Prediction: Losing election simply due to climate scepticism

[gwb-trading]

I can only guess most, if not all, scientists/scholars/researchers should have their professional training, skills, ethics, protocol and system to produce their conclusions/suggestions that could be right or wrong years later.

Basically, I think the scientists can only do and say right now is what exactly they currently believe is right for now, according to conventionally scientific research methodologies/protocols.

Of course, there is possibility for re-adjusting old raw records by certain researchers as you guess, but I think the probability should be extremely slim.

Besides, adjusting raw data records, such as outliers, might be a proper and normal step in standard research protocol, if the adjustments are based on strong scientific reasons/causes. I just guess.

We usually very much believe scientists, and their update of scientific knowledge from time to time. Why not this time?

If someone truly believes the raw data has been compromised/changed, however no solid proof could be found Yet about the adjustment, then the argument hence created will be a never ending one, that could spend unlimited time for almost zero result - nearly guaranteed.

Personally I don't understand well the objective of climate scepticism. Is it simply for social justice, proving the alarmists lied for their wrongdoing of adjusting data?

Good luck to the evangelists of climate scepticism! They do have unusually great courage!

Perhaps they deadly need a whistle-blower! Perhaps a potential whistle-blower would show up anytime soon! We never know!

Let me predict the future of this nonsense...

In 30 years "climate change" will be viewed as a debunked scientific fraud which late night comedians will make fun of.

The reality is that the biggest threat to human existence is falling global temperatures. We are near the top of a short term peak and by 2020 most of the measurements will show a decreasing drop each year - to the point that adjusting the data can no longer "hide the decline".

Certainly the climate cabal by the mid 2020s will try to claim that they have been successful because the temperature is dropping globally. However this will not jibe with the global evidence of increasing CO2 levels while the temperature declined over the previous decade. The climate accords will not slow man-made CO2 growth to any measurable degree as larger emerging nations significantly increase their output over the next decade, more than offsetting any cuts from first world nations.

There are enough directly visible environmental pollution problems that should be tackled before unproven AGW. Sadly, as Wall Street financiers will make a fortune off of crony-capitalism carbon credits, the politicians will misdirect money to fight "climate change" leading to misery and continued poverty in the few emerging nations that attempt to reduce carbon-based energy usage.

 

[gwb-trading]

The assertion put forward by the title of this thread is in itself absurd - "Prediction: Losing election simply due to climate scepticism".

Most Americans are focused on terrorism and the economy as the key election issues.

Only a few people on the extreme fringe on both parties view "climate change" as an issue which will impact their votes. This maybe 20% of the individual voters who lean Democratic, and perhaps 5% of the voters who vote Republican.

To the majority of the electorate, "Climate Change" is a "don't care" issue which will not impact their votes. The only way that "climate change" impacts their votes is if policies start to impact their pocket book (which they are not yet for 2016). An example will be the new EPA CO2 Air Regulations which will cost the average family several hundred dollars more per year in power bills in the future.

Climate Scepticism is not a meaningful election issue for 2016.

 

[OddTrader]

You must be a talented scientist who can produce a climate change modelling and projection based on future data!

Q

Carbon choices determine US cities committed to
futures below sea level

Benjamin H. Strauss, Scott Kulp, and Anders Levermann

Climate Central, Princeton, NJ 08542; Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 14473 Potsdam, Germany; and
Physics Institute of Potsdam University, 14476 Potsdam, Germany

Edited by James Hansen, Columbia University, New York, NY, and approved September 18, 2015 (received for review June 8, 2015)

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13508.full.pdf

Summary and Conclusions

Cumulative carbon emissions lead to roughly proportional tem-perature increases expected to endure for millennia (6). These sustained increases translate to increments of SLR far exceeding the projections for this century, as ice sheets approach equilibrium with temperature over time (10). We find that within a 2,000-y envelope there is a strong relationship between cumulative emissions and committed sea level under either of our tested assumptions about
WAIS stability, but the relationship is particularly steep when we do not assume collapse to be inevitable. In the latter case especially, rapid and deep cuts in carbon emissions could help many hundreds of coastal US municipalities avoid extreme future difficulties.

