The argument that 'the ocean ate my global warming' is falling apart. The scam is dying on the vine. A few honest scientists are willing to speak out. ================== hockey schtick @hockeyschtick1 New paper finds the AGW "missing heat" is NOT hiding in the deep oceans as warmists claimed http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2387.html… ------------------ hockey schtick @hockeyschtick1 · 5h5 hours ago Game over for CAGW: Deep oceans COOLING & atmospheric heat LOSS INCREASING for a decade+ http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/new-paper-unexpectedly-finds-diverging.html…
To me, this is what is important: the science. It is a shame this issue has become so politicized. There are dramatic parallels between today's Climate Change issue and Lysenkoism in the old Soviet Union. We now have this issue identified with left and right politics. How silly is that! If we want to talk about climate change, FC, then your 97% agree there is climate change. In fact, it is closer to 100%. The central issue, however, isn't climate change, but rather the Hansen hypothesis, viz,. that human related release of CO2 is causing unnatural climate change. That morphed quickly into the assumption that there was positive feedback via clouds and water vapor that would amplify any small effect of Anthro-CO2. The result would be an exponential rise in the Earths surface temperature. That has now been disproved. We are left with the possibility that man is affecting climate. But if so, by what mechanism? We are, at this point,certain that, if indeed, man is, through his activities, affecting our climate, it is definitely NOT by the mechanism proposed by Hansen. If man is affecting his climate, we don't know by how much and what the mechanism is. How could we answer that question before we knew whether or not we were affecting our climate? But we can take heart in our observations that, so far, the slight warming, that seems to have occurred over the past 150 years, is well within the historical climate record of the Earth, at least as far as anyone is can tell.
It is politicized because the truth of it will influence public policy re taxes and spending. For everyone who believes "gubmint is too damn big", AGW is not happening, or at least there is nothing we can or should do about it.
That morphed quickly into the assumption that there was positive feedback via clouds and water vapor that would amplify any small effect of Anthro-CO2. The result would be an exponential rise in the Earths surface temperature. That has now been disproved. no it hasn't, not at all We are, at this point,certain that, if indeed, man is, through his activities, affecting our climate, it is definitely NOT by the mechanism proposed by Hansen. also wrong, basic climatological principles are still there and valid so far, the slight warming, that seems to have occurred over the past 150 years, is well within the historical climate record of the Earth, at least as far as anyone is can tell irrelevant and the type of thing repeated by the denier machine that is funded by the fossil fuel interests
Only one problem. Those papers do not say what you are saying they say. And here's a hint. If it is on some blog it is NOT authoritative. especially on that site
This little vid has nothing to do with the global warming hoax, but at least it's a couple of minutes without reading about the global warming hoax.
Green taxes DO harm the British economy and let other countries carry on polluting, Vince Cable admits Business Secretary said levies on energy were undermining British exports He said Lib Dems had to recognise green tax meant pollution was 'exported' Remarks will be seized on by the Tories who have warned of green tax harm By Tamara Cohen Published: 13:11 EST, 5 October 2014 | Updated: 05:14 EST, 6 October 2014 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lluting-Vince-Cable-admits.html#ixzz3FN1i0tgo Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
That is an excellent point and may be the only important reason. My experience tells me that the public at large doesn't think much about the cost and are largely unaware of how much various government actions in regard to climate change might end up costing them. It seems that the real drivers of opinion here are the corporate interests, and they indeed are very much affected by public policy. So your point is an excellent one, and it makes it clear to me why issues of this type are invariably going to become politicized. I think I was naive, up until now, to not realize the inevitability. So thank you for pointing that out. It's an unfortunate feature of the way things work in the U.S. Politicizing makes carrying out unbiased science more difficult, and it puts disinformation on the same plane as information. That's really a problem! Ultimately, as Lindzen put it, science becomes a means of authority rather than a mode of inquiry. This is how the people of the Soviet Union were led to believe Lysenko was right, how the German people were led to believe in Eugenics, and the World to believe that Hansen is right. (Should we call it "Hansenism" ?) In each of these cases, disinformation succeeded in burying information. Eventually of course science puts and end to these false beliefs, but in the meantime great damage is done. In each of these cases you had or have people aligning of both sides of an issue for the wrong reasons. The psychology of these movements is nearly as interesting as the movements themselves! We'll see books out on this aspect of "climate change" by the time it is over.
Contrary to what rectum stated, big gubermint is not the only reason some won't buy into the hoax. It's possible they also don't believe we should accept a theory when the evidence is contrary to the theory. I don't see any conservative railing against big gubermint doing something about protecting us from the ebola virus. I think a lot of conservatives on here think the gubermint should do more. But what do we see? Well, for one, we see the science correspondent on NPR stating that Fox News is going overboard in the issue and shouldn't be allowed to say those things. Yes, that's the actual quote I read. That Fox News "shouldn't be allowed to say those things". Now why is it that the left side is against 'big guberment' when it comes to ebola. Is this virus really not a risk? edit: When MSNBC says that ebola is caused by the NRA, we made fun of it. When Fox News says something the left doesn't like, they say we shouldn't be allowed to say it. good grief