Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Wow thats a long time - what 29 years?
Why have they not gone back 100, 300 2000 years? Or is this where their's started?
I find it ridiculous that its only now we think that taxing people is going to change climate temps. No one will be around to see any results, considering the "experts" are working on 50 year + for results. Truly is emperors new clothes IMO.
Do you believe the science is settled? If so would you say, those that agree are in fact anti-scientific?
Why have they not gone back 100, 300 2000 years? Or is this where their's started?
I find it ridiculous that its only now we think that taxing people is going to change climate temps. No one will be around to see any results, considering the "experts" are working on 50 year + for results. Truly is emperors new clothes IMO.
Do you believe the science is settled? If so would you say, those that agree are in fact anti-scientific?
El stovey said:
ExVantagemech.. said:
Wow thats a long time - what 29 years?
Why have they not gone back 100, 300 2000 years? Or is this where their's started?
I find it ridiculous that its only now we think that taxing people is going to change climate temps. No one will be around to see any results, considering the "experts" are working on 50 year + for results. Truly is emperors new clothes IMO.
Why have they not gone back 100, 300 2000 years? Or is this where their's started?
I find it ridiculous that its only now we think that taxing people is going to change climate temps. No one will be around to see any results, considering the "experts" are working on 50 year + for results. Truly is emperors new clothes IMO.
Only a few posts ago I said:
And the lack of any causality in climate data from energy and temperature to humans (i.e. more carbon dioxide but no causal link to warming trend there may or may not be depending on the cherry being picked).
On Thursday I said:
the last few decades to which empirical evidence-free but gigo heavy agw has retreated in its death throes
NASA picked their cherry to include the artificial warming introduced by omission of cold ground stations and resulting substitution of urbanised warm stations in the gridded near-surface temperature record, as well as the sudden rejection - in time for Obama's trip to the Paris climate boondoggle - of more accurate / less heat contaminated scientific buoy sea surface temperature data for less scientific / more heat contaminated ship engine intake temperatures. Abracadabra and Hey Presclott, warming at the diddle of a spreadsheet.A very ripe cherry indeed.
That NASA advocacy webpage shows a trend and talks about warmest years since very recently. There's still no causality to humans in any trend, nor those claimed records which are no such thing.
The advocacy quoted by El s from the advocacy webpage talks about a 136 year record, which masks the obvious reality that it was warmer more than 136 years ago, more than 1360 years ago (etc) with more pronounced trends at frequent points in the geological record etc. However as indicated above, tax gas couldn't even remotely explain that data so the faith retreats into a few recent decades, hoping people won't spot that the 'records' are artificial and that there's no established causality to human emissions in any of it.
AGW really goes out of its way to show what a crock of the proverbial it is.
Advocacy websites use diddled data as shown below (omission of cold stations and subsitution by distant warmer station data in urbanised/lowe altitude locations). This was then followed for good measure by the scientific buoy => ship engine intake fiasco for SST.
Spot how the bar chart temperature trend cited by agw advocates soars up when hundreds of cold stations were systematically removed from the (unfit for purpose) near-surface global temperature database (declining point plot).
The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis reported that the Hadley Center for Climate Change, based at the headquarters of the Met Office, omitted over 40% of groundstations covering Russian territory which as a result were no longer contributing to global temperature calculations. The IEA also confirmed that the omission was not due to the lack of operating meteorological stations and/or lack of observations.
The data from stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) almost always fails to show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
Report: Cold Weather Stations Left Out of Climate Data
https://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/4521.html
See info and links in the above report going to other data diddles including the Maatsuyker exclusion.
Have a read of how Australia's weather bureau was caught hot-handed with cold winter temperature logs in at least two locations.
"The bureau has admitted that a problem with recording very low temperatures is more widespread than Goulburn and the Snowy Mountains but rejected it has attempted to manipulate temperature records."
By 'sheer coincidence' the coldest temperatures are omitted and substituted by warmer values.
