Researchers detail climate-change impacts in ecological journal

Nov 05, 2013
Researchers detail climate-change impacts in ecological journal
Climate change is already increasing the frequency of extreme events, such as storms, which directly affect people in numerous ways. Credit: City of Scottsdale (with permission)

The coming century will bring many changes for natural systems and for the human societies that depend on them, as changing climate conditions ripple outward to changing rainfall patterns, soil nutrient cycles, species ranges, seasonal timing and a multitude of other interconnected factors. Many of these changes have already begun.

The November 2013 issue of the Ecological Society of America's journal, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, is devoted to an assessment of impacts on and the consequences for people.

"The impacts that climate change has had and will have on people are interwoven with the impacts on ecosystems. I think that we instinctively know that. In this assessment, we try to draw that connection," said guest editor Nancy Grimm, professor with Arizona State University's School of Life Sciences and senior scientist with the Global Institute of Sustainability. Grimm is also senior author of two of the papers.

To produce this special issue of ESA's Frontiers, a diverse group of over 50 ecological scientists and other stakeholders condensed and illustrated the work they had done for a technical input report on biodiversity, ecosystems and for the U.S. National Climate Assessment. The assessment is due to be released in 2014.

The collection is aimed at both ecologists and practitioners. The authors hope to demonstrate the potential for researchers to collaborate with practitioners in identifying "policy relevant questions" – information that practitioners need to make science-based decisions about management of natural resources. Grimm would like to see more academic researchers designing "policy-relevant questions" into their research programs so that research projects may address the data needs of managers while tackling basic science questions.

The authors designed the collection of reports to demonstrate the interrelationships of human and ecosystem productivity, as well as the interrelationships of species, climate and landscape. By properly managing ecosystems, they say, we are also managing their potential to harm or help society. The variability of the natural world demands equal creativity and flexibility in considering a range of complementary solutions to environmental problems.

The special issue tackles five major topics of concern:

Researchers detail climate-change impacts in ecological journal
Increased number and severity of fires in the West have been linked to climate change, although multiple other stressors and drivers are associated with these events. Credit: U.S. Forest Service

Biodiversity

Ecologists have predicted that species will move out of their historic ranges as climate changes and their old territories become inhospitable. This is already occurring. The simple prediction was that species would seek out historic temperature conditions by moving up latitudes, uphill or into deeper waters. But species movements have proven to be idiosyncratic. Because some species can move and cope with change more easily than others, relationships between species are changing, sometimes critically, as interdependent species are separated in time and space.

Ecosystem functionality

Living things have powerful influences on the lands and waters they occupy. As existing ecosystems unravel, we are seeing the chemistry and hydrology of the physical environment change, with further feedback effects on the ecosystem. And, in turn, ecosystem changes feed back to .

Ecosystem Services

Impacts on natural systems have direct consequences for crop and seafood production, water quality and availability, storm damage and fire intensity. Working with, rather than against, ecosystems may help society to adapt to changes, such as sea-level rise and storm surge, which threaten lives and property.

Combined effects of climate and other pressures

Species will be hard-pressed to adapt to rapidly changing physical conditions without room to move. Ecosystems are already stressed by habitat loss and fragmentation, pollution and natural resource extraction.

Preparation and management

Adaptation efforts may need to think beyond the preservation of current or historic natural communities. Existing relationships between species and the landscapes they inhabit will inevitably change. We may need to consider managing the changing landscapes to maintain biodiversity and the functional attributes of ecosystems, rather than specific .

"The change is already here. We are seeing droughts, floods and fires with increased magnitude, duration and shorter return times," said John Sabo, associate professor with ASU's School of Life Sciences. "This intensification of extremes has captured the attention of the reinsurance industry and is affecting businesses across the globe. It will also affect the biota of critical ecosystems – the production of farmlands, subsistence fisheries and forest cover, just to name a few," added Sabo, a co-author of one of the papers and senior sustainability scientist with the university's Global Institute of Sustainability.

Explore further: Alberta's climate will get warmer, drier, report says

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

The overlooked effects of global change

Sep 13, 2013

Although the Earth is in the midst of one of the largest and most rapid ever reductions in biological diversity, we may be overlooking some of the most important aspects. That's the conclusion of a new path-finding ...

Recommended for you

Big data confirms climate extremes are here to stay

Jul 30, 2014

In a paper published online today in the journal Scientific Reports, published by Nature, Northeastern researchers Evan Kodra and Auroop Ganguly found that while global temperature is indeed increasing, so too is the variab ...

Peru's carbon quantified: Economic and conservation boon

Jul 30, 2014

Today scientists unveiled the first high-resolution map of the carbon stocks stored on land throughout the entire country of Perú. The new and improved methodology used to make the map marks a sea change ...

User comments : 119

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mememine69
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 05, 2013

For 30 years the scientists have agreed on nothing beyond "COULD BE" a crisis so YOU CANNOT say it "WILL BE" a crisis until science does.
Deny that!
goracle
1.9 / 5 (17) Nov 05, 2013

For 30 years the scientists have agreed on nothing beyond "COULD BE" a crisis so YOU CANNOT say it "WILL BE" a crisis until science does.
Deny that!

It feels like 30 years that you've been posting the same garbage.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (18) Nov 05, 2013
Climate change is already increasing the frequency of extreme events, such as storms

On what planet?
The AGW Cult pulls these lies out of where the sun don't shine and their Chicken Littles gobble it up like there is no tomorrow,
jfreed27
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 06, 2013
memme:

Driving fast towards a cliff in the fog (and on very thin brake linings) means you are "likely" in danger. Even "very likely"

The IPCC fifth assessment has describes causes and the impacts of man made climate change as "likely", "very likely", and beyond that: "unequivocal".

The changes described are disastrous, both to human life and the economy. The only doubt in the scientific community is how disastrous: Species endiing? 20 Trillion or 60 trillion $$.

Many of these changes cannot be prevented, thanks to the delays of our outlandish denier community.

But, swift and bold action can blunt the worst effects, if taken now.

That level of certainty about AGW should be more than enough for responsible adults to get off their butts. Only the most careless wishful thinking (or love of oil profits) would counsel we should delay action.

Jim Steele
1.4 / 5 (19) Nov 06, 2013
Claims by climate alarmists that species have been moving out of historic ranges has been thoroughly debunked and is well documented. Range changes are more accurately caused by natural cycles and landscape changes. Read 1) http://landscapes...ect.html 2) http://landscapes...-uk.html 3) http://landscapes...her.html
Egleton
2.2 / 5 (13) Nov 09, 2013
Go tell boss Big Coal that you need a new tactic in the face of reality.
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2013
Here is an interesting discussion of some of the work of Jim Steele (presumably the same Jim Steele posting above) - apparently contributor to WUWT - boy what goes around comes around.

http://blog.hotwh...xth.html
Jim Steele
1 / 5 (14) Nov 23, 2013
An introduced fungus is now killing several species. An erroneous focus on climate change caused us to miss the chance stop its deadly spread? Read Contrasting Good and Bad Science: Disease, Climate Change and the Case of the Golden Toad
http://landscapes...ate.html
Jim Steele
1 / 5 (14) Nov 23, 2013
djr I m indeed the same Jim Steele and Hot Whoppers website is notorius for twisting statements to denigrate any skeptics. Here is a link to what I wrote. You decide the truth
http://landscapes...-uk.html
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2013
Jim Steele - "You decide the truth "

Of course - and based on a careful reading of both articles - I am comfortable that Hot Whoppers has given a fair analysis of the big picture. You are looking at one situation - regarding one species. Here is a relevant quote that makes me comfortable with their analysis.

"Change in any individual species, taxon or geographic region may have a number of possible explanations, but the overall effects of most confounding factors decline with increasing numbers of species/systems studied."

My wider point is that WUWT is clearly a bias site - with a very blatant purpose. That is fine - I don't go there - any more that I go to young earth creationist sites. My objection is to the need of people who frequent WUWT - then needing to cross contaminate Physorg - which is in my opinion NOT a bias site. I try not to think as you do in terms of 'sides' - but I balk at religious fanaticism.
Jim Steele
1 / 5 (12) Nov 23, 2013
djr you chose a quote that is meaningless. Confounding factors never disappear. The foundation of good science is to account for those factors not obscure them by averaging away critical dynamics. That a skeptic seeks Phys.org for respectful discussion is not religious fanaticism; but there are some Co2 fanatics residing here. We must debate the evidence. To balance your attempt to denigrate my argument via association consider this. The past invertebrate specialist for the Federal Endangered Species agrees with my analyses. He promoted my book to his colleagues who are the leading butterfly experts in the world. The first expert Dr. Art Shapiro from UC Davis to comment is still a staunch CO2 advocate but he wrote "I know for a fact that Steele is largely right about pikas and some published butterfly work (but NOT all). http://www.amazon...90390189
Jim Steele
1 / 5 (14) Nov 23, 2013
To illustrate the folly of averaging away the local factors one need only to stick their head in the freezer and legs in a hot oven. On average you are still doing well, but the average can't explain your pain. Any hypothesis that searches for a correlation with the average to explain your pain would be gravely misguided. Average is only a valid metric when it samples a homogeneous population. Even averaging the daily temperature is a misapplication of the statistic. The maximum temperature measure heat at mid day when convection currents mix the entire air column. Minimum is measured around pre-dawn when the air is still and a thin inversion layer is usually measured. Studies from 1950 to 90s by Karl show minimum temperatures had risen 3 times as fast as maximum ( approx. .28C vs .86C) Average that together you get a larger rising average which suggests the earth is accumulating heat. But the maximum is the more reliable measure and in many vast regions the max is lower than the 40s
djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2013
Jim Steele: "We must debate the evidence."

