Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.

[LongQ]

kerplunk said:

I'm sure the WUWT crowd will get it there eventually

I think you have a warped view of what 'warmists' think. I seriously doubt any of the pro-AGW sites I take notice of would canvass their readership for votes on such a simplistic YES/NO poll. I would find it extremely disappointing if they did and expect lots of others to think so too and say so.

How long is your memory?

[Lost_BMW]

rovermorris999 said:

Mayor Bloomberg of New York is endorsing Obama because he says he has the right ideas on climate change. He seems to be blaming Sandy on climate change.
All according to C4 News.

That charlatan demagog underachiever would blame anyone for anything... except himself. Scientific credentials are what, exactly? Come on Romney...

[LongQ]

Lost_BMW said:

rovermorris999 said:

Mayor Bloomberg of New York is endorsing Obama because he says he has the right ideas on climate change. He seems to be blaming Sandy on climate change.
All according to C4 News.

That charlatan demagog underachiever would blame anyone for anything... except himself. Scientific credentials are what, exactly? Come on Romney...

Obama has ideas on Climate Change?

To understand recent Mayors of New York is either not easy or damn simple. I suspect the latter. Mr. Livingston attempted the position but was mismatched.

Johnson, on the other hand, understands it much better.

Theatre and circus and keep the plates spinning. Do whatever it takes to get the punters to buy tickets. Only let them see the elephants when they are performing to plan in the ring.

They are probably all too clever for our own good. Indcluding the elephants.

[kerplunk]

LongQ said:

How long is your memory?

Varies on a daily basis.

Make your point caller.

(Sorry I didn't respond to your other post btw. I was interested to read your perceptions and preferences but don't have much to add)

[turbobloke]

Former Conservative Chancellor Lord Lawson said:

I would welcome the minister’s statements. I would hope they would translate into a moratorium [on wind farms]. An additional problem is that wind power is one of the most expensive forms of generating electricity there is. At a time when there is so much concern both from households and industry about the cost of energy, that too should be a decisive argument against going this way.

[kerplunk]

Huffingtonpost/YouGov poll on global warming/hurricane sandy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/31/climate-c...

Global warming refers to increases in the earth’s temperature. In your opinion, is global warming occurring, or not?

Global warming is occurring - 61.3%
Global warming is not occurring - 18.4%
Not sure - 20.3%


Do you think that the storm affecting the East Coast this week is related to global warming, or not?

Is related - 31.9%
Is not related - 34.4%
Nor sure - 33.7%

---

A couple of observations...

Big difference from the USNews poll (on the NO side) - colour me surprised!

People who believe in global warming don't necessarily vote yes on the hurricane sandy issue.

[LongQ]

kerplunk said:

LongQ said:

How long is your memory?

Varies on a daily basis.

Make your point caller.

(Sorry I didn't respond to your other post btw. I was interested to read your perceptions and preferences but don't have much to add)

Mine too .... varies on a daily basis that is.

There certainly have been times in past years when the vanguard "warmist" sites coralled their readership into attempts to swamp opinion related 'polls'. Unless there was something nefarious (or seemingly nefarious) going on with the poll in question I don't recall many attempts that worked. However I would not claim to be aware of all of them or even a small proportion.

I think after a while they realised they were likely to be outvoted on anything a "non-warmist" site picked up on and applied the same sort of voting tactics. It mattered not whether votes were recorded and only single votes allowed (somehow) or repeat votes per day were acceptable to the poll. The efforts usually seemed to be outnumbered which, considering the apparent availability of some of the "warmists" to be full time on-line presences despite apparently holding paying jobs, was interesting.

In the main, from what I can recall, the "votes" tended to split something like 70:30 or 60:40 mostly. Fairly consistent so one could suggest, perhaps tongue in cheek, that they were statistically significant even if scientifically questionable.

Evidence of repeated failures of strategy would not be welcome, presumably, so best to abandon the strategy or, perhaps, hide the evidence. No need to make the calls to arms public once a private communications network has been established? I have no idea if that is what has happened but there certainly seem to be examples of rapid crowd creation from time to time for "blogosphere" pieces with comments enabled and a number of "warmists" as first responders.

Games for all. It probably matters little in the medium to long term.

[Silver Smudger]

kerplunk said:

Huffingtonpost/YouGov poll on global warming/hurricane sandy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/31/climate-c...

Global warming refers to increases in the earth’s temperature. In your opinion, is global warming occurring, or not?

Global warming is occurring - 61.3%
Global warming is not occurring - 18.4%
Not sure - 20.3%


Do you think that the storm affecting the East Coast this week is related to global warming, or not?

Is related - 31.9%
Is not related - 34.4%
Nor sure - 33.7%

A couple of observations of my own...

Huffingtonpost said:

According to the new survey, conducted Oct. 29-30, 51 percent of Americans say climate change is related to more frequent and severe natural disasters, while 23 percent say it is not....

Do you think changes in the global climate are...?

• Related to more frequent and severe natural disasters
• Unrelated to more frequent and severe natural disasters
• Not sure

Making the assumption in the question that natural disasters are in fact 'more frequent and severe' without backing it up. How should one answer if one does not feel one has seen any evidence that they are actually getting 'more frequent and severe' ? Why do so many believers not think Sandy falls into the aforementioned category ?