Then there's always homogenisation which by more coincidence puts another thumb on the warm side of the scales.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/...
Here are the NZ data, before and after being tortured long enough to confess.
NZ Raw Data
NZ Adjusted Data
Such jolly climate japes
ETA one of the attrition loops on the subject of diddled data and no warming for 100-150 years is at the link below for those with a liking for nostalgia. See post on Weds 21 November 2012.
One of the highlights is hairykrishna forgetting about causality being missing at glacial-decadal timescales in terms of the weak association asserted between diddled data and tax gas levels.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Spot how the bar chart temperature trend cited by agw advocates soars up when hundreds of cold stations were systematically removed from the (unfit for purpose) near-surface global temperature database (declining point plot).
The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis reported that the Hadley Center for Climate Change, based at the headquarters of the Met Office, omitted over 40% of groundstations covering Russian territory which as a result were no longer contributing to global temperature calculations. The IEA also confirmed that the omission was not due to the lack of operating meteorological stations and/or lack of observations.
The data from stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) almost always fails to show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
Report: Cold Weather Stations Left Out of Climate Data
https://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/4521.html
See info and links in the above report going to other data diddles including the Maatsuyker exclusion.
Have a read of how Australia's weather bureau was caught hot-handed with cold winter temperature logs in at least two locations.
"The bureau has admitted that a problem with recording very low temperatures is more widespread than Goulburn and the Snowy Mountains but rejected it has attempted to manipulate temperature records."
By 'sheer coincidence' the coldest temperatures are omitted and substituted by warmer values.
Then there's always homogenisation which by more coincidence puts another thumb on the warm side of the scales.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/...
Australian researcher J Marohasy said:
Repetition is a propaganda technique, the deletion of information from records, and the use of exaggeration and half-truths, are others.
The (Australian) Bureau of Meteorology uses all these techniques, while wilfully ignoring evidence that contradicts its own propaganda.
The (Australian) Bureau of Meteorology uses all these techniques, while wilfully ignoring evidence that contradicts its own propaganda.
The Above Link said:
Marohasy has analysed the physical temperature records from more than 30 stations included in the BoM set that determines the official national temperature record.
And she remains disturbed by a pattern whereby homogenisation exaggerates, or even produces, a record of steady warming against a steady or cooling trend in the raw data.
As featured in previous attrition loops on PH climate threads there is no warming trend visible in 100 years' of raw climate data from Australia, N America and Canada and 150 years in New Zealand, i.e. large areas in both hemispheres. Suddenly, warming appears, just like that! Amazing!! It's the hand of man I tells ya!!!And she remains disturbed by a pattern whereby homogenisation exaggerates, or even produces, a record of steady warming against a steady or cooling trend in the raw data.
Here are the NZ data, before and after being tortured long enough to confess.
NZ Raw Data
NZ Adjusted Data
Such jolly climate japes
ETA one of the attrition loops on the subject of diddled data and no warming for 100-150 years is at the link below for those with a liking for nostalgia. See post on Weds 21 November 2012.
One of the highlights is hairykrishna forgetting about causality being missing at glacial-decadal timescales in terms of the weak association asserted between diddled data and tax gas levels.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 1st May 09:15
Rising levels of 'frustration' at UN climate stalemate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4394...
Old divisions between rich and poor over money and ambition are again threatening to limit progress in UN climate negotiations.
Discussions between negotiators from nearly 200 countries have resumed in Germany, aiming to flesh out the rules on the Paris climate pact.
But developing countries say they are "frustrated" with the lack of leadership from the developed world.
Commitments to cut carbon are still "woefully inadequate" they said.
2018 marks a critical stage in the global climate negotiations process. By the end of this year, governments will meet in Poland to finalise the so-called "rulebook" of the Paris deal, agreed in the French capital in December 2015......continues
Yes, it's all about the money!!
"The developing nations are, in turn, incensed that enthusiasm for the $100bn per year in climate finance support from the rich, due to start in 2020, has started to wane."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4394...
