Al Gore and Trump talk about climate change

A couple articles about the temperature record and headlines.

Scientists Criticize 'Hottest Year on Record' Claim as Hype

Claims that 2016 was “the hottest year on record” are drawing sharp criticism from scientists who say it reflects how global warming has become more social crusade than evidence-based science.

“The Obama administration relentlessly politicized science and it aggressively pushed a campaign about that politicized science,” said Steven E. Koonin, who served as under secretary for science in Obama’s Department of Energy from 2009 to 2011.

NOAA fixed the 2016 increase at 0.04 degrees Celsius. The British Met Office reported an even lower rise, of 0.01C. Both increases are well within the margin of error for such calculations, approximately 0.1 degrees, and therefore are dismissed by many scientists as meaningless.

Such characterizations are absurd, according to Richard Lindzen, a meteorology professor at MIT and one of the world’s foremost skeptics that global warming represents an existential threat.

“It’s typical misleading nonsense,” Lindzen said in an e-mail. “We’re talking about less than a tenth of degree with an uncertainty of about a quarter of a degree.

RSS Confirm 2016 Is Tied With 1998 As Warmest Year

The satellite temperature record - does that look like an alarming upward trend?

The temperature record is the most worthless discussion point around climate change and should not influence our decision making regarding the future of energy production. It makes for fun headlines but that's about the only value it has.

AnomanderRake wrote:The temperature record is the most worthless discussion point around climate change and should not influence our decision making regarding the future of energy production. It makes for fun headlines but that's about the only value it has.

It also makes for what most people read because of those headlines.  

OK - back to discussion of "record" high temperatures.   How would you feel if the "data" contributing to these temperatures was coming from areas with no official temperature readings?



The Gray areas don't have land based temperature readings that are used in the data, instead NOAA "extrapolates" the temps for those areas and comes up with "Record" heat.



The problem for me and others?   Satellites which are generally considered more accurate say there was no record heat in Africa - that things were pretty close to normal.   Which do you believe?   The extrapolated data or the actual satellite readings?

And today's news......more fraud.

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

Keep telling me about deniers and "science".....

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

Awesome! lets fucking destroy this planet

LooseGoose wrote:And today's news......more fraud.

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

Keep telling me about deniers and "science".....

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-easy-ways-to-spot-b.s.-news-story-internet/

4. It's From the Fucking Daily Mail (or Another U.K. Tabloid

Herbie Green wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:And today's news......more fraud.

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

Keep telling me about deniers and "science".....

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-easy-ways-to-spot-b.s.-news-story-internet/

4. It's From the Fucking Daily Mail (or Another U.K. Tabloid

Science Denier.....it's ALL over the internet. And you did note the source??

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation

LooseGoose wrote:

Herbie Green wrote:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-easy-ways-to-spot-b.s.-news-story-internet/

4. It's From the Fucking Daily Mail (or Another U.K. Tabloid

Science Denier.....it's ALL over the internet. And you did note the source??

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation

I looked up the article and this was the only reference I see on Google.
I guess shame on me for being trolled by a schtick.

LooseGoose wrote:

Herbie Green wrote:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-easy-ways-to-spot-b.s.-news-story-internet/

4. It's From the Fucking Daily Mail (or Another U.K. Tabloid

Science Denier.....it's ALL over the internet.   And you did note the source??

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation

As a self appointed fake news spotter you probably shouldn't be trying to pass off your own fake news as fact.

Goose, I'm still waiting on you to comment on pollution being 1000x more important than temperature when it comes to supporting clean, sustainable energy.

AnomanderRake wrote:Goose, I'm still waiting on you to comment on pollution being 1000x more important than temperature when it comes to supporting clean, sustainable energy.

Are you paying the energy bills of the poors? If you're going to snuff out their wood fires, raise their gasoline prices, raise their electricity prices and their heating costs someone needs to pay for all that. It's a VERY regressive form of taxation through regulation.