Then on a linked page -

Huffingtonpost said:

Today, another multi-billion-dollar weather disaster -- the very sort that scientists have been predicting for years would increase in frequency and intensity as the planet heats up -- is now bearing down on the American East Coast.

Again implying that storms 'would increase in frequency and intensity' and linking this to the planet heating up, based on careful scientific study a marked rise in insurance claims, in a period when Americans are increasingly pushed for ready cash....

and

Huffingtonpost said:

"The irony is that the two presidential candidates decided not to speak about climate change, and now they are seeing the climate speak to them," said Tidwell. "That's really what's happening here. The climate is now speaking to them -- and to everyone else."

A very disappointing opinion poll result for the warmists in that publication, I feel - They are just not absorbing the message correctly are they?

[mybrainhurts]

kerplunk said:

Bless their self-deluding hearts

You've got the hang of this irony thing now, haven't you...?

[deeps]

kerplunk said:

Huffingtonpost/YouGov poll on global warming/hurricane sandy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/31/climate-c...

Global warming refers to increases in the earth’s temperature. In your opinion, is global warming occurring, or not?

Global warming is occurring - 61.3%
Global warming is not occurring - 18.4%
Not sure - 20.3%


Do you think that the storm affecting the East Coast this week is related to global warming, or not?

Is related - 31.9%
Is not related - 34.4%
Nor sure - 33.7%

---

A couple of observations...

Big difference from the USNews poll (on the NO side) - colour me surprised!

People who believe in global warming don't necessarily vote yes on the hurricane sandy issue.

Only 3.4% of Democrats who were chosen answered "global warming isn't happening" hehe, mad if true!

Article said:

The new HuffPost/YouGov poll was conducted online Oct. 29-30 among 1,000 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of 5 percentage points. It used a sample that was selected from YouGov's opt-in online panel...

Why use such a tiny sample, it smells of cherry picking respondents to me.

Article said:

Fifty-four percent of poll respondents said they would not be willing to pay 50 percent more on their gas and electricity bills, even if it meant we could stop climate change from occurring

What a ridiculous question, the very concept is absurd and void of logic!

[LongQ]

deeps said:

What a ridiculous question, the very concept is absurd and void of logic!

Well, we are discussing the Huffington Post here. It's a bit like the Eurozone crisis - it's all Greek to me.




But I see reported that the renown scientist Michael Bloomberg is certain that the NY weather event was caused by Climate Change.

As an alternative theory ... how about it was generated by Goldman Sachs as a means of converting a load of sub-prime mortgages into insurance claims and thereby solving the banking crisis in a trice?

Stupid if course - but perhaps equally plausible.

[turbobloke]

[loafer123]

I have no idea whether that graph is interesting or misleading.

For instance, if the low CO2 column comprised events over 50 years, whilst the high one is over 1 year, it would have a completely different conclusion to what it initially shows.

Sloppy stats on both sides of this debate are a real problem.

[turbobloke]

Sloppy stats are a problem anywhere but the chart isn't sloppy. It can't represent two things and represents what it intends to show.

Some degree of awareness of context is assumed in the reader or viewer but that's true of any graphical representation that doesn't include a first principles derivation of its fundamentals.

The trend in atmospheric carbon dioxide increase is reasonably linear over the bulk of the chart at approx +1.4 ppmv per year.

As such there are no bars which represent 5 years compared to others at 50 years.

The chart accurately portrays the information that as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased over a timescale of several decades, the frequency of hurricane strikes has not increased.

For sloppy thinking and associated images, see Bloomberg.

[turbobloke]

These aren't sloppy stats either.



Normalised US Hurricane Damage 1900-2012, including Sandy.

The red line represents a linear best fit to the data, it's flat.

[IainT]

turbobloke said:

When I saw this on WUWT yesterday the first thought I had was "is that events per year at each PPM value?". I suspect it's total events and is only meaningful if the rate of change of CO2 was even meaning the periods that we're measuring were of equal duration.

[turbobloke]

Covered in the posts just before yours! Loafer123 posed essentially the same question.

The data sources used for hurricanes are either NOAA directly 1851 on, or Pielke et al (2008) which is 1900 on.

Since 1850 the carbon dioxide level has increased from ~270ppmv to ~400ppmv at ~1 ppmv per year overall, in the last 100 years or so the rate increased, early on it was a bit less. There is no bar with 50 years compared to another with 5 years.

These are round figures from memory but will be close enough. Also take another look at the normalised losses data.

[turbobloke]

If time alone is the view required for hurricane frequency and intensity stateside, see below.



This is 1851 to 2005 so doesn't include Sandy - but as per links to other sources including Pielke, the hurricane 'drought' has continued.

Edited by turbobloke on Friday 2nd November 10:48

[Pointman]

Joe bdi ripping Al a new one over Sandy.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/joe-bdi-destroys-...

Pointman

[LongQ]

Pointman said:

Joe bdi ripping Al a new one over Sandy.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/joe-bdi-destroys-...

Pointman

The link is never going to work it seems.

Using the mrctv search facility drew a blank too.