Old divisions between rich and poor over money and ambition are again threatening to limit progress in UN climate negotiations.
Discussions between negotiators from nearly 200 countries have resumed in Germany, aiming to flesh out the rules on the Paris climate pact.
But developing countries say they are "frustrated" with the lack of leadership from the developed world.
Commitments to cut carbon are still "woefully inadequate" they said.
2018 marks a critical stage in the global climate negotiations process. By the end of this year, governments will meet in Poland to finalise the so-called "rulebook" of the Paris deal, agreed in the French capital in December 2015......continues
Yes, it's all about the money!!
"The developing nations are, in turn, incensed that enthusiasm for the $100bn per year in climate finance support from the rich, due to start in 2020, has started to wane."
Nothing changes, turbowaffle, you’re still quoting yourself as evidence (appeals to self authority) whilst trying to discredit actual science and scientific institutions by calling them advocacy websites.
All we need now are some more click and paste links that don’t even support your own argument.
Have you heard back from any of these institutions with your evidence yet? No? Thought not?
You’re not going to influence the consensus from in here.
The reason you’re in a tiny minority and resorting to rubbishing proper scientists isn’t because you’re in the know and the rest are involved in a global deception, it’s because you’re wrong.
Are there any other fields of science that you think involve a global conspiracy?
All we need now are some more click and paste links that don’t even support your own argument.
Have you heard back from any of these institutions with your evidence yet? No? Thought not?
You’re not going to influence the consensus from in here.
The reason you’re in a tiny minority and resorting to rubbishing proper scientists isn’t because you’re in the know and the rest are involved in a global deception, it’s because you’re wrong.
Are there any other fields of science that you think involve a global conspiracy?
Then there's the spurious warming from UHIE/LULC/GDP effects.
McKitrick & Michaels Were Right: More Evidence of Spurious Warming in the IPCC Surface Temperature Dataset
McKitrick & Michaels Were Right: More Evidence of Spurious Warming in the IPCC Surface Temperature Dataset
UAH Climatologist Dr Roy Spencer said:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/mckitrick-mich...
Spencer said:
The supposed gold standard in surface temperature data is that produced by Univ. of East Anglia, the so-called CRUTem3 dataset. There has always been a lingering suspicion among skeptics that some portion of this IPCC official temperature record contains some level of residual spurious warming due to the urban heat island effect. Several published papers over the years have supported that suspicion.
robinessex said:
El, can you give us a link to the top 10 scientific studies you’ve read and understood...
Fair enough but that's too kind and too easy as "scientific studies" can be interpreted as IPCC reports and advocacy webpages from activisits in appealed 'authorities'.We need the top ten peer-reviewed papers which establish a visible anthropogenic signal in TOA radiative imbalance (energy) data and a visible causal human signal in global climate (temperature) data.
Those questions have been asked in believer attrition loops for years and years. So far, zilch, which isn't surprising as there's only diddly squat available.
Without them, agw doesn't exist in the data i.e. it's faith! Repent and believe!!
robinessex said:
I was giving El the floor, as he obviously is an expert on the scientific case for AGW. Let’s not make it to difficult for him!!
I’m not an expert as clearly neither are you, or anyone else here.The crucial difference is that I’m not trying to rubbish climate scientists and scientific institutions and scientific consensus.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/cli...
This is exactly what this thread looks like, are there any other fields of science you lot think are a scam?
El stovey said:
I’m not an expert as clearly neither are you, or anyone else here.
The crucial difference is that I’m not trying to rubbish climate scientists and scientific institutions and scientific consensus.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/cli...
This is exactly what this thread looks like, are there any other fields of science you lot think are a scam?
lotsThe crucial difference is that I’m not trying to rubbish climate scientists and scientific institutions and scientific consensus.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/cli...
This is exactly what this thread looks like, are there any other fields of science you lot think are a scam?
Just to show how thoughts and ideas evolve. Or more likely, don't !!