That's the 1st question I have - lots of $$ out there to subsidize the corporations that generate clean energy but not so much for those that have to pay for it. Thus not very sustainable for them.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Science Denier.....it's ALL over the internet.   And you did note the source??

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation

As a self appointed fake news spotter you probably shouldn't be trying to pass off your own fake news as fact.

So - which point are you making? That Bates is a liar or that he never said that? I want you to clarify so that when you're proven wrong you won't be weaseling out of being flat wrong.

Herbie Green wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Science Denier.....it's ALL over the internet. And you did note the source??

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation

I looked up the article and this was the only reference I see on Google.
I guess shame on me for being trolled by a schtick.

Or shame on you for not being very good with Google.

An article BY Mr. Bates.
Climate scientists versus climate data

And a news story on the debate he's sparked referencing both stories.
Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming ‘pause’

And of course the usual suspects aren't going to touch this for a while since it contradicts their religion.

LooseGoose wrote:

Herbie Green wrote:

I looked up the article and this was the only reference I see on Google.
I guess shame on me for being trolled by a schtick.

Or shame on you for not being very good with Google.

An article BY Mr. Bates.
Climate scientists versus climate data

And a news story on the debate he's sparked referencing both stories.
Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming ‘pause’

And of course the usual suspects aren't going to touch this for a while since it contradicts their religion.

So you are not actually a schtick and really believe the nonsense you post. Did you see the guy gets torn to shreds in the comments of his own article?

Here are a few links I found there:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/05/mail-on-sunday-launches-the-first-salvo-in-the-latest-war-against-climate-scientists

http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?m=1

I don’t know why I am wasting my time as this is from the bowels of the Internet

LooseGoose wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:Goose, I'm still waiting on you to comment on pollution being 1000x more important than temperature when it comes to supporting clean, sustainable energy.

Are you paying the energy bills of the poors? If you're going to snuff out their wood fires, raise their gasoline prices, raise their electricity prices and their heating costs someone needs to pay for all that. It's a VERY regressive form of taxation through regulation.

That's the 1st question I have - lots of $$ out there to subsidize the corporations that generate clean energy but not so much for those that have to pay for it. Thus not very sustainable for them.

This is somewhat of a red herring since it doesn't really address pollution or the environment but since costs are an important factor to many people I'll bite.

Solar and wind energy are the only forms more expensive than coal per Mega Watt, and their costs will decrease as technology advances their efficiency and economies of scale bring down their costs.

Natural gas is already being massively expanded in the US and supports much of our current power grid. Hydro power, nuclear and natural gas are all cheaper than coal and much cleaner for the environment. (Nuclear power obviously needs to be very well managed to maintain its clean energy position)

If we can nail the renewable energy production and power grid, then oil/gasoline will be rendered obsolete by automotive technologies that leverage the cheap energy we're producing. Tesla and UPS or FedEx are already working with prototype hybrid and full electric semi-trucks that will have even greater environmental benefits than an electric shift in the consumer market. Electric automotive costs, performance and efficiency will continue to improve and become more affordable for the average person/business.

I'm humbly suggesting that we elect leaders that choose to leverage government to support this shift in technology and help position the US and its businesses as world leaders, rather than allow our competitors in Europe/Asia get there first. If that means subsidizing clean energy businesses, and offsetting the costs to consumers for a decade or two then I am all for it. We have been subsidizing the oil/coal industries for years, why would we not do the same for future energy technologies?

I just wanna plant more trees.

AnomanderRake wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Are you paying the energy bills of the poors? If you're going to snuff out their wood fires, raise their gasoline prices, raise their electricity prices and their heating costs someone needs to pay for all that. It's a VERY regressive form of taxation through regulation.

That's the 1st question I have - lots of $$ out there to subsidize the corporations that generate clean energy but not so much for those that have to pay for it. Thus not very sustainable for them.

This is somewhat of a red herring since it doesn't really address pollution or the environment but since costs are an important factor to many people I'll bite.

