How to get the message across on climate change

Oct 27, 2011 by David L. Chandler
Graphic: Christine Daniloff

For many scientists working in the field of climate research, one of the most alarming trends has nothing to do with the climate itself: It’s the poll numbers showing that even as scientific projections of global climate change get ever more certain, public perceptions about climate change are getting ever more skeptical.

Why is there such a huge — and growing — disconnect? John Sterman, the Jay W. Forrester Professor of Management at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, says there are specific characteristics of climate change that make it unusually difficult for people to grasp. But the good news, he says, is that there are approaches that can help bridge that gap in understanding.

For example, Sterman’s group has developed climate simulators to help policymakers, business leaders, the media and the public learn about the dynamics of climate change and the consequences of the choices we must make. 

“When experimentation is impossible, when the consequences of our decisions unfold over decades and centuries,” Sterman says, “simulation becomes the main — perhaps the only — way we can discover for ourselves how complex systems work, what the impact of different policies might be, and thus integrate science into decision making.”

Sterman’s analysis was published this month in a special issue of the journal Climatic Change devoted to the subject of how to improve the communication of climate science to the public, the media, business leaders and lawmakers.

Scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), among others, have made an ever-clearer case “that climate change is real, that it’s happening now, and that much of it is caused by human activity,” Sterman says. And yet, “in the U.S., at least, more and more people disagree with the science. Despite the enormous efforts and success of the IPCC and scientific community in assessing climate change and the risks it poses, their efforts to communicate those results are not working.”

Sterman says that more research on the scientific specifics of climate change, while important, is “not going to solve the problem.” While some scientists suggest that public resistance to efforts to control emissions has to do with worries over the weak economy, Sterman says that “the poll results show something much more troubling: People increasingly deny that climate change is happening.”

“These are not disagreements about how we should respond to the risks of climate change,” he says. “This is denial of the scientific facts. Political ideology, not science, increasingly determines what people believe to be true about the physical world. If you believe that responding to climate change will hurt your industry or increase government control over your life, one way out is to construct a worldview in which it’s not happening.”

It’s possible for people to cling to such views, he says, partly because “the scientific community has done a poor job of communicating.” Some scientists think the answer is more research to narrow the uncertainties, and more public education on subjects such as how the carbon cycle works. “That just doesn’t work,” Sterman says. “Telling people facts doesn’t change their beliefs.”

Research on risk communication, Sterman says, shows that “you have to start where people are, with how people see the world.” The issue of climate change, by its nature, creates “a perfect storm of public confusion,” he says. That’s because the climate is “a complex system, global in extent, and involves long timeframes compared to what people ordinarily think about. The climate is affected by the actions of every individual and every nation, and what we do now will affect the world we leave to our children.” 

In addition, with climate change, “you have very powerful vested interests seeking to confuse the public, for ideological and pecuniary reasons,” he says.

Sterman’s research also delves into specific aspects of climate change that add to public confusion. One common misunderstanding, he says, is the difference between emissions and accumulations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2). “Most people think if we stabilize emissions, we’ll stabilize the climate,” he says. “But that’s wrong. If we stabilize emissions today, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to grow.” 

To explain why, Sterman uses the analogy of a bathtub: Greenhouse gas emissions are water flowing into the tub, and natural sinks — forests and oceans, which absorb CO2 from the air — are the drain. As long as the water pours in faster than it drains out, the water level continues to rise.

But today’s emissions are about twice as large as the flow out, so merely stabilizing emissions means the level of water in the tub will keep rising. In Sterman’s research, more than 80 percent of people surveyed made this error in understanding. 

Andrew Hoffman, a professor of sustainable enterprise at the University of Michigan who was not involved in this research, says this study is important because “too much of the attention so far has been on only the scientific part” of . By studying the economic, social and political dimensions as Sterman has done, he says, “we’ll start to understand this a lot better.”


This story is republished courtesy of MIT News (web.mit.edu/newsoffice/), a popular site that covers news about MIT research, innovation and teaching.

Explore further: EPA staff says agency needs to be tough on smog

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Plants protect from climate impacts

Aug 02, 2011

Native vegetation must be restored to protect Australia’s unique ecosystems from the impacts of climate change, according to scientists from the Australian National University.

The kids are alright

May 26, 2011

Children should be seen and not heard... who says? A Philosophy academic at The University of Nottingham is challenging the adage by teaching primary school children to argue properly.

Regimes won't halt climate change

Apr 07, 2011

The director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute delivered a pessimistic assessment Tuesday (April 5) of the chances for significant U.S. climate change legislation, calling on the world’s academics ...

Recommended for you

Shell files new plan to drill in Arctic

Aug 29, 2014

Royal Dutch Shell has submitted a new plan for drilling in the Arctic offshore Alaska, more than one year after halting its program following several embarrassing mishaps.

Reducing water scarcity possible by 2050

Aug 29, 2014

Water scarcity is not a problem just for the developing world. In California, legislators are currently proposing a $7.5 billion emergency water plan to their voters; and U.S. federal officials last year ...

User comments : 144

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
1.9 / 5 (42) Oct 27, 2011
What John Sherman fails to recognize is that people do understand the science and more importantly, people understand the political motivation behind the AGW propaganda.

John is correct that explaining the science better will not change views -- because people already understand science. He is wrong in the presumption that more propaganda will work -- because people also understand the political motivation for AGW propaganda.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (39) Oct 27, 2011
The message has been received. Thanks Al Gore.

AGWites should have read this story:
http://www.sacred...ft21.htm
rubberman
3.6 / 5 (40) Oct 27, 2011
This article is about the ignorance displayed by the first two commentators....don't let it be you too kids!
Doorn
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 27, 2011
"Political ideology, not science, increasingly determines what people believe to be true about the physical world."
Luckily we have Sterman to straighten us out. You can trust him; he's not a climate scientist.
Nerdyguy
4.4 / 5 (31) Oct 27, 2011
What John Sherman fails to recognize is that people do understand the science and more importantly, people understand the political motivation behind the AGW propaganda.

John is correct that explaining the science better will not change views -- because people already understand science. He is wrong in the presumption that more propaganda will work -- because people also understand the political motivation for AGW propaganda.


dogbert, I do not understand the science. It's extraordinarily complex. I don't believe that many of the scientists involve believe they have it all figured out. Yet every time new information arrives, you and others like you with a purely political opinion run to these sights to ridicule and shout your opinion to the world. You may be right. I don't know. And I doubt you do either. So give it a rest, go listen to L. Rushbaugh, and let these scientists do their jobs.
dogbert
1.9 / 5 (39) Oct 27, 2011
Nerdyguy,

When science is perverted to serve political interests, the political agenda should be pointed out at every instance.

Sorry you don't understand.
djr
4.5 / 5 (33) Oct 27, 2011
When science is perverted to serve political interests, the political agenda should be pointed out at every instance.

I am with Nerdguy. When crackpot denialists take every opportunity to spam the internet with their tinfoil hat conspiracy theories - their stupidity should be pointed out at every instance.... I agree - let the scientists do their jobs. Sorry you don't understand.
rubberman
3.6 / 5 (27) Oct 27, 2011
As I have said many times before on this site, the observed evidence is so overwhelming that you have to be mentally challenged to deny it. You can't cure stupid.....
LVT
1.5 / 5 (35) Oct 27, 2011
No warming for 10 years.

Sorry case closed.

You (Marxists) lost.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (32) Oct 27, 2011
As I have said many times before on this site, the observed evidence is so overwhelming that you have to be mentally challenged to deny it. You can't cure stupid.....

Evidence is SOOOO overwhelming the UKs National Physical Lab is proposing traceable, calibrated radiometer on orbit to get better data. It is called TRUTHS:
"Satellites should provide enough information to support national and international legislation. However, in most cases they are not accurate enough to distinguish between the predictions of different environmental models, and scientists cannot agree on their conclusions. " {Note he said SCIENTISTS cannot agree}
"Solar radiation is the driving force of the Earth's climate and small changes in the total output of the Sun can have significant effects on the Earth's surface." http://www.npl.co.uk/TRUTHS
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (27) Oct 27, 2011
Mini-Ice Age:
http://www.npl.co.uk/science- -technology/optical-radiation-and-photonics/environmental-climate-change/truths-mini-ice-age
Nerdyguy
4.6 / 5 (21) Oct 27, 2011
As I have said many times before on this site, the observed evidence is so overwhelming that you have to be mentally challenged to deny it. You can't cure stupid.....