In 1945, the first widely distributed account of nuclear energy, in the form of the pocketbook The Atomic Age, discussed the peaceful future uses of nuclear energy and depicted a future where fossil fuels would go unused. Nobel laureate Glenn Seaborg, who later chaired the Atomic Energy Commission, is quoted as saying "there will be nuclear powered earth-to-moon shuttles, nuclear powered artificial hearts, plutonium heated swimming pools for SCUBA divers, and much more".
The United Kingdom, Canada, and the USSR proceeded to research and develop nuclear industries over the course of the late 1940s and early 1950s. Electricity was generated for the first time by a nuclear reactor on December 20, 1951, at the EBR-I experimental station near Arco, Idaho, which initially produced about 100 kW. Work was also strongly researched in the US on nuclear marine propulsion, with a test reactor being developed by 1953 (eventually, the USS Nautilus, the first nuclear-powered submarine, would launch in 1955). In 1953, US President Dwight Eisenhower gave his "Atoms for Peace" speech at the United Nations, emphasizing the need to develop "peaceful" uses of nuclear power quickly. This was followed by the 1954 Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act which allowed rapid declassification of US reactor technology and encouraged development by the private sector.
In 1945, the first widely distributed account of nuclear energy, in the form of the pocketbook The Atomic Age, discussed the peaceful future uses of nuclear energy and depicted a future where fossil fuels would go unused. Nobel laureate Glenn Seaborg, who later chaired the Atomic Energy Commission, is quoted as saying "there will be nuclear powered earth-to-moon shuttles, nuclear powered artificial hearts, plutonium heated swimming pools for SCUBA divers, and much more".
The United Kingdom, Canada, and the USSR proceeded to research and develop nuclear industries over the course of the late 1940s and early 1950s. Electricity was generated for the first time by a nuclear reactor on December 20, 1951, at the EBR-I experimental station near Arco, Idaho, which initially produced about 100 kW. Work was also strongly researched in the US on nuclear marine propulsion, with a test reactor being developed by 1953 (eventually, the USS Nautilus, the first nuclear-powered submarine, would launch in 1955). In 1953, US President Dwight Eisenhower gave his "Atoms for Peace" speech at the United Nations, emphasizing the need to develop "peaceful" uses of nuclear power quickly. This was followed by the 1954 Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act which allowed rapid declassification of US reactor technology and encouraged development by the private sector.
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
I was giving El the floor, as he obviously is an expert on the scientific case for AGW. Let’s not make it to difficult for him!!
I’m not an expert as clearly neither are you, or anyone else here.The crucial difference is that I’m not trying to rubbish climate scientists and scientific institutions and scientific consensus.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/cli...
This is exactly what this thread looks like, are there any other fields of science you lot think are a scam?
I've been here so many years now, and the one constant in all that time has been these endless climate change threads.
Can't we all agree that looking after our planet, the only one we have, is probably, on balance, a good idea? And that doing things that clearly aren't helpful, regardless of a thousand temperature graphs, is probably on the balance of probabilities, a bad thing?
To me, it's akin to having a house, never cleaning it, filling it with junk and dumping all your rubbish in the garden. It doesn't make it a nice environment, and you'll probably get sick at some point.
For a start. so called AGW is screwing up planets energy generation and needs predictions.
The cost for all this so far?
The Numbers
From FY 1993 to FY 2014, government reports show that annual spending on “climate science” grew from $1.31 billion to $2.66 billon, for a total of $42.49 billion. Of this total, $0.64 billion came from the stimulus bill. Annual expenditures in this category over the period increased over 200%. During the same period, “other” climate-related expenditures (including tax credits) grew from $1.05 billion to $8.94 billion, for a total of $104.29 billion, with $25.5 billion coming from AARA. The increase in annual expenditures in this category was 850%.
If we combine both categories, total expenditures for the period grew from $2.35 billion to $11.59 billion, for a total of $146.78 billion, with $26.14 billion coming from ARRA. The increase in total annual expenditures was 490%.