However, historic carbon emissions appear already to have put in motion long-term SLR that will endanger the continuity and legacy of hundreds more municipalities, and so long as emissions continue, the tally will continually increase.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
We thank Claudia Tebaldi for statistical advice; Stan-ley Jacobs for discussion of Southern Ocean circulation; Nathan Gillett for guidance on the transient climate response to emissions; Mark Merrifield for tidal modeling applied to the Alaskan coast; and Michael Oppenheimer for thoughtful comments on the manuscript. The research leading to these
results received funding from the Kresge Foundation, the Rockefeller Foun-dation, the Schmidt Family Foundation, the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation, and the European Union Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013
under Grant Agreement 603864.

UQ

 

[OddTrader]

Climate Scepticism is not a meaningful election issue for 2016.

You could be right! I hope you will!

 

[gwb-trading]

You must be a talented scientist who can produce a climate change modelling and projection based on future data!

Keep in mind that I am the only individual on ET who has downloaded the HADCRUT global temperature data and presented my results of change over time. Similarly I am the only person who has downloaded the ARGO ocean temperature results and presented my results. You can search my previous posts from a few years back.

Raw plotting of data shows no 'hockey stick" temperature rise. In fact there is hardly any temperature rise at all over the past decades.

The biggest problem with the fabricated assertions made by climate activists is that they undermine real science and will cause people to distrust all scientists. This fraud is the primary reason I am vocal in opposing this nonsense.


The ocean temperatures measured by ARGO - 0.06 Degrees increase since 1960. The temperature increase is meaningless.

 

[OddTrader]

Raw plotting of data shows no 'hockey stick" temperature rise. In fact there is hardly any temperature rise at all over the past decades.

Perhaps you should write up a paper/ article to be published anywhere for climate related web site or journal. (more credible than ET forums)

Join forces with other climate scientists or like-minded researchers would be even much better, I think.

Nobody could stop you publishing your findings!

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

 

[gwb-trading]

Perhaps you should write up a paper/ article to be published anywhere for climate related web site or journal. (more credible than ET forums)

Join forces with other climate scientists or like-minded researchers would be even much better, I think.

Nobody could stop you publishing your findings!

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

So the ARGO website fully confirms my assertions. Good to know.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/26/the-relentless-increase-of-ocean-heat/

"Well, Lubos Motl has done the arithmetic in this post Ocean heat content: relentless but negligible. This is a good post, check it out. The punchline of his calculations: the heating in the layer 0-2000 m translates to 0.065 C +/- 20%. His calculations are essentially confirmed from this ARGO page where they confirm that since the 1960s, the warming of that layer was 0.06 °C.

So, can anyone figure out why 0.06C is a big deal for the climate? Or how all that heat that is apparently well mixed in the ocean could somehow get into the atmosphere and influence weather/temperatures/rainfall on the land? Or is sequestering heat in the ocean a fortuitous ‘solution’ to the global (surface) warming problem?"

 

[ipatent]

Sea levels have risen hundred of feet since the Americas were settled via the Beringia land bridge with Asia. It didn't end humanity. We could live with a few flooded living rooms in Venice and a couple of Pacific islands disappearing if we had to. It's been a warm December on the East Coast, I've enjoyed running outdoors instead of on a treadmill.

The Earth is constantly being hit with icy meteors. That probably raises sea levels over time as well.

Global warming is probably the invention of some policy wonk, and like any good political scheme there's something in it for a lot of different interest groups on both sides of the aisle and internationally where it counts. One of the goals is probably to prevent a resource war as India and China continue to rise.

They just love to sell things with lies, even when the truth might work.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

If the temperature records are so accurate and have not been fudged, why are they resisting congressional oversight and refusing to provide government scientists or records for examination?

If it is all so clear cut, wouldn't the logical thing to do be to lay it all out in public and silence the critics? Instead, we get obfuscation, obstruction, ad hominem attacks on sceptics and a gusher of government money to scientists who play along.

 

[gwb-trading]

If the temperature records are so accurate and have not been fudged, why are they resisting congressional oversight and refusing to provide government scientists or records for examination?

If it is all so clear cut, wouldn't the logical thing to do be to lay it all out in public and silence the critics? Instead, we get obfuscation, obstruction, ad hominem attacks on sceptics and a gusher of government money to scientists who play along.

I would also mention that raw temperature data that formerly freely available on the web for download a few years ago is now secret and unavailable.