Texas Climate Change - not happening

[aceplace]

Actually, I am not. You were one the that brought up the element of democracy in science by saying:

You brought up the fact SO MANY scientists are skeptical as though it is a reason to be skeptical of the science. Oh, but wait, then you say scientists don't settle disagreements by some sort of popular vote. So science is a democracy only when you say it is.

Yes, if there are thousands of scientists that see a problem with a theory, then we should take that seriously.

For example, if 20% of medical researchers see a possible danger in a popular drug, should you ignore their concern until 51% think its dangerous?

In the case of climate science, the vast majority are funded only if they support the carbon dioxide theory. If the Republicans take over, defund the carbon dioxide people and divert the funds to research other climate theories, then most climate scientists would support those other theories in order to earn a living.

Sure, some climate scientists may prefer to sell insurance or teach in a high school rather than compromise their beliefs. Some will cynically argue for whoever pays them. And many who could not find work because of their beliefs will now have an opportunity to work professionally.

It's a classic case of follow the money. If you thought scientific politics was better and purer than that, then you may be a bit naive.

[aceplace]

No, climate science is not a democracy.

Climate science is more like a dictatorship in a Third World country. One political faction uses whatever brutalities they need to hang on to power and prestige for as long as they can, until the inevitable revolution that puts another gang in control. Or until some major world power stops funding them.

And no matter who is in power, nothing ever changes for the better.

P.S. If you want to find out how to keep your scientific faction in control, read the ClimateGate emails that came out of the Climate Research Unit at the Univ of East Anglia.

[JasonDallas]

Well, Jason, the Urban Heat Island may extend farther out than you expect.

The Urban Heat Island has been measured to be a few degrees even in the vicinity of Alaska towns with just a few thousand people.

So, what you're saying is the climate is changing for the 17 million people of DFW, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, McAllen, and El Paso but NOT for the million or so people living in rural Texas. Whew, that's a relief!

[aceplace]

I am talking about Texas. I have lived here my entire life. I am talking about our recent summers. Whether we can extrapolate something from those recent summers, I'll live it up to the experts.

I'll save you the trouble.

Some Texas summers will be hotter than others. Some will be cooler.

If you pick your start and end dates carefully, you can find a span of years that contain more hot summers than the period before, or the period after.

[aceplace]

So, what you're saying is the climate is changing for the 17 million people of DFW, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, McAllen, and El Paso but NOT for the million or so people living in rural Texas. Whew, that's a relief!

No, the climate has been changing everywhere.

It's always been changing and it always will change.

It's always been the case that cities are hotter than the country.

And the millions that live in the Texas metro areas have no problem with that.

If they did have a problem with it, the metro areas would not have millions of people.

[aceplace]

You sometimes hear the phrase "Climate is changing faster than ever before".

Well, that's impossible. Want to know why?

By scientific definition, climate is the difference in the weather from one 30 year point in time to the next.

So if the weather in July 1, 1979 is different from July 1, 2009, there has been some climate change.

So the climate can only change once every 30 years. not twice or three times every 30 years.

Now if they decided to redefine the term to every 15 years instead of the 30, then it would be changing twice as fast.

On the other hand, if they redefined it as every 60 years, it would be changing more slowly.

I'll let you all know if they change the definition.

[aceplace]

Al Gore has said that the loss of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro in Africa is caused by "Climate Change"

But the change in humidity on the mountain that causes the snow to evaporate into the dry air is itself a change in the local climate.

So what Mr Gore really means is that:

Climate change is caused by climate change.

[AeroD]

It's a classic case of follow the money. If you thought scientific politics was better and purer than that, then you may be a bit naive.

That cuts both ways if we are going to be assigning motive. If a scientist that is skeptical of climate change is funded by a company or an institution whose interests are preserving the so-called status quo, are we to assume based on your own thinking that they are being less than scientific?

[AeroD]

In the case of climate science, the vast majority are funded only if they support the carbon dioxide theory. If the Republicans take over, defund the carbon dioxide people and divert the funds to research other climate theories, then most climate scientists would support those other theories in order to earn a living.

If the Republicans, when they controlled the House, Senate and White House, did not do it then, why do you think they will do it tomorrow?

[AeroD]

By scientific definition, climate is the difference in the weather from one 30 year point in time to the next.

So if the weather in July 1, 1979 is different from July 1, 2009, there has been some climate change.

