clouds; why the models can't explain the lack of warming.... why they still maintain the Hockey Stick is good science... they propagate alarmist junk like the sea level is going to rise by perhaps a meter or more by 2100 when sea level rise rates are easily shown to be currently decreasing. Also seems fishy to me they attributed the cooling conveniently  to aerosols" in the 1960s and 70s which were subsequently overpowered again by CO2 starting in the 80s. There is also no discussion as to what the temperatures should have looked like without CO2 warming for the 1900s (other than the discredited Hockey Stick reconstruction which would have you believe the 1900s should have been cooling pretty much the whole time)


Then, you go to places like wattsupwiththat and you find a much more thorough discussion of the data and get to look at all the data, not just data someone wants you to see. Once you study all the information with an open mind, it is easy to see there are major problems with the models and ALL is not settled as the warmists would have you believe.

... spend a few hours at RealClimate

I did spend a few days, not hours, at RealClimate and that convinced me that it was a propaganda blog, not a scientific one.  I then went looking for real scientific debate instead of sham ridicule of anything other than the party line and found it elsewhere.

I suspect RealClimate has converted more scientists and engineers into AGW sceptics than any other project.

REAL CLIMATE where pal

REAL CLIMATE where pal reviewing was elevated to an art form. Where hiding data and apparently destroying email evidence is ok. The home of post normal science where the data depends on your gut feel and what you had for breakfast.

Get real.

All it takes is *one*

All it takes is *one* inconvenient fact to take down the whole edifice of a theory. That temperature does in no way track the modern upswing in CO2 concentration is that inconvenient fact. There is no upswing in temperature trend. The global average tells the story, as long as you plot it fairly instead of using graphsmanship tricks to make modern warming look like it's extreme instead of a mere continuation of the pre-WWII trend, before CO2 kicked in big time:

Yes, it's warming. That's a straw man argument you are presenting. Who denies that climate is changing? How can you deny simple charts of temperature? Oh, sure, NASA's is too hot, blah blah blah. Little adjustments. But post Little Ice Age warming is part and parcel of the skeptical argument already and always has been. Since there is no change in trend, the alarmist side must by rights claim that there would have been a downward change in trend without CO2. Prove *that* one!

 

-=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. (Chemistry etc., Columbia/Harvard)

The ocean is taking up huge amounts of heat

You claim to have a PhD in chemistry but you don't understand the concept of a buffer. Of course, there are lag times in the heating of the atmosphere.

I hope the Kochs are paying you to play the fool.

3000+ ARGO descending bouys, are the premier sensing devices

And ARGO says you are full of poop. The oceans are cooling.


Loehle, Craig. 2009. Cooling of the global ocean since 2003. Energy & Environment 20(1&2): 99-102.



 

Google's propaganda push

The "denialist claims" are based on real science.

The reason that Google will fail is not that we "denists" have closed minds, but that we know what is real science and what is junk science. The AGW-IPCC claims , call them the "bedwetters," are based on a set of false assumptions which cannot be defended as real science and are not supported by unaltered and unbastardized real world data. 

Bedwetters believe that if they simply publicized their fabrications and advise people to understand science by emotion, they will be better off.

If you are standing on the railroad tracks and a train is coming, you can pray all you want, but you will still die. It is up to you to remove yourself from the tracks, based on our instinct for survival. Of course, the religious will then claim that God "inspired" you to save yourself. Which do think came first, the instinct for self-preservation or self-serving platitudes from religion?

My self-preservation instinct tells me that, before I make important decisions regarding major local and world policy, I want to see and understand the real world science and not "science" produced by a political propaganda body called the IPCC which has a political agenda that has nothing to do with preventing global warming - they know that as they also know that we have not warmed since 1995 and that a trace gas cannot drive the climate. 'Climate change" is a political agenda and not a real world climate concern.

Google's propaganda push

The "denialist claims" are based on real science.

The reason that Google will fail is not that we "denists" have closed minds, but that we know what is real science and what is junk science. The AGW-IPCC claims , call them the "bedwetters," are based on a set of false assumptions which cannot be defended as real science and are not supported by unaltered and unbastardized real world data. 

Bedwetters believe that if they simply publicized their fabrications and advise people to understand science by emotion, they will be better off.

If you are standing on the railroad tracks and a train is coming, you can pray all you want, but you will still die. It is up to you to remove yourself from the tracks, based on our instinct for survival. Of course, the religious will then claim that God "inspired" you to save yourself. Which do think came first, the instinct for self-preservation or self-serving platitudes from religion?

My self-preservation instinct tells me that, before I make important decisions regarding major local and world policy, I want to see and understand the real world science and not "science" produced by a political propaganda body called the IPCC which has a political agenda that has nothing to do with preventing global warming - they know that as they also know that we have not warmed since 1995 and that a trace gas cannot drive the climate. 'Climate change" is a political agenda and not a real world climate concern.

Quote from your article:

Quote from your article: "People who are opposed to regulation ... [are] not trying to prove that climate change [science] is wrong. They're trying to prove that there is an argument going on," he said. "They're just trying to create noise."

For those unaware of it, this talking point was essentially created by anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan back in 1996, a person who is described at the epicenter of the '96-to-present smear of skeptic climate scientists. See this article:  "How an Enviro-Advocacy Group Propped Up Global Warming in the MSM" 

Google Panel on Skeptics is Wrong

Show us conclusive proof:

that with a couple degrees temperature rise there will be less area on planet to produce food. 

that tropical areas farmed with expert knowledge & diligence as in central US, they cannot produce food.

that with a couple degrees temperature rise mankind will no longer be able to improve yields with hybrids.

that a slight increase in CO2 will make yields fall.

If you can't do that all of that then back off.

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