All is fair in love and the climate science war?

If the volcanic eruption were big enough what you would have is a nuclear winter but without as much radiation. If a super volcano such as Yellow Stone were to explode your chances of living long enough to worry about the cold are remote.

 

The four researchers report that their results "show strong evidence for a significant reduction in intense wind events across SE Australia over the past century." More specifically, they say that "in nearly all regions and seasons, linear trends estimated for both storm indices over the period analyzed show a decrease," while "in terms of the regional average series," they say that "all seasons show statistically significant declines in both storm indices, with the largest reductions in storminess in autumn and winter." Thus, yet another paper illustrates that as the Earth warmed over the last century or more, the alarmist prediction of increased storminess is shown to be widely out of sync with reality.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/s/summaries/stormsausnz.php

 

(((((((((((((sigh))))))))))))))))))))) "Co2science" you would be better off with "Living moon" website at least it had entertainment value - admittedly as a loony tunes type but Craig Idso is a shill for big oil and the right wing "think tank" Heartland Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Idso

So, the Author has a vested interest in proving that climate change is NOT happening

Now let us look at the content - and lo! and Behold! It's magic! Note the disappearing references and ignored research as "facts" are misrepresented and cherry picked!!

Laideez and Gentlemen!! We are here tonight to witness something almost unbelievable!! Right out in the open Idso and Co hide the truth in a new version of the old "shell game"

So, Idso chooses ONE paper from nearly 12 years ago that looked at storm surges in one part of the New Zealand coast line to try and "prove" that storm rates have not increased and the really interesting thing is that Idso does not link directly to the research but links to an interpretation of the research. I could not find the exact paper that Idso was referencing but another paper by the same author

http://www.grassland.org.nz/publications/nzgrassland_publication_67.pdf

additionally Idso seems to ignore other research such as this

http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming.htm

 

You complain about me using bad sources that graph only goes to 1990, my brother had a new 17 kilo bit computer that year & climate modeling is still guess work. Here's a more up to date graph for you to chew over.





Average global temperatures have remained about neutral over the last decade but does not prove or disprove Sun or carbon. A hotter climate normally causes more carbon to be released into the atmosphere not the other way around.

 

You use a cornflakes website like Wikipedia that the public can edit & then complain about my sources.

Research connected to public funding on politically sensitive issues are going to have a hard time being anything other than politically correct & Obama has already called for the debate on anthropological climate change to come to an end.

Fifty-one thousand Canadian engineers, geologists, and geophysicists were recently polled by their professional organization. Sixty-eight percent of them disagree with the statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled." Only 26% attributed global warming to "human activity like burning fossil fuels." APEGGA's executive director Neil Windsor said, "We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011...olt_against_global_warming.html#ixzz1uqk4NA3P

You either accept that there could be good information funded buy your opponents or only listen to the government-greens establishment & follow all the other sheep.

 

testing.................

 

My bad - I usually check the end points of graphs because there are so many out there that are unattributed bull(*)(*)(*)(*) cherry picked to make a point

Now you have come up with another standard and debunked piece of claptrap (and please either reference your graphs or untick the little box that shows up under the URL so that everyone can tell where you sourced the picture)

So, to lead you through the basics of the science

IF Co2 rise is only a function of warming (and yes there will be rise as the oceans warm because less CO2 is sequestered in a warm ocean than in a cold one)

Now usually I post only links to research or blog sites using academic standard referencing but these you tube videos capture the essence of the arguments and are easier for people with little or no understanding of the underpinning science

[video=youtube;8nrvrkVBt24]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24[/video]

 

Say What?!?!?!?:
Does this look familiar?


source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png



Love that video, bowerbird!!

 

Wiki is not longer as open sourced as it once was - there is now an editing process that is overseen to ensure that the public cannot change content at will. But there are other sites also reporting the SAME data about Idso - and this is not even a new allegation.

You are kidding me right? Bush TRIED that to STOP the science - end result - "The Union of Concerned Scientists" was formed putting out papers in opposition to government dictates And that is only ONE country. Despite the wide held opinion that only America does research that in fact is not true. There are tens of thousands (that many? yes because climate science crosses a large number of disciplines) of scientists throughout the world from India to England from Australia to Argentina and beyond who are all saying the same thing - they cannot all be Obama puppets

But such a belief belies the real research being done by NON-governmental institutions such as the Woods Hole Oceanographic institutions

Oh! Dear! "American Thinker"

"World Nut Daily" or "Prison Planet" are more valid sites - at least they are open about being conspiracy theory sites

It "references" well debunked claims throughout that is, if the links actually take you anywhere near a claim. What links there are are to sites such as "climate depot" run by one Marc "wouldn't tell the truth if his nuts were on fire" Morano - the past master of data manipulation. Marc took a leaf out of the book of the well known fraud the "Oregon petition" and made claims along the lines of "one thousand scientists" which sounds impressive until you ask what criteria he is using to classify people as scientists and you find it is anyone who has a degree - using that criteria his "1,000 scientists" turn out to be less than 1% of the scientific population

But moving right along to the so called "51,000 thousand scientists disagree" and see what the research REALLY said - and surprise surprise the link in the article goes not to the original survey but to the EPW - written by - you guessed it - Marc Morano and HE links not to the original research but to a newspaper account of the research which does not bother to even reference the original research. So, you starting to see how this is a "Shell and pea" game? "Round and round it goes and where is the original document? Well fortunately for us it is available on the web
http://www.apegga.com/Environment/reports/ClimateChangesurveyreport.pdf

And in the summary of that article it says

http://www.apegga.com/Environment/reports/ClimateChangesurveyreport.pdf

Hmmmm - this is a bit different to how your blog stated it isn't it?

So what does the next phrase that the "debate of the scientific causes is settled" actually mean?

http://www.apegga.com/Environment/reports/ClimateChangesurveyreport.pdf

And you know what? If you asked someone like James Hansen of NASA - one of the loudest climate change voices he would probably agree with those members. Because the total sum knowledge of science is NOT totally settled - we know the big picture but there are a million little variations that we would like to be able to quantify. i.e. We would love to know for sure if the climate patterns we are seeing emerging (e.g. desertification of Texas) will be permanent or just an intensification of current weather pattern swings. I you asked James Hansen if he thought that climate change was 100% caused by human activity he would say no. We know there is a role for solar influences, the great ocean conveyor and volcanism - it is just that the "signal" from CO2 is swamping the other inputs at present

 

That graph is one one I had stored on my computer from a while back, I do not remember where I got it from & although it is pretty much self explanatory I will not post another on without a link to an article.

 

Well there was enough for police protection to be sought for one climate scientists - not every incident has ended with death threats per se but and not every death threat has been taken seriously but is that any excuse to make someone the victim of hate mail and to encourage others to post that hate mail?