I don't believe that is what happens on Physorg with commenters such as yourself - I think it actually becomes an ego contest, and a pissing match. No one moves their position - and I don't believe they should. I don't come to Physorg to prove that I know more than the consensus science. I come to learn what is happening in the world of science. The world of science tells us that the globe is warming, that C02 is the primary driver of the current warming, and there are potential consequences to our climate as we move forward. Here is the problem with the debate that happens on Physorg. Science is reported. We are for the most part not scientists - we are lay people - wanting to stay current with what is happening in our world. We follow along with the science - and are of course concerned by the very obvious issues that are raised by the research we are reading about. cont.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2013
A group of religious anti AGW folks flock over from sites like WUWT - and attack the science. Of course it is your right to believe what you want, just as it is the right of a young earth creationist to believe the earth is only 10,000 yrs old, and that it is a grand conspiracy of the science community to suppress their reality. My problem - is that I see it as ignorant, and rude to come over to this site - and purposely start these pissing matches. We don't invade WUWT and start fights all the time. It is unproductive, and the wrong forum. We are not the scientists doing the research. Have the debate with the scientists doing the research - and leave this site alone. If you think that this site is bias - fine - go somewhere else. Take an example. Runrig and Nik constantly debate the science. Do you think any benefit comes from these protracted arguments. Does any one change their view? What actually happens is that one person supports their position. The other cont.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2013
counters, and supports their position - and the debate can go on for weeks. Nik cherry picks data - puts up links to sites that actually contradict the point he is making, makes claims that are not supported by the links he provides himself. Nothing changes - and the whole process starts on the next thread. When the contradictions in his arguments are pointed out - he gets mad - starts name calling - and the whole thing devolves into a pissing match. Do you think that kind of process is productive? If no - then why not leave physorg alone - and let us enjoy the science as it is presented - with opportunity for constructive, additive type comments - vs an attempt to always try to tear down the science, and purposely provoke pissing matches?
Jim Steele
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 23, 2013
I am a scientist and debate is essential to science. There is an abundance of contradictions that still need to be debated. Einstein urged us to never stop questioning. Darwin's "bulldog" Thomas Huxley relentlessly urged greater critical thinking arguing, "Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority." Benjamin Franklin rallied, "It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." The motto of the oldest scientific society the Newton was once the president is "Nullius in Verba" meaning take no one's word for it. My generations motto was question authority. But djr suggests passive acceptance of authority & conspiracy theories and prefers to call us ignorant and rude for questioning, preferring an intellectual tyranny. I have great respect for runrig. No one should expect anyone to change right away. But for those seeking the truth we add the perspective of others as one more lens through which we view reality.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2013
I am a scientist and debate is essential to science.

I agree - and you have not heard one word that I said. How scientific is that? What goes on on the comments section of every climate article is not healthy debate. It is ego matches. It is a group of religious zealots - who have a predetermined view point - trying to prove that they are right.

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."

I can't believe that we have to keep having this same debate - it is so tired. When you get sick - do you go to the doctor? If yes - then you are contradicting your own argument. I don't go to the doctor - and tell her that she does not know what she is talking about. I go to the doctor because she does know what she is talking about. If you believe that doctors are in a grand conspiracy to take your money - and lie to you - then don't go to the doctor. But don't poison physorg by attacking every article about a new development in the fight against cancer.
Jim Steele
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 23, 2013
What you can't believe is why we don't agree with your interpretations and you denigrate disagreement as poison. To denigrate Einstein scientists got together and wrote 100 against Einstein. By your logic I should go against Albert. Again discuss the evidence. Here is evidence that has made me skeptical.

in most of California maximum temperatures never exceeded the 30s and 40s as exemplified in the US HIstorical Climate Network data from Yosemite

http://landscapes...x294.png

Temperature data is influenced by population effects such as urbanization. More natural habitat is barely warming as shown by California's climatologists report http://landscapes...4952.jpg

or as has been reported for the contiguous USA as seen in the GHCN-D data as published in Shen 2012

http://landscapes...x444.png

And the fact that no tree ring data shows any warming trend similar to the exaggerate urbanized data
Jim Steele
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 23, 2013
Actually I was diagnosed with diabetes and the doctor prescribed medication. I took the medication and then embarked on a more careful eating and exercise regiment. I was keeping my blood sugar levels down in the respectable range but wondered "Was it the medication or my new habits. The only way to know I had to go off the medication which I did, and my blood sugar levels remained low.

You should read the retraction watch website to see how much data is falsified. In "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," Stanford University epidemiologist John loannidis reported that "for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias (emphasis added)." loannidis' paper was highlighted with other similar findings in a 2010 New Yorker article, "The Truth Wears Off," by Jonah Lehrer. It is available online
djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2013
"What you can't believe is why we don't agree with your interpretations and you denigrate disagreement as poison."

I don't have an interpretation Jim - any more than I have an interpretation for the what is the correct treatment for cancer. Recently I had a urinary tract infection. The doc prescribed some antibiotics - and guess what? - It cleared up. Here is a good discussion of the benefits of antibiotics. http://www.cdc.go...29a1.htm

I don't care if you disagree with the science - that is your choice. I do care that a bunch of religious zealots feel the need to impose themselves on this site. Yes it is poison - it precludes a civilized conversation - because it is always a pissing match - and it always degrades into name calling. Yes - I am sick of anti science zealots poisoning a great site. I know that I am wasting my time - just have to put you in the same box as Nik, Ryggy, and Freethinking et al. Nothing else to do. Last post.
Jim Steele
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2013
djr You misconstrue disagreeing with a prevailing hypothesis with the hyperbole of disagreeing with science. Every challenge I have posted is steeped in science and backed with evidence. Science is a process where hypotheses are debated and tested. Climate science, more than all other disciplines, requires decades and centuries to test its predictions, yet many of the climate predictions from 20 years ago have already failed. Debating hypotheses is not attacking science.

You lament that this site has devolved into pissing matches, but you forget that it was you who stared pissing on me. You started by equating my well researched rebuttal to religious fanaticism and suggested posting my disagreements was "ignorant, and rude" for merely coming over to this site and you equated my disagreements with creationism. The site will improve when you find a way to engage in more respectful debate. We are all blinded by our beliefs and only respectful debate frees us from our own illusions.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2013
" We are all blinded by our beliefs and only respectful debate frees us from our own illusions."

Jim - your fancy words mask a reality that I am coming to understand - and you seem to not understand. When groups form entrenched positions on a subject - debate simply becomes about defending your position. You have this great opinion that YOUR view of the world is well researched - and supported by evidence. The problem is that oddly - evidence seems to be subjective. People can look at the same evidence - and claim it proves opposing positions. So this site posts scientific research - and that research is immediately attacked by the same group of people - claiming their own evidence - and their own conclusions - EVERY TIME. I am sorry you don't see the problem in that. As can be seen from our interactions - and my interactions with many others on this site - (Ryggy, Freethougt, Antigoracle etc.) - there is no point. You have your preformed perspective. cont.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2013
cont. I have tried to reason that it is ignorant and rude to be the one constantly attacking the science that is presented on this site. This forum (1000 word cap) is not the place. Yes - I see you as ignorant and rude. Yes - I wish you would stay on WUWT - where you can all self congratulate - and agree on your world view - and just let Physorg alone to be a science site. I know now I am wasting my time - and sadly - Physorg will quiet possibly follow Popsci - and discontinue the comments.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2013
People can look at the same evidence - and claim it proves opposing positions.
Only because they (you) lie.

Jim Steele
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2013

djr In every debate people must advocate their position with evidence that brought them to that conclusion. Of course I believe I have researched my position well. Otherwise why debate Yet you insisst that advocating one's own opinion is wrong or deceptive or anti-science. My claims that butterfly range changes due to climate change have been debunked. I have top butterfly experts who agree with me. My arguments are extremely well researched and documented. Yet never once did you address the validity of my evidence but offer psycho babble about my intentions. You argue people with different opinions should remain on their own sites to self congratulate. You are advocating stagnation not scientific growth.

As MLK Jr said "Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think."

"The important thing is not to stop questioning" Einstein
djr
3 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2013
Jim - you continue to evade the issue that I raise. EVERY article on Physorg that mentions the word climate is immediately spammed by same group of people (Nik, Uba, Anti etc. etc.) It is NOT a question of being interested in an informed debate - it is a question of arguing for a pre-determined conclusion. No one moves - it is simply a pissing match. The research is presented - and the attacks begin. Many along the lines of uba above - calling people liars. People are not interested in an informed discussion - and so the site becomes poisoned. If people do try to actually argue the facts - the other side simply prepares a rebuttal - or like Uba above - calls names. It is clear - there is a group of people (I use the term diniers) whose intention is to poison Physorg by spamming climate science research. Of course I support enquiry - but you wont address the key issue I raise.
Jim Steele
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2013
djr Who is evading what? You complain of name calling and pissing matches and a lack of scientific debate. In response I offer scientific evidence abut you call me rude and ignorant, yet I continue to debate respectfully yet accuse me of evading what? Skeptics are a mixed bag, but we all get lumped into a category of deniers attacking science, tools of BIg Business and the Koch brothers. Top advocates like Michael Mann accuses everyone who disagrees with him as tools of the brothers Koch , and Kevin Trenberth published that skeptics are the greatest threat to mankind. The leadng CO2 advocates have had a large hand in evoking these pissing matches and it spills over to every website. Again I say to you, if you sincerely hate these pissing match, then model good scientific debate and discuss the scientific evidence I presented, instead of denigrating disagreement as anti science.
djr
3 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2013
djr Who is evading what?

Jim - when I read my response above - the point is very clear to me. The fact that you cannot understand what I am saying is indicative of the point I am trying to make. EVERY time there is an article on Physorg that mentions climate change - it is attacked by the same group of people. How is that an informed debate? How can I ask that question any more clearly? Every single researcher that is reported on is wrong? It is all a big conspiracy?

Do you not understand how this is clearly a group of people who have a predetermined view point - and are simply coming to Physorg to shove that view point down every one elses throat. IF someone does what you advocate - and discusses the actual science - it turns into a pissing match - with people like NIK, and Uba, and Antigoracle - calling folks like Runrig - who makes an honest attempt at discussing the science - a turd, and an asshole, etc. Uba recently called me a lying, hypocrite, scumbag. cont.
djr
3 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2013
I don't lie Jim - so why do you think it is OK I have to deal with that? How is it that you don't understand that we get snarky - and understand that calling for civility, and polite discourse - is simply a comfortable way to shut people up - and clear the floor for spamming the site with your predetermined view point.

Yes Jim - I think it is rude and ignorant to come over to a real great web site - and want to turn it into your own political megaphone. Why not leave Physorg be - let us enjoy the science - and find other forum to push your political perspective. I am pushing a political perspective - it is called let the science take it's course. I don't try to accuse scientists of anything - I am just here to enjoy the science - and yes I think the denier community takes pleasure in poisoning the well.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2013
let us enjoy the science

AGW is a religion, not a science.
push your political perspective

AGWites with the aid of physorg push their socialist political perspective.
let the science take it's course.

Then advocate for disbanding the political IPCC and let the science take its course.
Eliminate laws that force customers to buy solar and wind at higher costs than competitors and when the science is ready, the markets will follow. It happened with kerosene and electric lamps over 100 years ago.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2013
From the article:
"This intensification of extremes has captured the attention of the reinsurance industry and is affecting businesses across the globe. It will also affect the biota of critical ecosystems – the production of farmlands, subsistence fisheries and forest cover, just to name a few,"

Yes, like govt laws demanding corn based ethanol be used in auto fuels prompting the plowing under of marginal land.
Humans have been adapting successfully to climate for thousands of years.
When govts interfere building dams to grow rice and cotton in the AZ and CA deserts or trying to control the Mississippi with dams and dikes and bailing out communities that build on a fragile beaches, or below sea level, the wrong incentives are promoted.
Keep the govt out of guaranteeing insurance companies' risk and protecting businesses from natural risks and the adaptations will be swift and robust.
Jim Steele
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2013
djr I do not support Uba calling you a lying, hypocrite, scumbag any more than I support you calling me ignorant and rude. Neither has any place in seeking the greater truth. You keep responding to me about these other rude people, but I am not those people. I can not control them . I can only model how a skeptic should respectfully debate. Good debates are not easily manufactured on a website but the first step is to outlaw all ad hominems. The second step is to keep the focus on the issue. The article in question discusses climate effects on natural ecosystems. You must take responsibility for not honoring the first two critical steps.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2013
Sagan:
""The worst aspect of the Velikovsky Affair was not that many of his ideas are in gross contradiction to the facts. Rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas."

"There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly alright: it's the aperture to finding out what's right," he further explained, before concluding, "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science.""
http://www.realcl...azy.html
dj:" Why not leave Physorg be - let us enjoy the science - "
Climate is an emergent chaotic system that cannot be modeled to any sufficiency to make predictions decades and centuries in the future.
Those claiming otherwise do so for personal or political gain.
Jim Steele
1.6 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2013
I must agree with ryggesogn2 that government has created many ecological and health and welfare problems by subsidizing flood insurance that has encouraged people to build on flood plains and place themselves in harms way. Subsidies for palm oil has encouraged people to cut rainforest in Indonesia and endanger the Orangutans, subidies for sugar cane encourage more loss of Brazilian rain forest and corn subsidies reversed the return of marginal Great Plains farmlands to the wild. These subsidies cause far more ecological disruption than rising CO2.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2013
government has created many ecological and health and welfare problems

Yet many who claim to support science demand the govt 'do something' to stop the latest calamity.
Successful, demonstrated solutions were accomplished with science being applied by innovators and entrepreneurs. The invention of kerosene and its development into a clean burning standard product saved sperm whales, enabled people to stay up and read when it became dark, and made the crude oil refining so efficient gasoline was once a waste product.
'Progressives' then stepped in over 100 years ago hobbling future technical innovation.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2013
"Climate scientists frequently bemoan their 'communication problem,', i.e. that people aren't sufficiently alarmed. Well the IPCC seems to have the opposite problem with the UNFCCC: the UNFCCC seems to assume that every weather hazard is associated with anthropogenic global warming. "
"Corruption and climate change? Most people don't see a connection. This is likely because they aren't in the habit of thinking of climate change as a multi-billion dollar global industry. And wherever money flows plentifully, corruption is quick on its heels. – Alice Harrison, Transparency International's Climate Governance Program"
http://judithcurr...re-13874
djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2013
You must take responsibility for not honoring the first two critical steps.

Sorry Jim - I continue to disagree. I don't believe that it is ad hominem to state that I believe that it is ignorant and rude to come to a science site like physorg with a pre-determined agenda - and to try to use that site as a megaphone for your views - and that is what I perceive you are doing. We can disagree - I am good with that. Science does not begin with a conclusion. But the denial community does begin with a conclusion - and works out from there. I am a supporter of nuclear power - I agree with you that government often causes unintended consequences with things like subsidies. I will be very happy if the science community declares tomorrow that they were wrong on climate change - and all is well. Probably we should leave it at that.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 24, 2013
You must take responsibility for not honoring the first two critical steps.
Sorry Jim - I continue to disagree.
LOL. djr argues endlessly in defense his own ad hominem attacks, but gets all snarky when the same is done to him.

Give it up Jim. I've tried your same tactic numerous times. The AGWites refuse to simply discuss the science because they know their claims aren't substantiated by the facts.

djr won't even agree to this standard definition of global warming:

."global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

---------------------

...And none accept the fact temperatures stopped rising more than a dozen years ago:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2013
come to a science site like physorg with a pre-determined agenda


Physorg has a pre-determined agenda and if dj loves this site, he must have a pre-determined agenda.
I agree with you that government often causes unintended consequences with things like subsidies.

But dj is not willing to give up that power, in spite of the abundant evidence of failure.
Science does not begin with a conclusion.

Mann et all did with the hockey stick.
the science community

For someone who claims to know so much about the process of science, why must you wait for 'the community'? History shows many times how one individual changed the world against the consensus of the 'science community'.
In many cases, the scientist made one significant observation changing the paradigm and the 'community' followed filling in the details.
Real science is a messy process and all the really counts are accurate results that can reject the null hypothesis to a significant uncertainty.
djr
3 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2013
Hey Jim - let me put my bias aside for a minute and take you at your word - you say you are interested in a respectful debate - so I apologize for coming out of the gate with both barrels loaded - and I will give this one try.

