Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific proof humans dominant cause of warming climate

[Lucrum]

COLD SHOULDER: ABC, CBS Exclude Scientists Critical of Global Warming for More Than 1,300 Days

By Sean Long | March 6, 2014

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-l...e-scientists-critical-global-warming-more-130

Like a simple parlor trick, the networks are able to make skeptical scientists vanish, at least from the eyes of their viewers.

In some cases, the broadcast networks have failed to include such scientists for years, while including alarmist scientists within the past six months. ABC, CBS and NBC’s lengthy omission of scientists critical of global warming alarmism propped up the myth of a scientific consensus, despite the fact that many scientists and thousands of peer-reviewed studies disagree....

 

[piezoe]

====================
Good points; I wish more people would have the common sense of Mr Moore.

I thought they were excellent points, myself. In science the good science eventually drives out bad -- opposite of economics.

 

[Lucrum]

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/78652393831/latest-data-theres-been-no-global-warming-for-more

I imagine that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to be an AGW believer when graphs like the one above exist.

From Watts Up With That?:

Seventeen and a half years. Not a flicker of global warming. The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months.

Why did none of the vaunted models predict this long hiatus, stasis, pause, halt, rest, interval, intermission, break, time out, vacation, furlough, gap, plateau, or flat spot?

Oh, sure, they’ll continue to spout a litany of excuses for why it’s not warming:

The oceans are absorbing the heat
It was bad luck because there was a natural cooling period that happened to coincide with many of the predictions
Volcanic activity is cooling the Earth
An unusual amount of cloud cover is reflecting light

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that a combination of these things are true and that there would be warming without them. Why didn’t any of the models take of this into account and accurately predict global temperatures? Isn’t it natural to be skeptical of predictions that obviously weren’t thorough with the data they used?

How many years of relatively flat average global temperatures do we need before we can have our light bulbs back?

 

[jem]

there are some interesting articles about how much goes into determining when the winds are blowing right and the air samples are good.

It seems like there could be a great deal of room for monkey business but some of the top skeptic scientists seem fine with it.

No, of course not. That's idiotic to assume something like that. I don't understand why they chose that site as a reference. The readings there will be heavily influenced by nearby volcanic activity, I would think. Wouldn't you? What is prone to error is an estimate of the average for the entire troposphere as that depends on sampling error. Which is the error that creeps in when sampling a non-homogeneous body when concentrations differ widely according to location and by necessity you can't sample everywhere.

SO2??? Yikes.

 

[piezoe]

seventeen years and six months is but the blink of an eye in geologic time. On much longer time scales the temperature is less stable. I want to know if we are challenging Mother nature . I won't know that in my lifetime. None of us will know it in our lifetimes. If we start studying climate now, future generations will eventually know the answer to the question. Let's not lose our heads over this. Still, let's be nice to our environment, just in case, or for no other reason than being nice is nice..

 

[futurecurrents]

No, of course not. That's idiotic to assume something like that. I don't understand why they chose that site as a reference. The readings there will be heavily influenced by nearby volcanic activity, I would think. Wouldn't you? What is prone to error is an estimate of the average for the entire troposphere as that depends on sampling error. Which is the error that creeps in when sampling a non-homogeneous body when concentrations differ widely according to location and by necessity you can't sample everywhere.

SO2??? Yikes.

Oh brother. You are really confused, ignorant and deluded by right wing propaganda.

They chose it because it away from other low level influences and it samples a pure sample.

Why Mauna Loa? Early attempts to measure CO2 in the USA and Scandinavia found that the readings varied a lot due to the influence of growing plants and the exhaust from motors. Mauna Loa is ideal because it is so remote from big population centres. Also, on tropical islands at night, the prevailing winds blow from the land out to sea, which effect brings clean, well-mixed Central Pacific air from high in the atmosphere to the observatory. This removes any interference coming from the vegetation lower down on the island.

But how about gas from the volcano? It is true that volcanoes blow out CO2 from time to time and that this can interfere with the readings. Most of the time, though, the prevailing winds blow the volcanic gasses away from the observatory. But when the winds do sometimes blow from active vents towards the observatory, the influence from the volcano is obvious on the normally consistent records and any dubious readings can be easily spotted and edited out (Ryan, 1995).