The amount going to international assistance via UN groups grew from $201 million to $893 million in 2014—a 440% growth in annual expenditures.
When the budgets for FY 2015 & FY 2016 of the U.S. Global Change Research Program are included, the total expenditures for “climate science” from FY 1993 to FY 2016 come to $47.56 billion, with international assistance amounting to $8.24 billion.
Constant Dollars: While the CRS report also gave the total annual expenditures of climate change in constant 2012 dollars, the GAO report did not give constant dollars. Since the index used by the CRS is not available on the web, I’ve used the Consumer Price Index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to adjust GAO numbers to 2012 constant dollars. To assure a reasonable adjustment, several calculations were double-checked with CRS numbers. The error in the match sets was less than 1%.
Conclusion
After examining the reports, and removing double counting, calculations show that from Fiscal Year 1993 to FY 2014 total U.S. expenditures on climate change amount to more than $166 billion in 2012 dollars. By way of comparison, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the entire Apollo program, operating from 1962 to 1973 with 17 missions—seven of them sending men to the moon and back—cost $170 billion in 2005 dollars, which equals about $200 billion in 2012 dollars, if we use the Consumer Price Index to adjust that figure. In “fighting” climate change, the United States government is spending almost as much as it did on all the Apollo missions.
And that's just the USA
The cost for all this so far?
The Numbers
From FY 1993 to FY 2014, government reports show that annual spending on “climate science” grew from $1.31 billion to $2.66 billon, for a total of $42.49 billion. Of this total, $0.64 billion came from the stimulus bill. Annual expenditures in this category over the period increased over 200%. During the same period, “other” climate-related expenditures (including tax credits) grew from $1.05 billion to $8.94 billion, for a total of $104.29 billion, with $25.5 billion coming from AARA. The increase in annual expenditures in this category was 850%.
If we combine both categories, total expenditures for the period grew from $2.35 billion to $11.59 billion, for a total of $146.78 billion, with $26.14 billion coming from ARRA. The increase in total annual expenditures was 490%.
The amount going to international assistance via UN groups grew from $201 million to $893 million in 2014—a 440% growth in annual expenditures.
When the budgets for FY 2015 & FY 2016 of the U.S. Global Change Research Program are included, the total expenditures for “climate science” from FY 1993 to FY 2016 come to $47.56 billion, with international assistance amounting to $8.24 billion.
Constant Dollars: While the CRS report also gave the total annual expenditures of climate change in constant 2012 dollars, the GAO report did not give constant dollars. Since the index used by the CRS is not available on the web, I’ve used the Consumer Price Index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to adjust GAO numbers to 2012 constant dollars. To assure a reasonable adjustment, several calculations were double-checked with CRS numbers. The error in the match sets was less than 1%.
Conclusion
After examining the reports, and removing double counting, calculations show that from Fiscal Year 1993 to FY 2014 total U.S. expenditures on climate change amount to more than $166 billion in 2012 dollars. By way of comparison, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the entire Apollo program, operating from 1962 to 1973 with 17 missions—seven of them sending men to the moon and back—cost $170 billion in 2005 dollars, which equals about $200 billion in 2012 dollars, if we use the Consumer Price Index to adjust that figure. In “fighting” climate change, the United States government is spending almost as much as it did on all the Apollo missions.
And that's just the USA
Robin(essex) are you OK?
You seem to have caughtbatman’s turbobloke’s condition of click and pasting loads of irrelevant information in an attempt to drown out anyone that disagrees with the groupthink.
As usual an interesting new poster pops in and briefly opens the windows of the echo chamber to let in some light and logic and common sense and outside views and it gets slammed shut and boarded over with dark dreary political click and paste dogma from the cult members inside.
You seem to have caught
As usual an interesting new poster pops in and briefly opens the windows of the echo chamber to let in some light and logic and common sense and outside views and it gets slammed shut and boarded over with dark dreary political click and paste dogma from the cult members inside.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff