Celebrate by taking that old pickup out for a spin, mowing the yard with a gasoline powered lawn mower, then get the gas blower out to clean off the sidewalk.
Follow it all up by inviting the neighbors over for a BBQ using LOTS of lighter fluid and, of course, charcoal briquettes! If it's cool outside where you are, light up the fire pit!
These are just a few ideas. Let's hear yours!
Actually, the 'dumbfounding ignorance' is all at your end.
You are the "Denier!"
There is no man made global warming! To claim otherwise is to deny the facts.
The Earth's temperatures have been rising and falling for thousands of years, starting way before mankind arrived on the planet.
Glaciers formed the thousands of lakes in Minnesota, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Michigan a very long time ago. Then, thanks to a GLOBAL WARMING event, long before there were any man made carbon emissions, the Earth warmed and those glaciers receded. Those glaciers created thousands upon thousands of lakes which are now filled with millions upon millions of Walleyes, Pike, Perch, Bass, Crappies, Bluegills, Sunfish and other species.
As recently as 1964 I was in London on a trip to visit my mother's family who lived in Northern Ireland and Scotland. (She was a WW II war bride.)
My uncle came down from Aberdeen, Scotland to meet us and while my mom and my younger sister were recovering from jet lag, Uncle Jimmy took me out to see London.
What I remember most were the buildings. They would get absolutely covered with the soot which filled the air, so teams of men would continually 'circle' the buildings to clean them. It was so bad, by the time they got around cleaning a building, it would again be covered with soot. So they had to start all over again.
Yet there was no one claiming anything about 'global warming!'
I was back in London about twenty years ago and those buildings no longer required any cleaning. There was no soot and the air was clean.
Since then, the Earth has gotten cleaner, the air has gotten cleaner and the water has gotten cleaner. Wildlife populations have exploded to the upside for most species.
So you are so full of uniformed $hit and astonishing ignorance to no longer be worthy of any more of a response.
Didn't know it was Earth Day.
For safety purposes, I took it out to the driveway so it could belch it's horrid carbon emissions into the fresh air.
Question for you.....HOW do those batteries get charged? Unicorn farts? Rainbow rays? Feel good intentions? WRONG! They get charged from electricity. And where does the vast majority electricity come from? YUP... COAL! (that's the correct spelling, not "COLE"...I know you have trouble with that). Now think REALLY hard......what is coal? (HINT: Starts with a "c", and ends with an "N".....and no, it's NOT "CABIN")
Time to add science to your list of not-so-strong points. What are we up to now, 3? Let's see...math, spelling, science...YUP! Keep posting, you can easily add to the list!
I should make a youtube and send it to Algore.
So, using that battery powered weedeater made those coal-generated kilowatts about 20% less efficient than if the energy was directly used to power a weed eater.
You can't fix stupid.
I went fishing and appreciated just being outdoors like I'd been doing for 18 years. I grew up hunting, trapping, fishing, and working on a horse far as well as landscaping and got a real kick out of it when people who couldn't tell a jack pine from a jack-off starting lecturing me about the outdoors.
I do think we owe Earth Day a back slap because that's where the term "CITIOT" originated. We always knew what they were, we just didn't have an adequate term for it.
I guess I should have hibernated for the day to save mother earth for at least 1 more day instead of enjoying it.
In my younger years, I recall days when you couldn't see the front range of the Rockies from my house due to Denver's "brown cloud". You could actually smell the pollution in the air on those days. Over my years, I've watched the brown cloud significantly improve primarily due to environmental regulations of the '70s and '80s.
So, scoff all you want at Earth Day, gents. I think man does have an impact on their environments. And, unlike other animals, we have the ability to control the extent of that impact, to some degree.
I'm sure my comments will earn me the label of a tree-hugging liberal. Frankly, I don't care. I don't think you can be a honest outdoorsman without being conscious of taking care of our earth, to the extent that we can.
Flame away......
Matt
The problem with earth day and with many of the people that support it is that it's not only about living in a "clean house" (FINE! I don't want to see trash thrown all over either and I believe that practices that conserve soil and water are imperative), but they are also the same gullible whackos who buy into man made climate change and who want to see us taxed out of existence while freezing to death in the dark sitting in our own sh*t. And THAT makes me want to burn some more tires!
The place where I normally park is a well used recreational area for the city of Fredericksburg, but the parking lot was full due to some kind of Earth Day observance - bands, vendors, African dance groups, etc. I made one pass through the parking lot and then parked up the road, which I thought was going to be a royal pain, but happened to be a shorter walk than I normally have to make. A lot of other Earth Day observers just kept circling the parking area, hoping a space would open up.