Importantly, Mauna Loa is not the only atmospheric measuring station in the world. As the graph from NOAA shows, other stations show the same year-after-year increasing trend. The seasonal saw-tooth varies from place to place, of course, but the background trend remains steadily upwards. The Keeling Curve is one of the best-defined results in climatology and there really are no valid scientific reasons for doubting it.

 

[futurecurrents]

seventeen years and six months is but the blink of an eye in geologic time. On much longer time scales the temperature is less stable. I want to know if we are challenging Mother nature . I won't know that in my lifetime. None of us will know it in our lifetimes. If we start studying climate now, future generations will eventually know the answer to the question. Let's not lose our heads over this. Still, let's be nice to our environment, just in case, or for no other reason than being nice is nice..

You are fucking wrong. We DO know that we changing mother nature and increasing the levels of CO2 and thereby temperature. That's why virtually the entire world's science community and 97% of it's climatologists agree. We do not have to wait any longer to know this. It's known now.

Why are you so dense? Really, what is wrong with you. A case of right wing retardation?

 

[Ricter]

" But when the winds do sometimes blow from active vents towards the observatory, the influence from the volcano is obvious on the normally consistent records and any dubious readings can be easily spotted and edited out (Ryan, 1995)."

But, but, that's lying!

; )

 

[piezoe]

36 years in geologic time is but two blinks of the eye. (less than that actually) That's not nearly enough time for the biosphere to respond to rising CO2 concentration. That graph you posted, FC, on a millennium time scale it becomes a mere snapshot of noise, a fraction of a data point. [see graphs at the link below]

http://www.theusrus.de/blog/global-warming-causality-vs-timeframes/

From the above: (written by a very wise young man!)

"But what is the conclusion now? Is the whole CO2 story bogus? The answer is a clear maybe. Doubtlessly, it is stupid to burn the very limited resources of fossil fuels at the rate we are doing right now – especially after fracking became the salvation for all global energy problems. There is no way around using regenerative energy sources which are CO2 neutral and thus are no threat to the climate.

Do we fully understand the changes in global climate? A clear “No”. The timeframes we are looking at for which we have reliable data is so small compared to the timeframe global climate changes occur, that it is hard to derive final conclusions from what happened in the last decades. Nonetheless, we can stop doing stupid thing, and e.g. sell our gas guzzling SUV tomorrow!"

Underlining is mine of course. The only thing I can disagree with here is that it is not "hard" to derive final conclusions from what happened in the last decades, it is impossible!

 

[jem]

I have four kids... I am not selling my gas guzzling suv because I would wind up having to take two cars to the anti leftist rallies (or school and sports) we have everyday here in So Cal.

I will give you the right to tell me to get rid of my trucks ... when leftist politicians stop taking private jets to their meetings and conventions. And, when agw nutters like Fraudcurrents stop installing air conditioners for a living.

I do care about the environment and I incorporate that concern in my decision... but don't tell me that you know what is best for my family. And govt has no right to tell me how many kids to have. My kids will be paying taxes for the trillions you all have been soaking up like greedy pigs.

This is not meant for you directly piezoe as I suspect you try to walk your talk.

---------------------------
as far as co2 causing a change in temp... that is hard to prove when we see CO2 matches well but lags change in ocean temp by 1 year.

36 years in geologic time is but two blinks of the eye. (less than that actually) That's not nearly enough time for the biosphere to respond to rising CO2 concentration. That graph you posted, FC, on a millennium time scale it becomes a mere snapshot of noise, a fraction of a data point. [see graphs at the link below]

http://www.theusrus.de/blog/global-warming-causality-vs-timeframes/

From the above: (written by a very wise young man!)

"But what is the conclusion now? Is the whole CO2 story bogus? The answer is a clear maybe. Doubtlessly, it is stupid to burn the very limited resources of fossil fuels at the rate we are doing right now – especially after fracking became the salvation for all global energy problems. There is no way around using regenerative energy sources which are CO2 neutral and thus are no threat to the climate.

Do we fully understand the changes in global climate? A clear “No”. The timeframes we are looking at for which we have reliable data is so small compared to the timeframe global climate changes occur, that it is hard to derive final conclusions from what happened in the last decades. Nonetheless, we can stop doing stupid thing, and e.g. sell our gas guzzling SUV tomorrow!"

Underlining is mine of course. The only thing I can disagree with here is that it is not "hard" to derive final conclusions from what happened in the last decades, it is impossible!