So the climate can only change once every 30 years. not twice or three times every 30 years.

Now if they decided to redefine the term to every 15 years instead of the 30, then it would be changing twice as fast.

On the other hand, if they redefined it as every 60 years, it would be changing more slowly.

I'll let you all know if they change the definition.

So if that is the case, why did you start this thread using a 100-year metric, rather than a 30-year metric?

This was a hot summer in Texas, no doubt.

But what are the weather trends over the last 100 years?

Actually, they're pretty stable. There is no warming in Texas.

[aceplace]

That cuts both ways if we are going to be assigning motive. If a scientist that is skeptical of climate change is funded by a company or an institution whose interests are preserving the so-called status quo, are we to assume based on your own thinking that they are being less than scientific?

That's exactly right. They are not scientists, they are advocates for a particular client.

Judith Curry, however, is not that mercenary, in my opinion. I may disagree with her theories, but fully agree with her scientific integrity.

Another honest man is Bjorn Lomborg. He accepts the CO2 theory but argues that trying to prevent warming by cutting down on carbon emissions is a mistake. It would be better to spend the money elsewhere.

Steve McIntyre is an honest mathematician dedicated to uncovering scientific error. He found the statistical errors that demolished Dr Michael Mann's famous Hockey Stick theory. The scientific world owes him thanks.

Anthony Watts, an independent meteorologist and businessman, organized a team of researchers on a shoestring to photograph all the weather stations in the USA and examine them for compliance with Federal standards. He has documented close to a 90% failure rate. He now is the moderator of the most popular science blog on the internet, WattsUpWithThat. He publishes posts by both skeptics and "Warmers".

[aceplace]

If the Republicans, when they controlled the House, Senate and White House, did not do it then, why do you think they will do it tomorrow?

That's actually an excellent question, Aero.

The answer is that climate issues have migrated from being a scientific matter, of interest only in academia, to a political and policy issue. Many Democrats advocate reducing emissions for several reasons that their core constsiuencies are partial to, as well as the opportunity to increase control over the economy and collect more taxes, fund more social programs.

The Republicans have become aware that these policies are harmful to their constituencies, and want to cut off the threat by attacking the scientific credibility of the theory.

Essentially, an abstract scientific dispute has become a pawn for a major political struggle.

Since the so-called Cap-and-Trade rationing measures are failing politically, the Republicans and their allies among the Democrats are feeling pretty good right now.

[tamtagon]

The immediate reason to reduce the impact human activity has on the environment is to improve health. While no one may be able to prove anything specific about long term impact on the environment human activity will have, it's foolish to think it's okay.

[aceplace]

So if that is the case, why did you start this thread using a 100-year metric, rather than a 30-year metric?

No, I didn't redefine climate.

It is true, however, that the longer the timeline and the more data we have, the higher the quality of the conclusions we draw from the data. If the temperatures and precipitation in Texas have been stable over a 115 period of time, that is more significant that stability over a 5 or 10 year period.

[JasonDallas]

No, the climate has been changing everywhere.

It's always been changing and it always will change.

It's always been the case that cities are hotter than the country.

And the millions that live in the Texas metro areas have no problem with that.

If they did have a problem with it, the metro areas would not have millions of people.

The cities are reaching these new temps only very recently. Look at the data above. Lets not be silly, it will take people a long time to vote with their address on whether they have a problem with it or not. I for one love it. Growing subtropical plants has never been easier here. When's the last time unprotected P. Canariensis would surive the worst winter in 15+ years in Dallas? Not in the last 120 years of decent data, that's for sure.

Jason

[aceplace]

The immediate reason to reduce the impact human activity has on the environment is to improve health. While no one may be able to prove anything specific about long term impact on the environment human activity will have, it's foolish to think it's okay.

I'd think that we cannot avoid impacting the environment.

Whatever we do, there will be tradeoffs. For example, iin the 1890's, there were so many horse drawn carriages in our cities that the manure was a serious danger to public health. We gradually replaced the horses with gasoline engines, which reduced bacteriological infection, but became its own danger.

If we go back to the horse-and-buggy era, would that be better or worse? In what way? And in whose opinion?

