Extent of Antarctic sea ice reaches record levels, scientists say

[GandD 5,966]

No one cares about Al Gore.

True

[Curmudgeon 227]

True

Not quite, obviously those who cite him as a figure of their ire care, all be it negatively

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

True

The climate Nazi's bestowed every award known to man kind on Al Gore in a rush to push their radical political agenda. He was deified by the climate change elite.

However now that it is evident almost everything he said was scientific nonsense and hyperbole, and the ramblings of a privileged simpleton out to make loads of money.

We don't want to talk about him anymore. How convenient

:jest:

Edited September 22, 2014 by The Nature Boy

[GandD 5,966]

The climate Nazi's bestowed every award known to man kind on Al Gore in a rush to push their radical political agenda. He was deified by the climate change elite.

However now that it is evident almost everything he said was scientific nonsense and hyperbole, and the ramblings of a privileged simpleton out to make loads of money.

We don't want to talk about him anymore. How convenient

:jest:

The only people who's opinion should be considered on the subject are the people that actually do the research. I think you're confusing them with the "get the message out" folks or the "use it for political advantage" folks. Scientific research should not be dismissed because it makes the opposition party look good. It shouldn't even be a political issue. We should trust the consensus of research done by our researchers in any subject. Yeah yeah, we know, they get things wrong sometime, but far far far far far less often than people that make gut decisions, bible decisions, or two second thought observations they made when they poked their little head out the door to check the temperature. Scientific research is what has made all of human existence what it is. I can't believe we are so ignorant to arm chair quarter back people that spend their life researching rock formations to get an idea of the climate of the earth over the last few million or even billion years. They do it, there are ways by measuring sediment composition, to determine what was going on in the earth's atmosphere as well as temperature.

[GandD 5,966]

~~Personal attack removed as well as one quoting it. Do not continue this type of behavior~~

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The only people who's opinion should be considered on the subject are the people that actually do the research. I think you're confusing them with the "get the message out" folks or the "use it for political advantage" folks. Scientific research should not be dismissed because it makes the opposition party look good. It shouldn't even be a political issue. We should trust the consensus of research done by our researchers in any subject. Yeah yeah, we know, they get things wrong sometime, but far far far far far less often than people that make gut decisions, bible decisions, or two second thought observations they made when they poked their little head out the door to check the temperature. Scientific research is what has made all of human existence what it is. I can't believe we are so ignorant to arm chair quarter back people that spend their life researching rock formations to get an idea of the climate of the earth over the last few million or even billion years. They do it, there are ways by measuring sediment composition, to determine what was going on in the earth's atmosphere as well as temperature.

Exactly. But its just easier to think the global warming was invented by Al Gore.

It wasn't and he's a marginal figure at best.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2014/05/29/The-facts-don-t-add-up-for-human-caused-global-warming/stories/201405290275

The first five months of 2014 have been the coldest since the National Weather Service began keeping records in 1888. If “climate change” alarmists got out more, they might have noticed.

Between 1979 — when weather satellites started measuring temperatures in the lower troposphere — and 1997, they rose about 1.1 degrees Celsius (1.98 degrees Fahrenheit).

Temperatures stopped rising then, have fallen since 2012. The “pause” in warming (212 months) is now longer than the warming trend was (211 months).

The earth has warmed about 16 degrees F since the last ice age. The net increase since 1979 — 0.19 degrees C (0.34 F) — is well within the range of natural fluctuation.

So why, as President Barack Obama says so often, do 97 percent of scientists agree climate change is “real, man-made, and dangerous?”

They don’t. This bogus stat is derived from two questions University of Illinois researchers asked in a survey of earth scientists in 2008:

1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

<my input>

While it may be arguable that man has contributed to global warming, the truth is that in the overall scheme of things involving our world, man's impact is infinitesimal at best. Ice ages have come and gone without our influence. As ice melts today, there will be more northern moisture available, causing more precipitation (read: snow) which will fall and cause more... ice to form. It's cyclical. It's nature. And since "greenhouse gases" comprise less than 1% of the atmosphere, with CO2 being only about 4% of that 1%, even though CO2 is up 40%, that's only 160/1000th of a percent overall. (0.016 of a percent for the mathematically challenged)

As for pie charts and statistics...

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” says a petition signed by more than 31,000 American scientists in climate-related disciplines.

Edited September 22, 2014 by DavenRoxy

[GandD 5,966]

Weather and climate are two different things.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Weather and climate are two different things.

Which one of the two causes shwetty balls?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Weather and climate are two different things.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Weather and climate are two different things.

They have both changed for billions of years..... that trend will continue.

How arrogant is someone that thinks they can 'change' that?

CLIMATE MUST STAY THE SAME!!!! (get the memo?)

[GandD 5,966]

They have both changed for billions of years..... that trend will continue.

How arrogant is someone that thinks they can 'change' that?

CLIMATE MUST STAY THE SAME!!!! (get the memo?)