There I was, waist deep in one of Mother Nature's really pretty rivers, catching shad, rock fish (striped bass) and white perch and truly enjoying that little piece of earth (and water) despite some rather heavy rain at times, while all the other yahoos in the park stood around listening to some band or another or watching some sort of dancing, and I wondered, who's the one actually observing Earth Day?
You both were, IMO. Just in a different way. Neither was right or wrong.
Now, did the party leave a mess, or did the site look better, afterwards? That's the true litmus test for your anecdote, IMO.
Matt
I'm amazed you'd choose to make that assumption. I accused nobody.
I do raise an eyebrow at people who brag about burning tires, and other nonsense, in defiance of a day that celebrates a "clean ecosystem".
Matt
"Now, did the party leave a mess, or did the site look better, afterwards? "
Several hundred people walking and pushing strollers, etc. around all day in a grassy field that had just received a day and a half of rain. They left a lot of footprints and a lot of mud that was previously just grassy field.
On the other hand, try to find my tracks for the 30-40 yards that I waded in the river. :^)
Fast forward 70 years and we burn much cleaner fuels in most places of the world. The dirty buildings that you no longer see in London come from years of regulations driving industry towards the use of cleaner burning fuels. These fuels still produce CO2 (a clean, odorless gas) -- some produce more and some produce less.
You clearly haven't done much research if you truly believe "There is no man made global warming! To claim otherwise is to deny the facts." I trust NASA (the agency that put a man on the moon) a lot more than I trust you (a financial planner). I think there is still uncertainty as to how this will play out and the Earth's ability to cope with the excess CO2. The issue isn't with changes in climate (yes, climate has always changed, and often drastically). It's the rate of change that we are observing now. I don't see how anybody can view it as good and, IMO, it's pretty callous to promote polluting for pollution's sake.
I work for a major oil company. From our standpoint, there is no denying it. As our webpage says "We recognise the significance of climate change, along with the role energy plays in helping people achieve and maintain a good quality of life." It's a delicate balance. We strive to meet the energy demands of the world, but we're constantly discussing on how we can do it cleaner and more efficiently.
As usual, I agree with your thoughts.
My point is, I'm disgusted by some of the comments on this thread. And I'm disappointed the OP set the tone for those comments.
Burning tires? Really? Have you ever looked at the list of toxins that are produced from that? OK, argue that recycling them actually creates more pollution, that's a different discussion. But don't suggest those tires couldn't be repurposed for other things that would be more "earth friendly" than burning them.
Matt
Fair enough. Than I'd say you celebrated more appropriately. Had the group celebrated in a parking lot, then left the place cleaner than before, I'd have no problem with that.
Matt
Good points.
I don't see anything wrong or shameful with continually striving to find cleaner ways to get energy. I don't find anything macho about blowing black smoke out of my diesel as I pass a Prius.
While regulation is often viewed as the bogeyman, it's there for a reason. To think people will always act in the best interests of the environment is a fallacy. I just witnessed an event last week that will have very significant impacts. A very wealthy landowner had built a reservoir in the headwaters of a drainage. He had expanded it far beyond the original permitted structure. During a significant rainfall event, the dam failed. The resulting flood caused millions of dollars of damage to a highway, washed out a bridge to a rancher's house, destroyed (completely) over a mile of riparian habitat and cover in a steelhead spawning tributary, and significantly increased sediment loads into a watershed that has ESA listed salmonids.
We all have impacts. I find no joy in celebrating those, and I applaud those folks who are seeking innovative ways to reduce our impacts on the environment.
The issue is when government mandates ineffectual, prohibitively expensive and innovation killing regulations on exploration, production, etc. Example: the EPA power plant plan that Trump mercifully killed. Once the feds specify a technology, innovation essentially stops because trying to get new tech approved is long term expensive.
Another example, the Obama mandate for CAFE to reach an average of 35 mpg by 2025. Cars are already so expensive that many lease instead of buy. (One lady I know who sold MB sedans said 88% of their sales at the dealership were leased.) The standards will result in expensive alternatives in materials (think Ford aluminum truck bodies), smaller cars (great for Joshua with his ten children), and more expensive technology. Who's going to buy a $60,000 Prius, or a $110k F-350?
I'm an example. I won't buy a new car any more. I see no need to spend $60k on a depreciating asset .
I don't buy new vehicles either.
My purpose in starting this thread was to poke fun at the eco-nuts who think having an 'Earth Day' will somehow improve life on earth.
