"How They Faked Global Warming" [REOPENED: Read post 354]

[Lemmy]

Which reality? That is i guess the essence of my argument.

I find it hard to believe that all data that supports the widely accepted GW-theories is somehow incorrect, nor do i believe that you could apply some objective process of elimination, and only remain with data that does not support those theories.

Note that i'm trying really hard not to get stuck in specific details of the GW debate. It's really the decision process that intrigues me here.
No matter what decision is made, there will always be people who think it is the wrong choice, but perhaps we could at least agree on a sort of system by which to make decisions.

A bit like democracy, we may not always agree with the outcome, but most people will agree that as a system, it's acceptable.

[Dale]

Which reality? That is i guess the essence of my argument.

I find it hard to believe that all data that supports the widely accepted GW-theories is somehow incorrect, nor do i believe that you could apply some objective process of elimination, and only remain with data that does not support those theories.

Note that i'm trying really hard not to get stuck in specific details of the GW debate. It's really the decision process that intrigues me here.
No matter what decision is made, there will always be people who think it is the wrong choice, but perhaps we could at least agree on a sort of system by which to make decisions.

A bit like democracy, we may not always agree with the outcome, but most people will agree that as a system, it's acceptable.

My point all along is that not all data that supports AGW is correct because some of that data is output from inaccurate incorrect models. I've said all along that data from models says X will occur, when observations are showing X/2 (50%) occurring. I don't NOT believe in AGW, just that the UN is pushing exaggerated results to Govts.

In terms of the decision process, due to exaggerated results from inaccurate incorrect models the decision process has been rushed, badly thought out, badly planned and is being badly implemented.

[Lemmy]

Fair enough.

If it is that simple though, what i'm wondering then is this. The people supporting those inaccurate models have been able to convince a lot of people that they are correct, their arguments are apparently more convincing than yours. I can accept that there is some pressure on leaders to lean a certain way, but you can't bully everyone into believing one thing or the other. A lot of people are genuinely convinced of one way or the other...how are they supposed to know which version is closer to the truth?

You say models are incorrect because the observations dont match the predicted result. Undoubtedly someone else will come along and point out that there is something wrong with the observations. A third person might come along and say those observations aren't really important for the model's accuracy as a whole.

[Dale]

Fair enough.

If it is that simple though, what i'm wondering then is this. The people supporting those inaccurate models have been able to convince a lot of people that they are correct, their arguments are apparently more convincing than yours. I can accept that there is some pressure on leaders to lean a certain way, but you can't bully everyone into believing one thing or the other. A lot of people are genuinely convinced of one way or the other...how are they supposed to know which version is closer to the truth?

I think this comes down to the NGO's/lobbyists. For example, if a scientist says the range of warming to 2100 is between 2-4C, the warmist NGO/lobbyist will always say 4C. And on the other side, if a scientist says the range is 0.2-2C, the anti-warmist NGO/lobbyist will always say 0.2C. The scientists themselves are all very similar in their analysis, it's the NGO's/lobbyists who've succeeded in splitting the populace. All scientists agree the world has warmed, that human activities have/will add to the warming, and that additional CO2 is a warming influence on climate. What scientists can't agree on yet, is the influence of feedbacks, specifically the feedback of water. That's all. When you really get into it, it's surprising just how little separates the two sides of the debate. However, as always with NGO's/lobbyists, if they're involved then you know that agendas are in play. There is also another group, which is fairly new. The paid Government shill. These people are paid/funded by the Government to push the Govt's agenda. These are people such as John Cook (Skeptical Science) who is paid by the Govt through the Uni of Queensland as a "Climate Communicator" to push popular opinion in the direction of Govt policies.

You say models are incorrect because the observations dont match the predicted result. Undoubtedly someone else will come along and point out that there is something wrong with the observations. A third person might come along and say those observations aren't really important for the model's accuracy as a whole.

I say models are inaccurate/incorrect due to over-estimating the feedback of water. We're also past those other two points, where there is now constant manipulation of historical data, and NGO's/lobbyists saying that observations are not important, "it's the science and models that are important". Computer games over observations.

[El_Cid]

Well what is interesting in this whole 'real world observation' vs 'predicted/moddeled' results, is that i can say with 100% correctness that my real world observations show that the weather is different now compared to when i was growing up and a number of generations before me (when you speak to older people etc). If there is anything to take from real world observations of weather from around the world, it is that weather behaves in a much more extreme many now. Be it snap cold winters, your local cooling in australia, local warming in most of western europe, heat waves and violent storms across the usa, even basic temp ranges over a single day etc.