Solar and wind energy are the only forms more expensive than coal per Mega Watt, and their costs will decrease as technology advances their efficiency and economies of scale bring down their costs.

Natural gas is already being massively expanded in the US and supports much of our current power grid. Hydro power, nuclear and natural gas are all cheaper than coal and much cleaner for the environment. (Nuclear power obviously needs to be very well managed to maintain its clean energy position)

If we can nail the renewable energy production and power grid, then oil/gasoline will be rendered obsolete by automotive technologies that leverage the cheap energy we're producing. Tesla and UPS or FedEx are already working with prototype hybrid and full electric semi-trucks that will have even greater environmental benefits than an electric shift in the consumer market. Electric automotive costs, performance and efficiency will continue to improve and become more affordable for the average person/business.

I'm humbly suggesting that we elect leaders that choose to leverage government to support this shift in technology and help position the US and its businesses as world leaders, rather than allow our competitors in Europe/Asia get there first. If that means subsidizing clean energy businesses, and offsetting the costs to consumers for a decade or two then I am all for it. We have been subsidizing the oil/coal industries for years, why would we not do the same for future energy technologies?

IF the politicians offset the cost to low income people then I'm fine with it. That option has not been on the table and I doubt it will be because it would skyrocket the cost of "green" energy.

LooseGoose wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

This is somewhat of a red herring since it doesn't really address pollution or the environment but since costs are an important factor to many people I'll bite.

Solar and wind energy are the only forms more expensive than coal per Mega Watt, and their costs will decrease as technology advances their efficiency and economies of scale bring down their costs.

Natural gas is already being massively expanded in the US and supports much of our current power grid. Hydro power, nuclear and natural gas are all cheaper than coal and much cleaner for the environment. (Nuclear power obviously needs to be very well managed to maintain its clean energy position)

If we can nail the renewable energy production and power grid, then oil/gasoline will be rendered obsolete by automotive technologies that leverage the cheap energy we're producing. Tesla and UPS or FedEx are already working with prototype hybrid and full electric semi-trucks that will have even greater environmental benefits than an electric shift in the consumer market. Electric automotive costs, performance and efficiency will continue to improve and become more affordable for the average person/business.

I'm humbly suggesting that we elect leaders that choose to leverage government to support this shift in technology and help position the US and its businesses as world leaders, rather than allow our competitors in Europe/Asia get there first. If that means subsidizing clean energy businesses, and offsetting the costs to consumers for a decade or two then I am all for it. We have been subsidizing the oil/coal industries for years, why would we not do the same for future energy technologies?

IF the politicians offset the cost to low income people then I'm fine with it. That option has not been on the table and I doubt it will be because it would skyrocket the cost of "green" energy.

Yeah unfortunately politicians pushing the more expensive per MW versions of green energy (solar/wind) is part of the problem. If they were pushing hydro, nuclear and natural gas more then we could actually reduce people's electricity bills.

Natural gas production is at an all time high though so we should see electricity prices decline over time as energy companies switch from higher cost coal-fired generation to lower cost gas-fired generation which happens to be cleaner as well.

Conversion to electric vehicles might still have to be subsidized for awhile though depending on technology advancements in the auto industry.

AnomanderRake wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

IF the politicians offset the cost to low income people then I'm fine with it. That option has not been on the table and I doubt it will be because it would skyrocket the cost of "green" energy.

Yeah unfortunately politicians pushing the more expensive per MW versions of green energy (solar/wind) is part of the problem. If they were pushing hydro, nuclear and natural gas more then we could actually reduce people's electricity bills.

Natural gas production is at an all time high though so we should see electricity prices decline over time as energy companies switch from higher cost coal-fired generation to lower cost gas-fired generation which happens to be cleaner as well.

Conversion to electric vehicles might still have to be subsidized for awhile though depending on technology advancements in the auto industry.

Natural gas cars are a better bet than electric. There are CNG stations around the country now, we just need to ramp up the vehicles available.

