I have plenty - but you ignored almost the entirety of my post. What then is the point ? As inferred previously. I thought you might be interested in this issue. That is clearly not the case so fk off por favor.
The post you responded to was about GM crops. I asked a question based on a claim you made which you didn’t answer. And now you go to insults and obscenity indicating you have nothing.
Science fraud has become far to common. "[A]fter confessing to spiking samples for an HIV vaccine experiment, Dong Pyou-Han—whose case we mentioned in last year’s retractions roundup—was sentenced to nearly five years in prison and ordered to pay back millions of dollars in grant funding. It’s not the only time we’ve seen felony counts for fraudsters, but the sentence makes it the most remarkable one. (He’s appealing the decision.)" THE SCIENTIST, The Top 10 Retractions of 2015, A look at this year’s most memorable retractions, By Retraction Watch | December 23, 2015. https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44895/title/The-Top-10-Retractions-of-2015/
Instead of Trumps Border Wall ................... We should be building Levees Trump will be remembered as the Leader who didn't care to save the Planet
That's not on the same level, scope, or scale as the so-called 'climate' data. You are now bringing individual events and trying to muddy the waters when the conversation was about longer term 'climate' data being compared to 'data' from millennia ago, totally different issues...
Comparing conditions 800,000 years ago, the last time CO2 levels were this high, to today is absolutely meaningless as there has never been a advanced civilization of 7.5 billion people living in mega-cities often located on coastlines. I've explained this to you. In fact, the highest levels of CO2 are often associated with periods of mass extinction when the planet was undergoing massive climate upheavals such as the end Permian a period of runaway global warming and ocean acidification that likely killed off close to 90% of the species on Earth. Our ancestors such as Homo Habilis may have been adapted for those conditions but that says absolutely nothing about anatomically modern humans living in complex, technological civilizations. Additionally, there is NO long term association between CO2 and earths temperature.[/QUOTE] C'mon. It as if none of us had ever passed a high school chemistry course. Of course there is a long term association between CO2 levels and earth's temperature. In fact, the two go hand in hand. https://www.researchgate.net/figure...rature-change-for-the-past-400_fig1_255752372 https://www.livescience.com/58203-how-carbon-dioxide-is-warming-earth.html https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide Of course there are other drivers of climate including feedbacks from rising CO2 which can include methane clathrates from melting permafrost and aerosols from volcanic activity which tend to cool the planet. So the main drivers of climate are really CO2 concentrations, a series of 3 aspects to orbital mechanics which include obliquity and precession, as well as solar and volcanic activity. All these play a complicated role in the Earth's climate. But here's the thing. The Sun has been near a maunder minimum of sunspot activity for close to a decade now so solar radiance cannot explain the warming we are seeing. Also the orbital mechanics, collectively known as Milankovitch cycles are all moving towards a long term cooling trend so orbital mechanics cannot explain the warming we are seeing. In fact, at some point Milankovitch cycles might override the warming we are experiencing and begin cooling the planet again. Unfortunately, this may not be for 30 or 40 thousand years so that is not going to be much help. To say that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature is to just willfully ignore all the scientific evidence and years of scientific confirmation that backs up the greenhouse effect on climate since Arrhenius first proposed it. Overlaid curve for annual global average temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration. The scale for CO2 concentration runs from about 280 to about 390 parts per million. The scale for temperature runs from about 13.6 to about 14.6ºC (about 56.5 to about 58.2ºF). Source: Temperature data from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt . CO2 data from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_co2.txt (1850-195 and ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt (1959-2009). You would do far better to keep away from such absurd statements you think are facts and to present a more balanced inquisitive approach to this subject.
Okay, I read the article over the weekend. The cases the article highlighted are serious but they hardly mean we should throw out all the body of scientific work that has gone before. Also, I saw little about actual climate science in there and more a study of careerism and undue influence in the scientific process. If you are really concerned about science being broken, the biggest influence is the corporate funding of scientific research. I have seen this first hand and it is appalling. Often research does not get funded unless it moves forward the profitability of corporations. I saw this first-hand in the school I worked at where the plant sciences dept. was largely beholden to corporations like Monsanto who funded so much of the research for their own benefit. The town I lived and worked in literally had test fields surrounding on all sides and the public never really knew what was growing behind the barb-wired fences. Percy Schmeiser was invited to give a speech as to what Monsanto had done to him and I was subjected to the sorry spectacle of people I worked with and worked under calling him names and cat-calling his entire speech, practically driving him out of the auditorium. I was stunned but that is what corporatism does to science. So if you are really concerned about science being broken, stop insulting and berating real science and work to get corporate funding out of the process. We have the same challenge for the political process - how to get corporate money out of the works so we can have real science and political structures that work for people. Don't forget what science has given us - including the technology we are using to discuss this subject and diss the very process that allows us to slag off on scientists from the comfort of out homes.