We know it has changed for billions of years and for the most part we know why. Including this time.

[Rob L 3,811]

I cannot accept the fact that 97% of all published climate scientists in the US and Canada answering answering two simple questions is unclear, deceptive or bogus. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Part of the pause in warming can be attributed to the success of the Montreal Protocol that has successfully eliminated CFC emmisions to near zero. CFC is also a potent ( 100X) greenhouse gas. That pause does not change the view of climate scientist.

Is this on Whitehouse.gov?

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” says a petition signed by more than 31,000 American scientists in climate-related disciplines.

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2014/05/29/The-facts-don-t-add-up-for-human-caused-global-warming/stories/201405290275

The first five months of 2014 have been the coldest since the National Weather Service began keeping records in 1888. If “climate change” alarmists got out more, they might have noticed.

Between 1979 — when weather satellites started measuring temperatures in the lower troposphere — and 1997, they rose about 1.1 degrees Celsius (1.98 degrees Fahrenheit).

Temperatures stopped rising then, have fallen since 2012. The “pause” in warming (212 months) is now longer than the warming trend was (211 months).

The earth has warmed about 16 degrees F since the last ice age. The net increase since 1979 — 0.19 degrees C (0.34 F) — is well within the range of natural fluctuation.

So why, as President Barack Obama says so often, do 97 percent of scientists agree climate change is “real, man-made, and dangerous?”

They don’t. This bogus stat is derived from two questions University of Illinois researchers asked in a survey of earth scientists in 2008:

1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

<my input>

While it may be arguable that man has contributed to global warming, the truth is that in the overall scheme of things involving our world, man's impact is infinitesimal at best. Ice ages have come and gone without our influence. As ice melts today, there will be more northern moisture available, causing more precipitation (read: snow) which will fall and cause more... ice to form. It's cyclical. It's nature. And since "greenhouse gases" comprise less than 1% of the atmosphere, with CO2 being only about 4% of that 1%, even though CO2 is up 40%, that's only 160/1000th of a percent overall. (0.016 of a percent for the mathematically challenged)

As for pie charts and statistics...

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” says a petition signed by more than 31,000 American scientists in climate-related disciplines.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As for pie charts and statistics...

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” says a petition signed by more than 31,000 American scientists in climate-related disciplines.

Still trumpeting a long debunked myth? The below is from 2009. The "Petition" hasn't gotten any more valid since.

The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

To say that the oft-touted "30,000 Global Warming Petition" project stinks would be the understatement of the year.

I thought it would be timely to once again break down this flawed piece of global warming denier propaganda after it was mentioned last night in Daily Show host Jon Stewart's interview with US Energy Secretary of Energy, Dr. Stephen Chu.

.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology

The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition.

In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:

• Atmospheric Science (113)
• Climatology (39)
• Meteorology (341)
• Astronomy (59)
• Astrophysics (26)

So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.

The page does not break out the names of those who do claim to be experts in Climatology and Atmospheric Science, which makes even that .5% questionable [see my section on "unverifiable mess" below].

This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant given the nature of scientific endeavor.

When I think I'm having chest pains I don't go to the dermatologist, I go to a cardiologist because it would be absurd to go to skin doctor for a heart problem. It would be equally absurd to look to a scientist with a background in medicine (of which there are 3,046 on the petition) for an expert opinion on the science of climate change. With science broken down into very narrow specialties a scientific expert in one specialty does not make that person an automatic authority in all things science.

In this way the logic of the 30,000 petition is completely flawed, which isn't surprising given its questionable beginnings.

The Petition's Sordid Beginnings

The petition first emerged in April 1998 and was organized by Art Robinson of the self-proclaimed "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" (OISM) [their headquarters are the Photo Inset].

Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson's group co-published the infamous "Oregon Petition" claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren't, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (who has since died), a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist) who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.

Also attached to the petition was an apparent "research paper" titled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy's prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson's son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

An Unverifiable Mess

Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you'll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.

For example,

• "Munawwar M. Akhtar" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
• "Fred A. Allehoff" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
• "Ernest J. Andberg" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
• "Joseph J. Arx" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
• "Adolph L. Amundson" - a paper by Amundson on the "London Tunnel Water Treatment System Acid Mine Drainage." [PDF]
• "Henry W. Apfelbach" - an Orthopedic Surgeon
• "Joe R. Arechavaleta" - runs an Architect and Engineering company.

And this is only names I picked in the "A's." I could go on, but you get my point. The list is very difficult to verify as a third-party, but this hasn't stopped the Petition from bouncing around the internet and showing up in mainstream media.

Given all this it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that "global warming is a hoax" completely misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor or has completely exhausted any real argument that rightfully brings into to doubt the reality of climate change.

Or, then again, they could just be in it for the money.

[Rob L 3,811]

Still trumpeting a long debunked myth? The below is from 2009. The "Petition" hasn't gotten any more valid since.

I have been meaning to ask , if one debunks myths, why can one not bunk a myth?