These are very same people who are destroying our deserts in the American Southwest with their solar farms and windfarms. These same people drive Prius's in order to 'save the planet,' while being oblivious to the fact that when they plug in their darling little cars, they are re-charging them with electricity that comes from coal-fired power plants, huge dams, or the fossil fuels they claim to hate.
They line up at midnight to be able to buy the latest iPhone edition and the like, again oblivious to the petroleum products that are used to make them.
Their leader lives in a 22,000 sq.ft. home (one of many mansions he owns) and flies around the world in his own fuel-guzzling jet.
And the list goes on.
BEG,
"I work for a major oil company. From our standpoint, there is no denying it. As our webpage says "We recognise the significance of climate change, along with the role energy plays in helping people achieve and maintain a good quality of life."
Wanna' bet that statement is based 100% on public relations and marketing and not on actual science?
********************************************************************************
The fact is, gentlemen, that the more prosperous a nation becomes, the cleaner the air and water in that nation becomes.
OTOH, the dirtiest air and the filthiest water are found in countries which are dirt poor.
I'm certainly not in the alarmist camp. I think the Earth may cope with the excess CO2 better than many give it credit for. I also don't doubt there are other factors that are contributing to climate change besides human activity. But that's doesn't mean there isn't a limit to what we can do and it doesn't mean we shouldn't be finding ways to do it better.
It's not 'climate change' that's in question. It's man-made climate change that's in question.
The climate changes and has been changing since the beginning of time, sometimes dramatically so and there's not a thing we can do about it. It started changing hundreds of millions of years before man came along.
Yet all of a sudden we're supposed to believe that THIS time, what change exists at present is all the result of man?
I was born on a Monday, Jason, but it wasn't LAST Monday!
You mean like the factors that were responsible for climate change loooooong before man was even in the picture?
I know. The whole thread is about the man-made aspect of climate change. I thought that was a given. There's no denying climate has changed and is changing. The climate change deniers like to argue that the factors that have historically caused climate to change outweigh the human impact on climate. Let me be clear...the people I've talked to state that there is no question and no doubt that human factors are significant part of the climate change the Earth is currently seeing. To sum it up, what is alarming to scientists is the current rate of change the climate is showing (not necessarily the order of magnitude) and it cannot be explained without the inclusion of human activities.
"To sum it up, what is alarming to scientists is the current rate of change the climate is showing (not necessarily the order of magnitude) and it cannot be explained without the inclusion of human activities."
Well then maybe they'll have to do what they always do when the actual facts don't meet their projections from their 'expert' modeling, ie., come up with yet another model.
Yeah, it's not hard to grasp the purpose of most of your threads, Kyle
I guess your quote above is where we fundamentally disagree. Awareness starts somewhere. If harmlessly declaring a day to celebrate environmental awareness makes a few of the slob hunters I encounter think about their habits in the woods, then I say it's a success, and it's made my life better. That's just one example of many.
OTH, mocking environmental extremists doesn't do much for me. Nor does reading ignorant comments about burning tires, or other such stupidity.
Matt
Let me know when it becomes OK to once again mock hypocrisy.
Slob hunters are always going to be slob hunters unless human nature changes, Earth Day or no Earth Day.
My guess is that whether we continue growing regulation and taxing to the point of massive funding and suffocating laws, or if we backed off a bit and went with some basic environmental impact standards, either path will not be a significant part of what the climate does over the next few hundred years.
I'm not a scientist and I could be wrong. When it comes to predicting the climate, I wouldn't be alone. A lot of highly educated experts have wildly missed the mark.
There is a big difference between regulating dumping raw wastewater in a river and regulating Silly String.
Again, we disagree. People can and do change their bad habits with awareness. I've personally changed the habits of some slob hunters simply by politely pointing out their environmentally destructive ways, or by setting a eco-friendly example to those I've hunted with.
Anyway, you're preaching to the choir about man-made climate change. I've always maintained our impact is far less than current "models" show. But then, I don't claim to be an expert, either. I do know all of us can do more to make our environment better. If Earth Day provides even the smallest incentive to some, I'm all for it.
Matt
I don't understand this...that's precisely what scientists and engineers do. I do it on a daily basis. We use models to understand and predict. They aren't always right. Actually, let me rephrase that. Models are ALWAYS wrong. It's a question of how wrong they are.
Climate change deniers like to point out when a model is slightly wrong or the anomalies that are yet to be explained. They tend to ignore the majority of the model that is spot on and backed up with real observations. Again, I agree that much of the alarmism is probably overblown. That said, we're past the point of arguing whether our activities have an effect on climate.
"I don't understand this...that's precisely what scientists and engineers do. I do it on a daily basis. We use models to understand and predict. They aren't always right. Actually, let me rephrase that. Models are ALWAYS wrong. It's a question of how wrong they are."