A pantfull of crap. Of course there is a correlation. And you have provided no link for your first paragraph. I posted a graph downthread that shows a direct correlation. Alarmists deny this because it is a pile of crap. You have no idea what this is going to be like. Of course there is absolutely no overwhelming consensus that global warming is going to be net beneficial. That is some denier hogwash that is in complete odds to what the scientific community and the direct evidence is telling us.
You ask me to "stop insulting and berating real science", when you know I have not "insulted" or "berated real science". Why make up stuff like that up. You are still ignoring the scope of the problem. Here is another good article you should read. "In fact, the week before the New York Times put the replication crisis on A1, science journalist Christie Aschwanden laid out these facts in great detail in a wonderful article and interactive for FiveThirtyEight. Her piece runs through the many biases, errors, and inefficiencies of modern scientific practice that allow false findings to infiltrate the literature. Researchers can hack their way to spurious conclusions, and they’re incentivized to hide negative results. Journal editors ignore replication failures, and they’re often slow to fix mistakes." SLATE: SCIENCE, Is Science Broken? Or is it self-correcting? By Daniel Engber, Lisa Larson-Walker, AUG. 21 2017. http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...is_not_self_correcting_science_is_broken.html
I’ve given you the books to read which are fully footnoted and referenced. Here are some other books on the economics of global warming. “Climate Economics - Economic Analysis of Climate Change and Climate Policy” - Richard Tol - 2014 “How Much Have Global Problems Cost the World” - Chapter 3 - 2013 Your attitude concerning self education is very disappointing.
Sorry if I misinterpreted your post. I thought you were using these articles to say that they entire field of science is broken and therefore climate science and the evidence for human caused climate change could be ignored. Writing on computers can be open to misinterpretation. How do all the problems with scientific practice stack up to the fossil fuel industry think tanks which make no effort at all to hide their biases and deliberately set out to confuse the public as to the science of climate change? This stuff regularly just gets regurgitated up here with no attempt at critical thought or even questioning the results. At least there is still a scientific method and a reproducible peer-review process - no?
My attitude concerning self-education is just fine. Your attitude towards critically examining the material you post is disappointing: Global Warming Policy Foundation is one of those fossil fuel funded think tanks I was trying to tell you about where you get all your information from and which you then post here trying to present it as unbiased and truthful. Richard Tol is a neoclassical economist with no background in climate science whatever. '“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.” These are the words of economist and Global Warming Policy Foundationadvisor Richard Tol in a new paper published in Energy Policy. Despite accepting that the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is real and correct, Tol has nevertheless spent the past year trying to critique the study my colleagues and I published last year, finding a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Tol's big mistake To minimize our uncertainties, we had at least two people categorize each scientific abstract. Where those two raters disagreed, we had a reconciliation process. The disagreeing raters first checked their ratings again; if the disagreement persisted, a third person acted as the tiebreaker to establish the final rating. Using the difference between our initial and final ratings, it's possible to estimate the number of papers that still remain in the improper categories after our reconciliation process. Tol put the estimate at about 6.7% of the total, and noted that 55% of our reconciliations from initial to final ratings were 'towards stronger rejection', while 45% were 'towards stronger endorsement' of human-caused global warming. Tol then made a basic and critical error. His methodology resulted in assumptions that, for example, 55% of the remaining incorrectly rated 'no position' category papers should actually be rejections, while 45% should be endorsements. He didn't check to see how the reconciliations changed the initial and final ratings for each category, and this assumption led him to incorrectly conclude the consensus is actually 91%. Still a high percentage, but nonetheless in error. Pulled from thin air As the above figure illustrates, by making this mistake, Tol effectively conjured approximately 300 papers rejecting or minimizing human-caused global warming out of thin air, with no evidence that those papers exist in reality. As a result, his consensus estimate falls apart under cursory examination. Ironically, when discussing our study in a US congressional hearing last week, Tol claimed, "...as far as I can see, this estimate just crumbles when you touch it ... this 97% is essentially pulled from thin air." When our team corrected for Tol's error, accounting for the ways in which the reconciliation process actually changed the ratings for each category, we found a slight increase in the consensus, from an initial 97.1% to a corrected 97.2%. Accounting for the uncertainties involved, we ultimately found the consensus is robust at 97 ± 1%. Despite agreeing the consensus exists, Tol nevertheless