I can't agree that it's been overwhelming, which I think is part of the problem here. There's some good evidence, some bad evidence, some junk that's questionable.

But it's like any other claim in science: there's enough evidence that I'm paying attention and awaiting more scientific proof of the various findings. Let's face it. Someday, all this junk will be filtered out and we'll know more about the subject at hand.

Meanwhile, I just try to avoid the maybe 5% of people who seem to feel they absolutely can't be mistaken on this issue.
Grizzled
1.4 / 5 (28) Oct 27, 2011
People are not in denial of scientific facts. What he is craftily trying to do is to substitute results of some (and only *some*) models for facts.

Sorry, doesn't work. People in general saw through that ploy. And of course, scientists did too. I mean the real ones, those who demanded to see the actual raw data (THAT's the true facts)... only to see the infamous IPCC deny access. All the way to refusing to comply with requests made under the UK Official Informaton Act. How's that for facts and independent scrutiny?

The problem with their "facts" is that those are not facts at all, just their carefully selected and groomed interpretations of the real facts. Mind you, purely theoretically, those interpretations may even be right. But the secrecy surrounding it all doesn't lend credence to the claims.

And of course, there is always the old question - Who profits? Could it be (perish the thought:-) the multibillion "green" industry which could never survive without the huge govt support
PinkElephant
4.7 / 5 (24) Oct 27, 2011
@troll,
Note he said SCIENTISTS cannot agree
Yes, different models produce different regional-scale predictions, and even different global temperature range forecasts. However, there isn't a SINGLE model that isn't predicting significant global warming as a result of fossil carbon emissions.
It is called TRUTHS
However, it will be a cold day in hell when you ever speak any TRUTH on these forums. The need for more accurate and comprehensive measurements to support more refined modeling does not somehow invalidate previous measurements and the previous generations of models. But it takes some command of basic rudimentary reasoning skills, to see that.
PinkElephant
4.6 / 5 (19) Oct 27, 2011
@Grizzled,
The problem with their "facts" is that those are not facts at all, just their carefully selected and groomed interpretations of the real facts.
What's this, more "Climategate" bullshit? Apparently, you haven't yet heard that BEST exactly reproduced those very same curves, and that all their data and analysis algorithms are available in the public domain?

http://berkeleyea...rces.php
the secrecy surrounding it all doesn't lend credence to the claims
If you ever bothered to listen to the actual people you try to assault and libel, rather than listening to paid sockpuppets leading you by your nosering, you'd have known a long time ago that much of that data was off-limits due to commercial and inter-governmental contract restrictions -- so could not be released to you. And you'd know that self-styled "skeptics" abused the information request process to effectively shut down research in a kind of coordinated denial-of-service attack.
Grizzled
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 27, 2011
So Pinky, are you saying that Official Information Act exists only to be complied with when it suits you? And when you talk about "commercial contract restrictions" ... Do we hear some vested interests speaking? So who's leading who by the nosering? In your case it must be a huge trunk-ring by the sound of it.

Did you know that, in the legal opinion delivered to the British House of Lords, it was stated that the ONLY reason IPCC cannot be prosecuted for their refusal to comply with the OIA requiremts is that the ridiculously short statute of limitation (6 montha) had expired? This is the ONLY reason that prevented them from been charged with a crime.
LVT
1.5 / 5 (23) Oct 27, 2011
As relevant to the curve fitting AGW scammers as it is to the Keynesian fools.

http://www.scient...ys-wrong
Grizzled
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 27, 2011
Oh, and btw, are we still waiting for the Himalayan glaciers to melt by 2035? No? But...but... that WAS a part of the official, "consensus" report used to scare the governments into coughing up the funds. They couldn't be mistaken with their facts... could they?
PinkElephant
4.8 / 5 (17) Oct 27, 2011
So Pinky, are you saying that Official Information Act exists only to be complied with when it suits you?
It can't and shouldn't be complied with:

1) When it is being maliciously abused with the express purpose of disrupting research by diverting resources toward handling of spurious requests.

2) When it comes into conflict with other contractual and legal obligations.

When two laws contradict each other, you can't follow one without breaking another. The respective contracts were entered into before any information requests were made, so take precedence.
IPCC cannot be prosecuted for their refusal to comply with the OIA requiremts
a) I think you're confusing IPCC with CRU

b) CRU was exonerated of any wrong-doing by independent reviews

c) Now we have a completely independent study (BEST) fully confirming the CRU data set:

http://berkeleyea...ysis.php

Now, when are you going to APOLOGIZE for and RETRACT your libelous and malicious accusations?
Grizzled
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 27, 2011
No sooner than you do that first. You may be interested to note that I tried not to make a claim of whether or not they have actually done anytning wrong in the criminal sense - exactly because I can't legally prove them. You however, already accused me of same. Technically speaking it already makes YOU guilty of libel on these pages. Not that I'm going to pursue the issue so you may rest easy. Same as all other climate "scientists".
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (16) Oct 27, 2011
I tried not to make a claim of whether or not they have actually done anytning wrong
Oh really? Was it your evil twin who wrote the following above, not two hours ago?
The problem with their "facts" is that those are not facts at all, just their carefully selected and groomed interpretations of the real facts.
Are you suffering from anterograde amnesia?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (17) Oct 27, 2011
As relevant to the curve fitting AGW scammers as it is to the Keynesian fools.
http://www.scient...ys-wrong
Now, if only you actually knew what you were talking about, then you wouldn't refer to "AGW scammers" in the context of "curve fitting".

It is obvious that you have not the foggiest idea, just how much actual empirical data and fundamental physics is in fact involved in the construction of modern climate models.

Here, let's see if you're any more capable of learning than troll #1:

http://www.aip.or...math.htm

I'm not holding my breath.
Howhot
5 / 5 (16) Oct 27, 2011
Richard Muller did a redo of the controversial points that us "AGW crazy nut cases" are always saying, and he is now an AGW believer.

Quit being a contrarian and accept the facts. Fact are facts. You guys lost the argument, and now you look dumb.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (23) Oct 27, 2011
So, who of you believers in man-caused climate warming is ready and willing to give up your gas-powered cars and give up using gas, oil and coal driven energy to heat your homes and power your air conditioners? You have placed your faith in the climate models, now what are you going to DO to alleviate the global warming that they're telling you is truth. What are your plans to help prevent the rising of the oceans and flooding of port cities? And uh-uh. . . .no plugging into that electrical outlet unless it's running on solar power. Be honest with yourself.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (20) Oct 27, 2011
Be honest with yourself.
Try to follow your own advice. Judging by your post, the main reason you "disbelieve", is because the reality of it is just too damn harsh and difficult for poor little Pirouette to cope with. So you invent and inhabit an imaginary alternate universe where the bad uncomfortable things just are not true. Ostrich.

