Global Warming is a Scam

North Carolina state legislature recently proposed a law to make it illegal to plan for rising in sea level in the coastal areas due to global warming. Three guesses what party this group of deniers belongs to. (First wrong guess doesn't count).

I'm going to allow others to do their research on the general credibility of "American Thinker" on this issue. The IPCC report does contain some errors and flaws, but the criticisms of the report do not extend to making the report "fraudulent".But let's first remember that the IPCC does not do any original scientific research. Among the scientists that actually do the research, there is an obvious consensus. If you, understandably, don't want to listen to politicians and celebrities, there is plenty of science available.The consensus seems to be that the IPCC report underestimates a number of dire predictions. For example, the scientific consensus is that the IPCC report underestimates the rate of reduction of artic ice."Artic melt worse than predictions"
Arctic melt worse than predictions - CNN.comThe scientific consensus is that the IPCC report underestimates the contribution to rising sea levels from the melting of Greenland and North American ice sheets.The IPCC did make a mistake in predicting the rate of receding of Himalayan Glaciers, but let's not overblow that error into a complete denunciation of the IPCC report.Is the quote below anything other than denier's rhethoric? The truth is that the "club" of scientists, blanketly called "alarmist" by American Thinker, consists of essential every scientist that doesn't have a vested interest in burning coal and petroleum.

quote:

---

In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

---

No, foreveryoung. The cited paragraph was commentary not written by IAC. I don't know who wrote it, but you'll notice that the various sources reporting it don't claim it to be a quote. It's commentary attached to a summary of the IAC report, and only some of the words in the summary are actually presented as quotes.ABE:The words appear to be written by Mr. Blast of the Heartland Institute. All of the sources that I can find for the words link to the American Thinkers article.But that said, I suppose you did catch me failing to keep my promise not to comment on your sources. I'd be happy to document my reasons for questioning the, objectivity of American Thinkers and the Heartland Institute. You are doubtless aware that Heartland Institute's pedigree includes working with cigarette companies to question second hand smoke research.Here is an example of some more of the Heartland Institute's climate change work."Extremist US thinktank compared those who believe in man-made climate change to serial killer Ted Kaczynski"

quote:

---

But about two dozen insurance companies, including US giant State Farm, announced an end to support for Heartland because of the billboard. The ad, which ran for just a day on a Chicago expressway, featured an image of the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, and the caption: "I still believe in global warming. Do you?"

---

Big donors ditch rightwing Heartland Institute over Unabomber billboard | Climate science scepticism and denial | The GuardianAnd one way to find what the consensus is on global warming is to look at the reports and papers of the actual scientists rather than at a report that simply attempts to summarize other people's reports. We can ignore Al Gore and the Heartland Institute. Why don't you tell me what the scientific consensus is? Edited by NoNukes, : Clarify that I don't know the source.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not being convinced is merely a state of ignorance. Only a few pitiful fools actually push the idea that the increase in carbon dioxide is not a cause of global warming. Some people try to argue that the bulk of global warming is not main made, but the link between carbon dioxide and global warming is pure physics.But ignorance is not true denial. Denial is what the Heartland Institute does. I agree that calling someone a denier is a hateful term. It equates the denier with people who dont' just doubt but actually discourage an understanding that smoking causes cancer, that HIV causes aids etc. And in the case of Heartland Institute, the lable is more than justified. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Are you sure about this? I thought that petroleum and coal were notoriously hard to carbon date.

Last year a researcher Roy Spencer published a paper analyzing cloud cover over the period from 2000 to 2010. He suggested that random increases in cloud cover cause climate warming and that the sources of the increase were chaos in the climate system.Here is a link to an article describing the paper and some of the criticism of the paper.Climate Change Debunked? Not So Fast | Live Science

quote:

---

Spencer agreed that his work could not disprove the existence of manmade global warming. But he dismissed research on the ancient climate, calling it a "gray science."

