Poor Al Gore's NOT Going to Like This New Climate Study

C

cancel2 2022

Canceled
Poor Al Gore. Ever since he lost the 2000 election, he's put all his eggs in the climate change basket. But, little by little, those eggs are being tossed out onto the floor by reputable scientists.

The latest example is a scientific study conducted at the University of Reading of the interactions between aerosols and clouds, which shows the interaction is much weaker than most climate models assume - which means the Earth will warm markedly less than those climate models that the former VP has invested in.
Or, in the words of Paul Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute, instead of facing Climate Change, at worst, we may be facing "global lukewarming."

The Cato bloggers are referring to a post written by Dr Nicolas Bellouin, Associate Professor of Climate Processes at the University of Reading.
As one might imagine, the clouds have a significant role in how the earth's climate works, and because of that, they have a major role in all of those computer models which claim global warming will melt the ice caps and kill us all by a week from next Tuesday. One of the things affecting clouds in those climate models is the interaction between aerosol and the atmosphere:
.
When it comes to the influence of human aerosol emissions on cloud properties, the scientific mainstream view is that aerosols modify clouds in such a way as to result in an enhanced cooling of the earth’s surface—a cooling influence which has acted to offset some portion of the warming influence resulting from human emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, like coal, oil, and natural gas to produce energy). In the absence of this presumed aerosol cooling effect, climate models predict that the earth should warm at a much faster rate than has been observed. A large cooling effect from aerosols was thus introduced in the early 1990s as a way to “fix” the climate models and bring them closer in line with the modest pace of observed warming. Despite that “fix,”climate models continue to overpredict the observed warming rate—which is bad enough news for climate models already.
.
And that's the good news for the climate alarmists:
​
.
His [Dr Nicolas Bellouin] team shows that the anthropogenic cooling impact from clouds is much less than “assessed” by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also much less than employed by climate models. Less enhanced cloud cooling means that greenhouse gases have produced less warming than the climate models have determined. Another way to put it is that this new finding implies that the earth’s climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s surface will warm from a doubling of the pre-industrial atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration—is much below that of the average climate model (3.2°C) and near the low end of the IPCC’s 1.5°C to 4.5°C assessed range. This result comports with the concept of “lukewarming,” which we describe in an upcoming (August) hardcover book as “the new science that changes everything”

A study by Bjorn Stevens published in the journal of the American Meteorological Society last June came to the same conclusion. At the time the Stevens study was released last year, the same Cato bloggers quoted above said that, if that study holds up, "it is the death blow to global warming hysteria." Now that there are two studies with the same result, that hysteria must be getting pretty ill and Al Gore must be getting very sad. So, if you see the former Vice President on the street, please be kind. Offer him a nice word,perhaps a cup of coffee or a beer (but, whatever you do, don't offer him an omelet, it will make him cry).

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/poor-al-gore-not-going-new-climate-study
.
​
 
Oh I know, I know, some think the earth is round or believe evolution, or think smoking doesn't hurt us, puff puff. Cough cough. What fools huh, how naive they all are. We need people like you posting this great corporate information. Smog, what smog, acid rain, nah, polluted rivers and lakes, bah humbug, thanks for this great corporate paid info, always honest always true. Believe it. You too shall be saved from the likes of science.

"The focus here is on ignorance or doubt or uncertainty as something that is made, maintained, and manipulated by means of certain arts and sciences, The idea is one that easily lends itself to paranoia: namely, that certain people don't want you to know certain things, or will actively work to organize doubt or uncertainty or misinformation to help maintain (your) ignorance. They know, and may or may not want you to know they know, but you are not to be privy to the secret. This is an idea insufficiently explored by philosophers, that ignorance should not be viewed as a simple omission or gap, but rather as an active production. Ignorance can be an actively engineered part of a deliberate plan. I'll begin with trade secrets, moving from there in the next three sections to tobacco agnotology, military secrecy, and the example of ignorance making (or maintenance) as moral resistance." Robert N. Proctor 'Agnotology'

"Market fundamentalists hold a dogmatic, quasi-religious belief in unfettered market capitalism, and therefore oppose anything that restrains the business community, be it restrictions on the use of tobacco or the emission of greenhouse gases." 'Challenging Knowledge,' an essay in 'Agnotology.'

Worth a read.

"Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming"
by Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. M. Conway http://www.amazon.com/dp/1608193942/ref=rdr_ext_sb_ti_sims_3

"Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in God’s eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you." Mark Slouka
 
midcan5 said:
Oh I know, I know, some think the earth is round or believe evolution, or think smoking doesn't hurt us, puff puff. Cough cough. What fools huh, how naive they all are. We need people like you posting this great corporate information. Smog, what smog, acid rain, nah, polluted rivers and lakes, bah humbug, thanks for this great corporate paid info, always honest always true. Believe it. You too shall be saved from the likes of science.