For my part, I try to cut my own energy consumption every way I can, and I advocate for Apollo-style policy and financial support to renewable/alternative energy R&D, and massive subsidies to existing non-fossil-fuel tech to let it scale production and through resulting mass-production to reduce costs. E.g. my car of 7 years is a second-generation Prius. I willingly overpaid for a relatively weak car back in 2004, because I was disgusted with then-prevailing notions that trucks and SUVs were the way of the future and hybrids couldn't succeed. I voted with my wallet. And I intend to drive this one into the ground before buying another.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (21) Oct 27, 2011
Pink. . . .I do follow my own advice. . . .and I NEVER said that I disbelieve the climate changers. . .but I DO want to see people who believe it as gospel truth put their money where their mouth is, not just keep using gas, coal and oil energy while on the pretense of cleaning up the planet. THAT is hypocrisy.
BTW. . . . .your Prius batteries have to be plugged into an electric outlet, right? That's WHEN you're not using gasoline. Therefore, you are still burning fossil fuels and fouling the Earth. Thanks a lot.
hush1
4.1 / 5 (15) Oct 27, 2011
@Pirouette
lol
Ah..er..ermm...hmmm...gee...?...!...#.../...,...
Wait till Rossi's dream pans out?
Big day tomorrow for our lord, the savior.
Pirouette
1.2 / 5 (21) Oct 28, 2011
Pink says: ""For my part, I try to cut my own energy consumption every way I can, ""

Try this also: In Summer, I open all the windows for a breeze and fresh air, no need for fans or a/c; in Winter, I do not let the electric furnace go on at all, instead I chop wood (also plant replacement trees) for my fireplace to heat one room in my house, which is cozy and warm; I use plenty of comforters, pajamas, and whatever to keep warm at night when the wood is used up and the next day I cut some more wood; I drive very little and only to get to the supermarket, utilities, and other necessary trips all in one day, once a month; I grow my own food and do canning and I bake my own bread. At night, to light up my house, I use several solar lights which are recharged at a sunny window and light up at night. There's more, but it's getting late.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (14) Oct 28, 2011
Hush1. . . .um. . .errr. . . .who are you talking about?
Pirouette
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 28, 2011
Pink. . .I love my way of life. . .it's enjoyable and rewarding. . .but I know that the majority of people in the United States and in other Western countries could not and would not live without being connected to the grid and paying whatever price at the pump. Even though I'm still connected to it, I seldom use it except for the refrigerator. I can't turn that temperature higher.
Oh, and how about showering outdoors. You place some patio blocks together on the ground, buy one of those plastic bottles for heating a few gallons of water in the sunlight and has a long tube with a spout, and when the water is hot enough, you shower outdoors. LOL
You can also hang a shower curtain if you wish.
Shootist
1.3 / 5 (25) Oct 28, 2011
The climate changes. The planet has been both warmer and colder and that, within the last 1000 years.

When dairy farms return to Greenland and Vineyards are established in Scotland for 150 years . . . then will it be as warm as it was in AD1250.

When the Hudson freezes solid enough for a long ton of cannon to be dragged across . . . then it will be as cold as it was in 1776.

Today, climate is at neither extreme. And, actually neither dairy farms in Greenland, nor 3 feet of ice on the Hudson, are extremes of climate. Get over this panic you believers are having. The climate changes.

The left sees climate change as a way to force us to live the way they believe the correct way to live. They do not care for the facts, they only wish to force everyone to be like them. Fascists. I do not care for leftists. I do not trust Leftists. They like government. Anyone who "likes" government is either certifiable, or stupid. None of that kool-aid for me, thanks.
hopper
1.2 / 5 (25) Oct 28, 2011
Is there climate change?

Yep. Happens all the time.

Is it caused by man made carbon dioxide?

No. Mostly warming is caused by the sun. Increased heat, increases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (16) Oct 28, 2011
BTW. . . . .your Prius batteries have to be plugged into an electric outlet, right?
Wrong. That's not how hybrids work. You're thinking of plug-in hybrids, and the first Prius plug-in is only coming out next year.
Try this also
Doing much of that already, some not able to due to my living location, and kudos to you.
the majority of people in the United States and in other Western countries could not and would not
That can change in a hurry if price of fossil energy goes up dramatically -- as it damned well SHOULD, the sooner the better -- to reflect the deferred costs of long-term damage being done.
PinkElephant
4.8 / 5 (21) Oct 28, 2011
The planet has been both warmer and colder and that, within the last 1000 years.
It has not been as warm as it is right now, within the last 400,000 years.
When dairy farms return to Greenland and Vineyards are established in Scotland for 150 years . . . then will it be as warm as it was in AD1250.
.. in GREENLAND. It was not equivalently warmer all over the world back then.
When the Hudson freezes solid enough for a long ton of cannon to be dragged across . . . then it will be as cold as it was in 1776.
... in NEW YORK. It was not equivalently colder all over the world back then.
Today, climate is at neither extreme.
It is at a global extreme.
The climate changes.
Yes. It also changes due to humans. And we're changing it within the span of a couple centuries toward a state it hasn't seen for many millions of years. That's not climate "change"; geologically speaking that's climate DISLOCATION. With all the known and unknown consequences...
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (18) Oct 28, 2011
Mostly warming is caused by the sun. Increased heat, increases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
... Which causes more increased heat. Yes, that's how Milankovich cycles work (generating ice ages and interglacials.)

That's not what's happening THIS TIME. THIS TIME, the Sun isn't the culprit. Humans are exhuming fossil carbon and dumping it into the atmosphere, now at a rate now exceeding 9 gigatons per year and still growing exponentially:

http://en.wikiped...se_gases

The Sun's output has held steady (actually, dropped slightly) since the 1970's where our satellite measurements begin:

http://en.wikiped...ot_cycle

In the meantime, greenhouse gases have been doing this:

http://en.wikiped...ends.png
GuruShabu
1.2 / 5 (26) Oct 28, 2011
Al Gore and his gang have done a big damage on the society...
We did not see this type of propaganda since Goebbels' times (Chief of Nazi propaganda).
farmerpat42
1 / 5 (20) Oct 28, 2011
The biggest problem with many of the models and climate alarmism is that predictions from decades ago haven't come true. Problem factors in the environment, for the most part, haven't been stabalized - let alone abated. Yet, according to Capitain Planet: by 2010 the world should have melted down, New York should be under water and Europe should have been immersed in a third world war over scarcity for clean water.

Much of the public is sick of hearing climatologists cry wolf and tired of dealing with the new-best moral imperative to save the world.

It's a once-bitten twice shy mentality for many. It's not about ignoring facts, but it's about a poor track record. Political motivations (intentional or not - the associated leftist-groups don't help the AGW cause much) and feeding the beast only help to create a further hostile environment for climate science (no pun intended).

Unfortunately, we won't know when the science is right until it's too late.
PinkElephant
4.8 / 5 (18) Oct 28, 2011
according to Capitain Planet: by 2010 the world should have melted down, New York should be under water and Europe should have been immersed in a third world war over scarcity for clean water.
Baseless and vile libel, unless you can provide direct quotes from 'Capitain Planet' (sic) to support your claims.
It's a once-bitten twice shy mentality for many.
One would think the mentality would've kicked in after the tobacco wars. But the same exact tactics and even the same think tanks are being used by the deniers this time around, with the public being influenced just as easily as that previous time.
feeding the beast
So, in your estimation the fossil fuel industrial complex is not a beast. Uh-huh.
lairdwilcox
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 28, 2011
What you're really asking is how to make the propaganda campaign more effective, more believable and how to marginalize and stigmatize skeptics and critics. What environmentalists need to face is that all environmental problems are really population problems. A world with fewer people would have correspondingly less environmental degradation, resource use and unnecessary development.

Imagine the earth with half the people it has now, and nearing 3 1/2 billion people rather than 7 billion. Thinking in terms of population makes the issue clearer and simpler, suggests a single solution and gives each and every couple a choice to make.

Progress can be made not by all kinds of thing that need to be done, but by one thing that you simply don't do, and that's have more than two children.
LuckyExplorer
3.8 / 5 (17) Oct 28, 2011
Al Gore and his gang have done a big damage on the society...
We did not see this type of propaganda since Goebbels' times (Chief of Nazi propaganda).


If I were you, I would shut op very quickly!
To compare anybody of today with NAZIs is very close to a crime
LuckyExplorer
4.2 / 5 (16) Oct 28, 2011
@ GuruShabu

Try to argue with facts and to keep to the point.

Dont just write bullshit
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (20) Oct 28, 2011
Why is there such a huge and growing disconnect?

Beacuse scientific literacy isn't being taught anymore (at least not in the US).
Today, no one seems to know how to read a statistic outside of people educated in its use.

in the U.S., at least, more and more people disagree with the science

I suspect this is because in the US there is a tendency to portray everyone as 'special' and 'gifted' in school.
But when people finally hit real life they find out that there is a lot of things that are way over their heads.
Naturally the only possible way to protect their ego is to declare anything they don't understand as false.
hush1
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2011
There is literally nothing easier to convey to all readers when you simply renamed the title of the article:

How to get the message across on climate change
to
How to get the message across on tobacco.