That's correct. But that's not what The Global Warming Alarmists are doing.
Good science corrects the models to the observed results. But the alarmists have been correcting their models so as to produce the DESIRED results, actual observed results be damned!
That's not science. That's fraud!
Mike in CT's Link
If by "overwhelming majority of climate scientists" you refer to the fabled "97% supporting man-made global warming" you may want to reconsider positing that as fact.
If you like I can provide links to some 1,350 peer reviewed articles by the scientists involved (the ones who's work/findings have been misrepresented).
This is a topic I've literally spent years researching and have, at least for the moment concluded that the more compelling case has been made by the scientists ascribing current climatic change to those that have occurred throughout history during interglacial warming periods.
If only there was just one instance. But the facts are there are numerous instances from multiple, very credible sources pointing out more fraud on a regular and ongoing basis. It's not just Michael Mann and his team who have been found not to be credible.
"Nva, Didnt you buy a bunch of battery powered lawn maintenance tools during your recent identity crisis??"
There you go again, proving how amazingly uniformed you are. (I've been traveling on behalf of a wildlife conservation organization this past week, so missed seeing your nonsense until now.)
If you'll go back and actually READ what I wrote about buying a mower, an edger/trimmer, a blower, and hedge trimmer, you'll see the reason I bought electric items had ZERO to do with the eco-crap you swallow.
Rather, for the hedge trimmer and the grass trimmer/edger, it had to do with the fact two of the trails I'm out on on a daily basis get over-grown and need to be trimmed back at times so as to make them passable. No one else who uses the trails seems at all interested in keeping them open and usable, so an old man me, (call it the Little Red Hen thing), does it. Only battery-operated devices are feasible when you are a mile or more from an electrical outlet.
As for the blower and the lawn mower, I bought those because they are quieter by far than gas operated blowers and mowers. I value the ambiance and quietness of my really nice neighborhood and the NOISE those gas-operated blowers and mowers create is not something I choose to foist on my neighbors. Plus battery operated equipment does not involve the mess and hassle gasoline operated equipment creates.
PERIOD!
one-eye's Link
In addition to your latest post, a very large percentage of those 'scientists' who proclaim man is responsible for global warming/climate change are in science fields which have absolutely nothing to do with climate, weather, etc.
"In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!
Never better said!
In laymen's terms, the very idea that man is somehow causing the Earth to warm is pure crap!
We can, are, and will continue to get cleaner and more efficient with our use of resources. Al Gore telling us we would be under water by now and images of polar bears dropping from the sky aren't helping real advancements.
I'd love to be able to peruse those articles. But no I'm not talking about the fabled "97%". There are plenty of other material that backs up the overwhelming support for anthropogenic global warming.
You are entitled to your opinion and interpretation. I'm by no means an expert nor have I done the research you have. I tend to put a lot of weight on the position of NASA, the National Academy of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the American Institute of Physics, the American Geophysical Union, the American Physical Society, etc who are far more qualified to weigh in on this than me.
I have yet to find one credible scientific institute that has taken the position that humans are not contributing to climate change or that it is not a risk we should be concerned about.
OK, but isn't composting the 'environmentally friendly' thing to do?
Mike in CT's Link
Yet you can find many scientists within "credible scientific institutes" who are now significantly deviating from the mother ship. If you recall, the AMA supported the PPACA; thousands of doctors were adamantly opposed to it (http://www.healthline.com/health-news/do-doctors-loathe-obamacare-041415)
Being a scientist (Microbiologist) I've worked all ends of healthcare, from patient focused to research to the industry side and have seen examples of a parent organization not being representative of the opinion of the membership, in some cases to a great extreme.
The link is one specific to NASA, here's one relative to NOAA (http://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records)
The American Meterological Society? Again, rank and file don't sing from the company song sheet: (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2016/04/13/another-survey-of-meteorologists-undercuts-climate-alarmism/#22c08f9e6d9)
What about the American Physical Society? What about this: (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/201501/popa.cfm)
As I said, I didn't arrive at my position lightly nor do I cease my efforts to learn as much as I can about this subject.
A cautionary tale for those too eager to accept what impressive sounding organizations are selling; scientific dogma is no less prevalent today than it was in the days when Copernicus was threatened with excommunication for his position on a heliocentric universe.
And he, as we all know, was right.
I also have a pile of old RR ties that I use for gate posts and fence corners and some of them are beyond salvaging so I START the tire fire with them! First I soak it with diesel fuel of course.
