How or Why we will reverse global warming

[Brooke]

So let me ask you, if someone told you that the Pope was under Pagan influences, how should one evaluate the mental health of that person?  (And it is not just Lehr).

If you consider socialism and communism to be pagan influences, then it holds true. 

[ghi]

Tornadoes Texas, Oklahoma,Arkansas 

https://tvnweather.com/live

[NatCigg]

I cant wait...

   When do the palm trees start to sprout in the arctic??

   We want to start selling water front property but at present it's covered in ice!   

   I'm planning an orange grove,maybe some lemons and I will never have to build another damn igloo!



     

the seeds are probably still there!   just need a little more sun......

I want the new yorkers to come buy my land.  silly twits will probably want to build a wall or something. 

 

[bustr]

The Pope probably sees the world wide governmental mechanisms of GW trying to force wealth redistribution as a necessary evil for some of that wealth being redistributed to the third world poor.

You have to wonder if recent leaks of Vatican documents and legal investigations into misappropriation of funds by Vatican insiders is a message to the Pope to get out of the politics business. His job is to have faith in God's plan for mankind and present that message. Not measure the height of shore lines and lobby governments to redistribute their citizens wealth because he decided the oceans are too high.

[SysError]

The military culture of obedience to the potus is significantly different from the CIA's culture.

FLS:

I thought that I had posted the following a while ago, I guess not.

Just to refresh everyone’s memory.
When I posted a 2015 article called DoD Releases Report on Security Implications of Climate Change

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/612710

You replied in part:

That's convincing evidence that the military does what the commander in chief tells them to do.

Honestly, I thought that that was a very weak counter argument, however, none the less could you please explain the following DoD report from 2004:
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

It was a report that originally was suppressed on “national Security grounds”

Quotes from the 2004 article:

“'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,'”

“Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received skeptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,'”

I await your FoxNews sanctioned response.

[SysError]

That's central to the point. You need not evaluate HIM at all. Ask him to support his contention and evaluate his argument. Anything less than that is contempt prior to investigation of a very particular category. Play the ball, not the man.

I do not agree with you, not in this case.  If you cite an authority’s judgment to support or prove an argument that you are making, (which, in the right context is a completely legitimate tactic), then the judgment of that authority is a perfectly acceptable topic of discussion.  It is not playing the man.


For example, as I pointed out in a much earlier reference on The Heartland Institute, here is their advice to the world on the Fukushima incident:

“I can tell you with the utmost confidence there will not be a health impact of anything that is going on at the Fukushima power plant.”

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2011/03/14/are-fears-catastrophic-nuclear-meltdown-in-japan-warranted/


You can legitimately question the scientific competency of any organization or person who makes such a statement.

Their denial of the scientific proof of Climate Change is nothing short of stunning.

[SysError]

If you consider socialism and communism to be pagan influences, then it holds true. 

http://imgur.com/4vCy7xB   

[SysError]

The Pope probably sees the world wide governmental mechanisms of GW trying to force wealth redistribution as a necessary evil for some of that wealth being redistributed to the third world poor.

You have to wonder if recent leaks of Vatican documents and legal investigations into misappropriation of funds by Vatican insiders is a message to the Pope to get out of the politics business. His job is to have faith in God's plan for mankind and present that message. Not measure the height of shore lines and lobby governments to redistribute their citizens wealth because he decided the oceans are too high.

I must say that it has been very entertaining watching American conservative Catholics contort into mangled mental pretzels over Pope Francis.

http://imgur.com/yWXTHFD

More fun I would say than watching Bill O’Reilly explain away details of his days as a “combat journalist”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/bill-oreilly-brian-williams-falklands-war

[SysError]

2. I'm part of the consensus ... The bar for "agreement" is set very low, as you'll see here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/
3. A more truthful read says the scientific community is divided on the matter, especially within climate science itself.

As long as you do not read the cited studies on the site you point to, yes you can make your statement.

In fact I will be using your cited study from now as another proof that there is overwhelming evidence from “peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming.”

Thank You.

In support of your claim, you turn to Anthony Watts’ Watts Up With That (WUWT) web site.  In it he mocks the statement that 97% of scientists believe in global warming.  He says for example:
 
 

“97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots …..
Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.
….
That’s a long way from Cook’s “97% consensus” lie.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

To support his claim, Anthony Watts’ WUWT cites an American Meteorological Society (AMS) commissioned survey by George Mason University researchers.

METEOROLOGISTS’ VIEWS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING, A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

WUWT quotes extensively from the abstract and concludes by stating:

“So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as “deniers”

That’s a long way from Cook’s “97% consensus” lie.”