Yes. Mr.Gore is Mr.Tobacco himself. Tobacco took his sister away. He convinced his sister of literally nothing.

He refuses the option that people want to harm themselves.
Whether this is tobacco or climate - makes no difference.

Mr.Gore is simply repeating the his Déjà vu.
This time his sister is not at stake.

Psychologically, he feels helpless and at the same time needs to know he did everything within his power.

The key factor here is what is at stake? Being right and 'losing' all over again is his Déjà vu.

His sister is avenged. He is right again and the world dies.
And the remorse he once felt for his sister is gone.

Mr.Gore does not take heed of life's most important credo:
Know yourself.

No one does.

hush1
3.8 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2011
America can be Psycho-Oped into literally anything.
Denial is the weapon of choice. Iraq. A case study.
Shootist
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 28, 2011
Pinkie, you said .. in GREENLAND. It was not equivalently warmer all over the world back then.

I said, When the Hudson freezes solid enough for a long ton of cannon to be dragged across . . . then it will be as cold as it was in 1776.

Do some basic research chum.

Maunder Minimum ftp://ftp.ncdc.no...data.txt

Medieval Climate Optimum. http://www.ncdc.n...val.html

Pity, we didn't have thermometers back them. Dairy farms in Greenland, 200 year old vineyards in Scotland. Neither exist today, because IT IS TOO COLD.
Shootist
1.3 / 5 (19) Oct 28, 2011
While you do your due diligence, I also suggest you research the Roman Warm Period and the climate cooling that corresponds with the fall of the western Roman Empire.

It is cooler today, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, than it was 1000 years ago. This is fact. Longer growing season across Europe. The amerinds didn't keep temperature records (or records of any kind), so temperature guesses have to make do with proxies. Vineyards in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland provide adequate proxy for warm northern latitudes. It was warmer, why do you think they call it the Medieval WARM Period (aka Medieval Climate Optimum)?

Pirouette
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 28, 2011
What can you expect when for decades American children have been dumbed down, FOR THE MOST PART, by teachers and professors steeped in Socialist mores and values, particularly in big cities all across the country. In New York City alone, only about 25% of high school students are qualified to go onto college according to latest statistics. They can't read and spell well at all, but they sure know how to put a condom on a banana or cucumber. The pregnancy rates are over the top, as usual with girls as young as 9 getting pregnant.
Multiply THAT situation by all or most of the cities in America and you can see why so many Americans have no clue a to what is going on with climate change and the dangers inherent, and they might look at a graph full of stats and not fully understand its meaning. Teachers and professors haven't taught them the importance of statistics, AND in most cases they just don't pay attention anyway if their teachers did. It goes in one ear and out the other.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (16) Oct 28, 2011
The entertainment industry is partially at fault for this lack of attention to facts and figures by students. Children from 9th grade and upwards are remarkably adept at turning off that which they prefer not to hear or see and, unless they have a family whose members discuss these climate issues at the dinner table, the issues become lost to them.
Then add to that mix the fact that people like Al Gore are hypocrites who spout climate change statistics and crazed warnings vehemently, and then turn around and are themselves massive polluters and wasters of fossil fuel energy. Al Gore's credibility is shot to pieces, even without his extramarital sexual encounters in a hotel in Las Vegas and other places.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (15) Oct 28, 2011
To be sure, the climate IS changing. Snow falls in Denver even in August and September in some years and snow is predicted in north Atlantic cities like Boston much earlier in Autumn than is usual. When such weather occurs in August and September, people tend to shrug off the global WARMING statistics and refer only to whether they will need to wear a Winter jacket outdoors. And you can't blame them. Most people are concentrating on the "here and now", not about what's GOING to happen in 200 years when everyone who is alive NOW will be dead. They mostly feel that in 200 years, scientists will find a solution to the problem. For most people, going about the business of living with all its inherent problems is the main issue. . .not global warming or cooling or their carbon footprint. You find solutions for their problems, then they MIGHT pay attention to your AGW stats.
hush1
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2011
Pirouette
I lived in a socialist country. What do you understand under "Socialist mores and values"?
Pirouette
1 / 5 (14) Oct 28, 2011
If you REALLY want to stop AGW, there are ways to do it, BUT there are caveats.
First, people don't like to be told what to do. You have to get rid of the natural instinct to rebel. You would need to drug every person on Earth to get a neutral or positive response to a command. Or shoot them.
Secondly: stop buying oil from OPEC and don't permit ANY drilling anywhere. OPEC also must stop drilling for oil and selling it or using it for their own consumption.
Thirdly: All over the world coal mining and gas mining must be also forbidden.
Fourth: Nobody anywhere should be allowed more than 1 child. ANY AND ALL men who DO NOT comply with the 1 child rule will be castrated. That includes government officials. NO exceptions.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (15) Oct 28, 2011
Fifth: Totalitarian governments like Red China MUST be forced to comply also, with whatever means necessaary.
Sixth: ALL military vehicles, aircraft and ships that use fossil fuels must be grounded permanently all over the world. That does not include nuclear-powered ships.
Seventh: ALL civilian, industrial and commercial vehicles everywhere will be confiscated and converted to an alternative fuel source other than fossil fuels, WHEN AVAILABLE, at the expense of the owner.

Does anyone care to add to this list??
Pirouette
1 / 5 (17) Oct 28, 2011
Pirouette
I lived in a socialist country. What do you understand under "Socialist mores and values"?


Hush1. . .the Socialist mores and values of allowing the citizens to vote and, once firmly ensconced, the Socialist government forces dependency on government entitlements for practically everything, from cradle to grave. It's a planned takeover, but that's for another thread.
Nerdyguy
4.5 / 5 (17) Oct 28, 2011
To paraphrase Pirouette: all problems, including but not limited to climate change and difficulties in America's educational system boil down to a super-secret Socialist takeover. Oh, and don't forget the Hollywood elite is in on it.

There, I've summed it up. Could you possibly consider keeping it short and simple like this in the future Pirouette?

Better yet, take it to a global conspiracy site.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 28, 2011
The socialist takeover not super secret.

PinkElephant
4.9 / 5 (14) Oct 28, 2011
I said, When the Hudson freezes solid enough for a long ton of cannon to be dragged across . . . then it will be as cold as it was in 1776.
And I said, IN NEW YORK. Not Globally. See the difference?
Neither exist today, because IT IS TOO COLD
IN GREENLAND. Not globally. See the difference?
It is cooler today, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, than it was 1000 years ago.
But not cooler in the Southern Hemisphere. See the difference?
why do you think they call it the Medieval WARM Period (aka Medieval Climate Optimum)
IN EUROPE. Not globally. See the difference?

There was a recent article on physorg about this precise issue:

http://www.physor...ult.html

Quoting:
let us take ... the Little Ice Age. While the extreme cold had serious consequences ... in the north, there is no evidence of corresponding simultaneous temperature changes and effects in the southern hemisphere.
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2011
Why is there such a huge and growing disconnect?


Nothing others have ever discussed about socialism on this website has made sense to me. I come from a socialist country.

The same books and literature about socialism - when translated - are never equivalent to the original writings. You all talk about a translated version of socialism I have personally, first hand, never have encountered. Neither first hand, nor in the original literature.

All translations have agenda. All translations are custom tailored. All translations stand in the shadow of the languages and governments allowing them. You are suppose to look and feel superior about your government when reading any translation.

And you believe this.
And I understand.
And now you know why I don't understand you when you discussed socialism.