And you libs are SO predictable..."climate change denier"....LMAO! NOBODY is denying that the climate changes. It's been changing even second since the earth came into existence. What we say is BULLSH*T is that man is causing it. So stop lying.
Or did you people just realize that the climate changes?
You can scour the landscape and find dissenters and you can (and should) question the amount of rigor that goes into these assessments. I have no doubt if you look hard enough you'll find those that stand in opposition and scientific research that has been weak and shoddy. And who knows, the deniers might be right. But at this stage the mountains of evidence and the vast majority that stands on the other side has convinced me otherwise.
No Thanks!
If I looked like Steve, I'd likely drop dead of a heart attack two miles into my normal morning hike.
Do you ever actually LISTEN to yourself????
Pick another word then. Skeptic, doubter, denier, whatever you want WW. It's all the same to me. You either accept the human related causes of climate change or you deny them. The word deny has no connotation of right or wrong to me.
You actually believe computer models?? The same one's that can't predict accurately what the weather will be over the course of the next 50 HOURS let alone 50 years? The same one's that said Trump would lose right up until he was declared the winner? The same computer models that are programmed by people with an agenda? They can create a computer model that will say that by this time next year you will grow horns, start standing on your head and shoot sputniks out your keister but that doesn't mean it's true!
How can ANYONE with a half a brain believe the pure crap that's fed us every time there's a hurricane, tornado, cold spell, hot spell, dry spell, wet spell, that it's because MAN caused it?
There's no "doubt" involved with it at all.....it's just flat out as obvious as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.....or did man cause that too?
Nobody wants MAN MADE pollution.... but very few have any kind of logical or rational grasp on what may truly make a difference. But then hey..... i hunt out of a 76 Scout.....
Climate chicken littles can't even get their story straight. First it was global COOLING that man caused. When that line of sh*t didn't fit the narrative then it was global WARMING. When even the politicians couldn't sell that line of crap to even the more gullible then they switched it to climate CHANGE. What'll it be next, "trans-climate-tisism?"
I know crap when I hear it, and this is CRAP.
I do find it interesting that the oil and gas industry is no longer denying that man has an impact on climate change. That's certainly changed in the last decade. Is that due to science or marketing, or a little of both?
Mike, my older sister graduated at the top of her class in water law. That earned her a lucrative career representing the EPA. She has a tested genius level IQ, and she's seen all the latest data on the man-made climate change debate. There's absolutely no question in her mind that man has contributed to climate change.
I tried to debate her on the subject, once, but quickly realized I was over-matched.
Matt
Mike in CT's Link
Without question that is a true statement-absent context. The context is that the number of dissenting opinions is growing and becoming more vocal. As I said, scientific dogma is not easily displaced and it would be interesting to survey the same group in another few years to see what the breakdown is.
The most glaringly absent context from much of the "debate" about this settled science centers around the that fact that much of the climate debate (such as that concerning the exceptionalness of the recent rate of temperature increase) depends on assumptions about historical temperatures dating back thousands of years.
Here's some context to consider; 0.0176095%.
What's that % you ask? Well, if you ascribe validity to the pronouncements of those who ascribe to anthropogenic (man-made) global warming it's a number you really need to understand.
Much of the alarm over temperature rise, and specifically the rate of change is predicated upon data obtained from the Vostok ice cores. What is glaringly absent from presentations of that data, and especially what it means is the relevant context that on the high end of effective aging (approximately 800,000 years) it represents the tiniest of slivers of Earth's history (approximately 4.543 billion years).
To make predictions and posit them as "hypotheses" on such a small sampling would be bold; to posit them as "settled science" is the height of hubris.
How many feel comfortable with the fact that 99.9823905% of the climate in Earth's history is unaccounted for?
If I told you that you had a 0.0176095% chance of surviving a task would you be in a rush to attempt it? I imagine not if a 19% favorable outcome probability gives you pause.
By the way, do you know the answer to how many climate scientists constructed the models used today?
I have a strong suspicion you may not.
Some observations about some of the models are worth at least a perusal; here is an excerpt from one (and I encourage you to read more if your schedule permits): "The fourth IPCC report [para 9.1.3] says : “Results from forward calculations are used for formal detection and attribution analyses. In such studies, a climate model is used to calculate response patterns (‘fingerprints’) for individual forcings or sets of forcings, which are then combined linearly to provide the best fit to the observations.”
To a mathematician that is a massive warning bell. You simply cannot do that. [To be more precise, because obviously they did actually do it, you cannot do that and retain any credibility]. Let me explain :
The process was basically as follows
(1) All known (ie. well-understood) factors were built into the climate models, and estimates were included for the unknowns (The IPCC calls them parametrizations – in UK English : parameterisations).