[aceplace]

The cities are reaching these new temps only very recently. Look at the data above. Lets not be silly, it will take people a long time to vote with their address on whether they have a problem with it or not. I for one love it. Growing subtropical plants has never been easier here. When's the last time unprotected P. Canariensis would surive the worst winter in 15+ years in Dallas? Not in the last 120 years of decent data, that's for sure.

Jason

You might do some research and see if there's a correlation between population growth in DFW and Houston vs increase in temperature and relative humidity. Actually, that might be difficult because our machines, such as jet engines and glass walled buildings might skew the numbers.

[JasonDallas]

You sometimes hear the phrase "Climate is changing faster than ever before".

Well, that's impossible. Want to know why?

By scientific definition, climate is the difference in the weather from one 30 year point in time to the next.

So if the weather in July 1, 1979 is different from July 1, 2009, there has been some climate change.

So the climate can only change once every 30 years. not twice or three times every 30 years.

Now if they decided to redefine the term to every 15 years instead of the 30, then it would be changing twice as fast.

On the other hand, if they redefined it as every 60 years, it would be changing more slowly.

I'll let you all know if they change the definition.

The definition of the climatological norms (which I doubt you really know much about to be honest) isn't what needs to change to get a change in a period less than the sample size. The norms are recalculated every decade, and it doesn't matter if 2/3rds of the data is the same, it's still a new value. It's just like the senate, which can change significantly in 2 years despite 2/3rds of the people being the same.

Jason

[aceplace]

The definition of the climatological norms (which I doubt you really know much about to be honest) isn't what needs to change to get a change in a period less than the sample size. The norms are recalculated every decade, and it doesn't matter if 2/3rds of the data is the same, it's still a new value. It's just like the senate, which can change significantly in 2 years despite 2/3rds of the people being the same.

Jason

Not sure what you're talking about, Jason. As far as I know, the 30 year interval is how the IPCC defines climate. If you want to discuss definitions of other terms, you'll have to give us more specifics.

Many of us would think that a difference in weather over a 5 or 10 year span is just a random fluctuation, not a change from one climate regieme to another.l

[AeroD]

Not sure what you're talking about, Jason. As far as I know, the 30 year interval is how the IPCC defines climate. If you want to discuss definitions of other terms, you'll have to give us more specifics.

So again, you did not answer the question. Why 100 years rather than 30 years? If you are saying yourself 30 years = climate, than should you have started this thread about climate change based on a 30-year period.

Or would a 30-year period undermine your own point?

[aceplace]

So again, you did not answer the question. Why 100 years rather than 30 years? If you are saying yourself 30 years = climate, than should you have started this thread about climate change based on a 30 year period.

Or would a 30-year period undermine your own point?

No, not 100 years.

Using available data for a 115 year time frame is better than just using 5 or 10 years. If we had 200 or 300 years of reliable temp and rainfall that would be even better than 115. If we had good temperature numbers going back to the Roman Empire, that would be heaven on earth.

Why do you have a problem with a better data set?

[AeroD]

I'd think that we cannot avoid impacting the environment.

Whatever we do, there will be tradeoffs. For example, iin the 1890's, there were so many horse drawn carriages in our cities that the manure was a serious danger to public health. We gradually replaced the horses with gasoline engines, which reduced bacteriological infection, but became its own danger.

You underestimate ingenuity. There will be trade-offs no doubt, but we can probably minimize the impact of those trade-offs. As technology progresses, we can improve on those "imperfections".

[AeroD]

No, not 100 years.

Using available data for a 115 year period is better than just using 5 or 10 years. If we had 200 or 300 years of reliable temp and rainfall that would be even better than 115.

Why do you have a problem with a better data set?

No, but I have problem with you ignoring your own previous statements.

Again:

By scientific definition, climate is the difference in the weather from one 30 year point in time to the next.

Your own words. Again if the scientific defintion is 30 years, but you add another 70 years, then what you have does not meet the scientific definition of climate.

[aceplace]

You underestimate ingenuity. There will be trade-offs no doubt, but we can probably minimize the impact of those trade-offs. As technology progresses, we can improve on those "imperfections".

I agree that we can make good tradeoffs.

What is interesting is that neo Darwinism is quite good at describing certain biological processes, such as bacterial resistance...

But if we want to understand the evolution of industrial technology, it no longer applies. We do not produce engineering innovations by making small random changes to a product and then waiting to see if the environment selects them.

[aceplace]

No, but I have problem with you ignoring your own previous statements.