First please take a look at this thread - http://phys.org/n...es.html- look at Nik's posts - and see what the denialist community is calling scientists (and understand I am simply on the side of science and reality). Here is a sample - "But these scammy rent seekers still dare cry alarm, steal our money and terrify students?"

This is one example of what we face every day - regarding every article that mentions the word climate.

Now - if you want to discuss the science - am I correct in understanding that it is your position that our globe is not warming, and species are not being displaced as a result of this non warming? I hope that will be a starting point - understand 1000 characters does not lend itself well
Jim Steele
1.7 / 5 (15) Nov 25, 2013
djr I do not argue that humans have raised the levels of CO2 or that we are experiencing climate change. I contend that landscape changes and natural cycles can explain most of the observed change. The science is solid that CO2 absorbs infrared but how sensitive climate is to CO2 is a far from settled matter. The positive phase of the Pacific Decadal and North Atlantic Oscillations and high solar activity can explain most of the warming in the 80s and 90s. Now they are all trending negative which predicts cooling. So we have a natural experiment to determine how which is more powerful rising CO2 or falling natural cycles.

I have written several essays showing that claims that wildlife has been going extinct due to Co2 are patently false and any negative observations are readily explained by factors like landscapes and disease and bad statistics. Attempts to use butterflies, penguin, pika, polar bears, and the golden toad as icons of CO2 warming are misdirecting conservation concern
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2013
see what the denialist community is calling scientists
What a bunch of whiny B.S.. We've had to put up with far worse. Just look at your own attempts to rationize your poor behavior in this very thread!

...and then there's the likes of VendicarE... (need I say more?)

djr
3.3 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2013
I see very little that I disagree with you on in terms of the science Jim. You agree that C02 is a cause of warming - although uncertainty as to the extent of it's affect, and that we are experiencing climate change. On the issue of trending negative - do you agree that ice sheets are continuing to melt, glaciers are continuing to melt, ocean temps are increasing, and ocean levels are rising. Therefore it certainly early days to claim that the warming has ceased. There was a surface temperature plateau from 1940 to 1980 - but it certainly did not mean that the system was no longer warming.

The other issue I think is important is that of renewable energy. If you look at China right now - and the smog problem they are experiencing - it seems only smart to me to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. If we get a double wammy of cutting C02 emissions - surely that is a bonus. But there is a polarization in this debate on that issue too. I see this huge problem of taking sides.
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2013
Jim - another quick question. Do you not see the problem of the polarization of the debate. Specifically a group of posters - who attack every article that contains the word climate - and claim that there is a conspiracy of scientists deliberately misleading the world - for the purpose of obtaining grant funding? An article may be talking about a recent study of phytoplankton - and immediately there is an attack on Al Gore, Michael Mann, the hockey stick, etc. etc.

I have raised this question several times. I sense you are sidestepping it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Nov 25, 2013
An article may be talking about a recent study of phytoplankton

When articles make some irrelevant comment about 'climate change' they deserve to be commented upon
Recently typhoon Yolanda is blamed on AGW by politicians and media with little forceful denial by climate 'scientists'.
It's likely that without such comments additional funding for more studies will dry up.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2013
Example:
"The melting of the subsea permafrost in the Arctic Ocean can't be blamed on modern humans—it's been slowly warming down there for thousands of years"
"it appears more likely that the methane will continue to bubble up slowly, contributing to greenhouse gases much as is happening currently—though they do caution that its possible global warming could cause more or bigger storms in the Arctic Ocean, releasing methane on a bigger scale."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Still have to make some AGW 'warning', though.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Nov 25, 2013
Regarding physorg pushing only science:

Propaganda masquerading as 'science':
"

Business professor Aric Rindfleisch says not only is materialism antithetical to individual welfare, it also has a secondary effect of amplifying traumatic events

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

This coincides with many religious teachings. Is this 'science' supporting religion?

Many materials are supportive of individual welfare: food, housing, transportation, heat, ....
Jim Steele
1.4 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2013
djr

I will answer your questions but you have sidestepped my arguments about this particular article on climate change's ecological impacts and the evidence I used to rebut those catastrophic claims.

You say "do you agree that ice sheets are continuing to melt, glaciers are continuing to melt, ocean temps are increasing, and ocean levels are rising."

a) ocean temps - Argo data hss shown ocean temps in the upper 300 meters have not continued to warm, but slightly coold since 2003. Claims that heating continues below 700 meters has been based on a "reanalysis," a modeling result of very sparse data with many adjustments and uncertainties. And not one model predicted that heating would happen at that great depth. They initially argued heating would cause stratification with heat layers floating near the surface, and all oceanographers will tell you most o the heat exchange with the atmosphere happens in the upper 100 meters. So I only agree that oceans warmed up until 2003.

continued
Jim Steele
1.4 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2013

b) Gaciers meltin- yes but for what reason. One reason Gore gets attacked is because he has promoted bad science in many instances and the shrinking glaciers of Kilimanjaro are a case in point. Experts like Georg Kaser established automatic weather stations at the foot of the glaciers and temperatures have not risen above freezing. Several papers have shown that the glaciers are sublimating away due to lack of moisture, and that is true for all the tropical glaciers. In the Himalaya the western third known as the Karakoram have been growing. The western Himalaya have been shrinking but that can be explained again by the lack of moisture supplied by the monsoons. During the positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation, there are more El Ninos and that carried moisture away.

Similarly the North Atlantic Oscillation shifts the storm tracks. When positive storm tracks shift northward and while glaciers in the European Alps shrank, the Norwegian glaciers grew.

...continued
Jim Steele
1.4 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2013
Europes mass balance was offset with no net loss.

The greatest rate of lost glacier mass happened before the 1950s as we emerged from the Little Ice Age. What triggered the shrinking glaciers has been called the Little Ice Age paradox because glaciers began retreating before temperatures rose. So again factors other than CO2 seem to be bigger players in shrinking glaciers.

c) Ocean sea levels- MITs oceanographer has argued the data is insufficient to blame global warming on rising sea level. Based on tidal gauges the rate has been a steady 1.7 mm per year. New satellite data suddenly suggested the rate was nearly twice that. The question is why was that not noticeable in the tide gauges. Detecting 2 mm per year is quite a feat considering a slight breeze can raises ripples far larger. Ocean oscillation have lowered sea level in the eastern Pacific and raised them in the western Pacific. Change in rainfall patterns can raise the surface by adding fresh water. continued....
Jim Steele
1.4 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2013
or lower the surface by delivering more rain to the continents. In 2010 global sea level dropped by 7mm and the belief now is that above normal rains in Australia cause more water to be stored on the land. If so then levels can rise when rain falls elsewhere. Consider that we have channelized all our streams thus draining the subsurface water as well as furiously pumping out ancient aquifers then the rate of sea level rise as well as the cause are still questions under examination.
All these examples suggest that we are still trying to explain all the factors that cause melting glaciers and sea level change.

And indeed I sidestep you insistence on branding skeptics as the cause of pissing matches. First of all it was off topic. Second of all both sides have engaged denigrating the other. The chief architect of modern CAGW Kevin Trenberth has said skeptics are the greatest threat to humanity. I frequently get called "denier scum" or a tool of the Koch bros.

...continued
Jim Steele
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2013
In part these pissing matches are just the way people always argue. Mark Twain had a golden rule, "In matters of disagreement the other side is always insane."

We can only model good scientific debate and avoid name-calling and rigorously test hypotheses and report all the evidence. Contradictions should be vetted and not simply dismissed as cherry picking.

Regards green energy, my stance is we should lower capital gains on all green energy and allow the same forces that smoothly brought the power of a mainframe computer to your handheld phone to deliver better energy solutions.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Nov 25, 2013
lower capital gains on all green energy

Eliminate capital gains on all investments.
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2013
Thanks for the long response Jim. You covered a massive amount of turf. I am going to give you a quick big picture response - and then I will agree to disagree with you - but not tie up our time in protracted debate.

Bottom line - I see you as participating in a massive level of confirmation bias (emphasis on I SEE YOU). Debating what I see as your confirmation bias would take hundreds of hours - and I am not the person to do that - I am not a working scientist. Global climate information is compiled by thousands of trained scientists. What you propose requires either a massive conspiracy, or that all of these scientists are delusional. I disagree. You are able to take each issue - and provide your own rationalization of why the current scientific perspective is wrong. You don't see the confirmation bias in that process. Here is an analysis of the glacier situation - that you are able to dismiss so readily http://www.skepti...nds.html
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2013
cont. - and here is yet another recent report that is supporting this view - http://phys.org/n...dly.html

Big picture - if you look at the data that is compiled by the scientists studying the issues - the glaciers are retreating, the ice sheets are melting, the oceans levels are rising, the ocean temps are increasing, the atmospheric temps are increasing (yes a plateau for the past 20 years - but long term trend is clear), the ocean ph is changing.