(2) Model results were then compared with actual observations and were found to produce only about a third of the observed warming in the 20th century.
(3) Parameters controlling the unknowns in the models were then fiddled with (as in the above IPCC report quote) until they got a match.
(4) So necessarily, about two-thirds of the models’ predicted future warming comes from factors that are not understood.
Now you can see why I said “You simply cannot do that”: When you get a discrepancy between a model and reality, you obviously can’t change the model’s known factors – they are what they are known to be. If you want to fiddle the model to match reality then you have to fiddle the unknowns. If your model started off a long way from reality then inevitably the end result is that a large part of your model’s findings come from unknowns, ie, from factors that are not understood. To put it simply, you are guessing, and therefore your model is unreliable."
Markets don't always get it right. History is full of examples of markets getting it wrong. In general, they do. Even as a proponent of them, I'm not ignorant of the negative externalities they come with and I don't think they should be ignored.
This conversation has nothing to do with free markets; this has been a conversation on science. I never once proposed that we should handle climate change by creating more regulations. I did say regulations have cleaned up our air and water and I have also said they come with a cost (getting back to that whole addressing negative externality thing). This has not been a conversation on solutions. This is a conversation on science, and the science is agnostic to political positions.
For the record only federal government agency I mentioned was NASA (and nobody is watching the Earth closer than NASA). The rest are private, non-profit societies of independent scientists.
I think the market will handle the issue. That's why I'm not alarmist. It's part of the reason I have no guilt and no problem working for an oil company. I certainly don't doubt the science though unlike plenty of others on this thread.
It's government manufactured BULLSH*T "data", designed to do two things.....increase taxes and make jobs for the "scientists" who will whore themselves out for government grants. But the end goal remains the same.....to steal more from us under the pretense of knowing what's best for us. I have ZERO trust is anything they have to say.
You missed Mt Pinatubo, in that case (1991). You also seem to have forgotten about Mt. St. Helens blowing an astonishing 2,000 vertical feet off the top of her peak (1980).
Mike in CT's Link
The central issue, and one that we may be thankful is coming to light isn't the raw data, but rather the methodology that generates that data. We have reputable scientists from both NASA and NOAA coming forward to speak out data manipulation.
Prior to that scientists at MIT had taken a hard look at the data accumulation methods and found obvious errors (see link)
Data is also being manipulated as has been coming to light of late (excerpt from link to follow: "Tony Heller at the RealClimateScience blog points out that NOAA admits that 42 percent of their 2016 monthly station data was missing so they used falsified data instead, and that NOAA needlessly adjusted their data by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit – the same amount the agency claims temperatures have increased by since 1900."
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
A saying you may be acquainted with is "GIGO-Garbage in, garbage out." Data is only as relevant as the methodology that produces it.
bigeasygator's Link
Data is adjusted all of the time in all kinds of ways to remove bias. In the case of climate change, temperatures are adjusted to coordinate time of day, remove the urban heat island effect, account for station moves, etc.
There are plenty of links rebutting "whistleblowers" and others sounding the alarm around data manipulation. The "errors" in your link (which discusses the work not of two MIT scientists but of a mining director and an economist at the University of Guelph) have been rebutted over and over (feel free to check out my link that has excerpts from a "Journal of Climate" article that discusses the McIntyre/McKitrick work). Essentially M&M came to their conclusions using the wrong dataset and a misunderstanding of the methodology of how the dataset was analyzed.
Even if one dataset is in question (I'm very familiar with GIGO), we aren't dealing with a single dataset when it comes to climate change. But the reason there is so much overwhelming support is because these independent data sets being analyzed across independent institutions all converge on two points: 1) the Earth is warming at pace far more rapid than recent history should suggest and 2) it cannot be accounted for without the inclusion of human activity.
Now, I guess all of these independent researchers could somehow be colluding to strategically manipulate all of these datasets (tree ring, ice cores, thermometer data, etc) and they could all secretly be colluding behind the scenes to manipulate their models to "independently" converge on a common solution. But I'd say that's about a five sigma event, so I don't put much stock in it.
bigeasygator's Link
The fact that large numbers of people think man made climate change is a problem is probative of nothing. To quote Einstein, when the Germans tried to debunk his theory of relativity with the aforementioned book, "If I am wrong, one person saying so is enough."
Mike isn't wrong. He just isn't persuaded by dogma.
Either way, history is chalk full of examples of people standing up against the conventional thinking of the day and ultimately being right. Could all the climate change doubters be right? Sure, statistically there's a chance.
