Global Warming

[Super Nova]

I am worried.

if the fundamental principles of scientific endeavour have been disregarded to be biased for political ends then we have a real problem.

It appears this has happened and this needs to be corrected.

I still think the long term risks are real. Time to drop of politics and get on with the real science of the risk of GHGs.

real risks will start to develop if the system is biased.

GM Food
Making artificial life from scratch
Nano technology

These will impose real risks that must be addressed with fear of bias or bias influences.

Our politics could be the end of us. we are doomed... doomed... I say unless science can remain pure.

[IQS.RLOW]

Just follow the money. One of the earliest planned assaults on skeptics is that they were funded by "big oil" . That was just a warmist feeling guilty because he knew what was under threat. Trillions of dollars in grants and research funding from taxpayers was the holy grail that easily eclipsed any funding received by skeptics by 1000s of times. It allowed them a place at the trough of public money with no time limit.

They are now trying desperately to protect their place at the trough.

[Super Nova]

Just follow the money. One of the earliest planned assaults on skeptics is that they were funded by "big oil" . That was just a warmist feeling guilty because he knew what was under threat. Trillions of dollars in grants and research funding from taxpayers was the holy grail that easily eclipsed any funding received by skeptics by 1000s of times. It allowed them a place at the trough of public money with no time limit.

They are now trying desperately to protect their place at the trough.

You are right. Follow the money and you se where the influence is.

Science today requires big bucks. Gone are the days where you can run an experiment in your back yard and contribute much.

Those that have been corrupted need to be called out. Fear is driving the wrong behaviour. Governments are getting biased advice. No wonder their confused.

However we need to recognise the facts that we are contributing to climate change. We just cannot forecast the short term effects when there are so many other influencers.

[IQS.RLOW]

However we need to recognise the facts that we are contributing to climate change. We just cannot forecast the short term effects when there are so many other influencers

They cannot forecast the short term and they cannot forecast the long term. They have no idea yet want to change worldwide economics and reduce the standard of living while making us pay more for a lower standard of living.

You are still an enabler who still buys the garbage they are selling.

I still say fuck them and fuck you. Fuck you even more for being an enabler.

[Super Nova]

However we need to recognise the facts that we are contributing to climate change. We just cannot forecast the short term effects when there are so many other influencers

They cannot forecast the short term and they cannot forecast the long term. They have no idea yet want to change worldwide economics and reduce the standard of living while making us pay more for a lower standard of living.

You are still an enabler who still buys the garbage they are selling.

I still say fuck them and fuck you. Fuck you even more for being an enabler.

I don't enable anything on this topic.

I want to understand the risk and what we are doing about it. if the scientific community that holds the political influence is biased then that is a major problem.

Respected scientific bodies agree that there is a long term risk.

What we do in the short term is probably SFA and we need to wean ourselves of GHG energy anyway.

You are against any action because of the current policies that will have no effect on the problem and only cause increased taxes. I understand that position. How we deal with the issue is the issue. Denying we have a long term problem to address in it's self is a problem, a problem you enable and you have.

We do need the right problem statement and the right actions. The alarmists have been neutralised by the bad science. Now let's look at the real science and be prepared to plan for the long term management of our planet including Global Climate change. Short term actuals that have not gone to the projections only inform us we have the model wrong at the micro, short term level and we need to remodel. Science at it's best.

[IQS.RLOW]

Of course I'm denying we have a problem, because the evidence says there is not problem and the risks are low.

You have bought what the panic merchants are selling. More the fool you.

[Super Nova]

IQ,

Do you post as Jimbo on this site referenced here.

“Jimbo” does not presume to forecast the future based on the studies above. His point rather is that “you can cherry pick what you want to back your claim. The IPCC is a political organization charged with cherry picking for the desired results.”

A new climate study, “Global warming and 21st century drought,” is making waves through the blogosphere. It’s the latest in “worse than we thought” gloom and doom narratives. Authors Benjamin I. Cook and colleagues at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory find that warming will not only decrease precipitation in dry regions but also increase evaporation from soils, causing more drought than previously predicted.

So although the IPCC Working Group I report concluded that, in the 21st century, Atlantic Ocean circulation collapse is “very unlikely,” ice sheet collapse is “exceptionally unlikely,” and catastrophic release of methane from melting permafrost is “very unlikely,” we’re still on eve of destruction.

As summarized in the study’s press release, by 2100 drought could afflict 30% of the Earth’s surface, “crops could wither in multiple regions simultaneously,” and “food price shocks could become far more common.” These results are “consistent with” the latest IPCC report, which “also predicts a strong chance of soil moisture drying in the Mediterranean, southwestern United States and southern African regions.”

The Cook team’s study is “one of the first to use the latest climate simulations to model the effects of both changing rainfall and evaporation rates on future drought.” Well, climate models haven’t exactly performed brilliantly in replicating global temperatures, have they? What do actual climate data and climate history tell us about the relationship between warming and drought?

There is a rip-roaring (and often funny) discussion of warming and drying on Watts Up With That? Particularly impressive are the research talents of commenter “Jimbo,” who keeps posting abstract after abstract of studies that point to conclusions opposite those of Cook et al. Here are some excerpts.

http://www.globalwarming.org/2014/04/01 ... the-earth/

[Rorschach]

SN is a THERMAGEDDONITE... Thermageddonite... I like that.

[Neferti]

Huh?

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=THER ... 8geM3ICgBA

[Neferti]

It seems to be a species that will be challenged. Even Google only refers to Monk(ton).