Pretty damning stuff if you ask me!

Well I guess that it would only be fair to ask what Jon Cook and The Consensus Project set out to measure.  They state:

“…the level of consensus in published, peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming. …. we analysed 21 years worth of peer-reviewed papers on “global warming” or “global climate change”.”

http://theconsensusproject.com/

Their full report is here:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

So what did the AMS study conclude about this group of respondents?  Well here it is: 

“Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their concurrence.” 

Anthony Watts is a charlatan that takes people as lazy fools. 


BTW:  I originally had a much longer and detailed reply using the AMS study, but I dropped it for the sake of brevity.  When you reply in a heroic effort to salvage the reputation of Mr. Watts please do me the favor of actually reading the study.  There is a lot more there to damn Mr. Watts and WUWT.  (Unless of course you quote out of context or selectively parse sentences, which is all that you can do).


P.S.  Please be sure to click on several of Mr. Watts’ eye candy adverting banners, I really do not mind having to deal with light weights such as him.  I so do want him to stay around.

[PJ_Godzilla]

As long as you do not read the cited studies on the site you point to, yes you can make your statement.

In fact I will be using your cited study from now as another proof that there is overwhelming evidence from “peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming.”

Thank You.

In support of your claim, you turn to Anthony Watts’ Watts Up With That (WUWT) web site.  In it he mocks the statement that 97% of scientists believe in global warming.  He says for example:
 
 
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

To support his claim, Anthony Watts’ WUWT cites an American Meteorological Society (AMS) commissioned survey by George Mason University researchers.

METEOROLOGISTS’ VIEWS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING, A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

WUWT quotes extensively from the abstract and concludes by stating:
Pretty damning stuff if you ask me!

Well I guess that it would only be fair to ask what Jon Cook and The Consensus Project set out to measure.  They state:

http://theconsensusproject.com/

Their full report is here:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

So what did the AMS study conclude about this group of respondents?  Well here it is: 

Anthony Watts is a charlatan that takes people as lazy fools. 


BTW:  I originally had a much longer and detailed reply using the AMS study, but I dropped it for the sake of brevity.  When you reply in a heroic effort to salvage the reputation of Mr. Watts please do me the favor of actually reading the study.  There is a lot more there to damn Mr. Watts and WUWT.  (Unless of course you quote out of context or selectively parse sentences, which is all that you can do).


P.S.  Please be sure to click on several of Mr. Watts’ eye candy adverting banners, I really do not mind having to deal with light weights such as him.  I so do want him to stay around.

No, thank YOU for serving up a piñata that Godzilla can knock out of the park. I'm not sure if you're just unaware or complicit in trying to perpetuate Cooks falsehoods. It matters little.

Your man Cook cherry-picked his data, discarding everything he didn't like... http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15624-cooking-climate-consensus-data-97-of-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked

This one is even more devastating: http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html

I can see why you don't accept a refutation of the ad hominem. Ultimately, it's all you've got.

Btw, the example you cited had it exactly backwards and unwittingly supported my assertion. You used an example in which a proponent advances a preposterous argument as a means of discrediting the proponent. That IS playing the ball on the argument and should nicely illustrate the dangers of advancing too many preposterous arguments... In terms of future credibility.

But then, I expect this phenomenon is one with which you're painfully familiar, considering what you just got caught trying to do...

[FLS]

I await your FoxNews sanctioned response.

You found a misleading election year news article critical of the incumbent Republican.

I'm so shocked by this I don't know which greedy evil corporation to turn to for false answers.

[NatCigg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c01LM466og4

A nice little show about the midevil warm period and Little ice age, from human experience/history point of view.

[Brooke]

I've come across this before, but I don't think anyone has posted it yet.  An example of NOAA's alteration of temperature records:

From ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/3/30382586000.gif :

[NatCigg]

http://www.hngn.com/articles/154807/20151127/plankton-growth-increase-ocean-tied-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-global.htm

rut roo the source of poison o2 and cause of decreasing co2 could be tied to increased co2?  is mother nature happy to get more carbon?  is she cycling things around, again?  where will this lead?  rut roo nobody knows, and it was not in the models?  rut roo.

 

[Shuffler]

Ice is shrinking so fast in the north they're already preparing to evacuate ice dependant villages...  Can we do something to reverse this for the next generation, or is the next generation just iphones and suv's with long commutes...?  Your own fate is in front of your own eyes...  The more conversation we have about this the better chance we have if anyone cares anymore....

Ice is increasing in the south. Mother Nature at her best.