tried to find fault in our approach, and as a result submitted a flawed paper. In addition to making several basic errors, Tol cited numerous denialist and GWPF blog posts, including several about material stolen from our team's private discussion forum during a hacking. As others did during the Climategate incident, Tol even took quotes out of context from the hacked discussions to try and support his hypothesis of 'rater fatigue' among our team where no such evidence exists (we rated papers at our own leisure without any set deadlines). One might wonder how Tol's critique made it through the peer-review process with so many serious flaws. After submitting to and being rejected twice by Environmental Research Letters, he received some harsh but fair criticism from the reviewers, who listed 24 problems and ways the paper could be improved. When I asked Tol about these critiques, he told me, "I incorporated all comments by ERL that hold water." However, a side-by-side comparison reveals that Tol's Energy Policy paper still contains nearly all of the shortcomings identified by the Environmental Research Letters reviewers, plus some new ones. Our team's critique of Tol's paper identified several of the same problems as the Environmental Research Letters reviewers and many more – some they didn't catch and some that Tol added to the Energy Policy version – again, 24 in total. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensus Lol, this Brendan Montague bought Richard Tol's, Climate Economics so we don't have to - it's dull and dangerous: "The Sussex University economist has aligned himself with climate denial and his tweets are highly entertaining - shame this book is so damn conventional. Professor Richard Tol has authored a ruthlessly conventional £57 textbook on the economics of climate change. I took the hit and skimmed the book so you don't have to. Climate Economics presents a concise yet comprehensive treatment of neoclassical environmental economics with reference to the problem of climate change and climate change mitigation. ‘Neoclassical’ economics is the school of economic thought that now almost entirely dominates the field. This school is taught in almost all UK universities, receives the bulk of funding - at least in the Anglophone world - and structures how most professional economists and commentators on the economy think about the world." https://www.desmogblog.com/2014/09/...ics-so-you-don-t-have-it-s-dull-and-dangerous Only posting this guys opinion because it mirrors mine and then I don't have to. Neoclassical economics tells us nothing about climate science especially when it comes from people who have allied themselves with the fossil fuel denial industry.
A cut and paste from deSmogBlog ?? Are you kidding me ?? That's hilarious and completely makes my point that you have no interest in the truth or self education. Do you actually read anything and make up your own mind ?? Or do you just mindlessly parrot the alarmist talking points and/or go to the blogs for the latest denial word salad ??
C'mon. It as if none of us had ever passed a high school chemistry course. Of course there is a long term association between CO2 levels and earth's temperature. In fact, the two go hand in hand. https://www.researchgate.net/figure...rature-change-for-the-past-400_fig1_255752372 https://www.livescience.com/58203-how-carbon-dioxide-is-warming-earth.html https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide Of course there are other drivers of climate including feedbacks from rising CO2 which can include methane clathrates from melting permafrost and aerosols from volcanic activity which tend to cool the planet. So the main drivers of climate are really CO2 concentrations, a series of 3 aspects to orbital mechanics which include obliquity and precession, as well as solar and volcanic activity. All these play a complicated role in the Earth's climate. But here's the thing. The Sun has been near a maunder minimum of sunspot activity for close to a decade now so solar radiance cannot explain the warming we are seeing. Also the orbital mechanics, collectively known as Milankovitch cycles are all moving towards a long term cooling trend so orbital mechanics cannot explain the warming we are seeing. In fact, at some point Milankovitch cycles might override the warming we are experiencing and begin cooling the planet again. Unfortunately, this may not be for 30 or 40 thousand years so that is not going to be much help. To say that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature is to just willfully ignore all the scientific evidence and years of scientific confirmation that backs up the greenhouse effect on climate since Arrhenius first proposed it. Overlaid curve for annual global average temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration. The scale for CO2 concentration runs from about 280 to about 390 parts per million. The scale for temperature runs from about 13.6 to about 14.6ºC (about 56.5 to about 58.2ºF). Source: Temperature data from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt . CO2 data from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_co2.txt (1850-195 and ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt (1959-2009). You would do far better to keep away from such absurd statements you think are facts and to present a more balanced inquisitive approach to this subject.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE] Where is the data from the Holocene showing no correlation between CO2 and temperature ?? BTW there is a 5000 difference in CO2 and temperature increase in your graph. What does that tell you ??
Also in the time period shown the earth was in an ice age for ~ 75% of the time. Also the previous interglacial periods shown were warmer than we are today.
I check sources before I read anything to see if I am wasting my time or not. If it seems worthwhile and makes interesting points, I read it. If it turns out to be fossil fuel industry denial crap from think tanks like Global Warming Policy Foundation, I write it off as the corporate propaganda that it is. I don't need to read neoclassical economics from a guy who belongs to a fossil fuel industry funded think-tank like Global Warming Policy Foundation to know that it is going to be denier bullshit. What about his admission that the scientific consensus is in fact accurate even if he flubbed the math to try and short it? What about the first link about his paper being rejected twice by the journal Environmental Research Letters. Did you read the researcher he was attempting to discredit who wrote the Guardian piece in the first link so you could make some kind of substantive comment on the article or defend Tol's mistakes and errors in reasoning? What, No comment? The blog post from Desmog I only posted because it was mildly amusing and to give you an informed review rather than having me say exactly the same thing. I have a lot of interest in the truth and information. If someone posts something interesting that goes against what I understand to be true about climate science, I actually follow it up to find out for myself because I am genuinely interested in the subject. If there is some merit If there is merit I admit it and review it as I did with the article on science being broken recommended up thread. The biased think tank dreck you are throwing up to try and discredit and build a case that global warming is going to be beneficial, I don't find compelling or interesting. This is the position you are desperately trying to defend and there is just no truth to it: There is not one fragment of truth in any of those statements and I don't need to read a member of a denier think tank to know that. The question is why you take everything someone like this says as gospel truth without any attempt at critical thought or fact-checking and why you reject out of hand the vast majority of climate scientists who are actually qualified to give an opinion on this subject. One neoclassical economist from Sussex does not make an overwhelming conclusion of anything especially when he is shown to be making gross errors in math and faulty conclusions on others work. That you are trying to present him as an overwhelming conclusion tells me all I need to know. And I don't need to read a economics book from someone as biased as this to know that this is not going to be beneficial - because it is not.
There is no such thing. It is in your imagination. There are other drivers of climate but saying something like "no correlation between CO2 and temp." just shows scientific illiteracy. It tells me you don't know how to read a graph or to interpret the readings.
Really. Proof? Also the previous interglacial periods shown were warmer than we are today.[/QUOTE] You have some evidence to back this up? Even so, how does this prove this warming period has nothing to do with CO2. Nobody with any scientific knowledge believes this, you know. It only exists in the bizzaro world of right-wing think tanks and denier blogs. Exxon Mobile scientists knew in the 80's that there was going to be a problem with pumping gigtonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year but they worked to suppress it. The propaganda and disinfo worked so well in people like you you don't believe the truth even when it is repeatedly shown to you. That is if you believe what you are saying and are not some kind of shill.
You realize that he once worked for the IPCC ?? Your conclusions without reading the books are highly amusing.
You have some evidence to back this up? Even so, how does this prove this warming period has nothing to do with CO2. Nobody with any scientific knowledge believes this, you know. It only exists in the bizzaro world of right-wing think tanks and denier blogs. Exxon Mobile scientists knew in the 80's that there was going to be a problem with pumping gigtonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year but they worked to suppress it. The propaganda and disinfo worked so well in people like you you don't believe the truth even when it is repeatedly shown to you. That is if you believe what you are saying and are not some kind of shill.[/QUOTE] Natural history. The last ~ 400,000 years have been characterized by 4 ice ages of 70,000 - 125,000 years with warm interglacial periods of 10,000 - 15,000 years. (Jouzel 2007 & Barna 2003). Oh yes, the Exxon Mobile meme. Too funny.