Again:

Your own words. Again if the scientific defintion is 30 years, but you add another 70 years, then what you have does not meet the scientific definition of climate.

Did I say I agree with the IPCC's definitions?

I have no problem with evaluating 115 years of weather data and drawing a tentative conclusion from it. And analyzing long ranges of data is a standard practice in climate science.

The NOAA data tells me there is no significant change in temperatures or in precipitation in the state over a 115 year period, in terms of the trend. The IPCC scientists do claim, however, that there is a significant change in global temperature, and it is primarily man-made (anthropogenic) since the 1970's.

According to the IPCC's definition of climate change, you cannot find a 30 year period anywhere in the 115 year range in which the weather was exactly the same at the start and end of the period. Thus, IPCC climate is always changing.

If you want to discuss something else, I'll be happy to engage your argument. Otherwise, I have no interest in commenting any further on this.

[AeroD]

Did I say I agree with the IPCC's definitions?

I have no problem with evaluating 115 years of weather data and drawing a tentative conclusion from it. And analyzing long ranges of data is a standard practice in climate science.

Maybe you need to change the subject.

No, I don't. You based your whole premise on 100-years. But you said climate was based on 30 years. Whether you agree with IPCC or not was not the issue when you originally stated:

You sometimes hear the phrase "Climate is changing faster than ever before".

Well, that's impossible. Want to know why?

By scientific definition, climate is the difference in the weather from one 30 year point in time to the next.

So if the weather in July 1, 1979 is different from July 1, 2009, there has been some climate change.

So the climate can only change once every 30 years. not twice or three times every 30 years.

Not my fault you do not know to keep your story straight.

[aceplace]

I said there was no warming in Texas, over the 115 year period. That is my original premise.

This was a hot summer in Texas, no doubt.

But what are the weather trends over the last 100 years?

Actually, they're pretty stable. There is no warming in Texas.

The NOAA weather info has some good charts about our lack of a weather trend. Give it a look...

Here's the September weather trend: http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bi.../hr-display3.pl It shows a .12 cooling weather trend. After a century, our September should be 1 degree cooler: http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bi.../hr-display3.pl

Aero, you're quibbling over words because you can't think of anything else to say.

[aceplace]

Here's an interesting quote about how measured temperatures may be adjusted up:

“Application of the Station History Adjustment Procedure (yellow line) resulted in an average increase in US temperatures, especially from 1950 to 1980. During this time, many sites were relocated from city locations to airports and from roof tops to grassy areas. This often resulted in cooler readings than were observed at the previous sites. When adjustments were applied to correct for these artificial changes, average US temperature anomalies were cooler in the first half of the 20th century and effectively warmed throughout the later half.”

Is this for real? Maybe. I still haven't located the ultimate source, and I do not vouch for the authenticity of this quote. For all I know, it's a hoax.

It is very consistent, however, with the pressure on the climate science community to cook up evidence to support man made warming.

[aceplace]

Got the reference for the quote above.

The URL is http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushc....html#abstract

I don't know about man-made global warming. How about computer-made global warming?

[AeroD]

Aero, you're quibbling over words because you can't think of anything else to say.

No, sir. You're playing loose with words. In science, words have meanings. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own definitions. But even by the definitions you provide, you contradict yourself. You are no better than those scientists that you accuse of being less than scientific.

For all we know, maybe a 30-year trend, which is climate, as you said it was according to its scientific definition, may in fact support the same trend you point out 100 years out, which you say is nothing. If so, congrats, you get a gold star.

Good night, good luck, son.

Point

Texas Climate Change - not happening

This was a hot summer in Texas, no doubt.

But what are the weather trends over the last 100 years?

Actually, they're pretty stable. There is no warming in Texas.

The NOAA weather info has some good charts about our lack of a weather trend. Give it a look...

Here's the September weather trend: http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bi.../hr-display3.pl It shows a .12 cooling weather trend. After a century, our September should be 1 degree cooler: http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bi.../hr-display3.pl

Counterpoint

You sometimes hear the phrase "Climate is changing faster than ever before".

Well, that's impossible. Want to know why?

By scientific definition, climate is the difference in the weather from one 30 year point in time to the next.

So if the weather in July 1, 1979 is different from July 1, 2009, there has been some climate change.

So the climate can only change once every 30 years. not twice or three times every 30 years.