A theory is a theory after all. Theories are not 100% right. But don't confuse being less than 100% right with being wrong. Newton's gravitational theory was not 100% right with describing how gravity behaved...but it was close enough and is still what is taught in text books, even though the theory does not hold true for certain situations.
While climate scientists may not be 100% right, it's getting awfully hard to challenge based on science. That's not to say it shouldn't be challenged (it should) or that someone may come up with alternate theories that can stand up to peer review (they may), it is looking less and less likely that there are other credible explanations.
Woods Walker's Link
This is an ongoing CON that will never end. How anyone cannot see that is amazing.
I agree that the science is still developing, but that doesn't mean it is immature. And I agree that most of the alarmists predictions are either not related to science or based on what I would consider poor science.
But there is lots of sound science happening in the space. These people publish their datasets and their code for people to challenge and refute. That's how good science works. And I'm sorry, but by all accounts I've seen there is most definitely a general consensus that climate change is occurring and man is a significant reason why. Yes there are skeptics and doubters, but these people are the minority in the scientific community. I'm not even saying they are wrong; some of them may prove to be right. But to say that there is ZERO consensus in the scientific community around climate change is flat out wrong (again, consensus does not mean right). The only place their isn't a general consensus is in the political world. Good science is agnostic to politics. Don't confuse the two.
bigeasygator's Link
As he says in the article "In 1990, when I started to become seriously involved in climate-change arguments and incorporated the SEPP (Science & Environmental Policy Project), I decided to poll the experts. Having limited funds, and before the advent of widespread e-mail, I polled the officers of the listed technical committees of the American Meteorological Society -- a sample of less than 100. I figured those must be the experts.
I took the precaution of isolating myself from this survey by enlisting the cooperation of Dr Jay Winston, a widely respected meteorologist, skeptical of climate skeptics. And I employed two graduate students who had no discernible expertise in climate issues to conduct the actual survey and analyze the returns.
This exercise produced an interesting result: Roughly half of the AMS experts believed there must be a significant human influence on the climate through the release of carbon dioxide -- while the other half had considerable doubt about the validity of climate models."
So a 1990 poll of the experts was roughly split. Fast forward to 2014 when a more extensive and scientific poll was taken of the AMS members. 81% of climate scientists believe humans are having at least as much impact on the environment as natural causes. Only 4% say global warming is not happening. Like Singer says himself, these are the experts. There is no doubt that there is consensus among them that AGW is occurring. I'll be crystal clear -- consensus does not equal being right, and consensus does not equal "science". It merely means that a majority of people share the same opinion. In the case of a group of scientists, there's a good chance that those opinions have been based on sound scientific principles. You can even argue that all of these scientists are incentivized and motivated in a certain way to come to certain conclusions and form their opinions in a certain way. But I seriously doubt that the significant majority of the experts in the field are unethical and unprincipled scientists.
bigeasygator's Link
Then it starts and the numbers get tripled by the USFW. Numbers no one had the chance to argue against before launch. Then we reach that population and the lawsuits kick in delaying delisting even more.
The lesson was that its not worth giving an inch. AGW is similar. Most folks are open minded enough to accept that what we do could have an effect on the climate. Maybe .0005% or maybe a significant amount. The problem is that spending and regulation is already outpacing the level of solid facts regarding our impact. Alarmists screaming their theories is easy to tolerate. When that screaming is connected to changing entire industries, loss of freedom, massive tax spending and putting us at a disadvantage when competing with other countries, that is something different.
Consensus: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.
When I say general consensus, I mean a clear majority. I read your friends of science link. Let me give you one example from it as to why it doesn't change my opinion.
The Oreskes study claimed that of 1,117 surveyed papers on climate science, 75% of them explicitly endorsed anthropogenic global warming. So this guy Peiser reruns the study and finds that of the 1,117 papers only 13 explicitly endorse AGW!! Gasp!! That's about 1%!! What consensus??!!
Okay, read a little bit further. And essentially Peiser says that 713 of those 1,117 papers are essentially unrelated to the AGW discussion.
That leaves us with 404 papers. Peiser goes on to say that of the 404, 322 implicitly endorse AGW. Hmmmm, wait, what? That leaves 78 papers that say either climate change is predominantly due to natural causes (there are 44 of those) or that climate change is a myth basically (34 of those).
So when you peel back the onion, it is not only 1.3% that endorse AGW. It is 83% that support the stance on AGW (either explicitly or implicitly), 11% that attribute it to natural causes, and about 8% that explicitly doubt AGW.
If the 1.3% isn't a cherry pick, I don't know what is. Every single one of these rebuttals do the same thing. You don't have to look hard to understand that even when challenged, the numbers still support the AGW argument and show that we have a general consensus (a majority of climate scientists agree). So you're going to have to try a lot harder if you want to convince me Trax.