One way you have helped me is in evolving my understanding that drilling into the details of this debate would take up 100% of my time - and I am not able or willing to do that. Even if I did - I believe that your confirmation bias would simply lead to eternal debate - with no one ever shifting position. On that note - I am happy to exit stage left.
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2013
As you asked about the butterfly issue - I will give you a quick response. The meta data is showing that across the globe - there are changes in the habitat that many species occupy - that are consistent with a warming climate. These changes are happening quickly - and giving scientists cause for concern about the ability of ecosystems to respond. Looking at one individual piece of research is too detailed for my position in life (not enough free time). I am comfortable with accepting the conclusions of the science community. Here is an interesting overview of some of these effects - http://www.neaq.o...mals.php
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 26, 2013
dj, if you were around 100 years ago would you have bought into the eugenics movement? Thousands of scientists all supported it.
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2013
Rygg - you are perhaps correct - we will never know. If I had been born 100 years ago I would probably have been religious - and believed in a sky fairy. But our world has moved on. And stupid ideas are thrown into the dustbin of history (the world is the center of the universe). Equating the consensus of science 100 years ago with climate science today is nonsense. The world has changed - science has moved on - people are in general more educated (look at current day literacy rates). Consensus science is that when you get meningitis - you take an antibiotic. Would you not take an antibiotic if you caught meningitis? Oh that is right - you know better than all the scientists. You would heal yourself with homeopathy. So does being willing to take antibiotics make me a eugenicist? Do you see the nonsense of your reasoning? I thought not. I wonder why you keep embarrassing yourself by regurgitating the same discredited arguments.
Jim Steele
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 26, 2013
djr Again you substitute psycho babble for the science you say you crave. You dismiss all my arguments out of hand as a function of confirmation bias, as if only skeptics can fall victim. So how do we scientifically identify confirmation bias. You asked me about glaciers and I supplied several scientifically valid and published examples that in addition to temperature, glaciers are very sensitivity to moisture. You then link to the kings of CO2 confirmation at Skeptical Science as your proof. Noticed they set the stage by implying any shrinking glaciers must be the result of temperature change. I dont argue that there is contribution, but moisture is huge, and before we can attribute CO2 to any trends, we need to show that rising temperatures were the cause, not to mention that CO2 also caused the warming.

The overwhelming consensus, except Lonnie Thompson, is tropical glaciers are shrinking due to sublimation NOT temperature. But your website never mentions that factor at all.
Jim Steele
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 26, 2013
SkepticalScience provides a study based on two years, yet all glacier experts will tell you that two years of heavy snowfall will prevent examining the movement of glacial ice. Two years of shrinking does not tell us anything about the cause. But the graph confirms CO2 beliefs.

They then show a supposed "long term: trend that starts in 1945. Yet most studies again show the greatest rate of glacier loss was between 1850 and 1950. I also reference experts who say there is a LIttle Ice Age Paradox to show in contrast to your websites claims that temperate is not always the dominant player. Your response is that you dont have time to look at details and chose the website that confirms your bias, while choosing to ignore the abundance of evidence that contradict that site. I will gladly provide a list of references if you truly want to test your own bias.
Jim Steele
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 26, 2013
Correlation is not causation yet CO2 advocates have used confirmation bias to argue ecological disruption is "consistent with global warming" and I can show you in great detail why it has been a gross misdiagnosis that is misleading conservation efforts

That's why I wrote my essays and book. Try just for once refraining from the psycho babble and respond to the evidence and logic I provided in "Fabricating Climate Doom: Parmesan's Butterfly Effect"

http://landscapes...ect.html
djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2013
Jim - what I gave you was a rational for accepting the consensus of science - vs trying to investigate all of the information myself - which I do not have time to do. Let me give you another example. I accept the scientific consensus that the earth is 4.5 billion (approx) years old. I am sure there is plenty of scientific research out there that contradicts this conclusion. Many creationist scientists believe the earth is only 10,000 years old - and they write papers to support their position. I do not have time or inclination to research this issue. I am comfortable letting the experts do that for me. You continue to be unable to understand the point I am making. You start at a conclusion - and work your arguments from there. That is bias. I do the same thing. My conclusion is that the process of science is sound - and I will let it take it's course. Just as I would take the antibiotics if I contracted meningitis. cont.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2013
cont. Again - the consensus science gives us the data to understand that the ice sheets are melting, the glaciers are melting, the ocean level is increasing, ocean ph is changing, ocean temps are increasing- and that looked at over the long haul (say 150 years of data) the atmospheric temps are rising. All this data is in agreement with consensus science.

You can look at all of that data - and conclude that you know better. That on every one of those issues - you know better. That thousands of scientists, investing millions of hours of research - are all either corrupt, or delusional. I am aware of my bias - I favor consensus science - which is why I take the antibiotics. You are the one who is not willing to own his bias.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 26, 2013
I am comfortable letting the experts do that for me.

Experts contradict the 'consensus'. What are you going to do, stick with what you want to be true or do what real scientists do, be skeptical and question all?
djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2013
"Try just for once refraining from the psycho babble and respond to the evidence and logic"

You only respond to the evidence you choose to respond to - and of course you know that the average person reading Physorg etc. is not a research scientist - gathering data. Here is some data for you. - I am happy to let the experts in the field of glaciology analyze the data - I don't have the resources.

"the glaciers of GNP, like most worldwide, are melting as long term mean temperatures increase."

" Since 1900 the mean annual temperature for GNP and the surrounding region has increased 1.33°C"

" Despite variations in annual snowpack, glaciers have continued to shrink, indicating that the snowpack is not adequate to counteract the temperature changes."

from - http://nrmsc.usgs...reat.htm

And I am sure you will now be able to go rushing off to your tool bag - and pull out all the responses you need to counter this data - called confirmation bias.
djr
3.8 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2013
Experts contradict the 'consensus'.

That is correct Ryggy - there are plenty of experts out there who claim the earth is only 10,000 years old. Oh no - what do i do now - the experts disagree. I know - i will do what I have been explaining to you all along - I will go with consensus science. And I will take the antibiotics. You on the other hand - you can use Reiki healing - just channel the energy sytems in your body - and everything will be fine. There are lots of experts out there on Reiki healing - you need to get your certification Ryggy - then you will be an expert.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 26, 2013
My conclusion is that the process of science is sound - and I will let it take it's course. Just as I would take the antibiotics if I contracted meningitis.


"Yet when Fleming won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1945, he warned of the dangers of antibiotic resistance:

It is not difficult to make microbes resistant to penicillin in the laboratory by exposing them to concentrations not sufficient to kill them… There is the danger that the ignorant man may easily underdose himself and by exposing his microbes to non-lethal quantities of the drug make them resistant. [NobelPrize.org]

Fleming's prediction was right. Penicillin-resistant bacteria arrived while the drug was still being given to only a few patients. Each new class of antibiotics since then has soon been greeted by resistant bacteria."
http://theweek.co...ocalypse
But the consensus by scientists was to promote anti-biotics.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 26, 2013
The assertion of any expert has no value without the data to support the assertion.
Mann's hockey stick was broken because his data and analyses were flawed, so said the consensus of the NSF, yet I am sure dj is still a fan of Mann.
Anti-biotics are not much use for viral meningitis.
"Amish farm kids remarkably immune to allergies: study"
http://www.reuter...20120504
Having grown up on a farm, it is quite clear that the consensus science of being too clean makes people weak and sick.
"Joseph Brasco, MD, spent a year and a half convincing the board of directors of the Huntsville (Ala.) Center for Colon and Digestive Disease to allow him to perform fecal microbiota transplant in the center. "
"Dr. Brasco has seen articles about FMT dating back to the 1960s but says the procedure fell out of favor when antibiotics became more mainstream"
http://www.becker...icrobiot
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 26, 2013
"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
Crichton
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 26, 2013
"The historical track record of scientific consensus is nothing but dismal. Many examples can be cited, but there are some classical ones. Nicholas Copernicus and his follower, Galileo Galilei, experienced the effects of consensus when they advanced theories that planet Earth was not the center of the Universe. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were not the right time to go against established dogmas.