"The focus here is on ignorance or doubt or uncertainty as something that is made, maintained, and manipulated by means of certain arts and sciences, The idea is one that easily lends itself to paranoia: namely, that certain people don't want you to know certain things, or will actively work to organize doubt or uncertainty or misinformation to help maintain (your) ignorance. They know, and may or may not want you to know they know, but you are not to be privy to the secret. This is an idea insufficiently explored by philosophers, that ignorance should not be viewed as a simple omission or gap, but rather as an active production. Ignorance can be an actively engineered part of a deliberate plan. I'll begin with trade secrets, moving from there in the next three sections to tobacco agnotology, military secrecy, and the example of ignorance making (or maintenance) as moral resistance." Robert N. Proctor 'Agnotology'

"Market fundamentalists hold a dogmatic, quasi-religious belief in unfettered market capitalism, and therefore oppose anything that restrains the business community, be it restrictions on the use of tobacco or the emission of greenhouse gases." 'Challenging Knowledge,' an essay in 'Agnotology.'

Worth a read.

"Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming"
by Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. M. Conway http://www.amazon.com/dp/1608193942/ref=rdr_ext_sb_ti_sims_3

"Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in God’s eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you." Mark Slouka
Click to expand...
I am sorry but anybody that even mentions that fruitcake Naomi Oreskes is similarly tarnished in my book.

Sent from my Lenovo K50-t5 using Tapatalk
 
Milagro said:
Poor Al Gore. Ever since he lost the 2000 election, he's put all his eggs in the climate change basket. But, little by little, those eggs are being tossed out onto the floor by reputable scientists.

The latest example is a scientific study conducted at the University of Reading of the interactions between aerosols and clouds, which shows the interaction is much weaker than most climate models assume - which means the Earth will warm markedly less than those climate models that the former VP has invested in.
Or, in the words of Paul Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute, instead of facing Climate Change, at worst, we may be facing "global lukewarming."

The Cato bloggers are referring to a post written by Dr Nicolas Bellouin, Associate Professor of Climate Processes at the University of Reading.
As one might imagine, the clouds have a significant role in how the earth's climate works, and because of that, they have a major role in all of those computer models which claim global warming will melt the ice caps and kill us all by a week from next Tuesday. One of the things affecting clouds in those climate models is the interaction between aerosol and the atmosphere:
.
When it comes to the influence of human aerosol emissions on cloud properties, the scientific mainstream view is that aerosols modify clouds in such a way as to result in an enhanced cooling of the earth’s surface—a cooling influence which has acted to offset some portion of the warming influence resulting from human emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, like coal, oil, and natural gas to produce energy). In the absence of this presumed aerosol cooling effect, climate models predict that the earth should warm at a much faster rate than has been observed. A large cooling effect from aerosols was thus introduced in the early 1990s as a way to “fix” the climate models and bring them closer in line with the modest pace of observed warming. Despite that “fix,”climate models continue to overpredict the observed warming rate—which is bad enough news for climate models already.
.
And that's the good news for the climate alarmists:
​
.
His [Dr Nicolas Bellouin] team shows that the anthropogenic cooling impact from clouds is much less than “assessed” by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also much less than employed by climate models. Less enhanced cloud cooling means that greenhouse gases have produced less warming than the climate models have determined. Another way to put it is that this new finding implies that the earth’s climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s surface will warm from a doubling of the pre-industrial atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration—is much below that of the average climate model (3.2°C) and near the low end of the IPCC’s 1.5°C to 4.5°C assessed range. This result comports with the concept of “lukewarming,” which we describe in an upcoming (August) hardcover book as “the new science that changes everything”

A study by Bjorn Stevens published in the journal of the American Meteorological Society last June came to the same conclusion. At the time the Stevens study was released last year, the same Cato bloggers quoted above said that, if that study holds up, "it is the death blow to global warming hysteria." Now that there are two studies with the same result, that hysteria must be getting pretty ill and Al Gore must be getting very sad. So, if you see the former Vice President on the street, please be kind. Offer him a nice word,perhaps a cup of coffee or a beer (but, whatever you do, don't offer him an omelet, it will make him cry).

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/poor-al-gore-not-going-new-climate-study
.
​
Click to expand...

Climate debates are too tedious for me because of the technical aspect. But I'll chip this in: the first paragraph mentions one of the assumptions being amiss in the climate models. You have to wonder how many of their assumptions need to be correct---or at least in the ballpark. If there are ten assumptions [thats a guess] and two of them are off, then, it would seem, the output of the climate model is absolutely suspect.

Not that climate scientists should give up on their computer models. But modeling the earths climate is a tad different than modeling a more aerodynamic airplane wing, where you're dealing with a handful of variables and the 'assumptions' [lift, drag, etc] are facts, for all intents and purposes.

In a more perfect world, climate science wouldn't be populated with ideologues like Micheal Mann and the science wouldn't be politicized because it really is an interesting subject.
 
so people say that 99% of the scientific community agree that climate change is real.

Fine. My only issue with this is that the scientific community that does these studies has a vested interest in declaring it real because they then grow more important and get more funding.