Now if they decided to redefine the term to every 15 years instead of the 30, then it would be changing twice as fast.

On the other hand, if they redefined it as every 60 years, it would be changing more slowly.

I'll let you all know if they change the definition.

Point

If the science is so conclusive, why are there so many skeptical scientists? A legitimate scientific principle, such as Relativity, the gravity laws, thermodynamics, nuclear physics, etc., does not have hundreds of skeptic websites.

Counterpoint

Aero, you're under the impression that science is a democracy, that scientists settle their disagreements by some sort of popular vote. No, that's not the way it works.

Yes, if there are thousands of scientists that see a problem with a theory, then we should take that seriously.

[AeroD]

Also from the NOAA:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...cag3/cag3.html

[AeroD]

More crazy alarmist non-sense from the organization that Ace got his information from:

http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/2010/videos/soc2009

[aceplace]

Aero, I think it's time to call it a day... or a night... before we start to take things personally.

What do you say we agree to disagree?

Maybe we'll meet somewhere and settle it over a couple of beers?

Besides, the Obama administration has decided to ban the term "Climate Change"

The new politically correct term is "Climate Disruption".

[aceplace]

The IPCC has long been the organization that claims some credibility foor the Global Warming movement. But lately, it's credibility has been questioned... badly... and its head, Rajendra Pachauri, is increasingly been pressurd to resign, after a string of scientific scandals has come to light.

Here's a quote:

One of the most alarming predictions was the forecast of Dr Rajendra Pachauri that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, causing an environmental disaster. As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the official United Nations body in this area, Dr Pachauri’s warning commanded massive attention. But now even he admits it was not justified.

It is obvious that Dr Pachauri should resign and take the rest of his discredited panel with him. But there is a very good reason why those who first challenged his views need not bother to press the issue: while Dr Pachauri and his allies remain in place few people will believe future IPCC scare stories about the world drastically overheating.

And that is a much bigger problem for climate change fanatics than for those inclined to take their warnings with a large pinch of salt.

Full article: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/201384

[aceplace]

THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.

A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.

It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.

Full article: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27171

[aceplace]

How do we know that man made glibal warming is happening? Check for one of these troubling symptoms:

1. Heat
2. Cold
3. Mild temperatures
4. Wet
5. Dry
6. Normal precipitation
7. Snow
8. Lack of snow
9. Floods
10. Drought
11. Sunny days
12. Cloudy days
13. Days when you sit in front of your computer and never go outside
14. Wind
15. Calm

If you see any of these going on in your neighborhood, please report them immediately to NRDC.

[aceplace]

Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr has posted an in-press paper which demonstrates that ocean temperatures flattened in 2001-2002 and have been on a negative trend since. The ocean temperature trend is far more important than the hopelessly adjusted & flawed land temperature record to assess global warming, as noted by Dr. Pielke.

During this period, CO2 levels have steadily climbed, which according to the IPCC should have caused a positive radiative imbalance resulting in about .16C warming. The fact that ocean temperatures have instead been cooling falsifies the entire anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

Paper: R. S. Knox, David H. Douglass 2010: Recent energy balance of Earth International Journal of Geosciences, 2010, vol. 1, no. 3 (November) In press doi:10.4236/ijg2010.00000."

Just in case you can't find this journal at your local 7-11, here's the abstract:

ABSTRACT: A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.

[AeroD]

Reason is no alarmist.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/2...does-it-all-m/

How does all this affect what we know about global warming?

The climate is warming. Nothing revealed by Climate-gate changes that fact. For example, satellite data from two different scientific groups, the University of Alabama at Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems, indicate that during the last 30 years average global temperatures have been increasing at a rate of 0.13 degree Celsius and 0.153 degree Celsius per decade, respectively. The disputed CRU surface data indicate an increase of 0.15 degree Celsius per decade since the mid-1970s, which is within that range.

In addition, research has uncovered numerous trends that are consistent with a warming world. For example, sea levels are rising, mountain glaciers across the globe are receding, the behavior of plants and animals indicates that spring is coming earlier, recent satellite monitoring finds that ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are thinning, and during the last 30 years the area covered by Arctic sea ice has been declining by 4 percent per decade.

If the planet is definitely warming, why have temperatures remained more or less steady since 1998?