Today, the methods for exacting consensus have changed but the result could be the same: The death of the spirit. The use and abuse of "consensus science" is at least partially responsible for the current crisis in the scientific and medical peer review system. Although peer review may be considered one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice, it has been under fire for some time now because peer review controls access to publications and funding, thus bringing the problem into sharp focus."
http://www.ncbi.n...2719747/
Maggnus
3 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2013
What an interesting discussion, and thank you djr and jim both for a succinct example of the debate (such as it is) between those who look at the science, and those who seem to have an agenda.
For Watt it's worth jim, I have read your essays, and the counters to those essays, and the paper which you seem to take the most exception to. I have to ask (as have others before me) watt exactly do you have against Ms. Parmeson?
Regardless (as I do not expect any answer to that question) I can't help but wonder watt purpose an avowed climate denier (oops,. sorry "skeptic") has in coming to this site to argue the fine points of articles on scientific studies presented here? You have a forum, yes? Watt possible gain do you hope to achieve?
I recognize some of those questions are rhetorical; yet I really do ask them in honest bewilderment. Surely, if you are honest about your "skepticism" there are better venues to push forward your rebuttals than a site that limits your response to...cont...
Maggnus
3 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2013
1000 characters maximum per post. I suspect the answer to that question has to do with an perceived bias on your part. Perceived, as in made evident in a great majority of your posts. The question of glacial melt seems to be a relevant example. You have cited Georg Kaser at the University of Innsbruck in an attempt to suggest that his study does not support global climate warming. This is a pure and unadulterated misrepresentation of Professor Kaser's position on the subject, as he himself has said:
Only after around 1970, when air quality began to improve, did accelerated climate warming become the dominant driver of glacier retreat in the Alps, Kaser says. If glaciers in the region continue to melt at the rate observed during the past 30 years, there is a risk that nearly all of them will vanish before the end of the century, he adds.

You see Jim, it is this kind of skullduggery that dogs the denier (oops again, "skeptic") side of the equation. Even a very quick and..cont...
djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2013
So Ryggy - enough with the cut and paste of what others have said at some time or another - I have no interest in your ability to quote other people. Yes or no - if you contracted meningitis - would you take the antibiotics??????
Maggnus
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2013
admittedly completely unscientific review of the literature suggests that for every article you cite that says the melting is not being accelerated by global warming (which, for the record, you have not done, as in not one single cite in this thread) there would seem to be some 30 that say, yes indeed, there IS evidence of accelerated melt as a result of global warming.
And it is the same for every single cherry picked study that suggests something different. The vast majority of scientific studies in every discipline that even remotely touch on global warming come to the same conclusion: the Earth is warming, there is significantly more CO2 in the air than in any time in the recent geologic past, the CO2 is the result of the burning of fossil fuels, and the amount of warming is unprecedented in the recent geologic past. How do you counter all of that evidence Jim, other than the standard "skeptical" response that all scientists are somehow colluding?
Maggnus
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2013
PS: ryggy the paranoid "there's a socialist under every bed EVERYWHERE" does not count for sweet dyck all in the conversation, which is why I ignore his delusional rantings completely. djr has way more patience with the dolt than I can muster.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2013
Ryggy - I have a good friend who is a microbiologist. He and his staff study one organism - stapholococus (sp). They attend conferences every year all over the world - attended by the world community of microbiologists. They report great concern about the issue of antibiotic resistance. One huge concern right now is antibiotic resistant tuberculosis. I understand plenty about antibiotics. I understand that prior to antibiotics - 1 in 6 women died in child birth of infection. If you don't like consensus science - the next time you get a serious health condition - got talk to the shaman.
Jim Steele
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 26, 2013
djr, you said "You can look at all of that data - and conclude that you know better. That on every one of those issues - you know better. That thousands of scientists, investing millions of hours of research - are all either corrupt, or delusional."

Whoa you are fabricating on many levels. Science is a process where hypotheses are thoroughly tested. 1) Parmesan's study claiming a species of butterfly was being pushed northward by CO2, and souther populations went extinct due to global warming, is not a claim that has ever been tested by thousands. Although hundreds of scientists cite her work as "proof" she is the only one to report that specific result. Her paper never published a methods section. She refused to share her methods to allow independent verification . If you agree with her interpretation, you are NOT agreeing with science. You are agreeing with one person's untested opinion. In fact most of the populations she reported as extinct due to CO2 have now recovered!
djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2013
Very slick Jim - keep pulling the discussion back to one single study - and ignore the real import of what you are saying. There are 10's of thousands of scientists studying the climate - and they are in accord that the globe is warming, the oceans are rising, the ice sheets are melting, the ocean acidity is rising etc. You keep pulling back to one individual study about species relocation. Are you not aware of the body of research that is looking at species re-location due to the warming climate?
Jim Steele
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 26, 2013
Magnus, You misrepresent my words and falsely accuse me of skullduggery. I only claimed that there are other causes of receding glaciers and changes in moisture are often dominant. I absolutely did not misrepresent Kaser and if you truly have read all his work, then you must acknowledge that he has said that tropical glaciers haver retreated due sublimation.

Your skullduggery is to twist my words to say I said he does not support global climate warming. I have not yet read any comments by him one way or the other about CO2, and your quote does not resolves the issue.

To quote, "Only after around 1970, when air quality began to improve, did accelerated climate warming become the dominant driver of glacier retreat in the Alps," could easily mean increased insolation was the driver as others found He and may accpet warming by CO2 is possible, but research often points elsewhere read Huss (2009) Strong Alpine glacier melt in the 1940s due to enhanced solar radiation. Geophysical Res.
Jim Steele
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 26, 2013
djr You keep trying to frame my view as if it is supported by only one isolate study while your view is supported by 10's of thousands of scientists. You are fabricating. I would wager that you are in capable of name one thousand. You admit not wanting to read the details if each study. I will tell you I have read at least 2000. And I will also tell you that most studies of regional climate change will admit that they still can not separate natural variations from possible CO2 contributions. There are several papers with modeled results of a nebulous global average that depends on confirmation bias to claim rising CO2 is "consistent with their results. But it always breaks down on the regional level. Always. Start listing your 10s of thousands and I will match you at least 2 for one with studies that say we can not yet attribute change to CO2. You are blowing smoke!
Jim Steele
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 26, 2013
djr What is this very slick jim BS, You have yet to deal with any of the studies' contradictions and always fall back on some mystical 10s of thousands of scientists whose studies you have never read nor whose names you probably dont know. Yet you denigrate my evidence as "some devious attempt to focus on one study. I base my views on thousands that I have perused several times. You claim never to read them but accept all their mystical assertions. You say I am driven by conformation bias but you do not smell your own stink! Each study always needs to be evaluated on its individual merits. Cite any one of your 10s of thousand of studies and we can break it down like all good science must do to make sure it has accounted for all confoundng factors. Then we will see who is being "slick" and who is blowing smoke.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2013
Here is some reading for you Jim. Take a look at the reference sections at the end of each of the studies reported here. Can you now give me an example of a similar publication that supports the opposite - that species are not shifting as a result of global warming (with equal number of referenced papers to support the postition)???

http://www.cms.in...ange.pdf

"djr You keep trying to frame my view as if it is supported by only one isolate study "

No I am not - you are the one who keep referencing back to that one study - instead of acknowledging the import of the big picture of what you are saying. You are claiming that the glaciers are not melting, the oceans are not rising, the globe is not warming etc. Yes there are tens of thousands of climate scientists studying these issues - and the consensus is that the system is warming - and Houston - we have a problem...
djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2013
"Then we will see who is being "slick" and who is blowing smoke."

Definitely you Jim. And you are simply unable to deal with the real issue. There ARE 10's of thousands of scientists studying the climate. No I do not have the time to read even a small percentage of their work - but I do respect THEIR process - and the consensus that they reach - throught their millions of hours or research, publications, conferences, etc. etc. etc. You want to impune them all as either dishonest, or delusional. You are the one with the confirmation bias - you are just too busy trying to prove that YOU are right to realize it.

Did you read and evaluate every paper referenced in my link yet? That is probably about .0001% of the work out there on species shift. Happy reading - talk to you in about 10 years.
djr
3.3 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2013
So what do you think about the S. American glacier situation Jim? Here is a good read for you.

http://www.greeno...SouL8yHM

"10 of the last 20 years being the hottest on record for this area, the glacier has shrunk by more than half."
Jim Steele
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2013
djr I am losing trust in your integrity. I linked to three papers diagnosing claims that climate was disrupting the ecology which was the topic of the original article.You could not rebutt anything, so you switched focus to nebulous "big picture"

Now you are a liar! You wrote 'You are claiming that the glaciers are not melting, the oceans are not rising, the globe is not warming etc." ! I said "glacier are melting but for what reason?" I said oceans warmed but since 2003 Argo data shows upper 300 m have not. I said "insufficient to blame global warming on rising sea level"

djr if people start pissing on you, you are the only one to blame. You insult and tell falsehoods. You are the one to blame for lack of scientific debate.

Your link about migratory species and climate is an opinion piece. I'll bet you never read one referenced papers. If their opinion is scientifically solid then we can tell by their referenced articles. Pick any one that you read and lets examine it.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 27, 2013
nebulous "big picture"

This is always the fallback position when AGWites can't provide the date to support their faith.
They step out of the science house into the political house because they assert, that IF they are correct, and they can't know for decades, the world must ACT now to save the planet.
Lemmings follow the consensus of the herd.
Socialists are like herding/flocking animals. They form in herds to protect the herd willing to sacrifice the weak, the young and the aged to predators.
AGWites force others to sacrifice to "save the planet and humanity".
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2013
djr I am losing trust in your integrity...

