Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting in this discussion that the denyiers think that scientists have been deceiving us (to get grant money LOL.. that will actually get you fired and in some cases legal problems.. not the way for any sort of job stability)
The warmist (I have learned some new cool words) think that big oil and coal are responsible for the deception as they have a lot of $$$ to lose.
One question I have been somewhat wondering and now I guess I have the answer is should there be any liability if some organization intentionally deceives people about a real danger. The immediate thing you think of is tobacco companies hiding the dangers of smoking.
So assuming at some point this goes from there might be warming to there clearly is human caused warming and its making storms stronger and wetter and creating worse fire seasons. We wont worry about sea level rise... that is a ways off but this storm and fire stuff is real. Some areas are going to have large financial hits from damage. It may be that in some places in the future, you can no longer get property insurance or it is very expensive (my personal home owners insurance has gone way up for a home in the Colorado mountains because of increased fire risk).
Anyhow.. apparently Exonmobile may be looking at this as a real risk. All of us use those fossil fuels and like them inexpensive. But the responsibility and liability would come in if the oil companies had intentionally deceived the public about the dangers of warming.
There have been several lawsuits filed claiming damages from oil companies. They've been thrown out for lack of evidence. Then there was the Famous "The Maldive Islands are Sinking!" lawsuit about 15 yrs ago. They withdrew it and now they're asking for investors to turn the islands into a luxury resort destination. I guess somebody must've found the hole in the island and put a plug in it.
We don't think it's as bad as reported. We also don't think the results of warming will be as bad as the Warmists claim. We don't think co2 has as much to do with it as the Warmists claim. We don't think attempts to lower co2 emissions will help, but that such attempts will actually cause many more problems.
Other than that, it's a great theory.
RE: deceptions, bad science & reporting--
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/...rature-record/
This is a 5 minute video showing poor station placement with results not expunged from records, changes in data after yrs have gone by. When this video was made (2016) there had been 12 yrs of cooling reported in the record. Now (2018) we have in the updated (adjusted) record, 14 yrs showing a slight warming.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 09-22-2018 at 06:14 AM..
The calculated warming seen over the last century or so so has been due to rising daily minimum temps. There has been no change in average of daily maximum temps, so the panic mongers warnings about "heat waves" are false. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/...eased-warming/
Warming confined to night temps and to higher latitudes is predicted by GHG Theory and that's what we're seeing. It's not the only explanation, however.
FYI, I liked most of this.
Certainly interesting that in order to see the warming, its a 24 hours thing. Easy to see how green house gas would warm things at night as it acts somewhat like a blanket. Add more green house gas and its like a thicker blanket.
But I would somewhat also expect daytime highs to increase also. The blanket is still there. I didnt buy the conclusions at all on that link but have to assume that the data showing the daytime highs not really changing much accurate.
Where I am at in the western US, I see so many high temp records being broken every year that it almost doesnt phase me much anymore.. Yawn... another record hot temp day..
...Where I am at in the western US, I see so many high temp records being broken every year that it almost doesnt phase me much anymore.. .
That is addressed in the film. There's actually fewer record highs being set each decade-- that would be expected because new records in any phenomenon seem to occur with a doubling time periodicity. Your conclusion based on your personal observations collected locally without rigorous methodology and not critically analyzed statistically is what leads to "the world is flat" thinking.
edited to address you "blanket" analogy: if you stayed in bed with the blanket on for say 5 straight days, you wouldn't keep on getting warmer & warmer. You merely strike a new equilibrium point at a higher temp than without the blanket. As we've established earlier here, capacity for heat retention due to co2 requires a doubling period, so the chances of striking an equilibrium at an unacceptably high temp is quite unlikely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
Those are the inconvenient truths.
The peer review process involves new papers being submitted to a group of good ol' boys, the "in group" who have built their reputations by formulating the currently accepted paradigm in their particular discipline.
Any paper that does not support that paradigm is therefore automatically considered "wrong." And if it should present a good argument that the current paradigm is not correct, then the entire career and reputation of the peer group is placed in jeopardy. The selfish incentive to reject that paper to maintain the status quo is overwhelming.
You are naive to think altruism plays a role in the scientific review process. Add to the process financial incentives (cf- cholesterol as a "problem") and the temptation to act selfishly cannot be overcome by mere mortals.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 09-23-2018 at 04:50 AM..
That is addressed in the film. There's actually fewer record highs being set each decade-- that would be expected because new records in any phenomenon seem to occur with a doubling time periodicity. Your conclusion based on your personal observations collected locally without rigorous methodology and not critically analyzed statistically is what leads to "the world is flat" thinking.
edited to address you "blanket" analogy: if you stayed in bed with the blanket on for say 5 straight days, you wouldn't keep on getting warmer & warmer. You merely strike a new equilibrium point at a higher temp than without the blanket. As we've established earlier here, capacity for heat retention due to co2 requires a doubling period, so the chances of striking an equilibrium at an unacceptably high temp is quite unlikely.
The peer review process involves new papers being submitted to a group of good ol' boys, the "in group" who have built their reputations by formulating the currently accepted paradigm in their particular discipline.
Any paper that does not support that paradigm is therefore automatically considered "wrong." And if it should present a good argument that the current paradigm is not correct, then the entire career and reputation of the peer group is placed in jeopardy. The selfish incentive to reject that paper to maintain the status quo is overwhelming.
You are naive to think altruism plays a role in the scientific review process. Add to the process financial incentives (cf- cholesterol as a "problem") and the temptation to act selfishly cannot be overcome by mere mortals.
If every day you are in bed, you add a blanket, it gets warmer every day.
As to the validity of peer review, like democracy it is imperfect, but beats every other system by the proverbial country mile. Rather than being an old boys network, it's a competitive world where there's always some young turk looking to make his bones by bringing down the current king of the hill.
Since this article was last updated, the slowdown in the rate of average global surface warming that took place from 1998–2012 (relative to the preceding 30 years) has unequivocally ended. Scientists have learned more about the physical factors that contributed to the short-term trend, and they have documented the continued build up in sub-surface ocean heat during the period. Check out our latest Q&A on this topic: Did global warming stop in 1998?
Editor’s note: Updated June 4, 2015
New analysis through 2014 shows that temperature is once again rising at about the same pace as it did over the second half of the 20th century. PRESS RELEASE.
Using the data that were available at the time (through 2012), the last climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that there had been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature from 1998-2012.
According to a new NOAA analysis, the warming trend during that period was somewhat smaller than the longer-term (1951-2012) trend, but it wasn’t zero. And with the latest data calibrations and the most recent two years of global temperatures added to the series—including record-warm 2014—the warming experienced since 1998 is on par with the rate observed in the second half of the 20th century.
Basically, the new analysis confirms what climate scientists have said all along: natural variability (such as the patterns described in this article) may cause the rate of warming to change from one decade to the next, but global warming is still underway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