Although the 2000s are the warmest decade in the modern record, there has been little discernible warming since 1998. Why this has happened and what it means are matters of dispute. Researchers convinced of global climate change believe the pause is the result of natural variations, such as periodic shifts in ocean currents, that will dissipate during the next few years, followed by a resumption of warming, perhaps even at a faster pace. Skeptics argue that the computer models’ failure to predict this pause suggests they cannot reliably predict future warming.

....

What changes will occur as a result of Climategate?

One happy result of Climategate could be that the climate research community heeds Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry: “Climate data needs to be publicly available and well documented. This includes metadata that explains how the data were treated and manipulated, what assumptions were made in assembling the data sets, and what data was omitted and why.”

Greater transparency should not be limited to temperature data but should include all aspects of climate science, including the software used by computer climate models. Only through such transparency can other researchers determine whether the models are adequate forecasters of future climate change or merely prejudices made plausible.

But there is one important thing that more transparency won’t fix: the complications and uncertainties inherent in crafting policies to reduce global warming. Making climate data and climate model code available to independent researchers will lead to a deeper understanding of the scientific uncertainties surrounding man-made global warming, but this could render projections of future warming less clear, demonstrating that it is harder than previously believed to know what the best policies are to address the problem.

[aceplace]

The climate is warming. Nothing revealed by Climate-gate changes that fact

It has been warming since the 1970's, but it is not warming now. It was cooling from the 1940's to the 1970;s, and warming from the 1910's to the 1940's, cooling from the 1880's to the 1910's, and so forth. But there is also a longer term warming trend superimposed on these 30 year cycles starting from the Little Ice Age. These longer term warming and cooling trends also occur in cycles. By contrast, the growth in carbon dioxide is continuous and steady, every year there's a little bit more of it, so its growth does not cause the heating and cooling cycles. There are other phenomena that affect the temperature.

The real problem with climate science today is that its practitioners have been obsessed with carbon dioxide as a cause to the exclusion of other natural phenomena that affect the weather, such as ocean cycles, changes in the sun, the effects of clouds, and so forth.

If the planet is definitely warming, why have temperatures remained more or less steady since 1998?

That's generally aggreed to by everyone in the debate. Dr Phil Jones, a warmist, admits that the warming from 1995 to now is not statistically significant, that is, it is weaker than the random fluctuations we would normally expect in temperature, and it may itself be an illusion, part of the random fluctuation. The carbon dioxide theory of course does not explain this, in fact it looks lika a normal temperature cycle has just topped out.

What changes will occur as a result of Climategate?

Another result is that the general public has become more aware of the flimsy and unreliable nature of climate science, and of science in general as a guide to public policy. The proponents of catastrophic Global Warming have been so cocky in the past about the reliability of their science that this revelation, that exposed their private uncertainty, has seriously damaged the credibility of their scientific expertise... sort of like seeing the Wizard of Oz standing behind the curtain. Climate science will have less and less influence on what governments actually do.

But there is one important thing that more transparency won’t fix: the complications and uncertainties inherent in crafting policies to reduce global warming

It may very well be that nothing can be done to modify the warming, or prevent any long-term cooling. It will continue to occur even if we destroy every power plant in the world, revert to horses and buggies, or sacrifice virgins to the weather gods.

The best solution would be to increase the world's wealth so that we can easily adapt to any possible change in the long-term weather, whether the planet is in a warming or cooling cycle. There will eventually be another full-scale ice age, with glaciers over half the present United States, and we have to adapt even to that.

[aceplace]

Here's a glimpse as to where politics is going... both the Democrat and the Republican are against national Cap and Trade for dealing with Global Warming.

Republican Senate nominee John Raese is hoping that concerns over Democratic cap and trade proposals will help propel him to a surprising victory in the special election to fill the late West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd's seat.
...
"We call it cap and trade Manchin-style," Raese said. "Do the people of West Virginia trust a governor in the state of West Virginia who has already implemented cap and trade here in West Virginia? They're a little concerned about sending him to Washington right now."
...
Manchin said that he would not support a cap and trade bill at the national level and has "gone toe to toe" with President Obama on the issue, even as Raese has worked relentlessly to portray the two Democrats as kindred spirits politically.
...
Turning back to the coal industry, Raese said that he had "zero" belief in the idea that human activity was contributing to climate change.