The distortion from... and the agendas of translation - a country's agenda... believed by those never being outside their country and their language.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (17) Oct 28, 2011
Socialism is quite simple, the govt controls private property.
Individuals are serfs to the state and have NO rights to private property.
The only argument socialists have is who will be in control of the state. That what they fight over.
Bastiat discusses socialism quite well in The Law. It is also called legal plunder.
Howhot
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 28, 2011
the Socialist government forces dependency on government entitlements for practically everything, from cradle to grave. It's a planned takeover


There are a *few* people that may agree with you, in general, status quo is more like what is happening.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (18) Oct 28, 2011
If socialism were applied to students, those who studied and achieved high marks would be forced to 'share' those marks with those students who were not as smart or did study much.
How many 'intellectuals' would accept forced 'sharing' of their academic work?
Pirouette
1 / 5 (19) Oct 28, 2011
Nerdyguy says:
To paraphrase Pirouette: all problems, including but not limited to climate change and difficulties in America's educational system boil down to a super-secret Socialist takeover. Oh, and don't forget the Hollywood elite is in on it.

There, I've summed it up. Could you possibly consider keeping it short and simple like this in the future Pirouette?

Better yet, take it to a global conspiracy site.


It seems to me that Nerdyguy has taken it upon himself to censure the anti-Socialist in the room and admonish Pirouette to sit down and shut up or leave and go elsewhere. Apparently, Nerdyguy is a pretend Conservative who likes that flavor, but is now coming across as a dyed-in-the-wool Socialist himself. Yes, there are many like him in America. I wouldn't be surprised if he has studied Karl Marx as a young man and has also learned subterfuge, which is the art of having leftist leanings while calling himself something totally different.
Time to come out, Nerdy.
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 28, 2011
You do know that nothing in the Constitution excludes socialism and socialistic ideas from becoming part of American law. The more you fight the peoples will, the more we will prevail. Buhaaaaaahhaaaaha.
Nerdyguy
4.7 / 5 (14) Oct 28, 2011
@Pirouette:

Sigh. I was enjoying your rant for the first sentence, seeing as how you were factually correct. But then your paranoid lunatic-fringe ravings had to rear their ugly head. I have no interest in defending my political views to you, sir. I've already explained them. Any reading of my comments beyond the attacks on trolls such as yourself will clearly show my leanings. But, who cares? Say I'm a Socialist, Marxist, whatever. You're a sad, sad person who can't seem to stick to the subject at hand. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 28, 2011
You do know that nothing in the Constitution excludes socialism and socialistic ideas from becoming part of American law. The more you fight the peoples will, the more we will prevail. Buhaaaaaahhaaaaha.

Yes there is. It is called enumerated powers. The federal govt has LIMITED power.
If you wanted to increase that power to include socialism, you must follow the amendment process.
And: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This acknowledges the existence of private property.
Howhot
5 / 5 (14) Oct 28, 2011
Pirouette (the tipsy-toe ballerina). Clueless rightwing diatribe. Nothing will be learned from this troll. Move along.

Not worthy.

Howhot
4.7 / 5 (14) Oct 28, 2011
Ok R2, and where does
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
come from?

Its like Halloween in America, all of the rightwing are afraid of people. Republicans are creepy.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 29, 2011
Hotty, read the United States of America Constitution. That's where it came from.
omatumr
Oct 29, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Callippo
3.8 / 5 (17) Oct 29, 2011
people understand the political motivation behind the AGW propaganda.
But people understand the political motivation behind AGW skeptics too. This argument is completely symmetric. It's not accidental, the countries, which are economically motivated on production and export of fossil fuels belong to most stringent opponents of AGW and vice-versa (Poland, Russia).
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 29, 2011
But people understand the political motivation behind AGW skeptics too.


Of course. People understand that AGW is about political agenda.

As this article plainly states, the effort has shifted away from more pseudo-science to increased efforts to propagandize.

But people have long since seen and rejected the political underpinnings of Chicken Little's AGW sky falling.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 29, 2011
As AGWites continue to loose political support, they are becoming more desperate and shrill.
Political opposition to AGWites is based upon liberty and prosperity.
Why didn't AGWites pursue free market remedies?
Instead, they started an international political organization and tried to force their ideology attracting the crony socialist companies like Enron.
Yes, I understand the AGWite political agenda and others are beginning to agree.
Callippo
3.7 / 5 (15) Oct 29, 2011
OK, lets suppose the AGW is real. Under which conditions/evidence you would be able to accept it? If none such condition can be found, then it has no meaning to discuss it with you anymore, because the whole subject is just a matter religion for you.
omatumr
Oct 29, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 29, 2011
OK, lets suppose the AGW is real. Under which conditions/evidence you would be able to accept it? If none such condition can be found, then it has no meaning to discuss it with you anymore, because the whole subject is just a matter religion for you.

When the global climate models are validated and explain the MWP.
Nerdyguy
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2011
"When the global climate models are validated and explain the MWP." - ryggesogn2

Too funny. That's an un-answer. I've seen a whole lot of people offer validations on here. Your responses are never measured or unbiased. You immediately begin ranting about how whacked out the science is.

So, come on rggesogn2, at least put on those big boy pants and give an honest answer. You will NEVER believe anything proposed by what you sadly and mistakenly view as "the other side" of this issue. If you were in downtown Miami, under 10 ft of water, you'd come up with some sort of explanation for how climate change was not to blame. I find it laughable.

I'm a non-scientist, and I peruse sights like PhysOrg to gain greater insight into this and other complex issues. But I could find this same brand of crapola at Fox News.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 29, 2011
I guess you don't understand the concept of model validation.
If the model can't represent the past and predict the future, the model is not validated.
AGWites use unvalidated models to claim increased CO2 concentration is the cause.
""I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields and farms and forests," writes Dyson."
"His contention, that the models aren't really science when they're programmed to produce the expected results, will no doubt be overlooked."
http://www.thereg...eresies/
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 29, 2011
Yes. You can create simple and complex computer models to produce the results you want. Such models have no validity.

Skepticus_Rex
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 29, 2011
Models-schmodels... The models used as source material for AR4 were off by over 60%. It is time for the models to be set on the shelf, more real-world, in-the-field science done, and then revisit the models to see exactly where they really went wrong.
djr
2.9 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2011
When dairy farms return to Greenland and Vineyards are established in Scotland for 150 years . . . then will it be as warm as it was in AD1250.

You just keep regurgitating the same stuff. The medieval warming period has been addressed - here is a study on the subject http://www.meteo....ce09.pdf

Look at the graphs - and look carefully at the last 20 years or so. A quote from the article "The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally." I suspect your only interest is in spreading disinformation - to confuse people who may be trying to understand the issues.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2011
"The biggest problem with many of the models and climate alarmism is that predictions from decades ago haven't come true." Farmerpat - could u give us references to predictions that have not come true. The predictions of the IPCC report from 1990 seem to be fairly on target. http://www.ipcc.c...-of.html

I think you are spreading disinformation - the scientists are doing there best - and the peanut gallery is spreading nonsense.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2011
The MWP was a regional event, not a global one. Tard Boy.

You have been told this multiple times, but like every Libertarian/Randite you just keep repeating your same old ideologically motivted lies over and over again.

"When the global climate models are validated and explain the MWP." - RyggTard

I have never encountered a Libertarian/Randite who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2011
The MWP was regional to South Africa and Australia too.
http://www.co2sci...cave.php
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2011
the scientists are doing there best -

Really? Their best to do what, lie, suppress data that contradicts their agenda?
Skepticus_Rex
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2011
Requisite link regarding the over 60% inaccuracy claim for the IPCC models in AR4:

http://journals.a...LI3461.1

The paper also advocates investigating several possibilities for learning what happened and for correcting problems with the models.
Skepticus_Rex
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2011
The MWP was a regional event, not a global one.

That was according to Mann, et al., 2009. Their work has several problems, including the inversion of the Finland data and excessive smoothing of several Southern Hemisphere proxies to remove the signal for the MWP from those proxies. That way he could go on and claim that the MWP really was the MCA and that it was local and not global. You really need to go over the raw data bit by bit before accepting Mann's work uncritically.
djr
3.8 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2011
"The MWP was regional to South Africa and Australia too." So you cite an article - put out by an organization funded at least in part by Exon Mobil - that refers to S.Africa - but says nothing about Australia. I understand the data relating to Australia is very sparse. However - you really support what Mann et al state - "So the Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomen. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age." And what really is your point in continually bringing up the MWP?
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2011
"The MWP was regional to South Africa and Australia too." - RyggTard

The famed Medieval warm period extended between 950 AD to 1250 AD with a peak at around 1,100

The Temperature plot you presented shows a temperature rise starting at 800 AD and lasting until only around 1,100 and peaking in 900 AD.