I agree on Nuclear too but I think it's day has passed because the left won't allow plants to be built. Hydro's time has passed too in many ways. We're actively removing dams all over the country not adding them. I was just telling my daughter today that I expect the dams on the Ausable to be removed in her lifetime or my grandson's.

As long as we take steps to not increase the burden on the poor I'm good with any of it. Too many do-gooders forget the financial strains they put on other people, they assume as long as they can afford it that it's all good.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I don't own a car.

Really?

LooseGoose wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

Yeah unfortunately politicians pushing the more expensive per MW versions of green energy (solar/wind) is part of the problem. If they were pushing hydro, nuclear and natural gas more then we could actually reduce people's electricity bills.

Natural gas production is at an all time high though so we should see electricity prices decline over time as energy companies switch from higher cost coal-fired generation to lower cost gas-fired generation which happens to be cleaner as well.

Conversion to electric vehicles might still have to be subsidized for awhile though depending on technology advancements in the auto industry.

Natural gas cars are a better bet than electric.  There are CNG stations around the country now, we just need to ramp up the vehicles available.  

I agree on Nuclear too but I think it's day has passed because the left won't allow plants to be built.   Hydro's time has passed too in many ways.   We're actively removing dams all over the country not adding them.  I was just telling my daughter today that I expect the dams on the Ausable to be removed in her lifetime or my grandson's.

As long as we take steps to not increase the burden on the poor I'm good with any of it.   Too many do-gooders forget the financial strains they put on other people, they assume as long as they can afford it that it's all good.

Kind of like a border wall?

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Natural gas cars are a better bet than electric.  There are CNG stations around the country now, we just need to ramp up the vehicles available.  

I agree on Nuclear too but I think it's day has passed because the left won't allow plants to be built.   Hydro's time has passed too in many ways.   We're actively removing dams all over the country not adding them.  I was just telling my daughter today that I expect the dams on the Ausable to be removed in her lifetime or my grandson's.

As long as we take steps to not increase the burden on the poor I'm good with any of it.   Too many do-gooders forget the financial strains they put on other people, they assume as long as they can afford it that it's all good.

Kind of like a border wall?

Exactly. Letting millions of low wage workers in helps the upper class and undercuts the pay of the lower class. So building a border wall not only provides good paying jobs for the poors it keeps out wage competition further enhancing their bargaining position. Win. Win.

Speaking of "settled science" - take the time to read this from the noted liberal rag Slate. Then come talk to me about warming.

We Used Terrible Science to Justify Smoking Bans

I missed Goose's false equivalencies so much!

We Used Terrible Science to Justify Smoking Bans

Sounds like additional and more thorough research showed early research to be poorly done, with unsubstantiated conclusions. That's exactly how science is supposed to function.

Yep - only the crazies question global warming:

Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud?

Climate Change: We're often told by advocates of climate change that the "science is settled." But in fact, "science" itself is in a deep crisis over making claims it can't back up, especially about climate.

As BBC News Science Correspondent Tom Feilden noted last week, "Science is facing a 'reproducibility crisis' where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests." This isn't just his journalistic opinion, but the conclusion of the University of Virginia's Center for Open Science, which estimates that roughly 70% of all studies can't be reproduced.

And this includes the field of climate change, by the way. It's a disaster. Being able to reproduce others' experiments or findings from models is at the very heart of science. Yet, radical climate change advocates would have us spend 2% of global GDP, or roughly $1.5 trillion a year, to forestall a minuscule amount of anticipated warming based on dubious modeling and experiments.

Meanwhile, the federal government spends literally billions of dollars a year on climate change, with virtually none of the money funding scientists who doubt the climate change threat. There is no serious debate. This is a problem for all of science.

Worse, our government's own science fraud is a big problem. Dr. John Bates, a former top scientist at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, recently detailed how a government paper that called into question the 18-year "pause" in global warming was based on "experimental" data and politicized. That "paper" was used to justify President Obama's signing of the Paris climate agreement.