I would be ok with something like this. Have scientists form into groups and present their ideas. They present to us and we will vote on the one we think works. They have to present their "results" in 4-8 years and run for reelection.

If this is real and a global level threat the last thing I want is a group based on the UN which has 0 accountability to anyone to lead the research.
 
Milagro said:
Poor Al Gore. Ever since he lost the 2000 election, he's put all his eggs in the climate change basket. But, little by little, those eggs are being tossed out onto the floor by reputable scientists.
Click to expand...

Next you'll be handing round the cigarettes. ' Scientists ' say they're safe.
 
tsuke said:
so people say that 99% of the scientific community agree that climate change is real.

Fine. My only issue with this is that the scientific community that does these studies has a vested interest in declaring it real because they then grow more important and get more funding.

I would be ok with something like this. Have scientists form into groups and present their ideas. They present to us and we will vote on the one we think works. They have to present their "results" in 4-8 years and run for reelection.

If this is real and a global level threat the last thing I want is a group based on the UN which has 0 accountability to anyone to lead the research.
Click to expand...

The 99% number is way off and it's been refuted anyway. Besides, science doesn't progress democratically lol.

Science progresses by fits and spurts, typically. The break throughs come when somebody gets outside of the box and approaches the problem differently. The 99% is evidence of group think, to whatever extent it's even valid.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
The 99% number is way off and it's been refuted anyway. Besides, science doesn't progress democratically lol.

Science progresses by fits and spurts, typically. The break throughs come when somebody gets outside of the box and approaches the problem differently. The 99% is evidence of group think, to whatever extent it's even valid.
Click to expand...

Where did 99% come from? The so called 97% study by the notorious John Cook of the appalling webshite Skeptical Science, has been debunked many times now.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html
 
Milagro said:
I am sorry but anybody that even mentions that fruitcake Naomi Oreskes is similarly tarnished in my book.

Sent from my Lenovo K50-t5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Here is a bloody good analysis on the fruitcake, her illogicallity is almost Deshian in magnitude.

  1. Oreskes can name virtually no significant funding for skeptics. Skeptics are almost all unpaid volunteers, working out of professional and patriotic duty, appalled by the illogical, anti-science sentiments of people like Oreskes.
  2. The enormous “vested interests” are well over a thousand to one in favor of alarmism as measured by funding, yet Oreskes has not even considered them. The largest proactive skeptical organization (Heartland) has a budget that is one hundredth of Greenpeace and WWF’s combined. Funding for alarmist research since 1990 is at least $79 billion, and probably a lot higher. Funding for skeptical research is so small, no one can add it up. The oil giants like Shell and BP mostly support alarmism and carbon markets. The global carbon market was worth $176 bn in 2011, about the same as the global wheat trade, and the renewables investments added up to $243 bn in 2010. These are very large amounts of vested interest. Since Oreskes is blind to the real money in the debate we can only assume she is an activist rather than a historian.
  3. She resorts to twenty year old documents about tobacco funding to smear by association because she has so little real evidence of actual funding or misbehavior of skeptics. As it happens, Fred Singer was never directly paid by a tobacco company, has never doubted that smoking causes cancer, but corrected a scientific error in a paper on passive smoking. He deserves thanks. Oreskes owes him an apology.
  4. Skeptics far outrank believers in both numbers and in scientific kudos. They have won real Nobel Prizes in physics, the climate scientists Oreskes quotes have won “Peace Prizes”. Skeptics can name 31,500 scientists including 9,000 PhD’s and hundreds of professors. The IPCC can name 62 people who reviewed the critical chapter nine of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, some of them reviewing their own work. Alarmists don’t try to counter the Petition Project with a petition of their own because, even with all their supporters on the scientific gravy train, they don’t stand a chance of coming up with a number large enough to prop up their claims that 97% of scientists agree.
  5. Oreskes claims “deniers” attack the messenger, which on it’s face is true, except that she is the one who denies the evidence and attacks the messenger. She is the Queen of Smear and The Merchant of Doubt herself. Virtually no one has done more to smear opponents in this debate than she has. She refers to them continuously as “Deniers” — though she cannot name any evidence they deny, she has dug mindlessly into the paltry funding, biographies, or association and connections with topics that are totally unrelated to our atmosphere. Skeptics keep asking for evidence. It’s been 30 months since I asked, and no one can provide THAT mystery paper that supports the catastrophic claims.
  6. Oreskes keeps stating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increases the temperature of the planet, but almost all the leading skeptics agree with it. Why does she keep stating it, as if it is a point of contention? She wants the audience to believe that this is what the debate is about, while the skeptics agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming — but dispute the feedbacks asserted by models (which account for two thirds of the forecast increase in temperatures), but which is completely absent in the observations. Is Oreskes ignorant and incompetent in assessing the real scientific debate or is she deliberately deceiving her audience? Only she knows.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/oreskes-big-money-no-evidence-skeptics-merchant-of-doubt/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top