Give me time and I'll be happy to read more about Curry and Lindzen. There's a lot out there and I don't like to form opinions on people or their ideas on single sources.
bad karma's Link
Any real science is never settled. Current thought is that the speed of light cannot be exceeded. It used to be that we couldn't break the sound barrier...not that long ago. But no, there' no room for anyone who does anything other than follow the cult by agreeing that "climate change" is destined to create horrible consequences, and warrants massive government intervention.
I'll start with the data. Raw data gets adjusted or thrown out all the time. Let me give you an example of how it gets adjusted. Let's say I have a station that reads temperature once a day over the course of five years. Now let's say due to some issue, the temperature reading gets taken a minute later each day. After about two years, that temperature reading would be at the complete opposite time of day. My data coming in would be at 12 midnight instead of 12 noon for example. Now if I tried to run a model on that data set it would suggest something that wasn't true, because we all know the temperature at 12 midnight is almost always going to be colder than that at 12 noon. So instead of using that raw data set, we need to adjust the data to some sort of reference value. Obviously this requires some sort of assumptions and we need to have a relationship to adjust all of the temperatures to a consistent reference (for our example, lets say 3 PM). Will this adjustment be "right"? Probably not, because there are always errors in models. Will it be more right than had we just used the original data set...if your logic is reasonable and consistent, you be it will be. Most of the challenges you see around manipulated data are misunderstandings around treatment of data similar to what I just highlighted. It should be challenged. However, most of the data sets I've seen have been exonerated so to speak when held up to peer review. Understand that I'm making broad statements and there will always be exceptions.
Now to the whole idea of the cooking the Earth thing. We have all kinds of data to monitor climate change. There are ice cores, tree rings, and for the last 150 years or so, we actually have thermometers. There's no escaping the fact that the Earth as a whole is warming. There may be pockets that act differently for certain reasons, but as a whole it is warming. Climate has always changed, so this shouldn't be too surprising.
It's when we start to try and explain why it is warming that things start to take an interesting turn. When you model something, you try and factor in all of the relevant variables. In the case of climate, this could be cloud cover, water vapor, solar activity, GHG emissions, etc etc. What you do is try to find the relationship to each of these variables with whatever outcome you're interested in (like temperature or temperature change).
What the data is showing is that there is a strong correlation between GHG emissions and climate change. We all have heard that correlation doesn't mean causation. I don't necessarily like that statement. A better statement should be "correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation," because it also certainly can mean causation. To prove causation, you need to do a number of different things. This is kind of where we are now.
There is definitely uncertainty in how each of the variables I mentioned (and others we probably haven't even thought of) relate to climate change. The AGW climate change supporters are essentially saying the correlation between temperature change and GHG emissions are strong and significant and we can't correlate any of the other variables in the way we can GHG. You come to conclusions like the effect of GHG is at least as strong as the sum of the other factors effecting climate.
The climate change skeptics say that there is too much uncertainty in how each of those variables affects climate, and the issues we are currently seeing are in the range of expectations given that uncertainty. So even though there is a strong correlation with CO2, the same forecasts can be arrived if we alter the relations of each of those variables I mentioned in the right way to get the same results.
The issue is that while they may be right, they haven't done it. No one has provided an alternative that has shown to be as compelling as the case for CO2 being the dominant factor. That's why so many people in this space support AGW. It's why folks like my employer (and every other major oil company) acknowledge (explicitly or implicitly) the relationship between CO2 and climate change. To summarize, the science on the side of AGW has held up to most challenges at this stage; the other side has yet to provide a more compelling case.
That doesn't mean that the predictions going forward will be right. As I mentioned, there's uncertainty. The relationship of some of the other variables on climate may change as we introduce more CO2 into the world. Or maybe the function describing the relationship with CO2 over-predicts the temperature effects in out years.
I know this is obvious to many of you. This post says nothing about what we should do about it. I've said nothing about what we should do about. I've just tried to characterize the general state of the science, which is still relatively young.
bad karma's Link
There are tons of data sets to study climate from. Christy and Spencer are not the only ones using satellite data as you seem to suggest. Additionally, surface temperature data is not unreliable. It needs adjusted to account for things like the urban heat sink. Or you can choose to use surface temperatures based on rural data alone, which people have. Plenty of people have been properly studying climate change, not just the two you mentioned (whose methods have been called into question, which is why they struggle to get published by credible, peer reviewed journals).
Overall this is simply a money/power grabbing scheme by politicians.....the new "communism". Algore is a PERFECT representative of this.