LooseGoose wrote:Yep - only the crazies question global warming:

Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud?

Climate Change: We're often told by advocates of climate change that the "science is settled." But in fact, "science" itself is in a deep crisis over making claims it can't back up, especially about climate.

As BBC News Science Correspondent Tom Feilden noted last week, "Science is facing a 'reproducibility crisis' where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests." This isn't just his journalistic opinion, but the conclusion of the University of Virginia's Center for Open Science, which estimates that roughly 70% of all studies can't be reproduced.

And this includes the field of climate change, by the way. It's a disaster. Being able to reproduce others' experiments or findings from models is at the very heart of science. Yet, radical climate change advocates would have us spend 2% of global GDP, or roughly $1.5 trillion a year, to forestall a minuscule amount of anticipated warming based on dubious modeling and experiments.

Meanwhile, the federal government spends literally billions of dollars a year on climate change, with virtually none of the money funding scientists who doubt the climate change threat. There is no serious debate. This is a problem for all of science.

Worse, our government's own science fraud is a big problem. Dr. John Bates, a former top scientist at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, recently detailed how a government paper that called into question the 18-year "pause" in global warming was based on "experimental" data and politicized. That "paper" was used to justify President Obama's signing of the Paris climate agreement.

Pollution could have zero effect on the climate and there would still be a million reasons for us to focus on clean energy solutions instead of fossil fuels.

You're so caught up on temperature change that you're missing the big picture Goose.

AnomanderRake wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Yep - only the crazies question global warming:

Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud?

Pollution could have zero effect on the climate and there would still be a million reasons for us to focus on clean energy solutions instead of fossil fuels.

You're so caught up on temperature change that you're missing the big picture Goose.

I'm caught up in the fraud. Once people admit that I'm all out.

It's all been a fucking fake, and the lemmings swallowed it and marched.

So if Goose has cancer is he going to give up and die or want treatment based on possible fake science because we all know scientists lie.

LooseGoose wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

Pollution could have zero effect on the climate and there would still be a million reasons for us to focus on clean energy solutions instead of fossil fuels.

You're so caught up on temperature change that you're missing the big picture Goose.

I'm caught up in the fraud. Once people admit that I'm all out.

It's all been a fucking fake, and the lemmings swallowed it and marched.

So science is fake? You're an idiot Goose.

LooseGoose wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

Pollution could have zero effect on the climate and there would still be a million reasons for us to focus on clean energy solutions instead of fossil fuels.

You're so caught up on temperature change that you're missing the big picture Goose.

I'm caught up in the fraud. Once people admit that I'm all out.

It's all been a fucking fake, and the lemmings swallowed it and marched.

Scientific research on pollution is a lot more straight forward. We can literally measure pollutants in our water and air and the direct causes are known. You're not seriously suggesting that because temperature change scientific research may be flawed, that we should ignore pollution also are you? That's just plain stupid man.

Goose lives in Oscoda County, part of TrumpLandia

GRR Spartan wrote:Goose lives in Oscoda County, part of TrumpLandia

Where "fraud" by select scientists is an irredeemable offense that discounts all other science, but his favorite President's history of committing and settling cases of business fraud are just water under the bridge.

AnomanderRake wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

I'm caught up in the fraud. Once people admit that I'm all out.

It's all been a fucking fake, and the lemmings swallowed it and marched.

Scientific research on pollution is a lot more straight forward. We can literally measure pollutants in our water and air and the direct causes are known. You're not seriously suggesting that because temperature change scientific research may be flawed, that we should ignore pollution also are you? That's just plain stupid man.

And people criticize me for subject jumping.

Pollution isn't global warming.

CO2 is NOT pollution.

AnomanderRake wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Goose lives in Oscoda County, part of TrumpLandia

Where "fraud" by select scientists is an irredeemable offense that discounts all other science, but his favorite President's history of committing and settling cases of business fraud are just water under the bridge.

Good to see you go on record as not being bothered by the climate fraud.