---

Foreveryoung goes where even climate change skeptic Spencer wouldn't go when he claims that cloud cover is the only thing that could affect global temperatures. I doubt he can find any support for that.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This proposition is debunked in numerous places reachable by a google search and I'm not going to take on the science in it myself unless no one else does it. But the proposition does have another quality that I find interesting. Implicit in foreveryoung's statement is the idea that climate scientists and physicists are complete idiots. In order for this statement to be true, climate scientists must have ignored or lied about facts and science that a fool could spot in a heart beat.A rational thing to do when despite having little to no training in an area, and you come up with or encounter ideas like this and are tempted to glom onto them, is to do some research to make sure that your confirmation bias isn't being engaged. I know it is attractive to jump on every apparent piece of evidence that supports your current position, but by doing a little homework you can avoid the taste of Corvidae and the corresponding hit to your reputation, such as it is.

Have you forgotten that your argument is that such heating of the ocean is impossible? No, your point doesn't still in the face of factors not accounted for in the earlier research.Note that a few sentences earlier you attempt to argue that more recent data is more relevant in addressing another issue. Surely you see the inconsistency. But let's say that your reasoning is sound. You did not raise the argument until L-Man cited the recent research, which indicates that his citation was substantive and not snark. Is it snark if the authors really did suggest the moon was an important cause of global warming?RealClimate: Curve-fitting and natural cycles: The best part

quote:

---

Humlum et al. also suggest, on the basis of a coincidence between one of their cycles (8.7 years) and a periodicity in the Earth-Moon orbital distance (8.85 years), that the Moon plays a role for climate change (seriously!):

​

"We hypothesise that this may bring about the emergence of relatively warm or cold water masses from time to time in certain parts of oceans, in concert with these cyclic orbit variations of the Moon, or that these variations may cause small changes in ocean currents transporting heat towards high latitudes, e.g. in the North Atlantic."

---

The arguments you raise here, including the CO2 lagging temperature arguments are far from new. Here is a link to a five year old article discussing this point.RealClimate: The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)You are not raising points that prove there is no AGW. You are simply repeating skeptic arguments refuted many, er, moons ago.With the possible exception of information in Humlum's 2012 paper released very recently, you are posting stuff that has been discussed endlessly with only a few skeptics like Roy Clark being convinced. I reserve comment on Humlum's new paper because I haven't seen it.

The atmosphere on Mars is 100 times more rarified than is the atmosphere on Earth. Mars has no oceans, and there is essentially no magnetic field and little, if any, present volcanic activity. Surely the weather and climate models for the Mars would be a wee bit different than those for Earth.How about a comparing earth with a more similarly sized planet?Is it really a surprise that Mars seasonal temperatures are dominated by the Sun?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Well, it is evidence in the same sense that 2 + 2 = 4 is evidence. By your own admission both AGW and your cloud cover only hypothesis predict a correlation between cloud cover and temperature. So even assuming your facts does not advance your position over AGW.What do you think causes the increased cloud cover, and what do we do if it continues for another 50 years?

I can accept that. So what would bother you? How (other than by whether you like the result) do you identify good climate research?

Most likely the 'only' was a typo based on the thrust of the sentence. He started off talking about the type of research he disliked and ended up talking about what he does like.

Is the above a way of saying "I don't believe in anthropomorphic climate change?" Because it sure looks like you have locked in on a particular explanation against it.

The only evidence you are ever going to have for or against AGW will be circumstantial. The only reason to believe in AGW would be if it were true. Regardless of the whether there are alternate possibilities, if those possibilities are not realities, they don't matter.In essense you are saying that you don't want to believe in AGW. To be honest, I don't want it AGW to be real either. But I cannot let that influence my thoughts on the matter.

Circumstantial evidence means evidence other than a direct report of a witness. I'm not sure I understand what you have with the current evidence, but I do know that the problem has nothing whatsoever to do with being circumstantial. It is absolutely unnecessary for this to be true even if ACW currently exists. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.