Now you are a liar! ...

djr if people start pissing on you, you are the only one to blame. You insult and tell falsehoods. You are the one to blame for lack of scientific debate.
LOL Now you've gone and done it. Now he'll get all sulky and say you're unreasonable for calling him out for what he is. And (bonus) he'll refuse to converse with you.

djr = lying, hypocrite, scumbag

djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2013
Jim "Your link about migratory species and climate is an opinion piece. " My reference linked you to dozens of scientific papers - all supporting the scientific consensus - that the warming climate is causing shifts in species habitat - that are alarming the scientists studying them. No - I have not read the papers. I do not have the time. But the scientists who are studying the issue - and are the experts - and are the ones who really know what they are talking about have. Have you read all the papers yet?

And therein lies the problem right Jim - you can dismiss any information you don't like with rationalization.

Again - the bottom line is that the consensus science is confident in certain understandings. The system is warming. The oceans are rising. The oceans are warming. The glaciers are melting. The ice sheets are melting. The atmosphere when measured over the long haul is warming.

I don't care about your opinion of me. Your confirmation bias screams......
djr
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2013
djr = lying, hypocrite, scumbag

Nice friends you have Jim. Are you going to reprimand Uba for debasing the conversation?
djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2013
Now you are a liar!

No I am not Jim - recently I made a similar statement to the one above about the oceans are rising etc. You took each point individually - and dismissed it. I am not a liar. However if you think I am a liar - why are you talking to me? Now it is you using ad hominem - disgusting......
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Nov 27, 2013
all supporting the scientific consensus

Scientists state that confirmation papers are third behind papers that contradict or discover a new paradigm.
I am not surprise dj, like a lemming, goes along with the crowd as the crowd confirms his bias.
But for someone who claims to support science, he is quite opposed to those who would challenge and disagree with the consensus, the essence of science.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Nov 27, 2013
""Political ideology was the factor next most strongly associated with meteorologists' views about global warming. This also goes against the idea of scientists' opinions being entirely based on objective analysis of the evidence, and concurs with previous studies that have shown scientists' opinions on topics to vary along with their political orientation," writes survey author Neil Stenhouse of George Mason University."
"This new AMS survey runs counter to the notion of a "97 percent" scientific consensus and shows that there is much more disagreement among climate scientists than previously thought."
"
The 97 percent number came from a survey of published environmental papers written by scientists from around the world,"

Read more: http://dailycalle...lrizmnSJ

Maggnus
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2013
I only claimed that there are other causes of receding glaciers and changes in moisture are often dominant.
Really. hmmm lets see the claims so far:
Claims by climate alarmists that species have been moving out of historic ranges has been thoroughly debunked and is well documented.
&
But djr suggests passive acceptance of authority & conspiracy theories
&
yet many of the climate predictions from 20 years ago have already failed.
&
Top advocates like Michael Mann accuses everyone who disagrees with him as tools of the brothers Koch
. There are others too, but lets take a look at these ones shall we?

You claim that the evidence of species migration is "debunked" and that the debunking is "well documented". I question your comprehension of the word "debunked". Lets see, quick search and I find Grabherr et al. 1994; Pounds et al. 1999; Thomas & Lennon 1999; Warren et al.
2001; Hill et al. 2002; Klanderud & Birks 2003; Konvicka
et al. 2003
Maggnus
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2013
..cont.. and many more, all documenting various aspects of species migration and habitat movement in response to climate change. Are they all wrong jim? Seems to me that the movement of species is well documented, and certainly does not fall under the description of "debunked". I am not even including several studies by your favorite whipping girl, both as a lone author and in concert with several other research scientists.
Would that not make your comment an example of skullduggery? But whatever, moving on.
You have claimed that djr passively accepts authority and conspiracy theories. Once again, it seems to me you have an odd understanding of the word "accepts". I'm more than happy to let djr speak for himself on this one, so please djr step in as you desire. It seems to me, however, that you utterly misrepresented djr's position on conspiracy theories, given that he has never, to my knowledge, suggested he accepts any. I can't speak to his feelings on authority, but ...cont..
Maggnus
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2013
..cont.. but I suggest that you making that accusation of him simply because he chooses to accept what the vast majority of scientists over a very broad range of disciplines are saying over the voices of a very few, mostly non-scientists with apparent agendas, is hardly proof that he accepts "authority", by whatever meaning you attach to that word. Therefore jim, I suggest that you have misrepresented his position. I further accuse you of knowingly misrepresenting his position. Is that not skullduggery jim? Knowingly misrepresenting the position of another? Or more correctly, stating a position of another in such a way as to change the essence of the position of that person? I will come back to your statements regarding Kaser shortly.

You state in such a way as to convey your assertion as fact, that the predictions regarding climate change from 20 years ago "have already failed". As you have given no indication of whose predictions you speak of, I must assume that you are ..cont..
Maggnus
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2013
cont.. speaking of the predictions of a number of people (not scientists, mostly) who suggested that the predictions of the IPCC reports from 1990 and 1995 would be wrong. I say that in full knowledge that you do not mean to say that, although that would be truthful given that the majority of the predictions of those two reports have borne out. Now please, don't try to twist my words into the untruthful allegation that I am suggesting they were 100% accurate. They weren't. They were only "mostly" right, meaning that there were more of their predictions that were right than their predictions that were wrong. Even to call those predictions "wrong" is not an accurate statement, in that the larger number of predictions that they got wrong were actually under-estimated, such that they were "wrong" in that they were too optimistic. So how, pray tell, does that lead you to state that they "have already failed"? Failed in what way jim? Given your well know position as a denier...cont..
Maggnus
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2013
cont.. I content that you are overstating the "wrong" and ignoring (not just understating mind you, ignoring) the "right" in a blatant misrepresentation of the actual predictions in those reports. It forces me to ask you: have you actually read the reports?
Regardless, I allege that your comment that "many predictions from 20 years ago have failed" is an example of an argument from ignorance. I further allege that you have no factual basis upon which to make your statement, and that your doing so in such a manner as to suggest it is a fact is a misrepresentation of the facts. In other words, skulduggery.
It is on this particular misrepresentation that I challenge you to back up your words. So as to be perfectly clear jim, what I mean is prove it.
And now to the real whopper. As in lie jim. You claim that "top advocates" accuse any who dispute their findings as "tools of the Koch brothers" and you then specifically name Micheal Mann in particular as one who does this. ..cont..
Maggnus
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2013
Prove it. Provide an example of Professor Mann stating that a person who has provided a reasoned, scientific proof that disputes any of his findings has been accused by him of being a tool of the Koch brothers. In fact, I challenge you to provide an example of a reasoned, scientific argument that disputes Mann's findings. That is a pretty broad challenge, jim, and given the certainty that seems to underlie your blatantly libelous accusation, I suggest it should be easy for you to do the latter, if not the former. Your failure to do so would, of course, suggest that you have, again, misrepresented what has been said by Mann. Would that be another example of skullduggery jim? Should we then question your integrity?
Finally, I point out that you dodged my original question to you, in an obvious attempt to avoid giving an answer by changing the subject. So whose integrity is in question jim? Can you support what I allege are unsupported opinions and outright falsehoods made by you?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Nov 27, 2013
I challenge you to provide an example of a reasoned, scientific argument that disputes Mann's findings

Which findings?

Jim Steele
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2013
djr "No - I have not read the papers. I do not have the time." Its all about confirmation bias. Without ever reading the papers djr still claims "But the scientists who are studying the issue - and are the experts - and are the ones who really know what they are talking about have."

I diagnose the multitude of confounding factors and read the references of all the papers I critique, but its everyone but djr who suffers from confirmation bias. Obviously you do not even know what confirmation bias is.
Jim Steele
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2013
Maggnus you must be djr's twin. You come to his defense and say "Therefore jim, I suggest that you have misrepresented his position. I further accuse you of knowingly misrepresenting his position." Yet anyone can read the above posts and see djr totally falsified my statements.

Listing papers that claim migration happened due to Co2 proves nothing unless all confounding factors are accounted for. I have perused and dissected most of the papers that you referenced. My guess is like djr you have not read critically examined those claims either. Like Parmesan, Pounds is is another author who spreads unsubstantiated climate fears that contradicts the majority of scientists and works against the best practices of conservationists. Read Contrasting Good and Bad Science: Disease, Climate Change and the Case of the Golden Toad http://landscapes...ate.html

I'll gladly discuss the details in any of the papers you referenced.
Jim Steele
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2013
Maggnus writes "You state in such a way as to convey your assertion as fact, that the predictions regarding climate change from 20 years ago "have already failed". As you have given no indication of whose predictions you speak of, I must assume that you are speaking of the predictions of a number of people (not scientists, mostly..