If these events have a common origin then why do the South African temperatures rise and peak, 150 years before the European ones?

As to the site CO2 Science, it is a for profit propaganda site funded by the Coal and Gas indutry, and managed by the dishonest (No such thing as CFC Catalyzed ozone depletion) Idso family.

Chairman CRAIG D. IDSO
President SHERWOOD B. IDSO
Vice President KEITH E. IDSO

Dishonest to the core.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2011
So your view is that the latest analysis paid for by the Koch brothers - BEST - which has replicated Mann's work also inverted the Finland data to come up with the same results?

Hahahahaha...... You wouldn't lie about something like that would you?

"That was according to Mann, et al., 2009. Their work has several problems, including the inversion of the Finland data and excessive smoothing of several Southern Hemisphere proxies to remove the signal for the MWP from those proxies." - Skepticus Liar
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
"Requisite link regarding the over 60% inaccuracy claim for the IPCC models in AR4:" - SkepTard-Rex

AR4 provides a range for climate sensitivity. 2'C to 4.5'C.

This is the immediate temperature rise anticipated from a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Currently we are at an increase of around 45% so presuming rough linearity we can anticipate an expected rise of between 1'C and 2.25'C

What is observed is a 0.75'C rise. Natural variability is on the order of about 0.5'C on time scales of 30 years, so the rise can be anywhere from 0.2'C to 1.25'C.

This range 0.2'C to 1.25'C overlaps the range anticipated by the IPCC and interpolated linearly to 1'C to 2.25'C so in no way can it honestly be claimed that there is a 60 percent discrepancy in the model results.

Once again SkepTard-Rex is caught telling a lie.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
Yup, that is exactly what you Denilist cretins are trying your best to do with your non stop stream of lies.

"Their best to do what, lie, suppress data that contradicts their agenda?" - RyggTard
Skepticus_Rex
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2011
Read the whole paper at the end of link VendiTard. I know for a fact that you have not actually read the study. It is their claim, and they are AGW/AGCC-believers. I just repeated their claim because it of interest. :)
mosahlah
1 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2011
How to get the message across? I got an idea. Maybe they can get Nancy Pelosi to run an ad campaign similar to Nancy Reagan's "Just say NO" ads. How about "JUST SAY NO,...TO GLOBAL WARMING"? Or maybe we can rewrite history books to say something along the lines that the world was once a frozen wonderland where we played with seal pups and ate snow cones, that is until the Republicans invented money and shopping malls driving Earths climate into the sultry green (and boring) climate we suffer today. Just get our best minds together, bring over some experts from North Korea, and we can dispel all this CLimate Skepticalism, and get back to the eco-sheeplings we all have inside of us.
mosahlah
1 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
Then again, maybe can just let the folks make up their own minds.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2011
but says nothing about Australia.

Similar data is available for Australia.
Why is MWP important? It shows the climate as warmed in the past without SUVs.
It must very important to Mann, et al because they keep trying to minimize its importance, eg. hockey stick.
Doug_Huffman
2.4 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2011
E. T Jaynes Probability theory: The Logic of Science, 5.3 'Converging and diverging views', the credibility of the reporter determines to which extreme the reader is driven.
omatumr
1 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2011
"Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague" Today's news report (30 Oct 2011) in Mail Online:

www.dailymail.co....gue.html
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2011
We are water drops*

(How do you prevent a drop of water from evaporating?**)

(**You cast that drop of water back from where the drop came - puddles, ponds, lakes, streams, rivers, seas and oceans.)
omatumr
1.1 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2011
"Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague" Today's news report (30 Oct 2011) in Mail Online:

http://www.dailym...gue.html


Professor Judith Curry is to be commended for having the courage to state clearly the unvarnished empirical facts about global warming.

Skilled propaganda artists with almost unlimited tax revenues can only be defeated with facts.

What a sad day for all of the scientists caught in this quagmire!

With deep regret,
Oliver K. Manuel
djr
4 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
"Why is MWP important? It shows the climate as warmed in the past without SUVs." Please show us a scientific report that claims that the climate has not warmed in the past. Climate science is fully aware of times in the past when the earth was much warmer than it is today. Mann et al fully recognize the difficulty in recreating climate data from proxy data - and they discuss the poor level of certainty regarding such reconstructed data. None of this contradicts the facts of global warming. The climate is warming, ice sheets are melting, glaciers are melting, the ocean is becoming more acidic. All of this suggests we have a problem that we need to understand. Constantly regurgitating terms like climate gate, hockey stick curve, MWP, is just childish - let the scientists study the issues - and let us know what is going on.
effort
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2011
LALALALA

I CAN'T HEAR YOU

LALALALA

Everything is fine, stop worrying people. Everything is just fine. See, you're feeling better already.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
"What a sad day for all of the scientists caught in this quagmire!" Oh my god omatumr. You want to be taken seriously - and you use the Daily Mail - who are then citing the Global Warming Policy Foundation in their story. This is ridiculous. The GWPF exists to discredit the science of global warming - it is their stated intent - and you accuse the scientists of politicizing the issue. I am astonished..
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2011
On the Professor Judith Curry story - it is early days - and I am sure we will hear a lot about this over the coming weeks. Here is an early look at the problems of suggesting the BEST data shows that warming has flattened over the last 10 years. http://tamino.wor...ts-foot/
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
BEST data shows that warming has flattened over the last 10 years

It fits well with my hypothesis, that global warming is of geothermal origin, because the BEST data just excluded the sea temperatures and the warming of oceans (together with Arctic ice melting) still continues with undiminished rate.

http://physicswor...ws/42649

In addition, these data are illustrating, the global temperatures are virtually insensitive to changes in solar activity, because the extendend period of solar inactivity has started in 2006, i.e. well after the global warming started to stagnate. In 2003 the solar activity culminated instead.

http://science.na...trip.jpg
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
This difference has already its own name and it's called the Earth's heat content anomaly:

http://physicswor...ws/42356

http://www.skepti...tent.gif

IMO the latent heat of Earth mantle manifests with increasing of intensity and frequency of geovolcanic activity, with shift of geomagnetic poles, etc. As an evidence of its extraterresterial origin can serve the fact, the similar climatic changes can be observed even at the other planets of Solar system, including the Sun itself.
Skepticus_Rex
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
Unfortunately for you, djr, "the Mail" is accurately portraying this episode in BEST history. I know you will refuse to believe it but all you have to do is go take a look at what the data really is showing for the time being.

It might start warming again. It might not. Only by watching over the next couple decades are we going to know for sure. We certainly won't know this from hiding of data and having raw data merged and averaged away the way BEST recently did it. :)
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
"Read the whole paper at the end of link VendiTard." - SkeptiTard-Rex

Here it is.

"The principal limitation to empirical determination
of climate sensitivity or to the evaluation of
the performance of climate models over the period of
instrumental measurements is the present uncertainty in
forcing by anthropogenic aerosols. This situation calls for
greatly enhanced efforts to reduce this uncertainty."

I am in full agreement.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2011
"Then again, maybe can just let the folks make up their own minds." - MosTard

Of course. Everyone idiot is entitled to his own anti-science ideologically driven reality.

Right?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2011
"We certainly won't know this from hiding of data and having raw data merged and averaged away the way BEST recently did it. :)" - SkeptiTard-Rex

If you have any complains about the statistical methods used then state them here, or write a paper and have it published.

Of course, you won't be able to do either if you are as incompetent, ignorant and ideologically driven as you appear.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2011
Your Opinions are noted and discarded as the worthless imaginings of an ignorant and innumerate child.

Learn some science. Learn how to count. Learn how the world works and then get back to us with your opinions. They will be worth considering at that point.