So from my personal experience of it, just going on the weather i experience these days compared to what i expereinced growing up, i'd say if anything direct observation chimes exactly with the AGW message of a general rise in temp AND more extreme/variable weather patterns through the year. I don't need a scientists computer model to tell me something is changing. And one issue i see down the line is about food production, our whole agricultural system depends on the weather and insects(bees etc) to function. I didn't get any cherries this year due to an early heat wave that brought out the tree blossom early, which then got storm damaged, so resulted in a very short window for pollination. Added to that was a right mix of very wet/and very hot dry days, one after another, that resulted in a mold issue and black fly infestation on the leave tips.

Now that's just a couple of cherry trees. Extrapolate that kind of issue on a global scale around food producing regions and that means you'll have issues, especially if things carry on in the current pattern they seem to be going re AGW and weather changes.

So again i'll just iterate, all the observable data you care to use (agriculture sector is a good one to data mine as they are intouch and intune with the weather more than most) just indicates the AGW concern is real, and thus the scientific consensus is what it is for a reason.

The whole smoke-screen about UN control is just that, and really very obvious when you know the kind of people and industries that would push that 'fear' anyway. It's the equivalent of 'reds in the bed' kind of social engineering that went on during the cold war. And it's pushed by all our old 'usual suspects' that are at the root of most of the bad stuff in the world, and they tend to come in on the right of the political spectrum (it's just a fact, rather than a judgement on people that are right wing themselves, you are in general just being exploited by these people for their personal financial gain).

[Dale]

Do I have to post the observations showing your claims to be wrong AGAIN? I'm getting rather bored with it TBH.

Temps have risen, but extreme weather has not.

Point.
Blank.
Absolute.
Fact.

EDIT: For your benefit, from the Reserve Bank of Australia, global food yields. Note how it's constantly increased, despite what alarmists say.

[Lemmy]

The scientists themselves are all very similar in their analysis, it's the NGO's/lobbyists who've succeeded in splitting the populace. All scientists agree the world has warmed, that human activities have/will add to the warming, and that additional CO2 is a warming influence on climate. What scientists can't agree on yet, is the influence of feedbacks, specifically the feedback of water. That's all. When you really get into it, it's surprising just how little separates the two sides of the debate.

So you do follow the scientific consensus!

Anyway, thanks for indulging me, you appear much less extremist than my initial impression. Part of it may be how you're experiencing the AGW debate in Australia (and my lack of reading the entire thread )...for reference our government has no plans for a carbon tax or other such controversial measures.

[PiMan]

EDIT: For your benefit, from the Reserve Bank of Australia, global food yields. Note how it's constantly increased, despite what alarmists say.

Of course yields have increased. A lot of people have been putting a lot of money into getting more out of every hectare of farmland. It would be an interesting comparison to see the differences between the crops and farming techniques of the 1960s and today.

[Dale]

Of course yields have increased. A lot of people have been putting a lot of money into getting more out of every hectare of farmland. It would be an interesting comparison to see the differences between the crops and farming techniques of the 1960s and today.

El_Cid was saying that because he didn't get any cherries this year, that the world's agriculture is failing. That graph shows the logical common sense fact that it is in fact growing very healthily, regardless of alarmist claims that global warming will kill off food production.

[Bantams]

All I know is its been raining here for more than 40 days and 40 nights global warming I want some of that!

[Dale]

Ok I take it all back. CAGW is very real, and I found proof of El_Cid's extreme weather! From CBS Richmond's weather report for this week:

[Lancer]

[El_Cid]

El_Cid was saying that because he didn't get any cherries this year, that the world's agriculture is failing. That graph shows the logical common sense fact that it is in fact growing very healthily, regardless of alarmist claims that global warming will kill off food production.

umm not quite mr drama queen

And one issue i see down the line is about food production, our whole agricultural system depends on the weather and insects(bees etc) to function. I didn't get any cherries this year due to an early heat wave that brought out the tree blossom early, which then got storm damaged, so resulted in a very short window for pollination. Added to that was a right mix of very wet/and very hot dry days, one after another, that resulted in a mold issue and black fly infestation on the leave tips.

Now that's just a couple of cherry trees. Extrapolate that kind of issue on a global scale around food producing regions and that means you'll have issues,

I probably should have put a 'potentialy' like this:

'Extrapolate that kind of issue on a global scale around food producing regions and that means you'll potentialy have issues'.