Maggnus I must assume that you have not read much more than your twin djr. The "10s of thousands" of scientists have created models that are numerical representations of their beliefs. Observations have fallen below the predicted temperatures of those "10s of thousands" scientists as seen here

http://www.drroys...ans1.png

Ipcc expert Dr. von Storch said "If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario"
Jim Steele
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2013
Here are just two example of Mann's pervasive use of the Koch brother defense. At Huffpo a few days ago. http://www.huffin...508.html

And he said "The rhetoric is becoming louder and more acerbic, the attacks are becoming more fierce. They're not just attacking the science of climate change, they—for example the Koch brothers–are funding attacks against clean energy, against wind, against solar energy" here http://www.resili...-there-s

Now you prove yo read and analyzed any of the papers you referenced above. You tried the same character assassination about by references to Kaser and the known fact that subtopical glaciers have receded due to sublimation not temperature, but you have been able to justify your intellectual drive by shootings. My guess is you have not read anything that Kaser wrote or the other articles. You are truly djr's twin
Maggnus
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2013
Maggnus you must be djr's twin.
Nice start there jim, an ad hominum and a strawman are the very first comments out of your mouth. So this is your way of respectfully discussing the issues? Wait, wait! I can do that too! You're just a Nik clone then? Wow, yea that's a respectful discussion!
Yet anyone can read the above posts and see djr totally falsified my statements.
And that answers my allegation how? I didn't speak to what he said to you, I responded directly to your attempted character assassination. I say again, Mr Lacks Integrity, you have misrepresented his position by assigning to him motives not in evidence. You have lied.
Listing papers that claim migration happened due to Co2 proves nothing unless all confounding factors are accounted for.
Bull. Shit. Really, c'mon jim, even you can't be that obtuse. That you would try to float this as a serious counter just makes you look desperate. YOU claim to know better than all of them? And I laugh and laugh...
Maggnus
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2013
Maggnus I must assume that you have not read much more than your twin djr.
Oh goody, 1st statement in the 2nd comment also starts with an ad hominem! Well wow, ok,you got me, I am djr's twin. Feel better? Do you think that make your fallacious argument somehow stronger? Are you really that shallow? For watt its worth, I have read the bulk of those papers and a number of others. Have you? Nice graph btw. You think it says watt?
Ipcc expert Dr. von Storch
IPCC expert????? What the hell are you trying to peddle here?
Here are just two example of Mann's pervasive use of the Koch brother defense.
Seriously, do you know how to comprehend what you read? Please show, specifically, where Mann uses the fact that Mueller is funded by the Koch Bros as a point to deny "reasoned scientific proof".
I'm disappointed, is this the best you can muster?
Maggnus
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2013
And he said "The rhetoric is becoming louder and more acerbic, the attacks are becoming more fierce. They're not just attacking the science of climate change, they—for example the Koch brothers–are funding attacks against clean energy, against wind, against solar energy"
So? I agree with him, for watt it's worth. The shrill keening of such as Watt, Nik and your own self has become louder and more acerbic as study after study finds that, in fact, the Earth is warming, the warming is the result of higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, and those gases are the result of humanities burning of giga-tonnes of carbon each year. The fact that the Koch brothers fund your hero Watt and his blog, the Heartland Institute and other "attackers" is well documented. And again, so? Even Mueller has had to agree that the evidence of human caused global warming is in evidence, albeit he argues the affect is less than the bulk of scientists say it is. Again, so?
Jim Steele
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2013
Maggnus I call you djr's twin because you use the same tactics. If you want to call that an ad hominem so be it. Everyone can read that I have tried to maintain a respectful discussion backed by evidence yet you and djr heap insults and I am calling you on it. And the examples are clear. Making such claims never make me feel better but express my disappointment of how you both have denigrated scientific discussion on this site, and then blame others.

I refer to Dr Hans von Storch and you say "IPCC expert? What the hell are you trying to peddle here?" Simple go to the IPCC site and search for his name such as here http://www.ipcc-w...hors.php

You try to falsify that truth and suggest I am misleading, but like djr you are creating lies.

You reveal a total lack of scientific background suggesting accounting for confounding factors is bullshit. The very foundation of science requires designing an experiment that eliminates all confounding factors. You defile science!
Maggnus
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2013
Now you prove yo read and analyzed any of the papers you referenced above. You tried the same character assassination about by references to Kaser and the known fact that subtopical glaciers have receded due to sublimation not temperature, but you have been able to justify your intellectual drive by shootings. My guess is you have not read anything that Kaser wrote or the other articles. You are truly djr's twin

Well, a bit of gish-gallop I see. I haven't read them all, I admit, but I've read most of them. I assume you mean your references to Kaser, but I made no character assassination, I pointed out you misrepresent his position. I stand by that. I have heard Kaser speak. Have you?
Sublimation is a known and well documented factor jim, I've never suggested otherwise. A small factor, on the whole. I attacked your use of Kaser's quotes in a manner to suggest his position ifs different from what he, himself, says. Skullduggery indeed!
Maggnus
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2013
Maggnus I call you djr's twin because you use the same tactics. If you want to call that an ad hominem so be it.
Um, skippy, that IS an ad hominem. Classic example of it. "IPCC expert? What the hell are you trying to peddle here?" Hmm, ok, let me clarify. He is one of several hundred contributors. Are they all therefore "experts"?
The very foundation of science requires designing an experiment that eliminates all confounding factors.
The fallacy of the excluded middle. Yep, making a strong case, you aren't.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2013
Like their father, the Koch brothers graduated from MIT and went on to increase the profitability of their businesses.
The David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research on the MIT campus must make some 'liberal' heads explode. At least I hope it does.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2013
I tried to warn you Jim...

For the AGWites, global warming is a religion. No amount of fact or reason can budge them from their positions. When the facts don't support their religion, they simply move the goalposts. They've even begun to deny the very definition at the heart of their religion. Ask them to define the term "global warming" and you'll get a landslide of ridiculous rationalizing word salad. Ask them to support the actual and standard definition of "global warming" and they go silent.

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....7/trend

By definition, their religion fails.

goracle
1.9 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2013
I tried to warn you Jim...

For the AGWites, global warming is a religion.

blah blah blah misinterpreted questionable material blah blah blah

By definition, their religion fails.


Sorry, but the one who uses a name reminiscent of a bronze age desert tribe ("AGWites") for the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists and insists on using projection of religious fanaticism on others is the one being irrational.
Maggnus
2.4 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2013
Isn't that cute watching Uba try to inject himself into the adult's conversation.

Still haven't figured out it's not about scoring points hey Uba.

No one answers you because you are beneath notice.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2013
"The National Chairman of the Communist Party, USA suggests supporters of The Affordable Care Act should accuse its detractors of being racists as a tactic to regain support for the troubled law. "
http://www.breitb...e-Debate
I put this here to remind some of how dj called me racist for stating BHO's father was a socialist from Kenya.
We see similar tactics by the 'liberals' here when there faith is challenged.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2013
Sorry, but the one who uses a name reminiscent of a bronze age desert tribe ("AGWites") for the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists and insists on using projection of religious fanaticism on others is the one being irrational.
What relevant scientists? How many of them have even admitted there's been a pause?

A scientist does not intentionally misrepresent the data.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2013
I am not surprised:

"As President Obama faces a small revolt within his own party, a Washington Post op-ed is calling for the United States to end presidential term limits and allow him to run again in 2016."

Read more: http://dailycalle...m3RxQ4FR
Yes, let's call a constitutional convention and see who wants to repeal the 22nd amendment.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2013
I am not surprised:

"As President Obama faces a small revolt within his own party, a Washington Post op-ed is calling for the United States to end presidential term limits and allow him to run again in 2016."

Read more: http://dailycalle...m3RxQ4FR
Yes, let's call a constitutional convention and see who wants to repeal the 22nd amendment.
Don't mess with The Constitution of The United States of America.

And stop being such a whiny sore loser. Obama is the elected President. Respect the office, respect the democratic process, and stand united. E pluribus unum!

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2013
Don't mess with The Constitution of The United States of America.

I don't respect any member of the govt who swears to support and defend the Constitution and ignores the oath of office.
Fortunately Article V defines the process of amending the Constitution: "or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, " and does not require the approval or vote of the president or Congress. A benefit of federalism.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2013
I don't respect any member of the govt who swears to support and defend the Constitution and ignores the oath of office.
Stop being such a whiny sore loser. Obama is the elected President. Respect the office, respect the democratic process, and stand united. E pluribus unum!