"IMO the latent heat of Earth mantle manifests with increasing of intensity and frequency of geovolcanic activity, with shift of geomagnetic poles, etc." - Callippo
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2011
"It shows the climate as warmed in the past without SUVs." - RyggTard

Well my pathetic little Straw man, since there isn't a climate scientist alive who has claimed that there haven't been past warm periods, your point is as vacuous and dishonest as the Libertarian party platform.

djr
5 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2011
"Unfortunately for you, djr, "the Mail" is accurately portraying this episode in BEST history." It is early days Skepticus - and I am willing to be patient - and see what the science concludes. Judith Curry certainly has a history of speaking - and then having to make retractions. The Mail is known for it's anti global warming stance. Everyone on both sides of the issue are hastily trying to score points - and prove their position. I am on the side of science. It will be interesting to hear the rest of the Berkley team respond to these allegations.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
Curry is already back peddling as fast as she can.

http://tamino.wor...ts-foot/

Skepticus_Rex
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2011
Lot's of crap at that blog you linked. Why not, instead of omitting months of data from 2010, utilize the whole of the data for that year? That produces either a flatline or a very slight downward trend as can be seen at the links I have posted elsewhere on the site. (Of course, BEST does only deal with the land temperatures and NOT the whole globe, and does include a slight increase, so I suppose I can forgive the blogger you cited. But, if BEST is not global, what good is it in a global discussion?)

You accused me of lying about the more than 60% off on climate sensitivity and forcing in the AR4 models. Perhaps you missed this paragraph from pages 2453-2454 of the paper to which I referred you:

However, the observed increase of GMST over the industrial period is less than 40% of what would be expected from present best estimates of the earths climate sensitivity and the forcing (imposed change in energy balance, Wm-2) by the observed increases in GHGs.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2011
"Lot's of crap at that blog you linked. Why not, instead of omitting months of data from 2010, utilize the whole of the data for that year?" - SkeptiTard-Rex

Because oh ignorant one, at the start of the analysis, the data for the remainder of 2010 wasn't in yet.

And in fact the data for the months shown for 2010 wasn't even complete - many reporting stations hadn't yet provided their results.

And that my little Cogno-Turd is why the last two data points have a standard error of over 2'C.

This is an even more powerful reason they should be discarded from the analysis.

Finally, if your interpretation hinges on the two final months of climate data from a 1200 element data set then you have no concept of statistical significance, and in fact inferior to anyone with even a grade school level comprehension of statistics.

"You accused me of lying about the more than 60% off on climate sensitivity and forcing in the AR4 models." - SkeptiTard-Rex

That is correct, you are lying.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2011
If you had included the error bars then the predicted and measured regions overlap. Hence the error is not 60% but between 0 percent and 60 percent.

But you chose the dishonest path and claim 60% because lying is part of your nature.

"However, the observed increase of GMST over the industrial period is less than 40%" - SkeptiTard-Rex

As explained earlier you can't subtract .7 plus or minus .5 from 1 plus or minus .5 and get .3 because the ranges overlap.

.7 becomes .2 or 1.3, and 1 becomes .5 or 1.5

The difference therefore yields .3 or minus .8 or 1.3 or minus .2 with the most probable value being between minus .2 or .8, which as you might notice includes ZERO - meaning ZERO ERROR.

And that is why your childish subtraction is a lie.

djr
4 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2011
"What a sad day for all of the scientists caught in this quagmire!" Omatumr - have you read Judith Curry's own blog regarding this 'quagmire? http://judithcurr...on-best/

From her blog - Hiding the truth in the title is definitely misleading...

"My main point was that this is a very good data set, the best we currently have available for land surface temperatures."

"I very quickly figured out that they were highly reputable scientists..."

Quagmire?????
djr
4 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2011
What a sad day for all of the scientists caught in this quagmire!

Omatumr - have u read Judith Curry's own blog regarding this issue? http://judithcurr...on-best/

Just 2 quotes from her blog -

although I very quickly figured out that they were highly reputable scientists

My main point was that this is a very good data set, the best we currently have available for land surface temperatures

Quagmire??????

omatumr
1 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
Manipulation of science threatens the fragile gift we received from our founding fathers 235 years ago:

1. Dr. Michael Crichton (15 Sept 2003): I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

2. Thomas Jefferson (22 April 1820): I regret that I am now to die in the belief, that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it.

http://teachingam...ment=461
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2011
Quagmire?


Yes. A horrible quagmire!

Manipulation of science threatens self-government, the precious but fragile gift we received from our founding fathers 235 years ago:

1. Dr. Michael Crichtons speech on Environmentalism as Religion (September 15, 2003):

http://scienceand...hes.html

2. Thomas Jeffersons letter to John Holmes (22 April 1820):

http://teachingam...ment=461

3. Deep roots of the global climate scandal (1971-2011)

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

Many folks sense that society may be on the brink of collapse from unknown causes.

I do not know the reason either, but I suspect that the answer may be identified through a combination of science, spirituality, contemplation and meditation. Anger, arrogance and selfishness will probably not help.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09

Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2011
Poor Omatard. Poor Demented Omatard

http://www.youtub...T6OSr1TI
Howhot
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
Just to pile on; E-too-howhot, You are delusional if you think there is a "global climate scandal". If there is a scandal, it's that rightwing-a-turds, oil, coal and other anti-earth interests have so polluted the political dialog that we have now about 10 year (tetra-tons) of additional CO2 dumped into earths 5mile thin atmosphere, just so a few 1% can profit.
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2011
Credibility in climatology will not be restored until there is a candid acknowledgement of the natural variability of Earth's heat source - the Sun - and the current state of knowledge/ ignorance about the reasons for that variability and its impact on Earth's changing climate.

http://judithcurr...t-130496
mosahlah
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2011
"Then again, maybe can just let the folks make up their own minds." - MosTard

Of course. Everyone idiot is entitled to his own anti-science ideologically driven reality.

Right?


Sure VinDic, you know it all. I can tell because you lace every sentence with an insult which proves your logic is beyond everyone's reasoning ability. How well does that big brain work with people skills? Can you pick up chicks with that wit? Got anything to back up that bravado?
mosahlah
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2011
Credibility in climatology will not be restored until there is a candid acknowledgement of the natural variability of Earth's heat source - the Sun - and the current state of knowledge/ ignorance about the reasons for that variability and its impact on Earth's changing climate.

Totally agree, except to say maybe both sides are cherry picking the question. Is there AGW? Sure, why not. How about the bigger question. What, if anything, should we do about it...? The left thinks they can define the question and reap carte blanche, the license to dictate the solution. The right, yeah me too, ain't going to be dragged into the next phase just because ice is melting in Greenland.

Just because a rise is earth's mean temperature can be proven, doesn't prove anything about what to do about it.
Birthmark
5 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2011
"Political ideology, not science, increasingly determines what people believe to be true about the physical world."

SO True! Mostly because we Americans are better at having opinions than intelligence.
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2011
It's amazing how much truth interferes with spin. It looks like "mosahlah" is PO'ed.

Sure, why not. How about the bigger question. What, if anything, should we do about it...? The left thinks they can define the question and reap carte blanche, the license to dictate the solution. The right, yeah me too, ain't going to be dragged into the next phase just because ice is melting in Greenland.


See: http://www.scribd...Playbook

Actuall Mos, the earths mean temperature rise is something the be extremely concerned about, just has a human being. As a creature of this planet, because you have now where else to go.
First; the temperature rise is has been huge compared to anything else in mankind's history in that we will see a 10C rise in temps in less than 200 years.
Second; it's man made and we are the cause. We did it in 200 years, and now that proof is clearly demonstrated as a cause and effect, we just need EPA to regulate CO2.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2011
And to follow up on my last post,
The right, yeah me too, ain't going to be dragged into the next phase just because ice is melting in Greenland.


It isn't just the ice in Greenland that is melting. It's everywhere there is ice! South-pole, North-pole, Glaciers, Ice-lakes. It's global. That is global-warming!

Global warming is the cause of the drought conditions recorded by instruments across the globe. Instruments can't be wrong globally.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2011
"Sure VinDic, you know it all." - Mochalah

Yup, that is pretty much correct.

"How well does that big brain work with people skills? Can you pick up chicks with that wit?" - Mochalah

As long as morons know their place, I have no problem with them.