But i would have thought my opening sentence was open enough to be read as not being a statement of fact as opposed to asking a question? And of course we are having huge issue with our pollinating bees as we all know. But whatever, feel free to overreact if it makes you feel good

And i can't use your link clip Dale sadly, so that joke will have to pass me by sadly. But i'll end with asking what has been the temps across the usa recently? Did it result in any difficulties? just saying, it could all just be in my mind of course, and it's probably best to just keep on putting out lots of CO2

[Dale]

umm not quite mr drama queen

You're the one that said it, not me. You were being the drama queen by saying that the globe will face food problems because you didn't get any cherries.

And i can't use your link clip Dale sadly, so that joke will have to pass me by sadly. But i'll end with asking what has been the temps across the usa recently? Did it result in any difficulties? just saying, it could all just be in my mind of course, and it's probably best to just keep on putting out lots of CO2

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1fUm...layer_embedded

USA is only 3% of the globe's surface. Australia is about the same, and we've been having a pretty cold time of it recently. When it's hot in one spot, it's cold in another.

Oh that's right, you're a cherry picker.

HA! See what I did there?

[Lancer]

So weather is climate? I mean every time I mentioned the cold weather some know it all said weather is not climate. Now that its hot somewhere it is? :confused:

[Dale]

So weather is climate? I mean every time I mentioned the cold weather some know it all said weather is not climate. Now that its hot somewhere it is? :confused:

Only when the weather goes their way mate, only then.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Anyway i saw this article (yes a BBC one Dale ) and thought it could go here as i believe it related to the AGW debate:

'Washington DC region swelters after storm cuts power':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18656648

Now hang on a sec - while a possible consequence of global warming could be an increased incidence of severe weather, that is far more conjectural than the observed fact that warming is happening, or the conclusion that has been reached by most that said warming is due to human influences. Plus individual instances like this heatwave, however impressive they seem (especially to those who have to live through them, or those whose girlfriends suddenly have to survive without Flipboard for a while because of the power cuts associated with the nuts weather), aren't evidence of anything on a planetary scale.

Remember how a winter or two ago the self-same US coast got hit with 'snowmageddon', a record-breaking winter storm? I remember hearing right-wing TV pundits loudly proclaiming that this one event disproved the fact that Earth is warming. Hogwash. Snowmageddon and this heatwave are two extreme points to put on the graph, for sure - but they will most likely be swamped by the majority of points that show average weather. It would be a huge study to show a clear link between extreme weather instances and global warming (which is doubtless being looked into by someone right now), and I'm sure it'd be very hard to make a conclusive link, since hurricanes, storms and heatwaves on a local scale are nothing new.

Although, I am curious about what the right and left partisan TV and radio hosts in the US are saying about this heatwave. Is it the reverse now to the Snowmageddon winter - the left saying this is proof whereas the right is not commenting?

[Dale]

Now hang on a sec - while a possible consequence of global warming could be an increased incidence of severe weather, that is far more conjectural than the observed fact that warming is happening, or the conclusion that has been reached by most that said warming is due to human influences. Plus individual instances like this heatwave, however impressive they seem (especially to those who have to live through them, or those whose girlfriends suddenly have to survive without Flipboard for a while because of the power cuts associated with the nuts weather), aren't evidence of anything on a planetary scale.

Remember how a winter or two ago the self-same US coast got hit with 'snowmageddon', a record-breaking winter storm? I remember hearing right-wing TV pundits loudly proclaiming that this one event disproved the fact that Earth is warming. Hogwash. Snowmageddon and this heatwave are two extreme points to put on the graph, for sure - but they will most likely be swamped by the majority of points that show average weather. It would be a huge study to show a clear link between extreme weather instances and global warming (which is doubtless being looked into by someone right now), and I'm sure it'd be very hard to make a conclusive link, since hurricanes, storms and heatwaves on a local scale are nothing new.

Although, I am curious about what the right and left partisan TV and radio hosts in the US are saying about this heatwave. Is it the reverse now to the Snowmageddon winter - the left saying this is proof whereas the right is not commenting?

Well here's the alarmist view: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120703/D9VP9J681.html

Like I said, funny how this weather is 'global warming' whilst the years of very cold winters aren't.

[Lancer]

One can expect extremes of weather as part of global cooling, this localized heat wave is just an anomaly that proves that the cooling is a threat.

Turn the mind numbing logic they use back on therm.

[Lemmy]

Well here's the alarmist view: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120703/D9VP9J681.html

Like I said, funny how this weather is 'global warming' whilst the years of very cold winters aren't.

Hmm? Sure they are.
Melting Arctic link to cold, snowy UK winters