"The oceans that surround the world produce 185 billion tons of CO2 per annum. Man per annum only produces six billion tons, so what could possibly be the concern?" Raese said. "One volcano puts out more toxic gases-one volcano-than man makes in a whole year. And when you look at this ‘climate change,' and when you look at the regular climate change that we all have in the world, we have warm and we have cooling spells."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...in_107317.html

[aceplace]

Out of the 6 billion tons produced by man, what is the portion contributed by plastic water bottles? A couple of tons? A hundred?

What about the fizz out of a Coke bottle? Should we ban Coca Cola? Maybe the polar bears better stop drinking it during the Super Bowl?

[AeroD]

Here's a glimpse as to where politics is going... both the Democrat and the Republican are against national Cap and Trade for dealing with Global Warming.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...in_107317.html

You really quoted a politician? Seriously, you quoted a professional class that has said everything from "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" to hanging "Mission Accomplished" banner.

[AeroD]

Out of the 6 billion tons produced by man, what is the portion contributed by plastic water bottles? A couple of tons? A hundred?

What about the fizz out of a Coke bottle? Should we ban Coca Cola? Maybe the polar bears better stop drinking it during the Super Bowl?

The reason for not using so many plastic water bottles has less to do with climate and more to do with waste. No, Ace government need not intervene.

Anybody who buys bottled water, where tap water is available, is burning money. One re-usable water bottle beats buying a bottle of water everyday. I save money and use less resources. Mock being thrifty all you want. But if you like spending more than a buck day on bottled tap water, by all means. It's your money.

You do not need to ban Coca Cola, but that stuff is just awful. And we wonder why our kids are so fat.

Your better off going to a pub a getting a one pint of beer than drinking Coca Cola.

[aceplace]

Here's a geologist with a PhD:

DOMINATING ROLE OF OCEANS IN CLIMATE CHANGE by Dr. Harrison “Jack” Schmitt (Geologist and former Apollo Astronaut), Guest Editorial on SEPP

Monday, September 27th 2010, 8:21 AM EDT Co2sceptic (Site Admin) The scientific rationale behind the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed massive intrusion into American life in the name of fighting climate change has no scientific or constitutional justification. This hard left excursion into socialism, fully supported by the Congressional Leadership and the President, has no basis in observational science, as has been discussed previously relative to climate history, temperature, and carbon dioxide.

In addition, oceans of the Earth play the dominant role in the perpetuation and mediation of naturally induced change of global climate.[1] Density variations linking the Northern and Southern Hemisphere portions of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans through the Southern Ocean drive the primary circulation system that controls hemispheric and global climate. Differences in temperature and salt concentration produce these density variations that circulate heat around the planet. For the last several years in this circulating environment, the sea surface temperature of the oceans appears to be leveling off or decreasing[2] with no net heat increase for the last 58 years[3] and particularly since 2003[4] and possibly since 1990[5]. The long-term climatic implications of this recent broad scale cooling are not known.

Al Gore accuses skeptics of believing the moon landings were faked. Well, this skeptic actually thinks he really walked on the moon.

[AeroD]

Here's a geologist with a PhD:


Al Gore accuses skeptics of believing the moon landings were faked. Well, this skeptic actually thinks he really walked on the moon.

Again, you are the one worried about the injection of politics into science, your geologist immediately injects politics into the debate. Congrats!

[aceplace]

Again, you are the one worried about the injection of politics into science, your geologist immediately injects politics into the debate. Congrats!

He wants to get politics out of the debate. As do the West Virginia candidates.

[aceplace]

Your better off going to a pub a getting a one pint of beer than drinking Coca Cola.

What about all the carbon dioxide in a head of beer? The warmists should give that up as well.

The warmist creed: "Blow up the power plants.Abolish the evil oil companies. But please, please, don't take away my brewskies!".

[AeroD]

What about all the carbon dioxide in a head of beer? The warmists should give that up as well.

Hyperbole. But thanks for playing.

[aceplace]

Hyperbole. But thanks for playing.

Not hyperbole. More like warmist hypocrisy.

[AeroD]

He wants to get politics out of the debate. As do the West Virginia candidates.

Please. If that were true, his opening paragraph would have said:

Monday, September 27th 2010, 8:21 AM EDT Co2sceptic (Site Admin) The scientific rationale behind climate change has no scientific justification. It has no basis in observational science, as has been discussed previously relative to climate history, temperature, and carbon dioxide.