As for intellectual inferiors like yourself, well it is obvious that you live in a fantasy land because you can't stomach the truth.

As a Rational Man, I have no trouble living in the real world.

frenchie
5 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2011
Credibility in climatology will not be restored until there is a candid acknowledgement of the natural variability of Earth's heat source - the Sun - and the current state of knowledge/ ignorance about the reasons for that variability and its impact on Earth's changing climate.

http://news.yahoo...907.html


DID YOU REALLY just post that because it snowed heavily in october, warming thus cannot be true???

ARE YOU REALLY A SCIENTIST?

Climate change would increase precipitation. True story bro check it out. SO you, and your foxnews cronnies can just go away please. OMG WASHINGTON IS UNDER A FOOT OF SNOW AND THUS WARMING MUST BE WRONG.

You sir are an idiot of the highest caliber.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2011
What are glaciers? Lots of snow!
Nerdyguy
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2011
Just to pile on; E-too-howhot, You are delusional if you think there is a "global climate scandal". If there is a scandal, it's that rightwing-a-turds, oil, coal and other anti-earth interests have so polluted the political dialog that we have now about 10 year (tetra-tons) of additional CO2 dumped into earths 5mile thin atmosphere, just so a few 1% can profit.

In point of fact, I don't think it's a fair statement to say we burn coal, oil, etc. just so "1% can profit".

We don't yet have the technological know-how to use other, cleaner sources to provide the energy we need TODAY, let alone for tomorrow's growth. And, sources like nuclear (that could help immediately) continually face an uphill battle over unfounded safety issues.

So, whether or not you think it's a brilliant idea, unless you've got a better plan, this is all that humanity can achieve at the moment.
rubberman
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2011
WOW!!! Go away for a weekend and everything hits the fan...I wish I had time to read all of the posts....
djr
5 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2011
"Global warming?" and then u cite an article about a recent snow storm. I am sorry omatumr - I have to call u on this type of junk. This summer the whole Southern U.S. experienced an unprecedented heat wave - accompanied by severe drought. Areas of Europe are experiencing severe drought. The horn of Africa is in the middle of a 100 year drought. But if I dare suggest any of this may be global warming related - the deniers start screaming about how I don't know the difference between weather and climate. But you can take one weather event - and attach the caption "Global Warming?" Would you not agree that you apply a very double standard to suit your own interpretation of the universe?
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2011
Credibility in climatology will not be restored until there is a candid acknowledgement of the natural variability of Earth's heat source - the Sun - and the current state of knowledge/ ignorance about the reasons for that variability and its impact on Earth's changing climate.


For example,

A. Earth's climate is influenced by the Sun.

B. Like other stars, the Sun is massive, violent and layered (1,2,3):

www.eso.org/publi...eso1029/

1st: An unstable fluid envelope (91% H and 9% He)

www.omatumr.com/P...face.htm

http://apod.nasa....918.html

www.youtube.com/w...7OZx2NYo

www.foxnews.com/s...c6W6l2Zf

2nd: A rigid, iron-rich interior detected by many techniques [a-d]

http://trace.lmsa...0828.avi

3rd: A pulsar core heated by neutron repulsion [e]

www.omatumr.com/P...core.htm

These data [a-e] and observations influence Earth's climate [f] (References below)
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2011
mosahlah
2.5 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2011
"Sure VinDic, you know it all." - Mochalah

Yup, that is pretty much correct.

As long as morons know their place, I have no problem with them.

As for intellectual inferiors like yourself, well it is obvious that you live in a fantasy land because you can't stomach the truth.

As a Rational Man, I have no trouble living in the real world.



Moron.. Again your favorite retort is petty insults. I think I know my place, I'm just a simple soldier doing my part to keep the world safe enough for liberals to exist. But your dialog belongs... in the 6th grade bathroom? Let's just keep all this discourse and vocabulary professional and spartan.

How ya gonna prove correlation (much less causation) when the temps been pretty stable for the last 11 years? Did CO2 take an 11 year break? Maybe the science isn't entirely settled after all? How was your halloween by the way? brisk I bet.
MarkyMark
not rated yet Nov 01, 2011
http://mominer.ms...hildren/

Omature is just a moron with a child fuc&ing hobby who believes the sun is an iron neutron star.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2011
"How ya gonna prove correlation (much less causation) when the temps been pretty stable for the last 11 years?" - Moshashalala

According to the BEST results - paid for by your denialist, anti-science Koch brothers, the global warming trend over the last decade is 0.14'C.

So you have now just exposed yourself as a liar.

That makes you a moron as well doesn't it? ShaLaLa?
omatumr
1 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2011
What is, . . . IS.

Spiritual truth will not be defeated by the combined powers of all the world leaders.

That is why factual observations and experimental data are important:

Factual Observations:

A. Earths climate is strongly influenced by the Sun

B. Like other stars the Sun is massive, violent and layered:

www.eso.org/publi...eso1029/

_1st: The fluid outer envelope (91% H and 9% He):

www.omatumr.com/P...face.htm

http://apod.nasa....918.html

www.foxnews.com/s...c6W6l2Zf

_2nd: The iron-rich solar interior [2]

http://trace.lmsa...0828.avi

3rd: The pulsar solar core [3]

www.omatumr.com/P...core.htm

Experimental Data [1-3, and references cited therein] :

1. J. D. Jose, Suns motion and sunspots, Astron. J. 70, 193-200 (1965)

www.griffith.edu....S176.pdf

www.mitosyfraudes...t-1.html

(Continued below)
omatumr
1 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2011
What is, . . . IS.


Experimental Data [1-3, and references cited therein] :

1. J. D. Jose, Suns motion and sunspots, Astron. J. 70, 193-200 (1965)

www.griffith.edu....S176.pdf

www.mitosyfraudes...t-1.html

2. Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate, J. Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002)

http://arxiv.org/.../0501441

3. Neutron repulsion, The APEIRON J., in press (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1
PinkElephant
not rated yet Nov 01, 2011
What is, . . . IS.
Yes indeed, a kook and a troll you is. You definitely, most certainly, IS.
WKern
not rated yet Nov 02, 2011
I'm sorry, but the analogy isn't right. To mention just a few problems, the emissions are not of co2 but of carbon, which typically but not always combines with the oxygen in the air to form co2. That's distinct from our breathing, which emits co2 fully formed. The carbon stays in the air an average of 200 years, so unless the "carrying capacity" of oceans and flora is exceeded, just about all the carbon returning from the atmosphere is re-absorbed.

PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2011
To mention just a few problems, the emissions are not of co2 but of carbon
Eh, no. You can't very easily 'emit' pure carbon (which would be in the form of graphite, diamond, buckyballs, or nanotubes -- among the allotropes we know about...) in such a way that it would enter and stay in the atmosphere. Yes, there is some "black carbon" emission -- in the form of soot -- but those aerosols tend to precipitate out rather quickly.

When people talk of "carbon emissions", they indeed mean emissions of, mainly, CO2 and CH4 (the latter precipitating out fairly quickly by reacting with H2O.)
The carbon stays in the air an average of 200 years...
Not quite. It takes around 200 years for additional CO2 to fully equilibrate with the oceans, so that roughly 30% of the initial emitted volume remains in the atmosphere. That residual quantity then slowly declines over up to 2000 years via natural sequestration mechanisms.

Of course, equilibrium is impossible under growing emissions.
Howhot
5 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2011
@nerdguy;
In point of fact, I don't think it's a fair statement to say we burn coal, oil, etc. just so "1% can profit"
Well in a way you are right and in a way you are wrong. It was not a *fair* statement on my part, but it is accurate. Eventually profits do fall to the 1%, but 100% will feel the effects of global warming.

We all owe our comfortable existence to Coal, Oil and Gas. "COG". The problem is our lifestyle will kill us unless we socially engineer our friends and neighbors to un-style ourselves out of CO2 emissions.

Howhot
5 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2011
It isn't just the ice in Greenland that is melting. It's everywhere there is ice! South-pole, North-pole, Glaciers, Ice-lakes. It's global. That is global-warming!