Those who like me, busybody over global climate, need more information. Why be like a Rifle with 1 bullet in the magazine? Why be uninformed? Why this discussion is important. Where did my warming go?
Thanks for the laugh “ They are sucking the energy out of wind” and THEN he doubles down with “the ones at sea reduce the mixing of the sea by wave action which reduces salt and oxygen content” I think the term “dumber than a box of rocks” comes to mind
An insult to rocks everywhere. They at least remain silent. Whats the expression? Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt!
This has me gobsmacked - obviously it is an attempt to paint renewables as “toxic” to the environment but it is a plain insult to intelligence. I admit I did not get past the sea based windmill claims because my brain froze at that point thinking of the number of windmills versus the entirety of the ocean. Are they relying on people being so desperate to “prove” global warming is not happening that they will believe anything?
It went the same place the imminent ice age went, it morphed into the catchall "manmade climate change".....elevating humans to a godlike status over natural earth processes that in reality we have little understanding of and as much control over as switching volcanos on and off. What comes of taking sci-fi disaster fantasy films as historic documentaries.
So someone goes on you tube and finds a tape they agree with and presto that is it-it must be true and anyone who disafrees with we send a dancing banana to and giggle at about how much smarter we are then them. Hey now I am tempted t say take that annoying dancing banana and use it as a suppository but I would never say that. I am a man of peace and lovde. Seriously What is it with the next generation of people today who believe you tube is the beginning and end of their thought processes? Really? Come on man- OOOGA BOOGA! Snap out of it. Man they have some of you trained these days to go onto your cell phone and salivate on cue to the right sound that comes from it. Come on man stop drooling. Snap out of it. Good gawd man if you have to discuss an issue at least look at both sides? Will your brain explode if you do that? If you truly want to debate the issue, take both sides and explain why you think one side's information negates the other. Make an effort. Simply repeating something you agree with and then becoming a dancing banana is pointless. Yah yah all this information is wrong get me a banana to dance with: https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/nope-earth-isnt-cooling/ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/ https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/ No scientist denies the climate has changed and is warming. The issue is what is causing it, not that it is increasing.
I like the fact that the SAME people saying that “there is no evidence will not read even the summaries in the IPCC reports
And the SAME people will not read about the IPCC. Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, by Bernie Lewin.
So to be clear you close your mind down to what scientists say because you found someone you agree with who has an opinion like yours. Other than show you are close minded what have you established. For the record, Bernie Lewin has a Bachelor's degree in Social Science from La Trobe University and a Graduate Diploma in Information Management from RMIT. He calls himself a "historian of science". What the phack does that mean and do you really think you establish your criteria using his blog as your rational for being close minded? Really? You really on a Librarian to argue science warming? Got it.
Just about every serious university history department in the country includes a historian of science. One such history was judged to be one of the one hundred most important books of the 20th century: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. Lewin's focus is on the human interactions, disputes and agreements, not the science per se. Here's a review and overview. "Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC Posted on January 3, 2018 by curryja | 385 comments by Judith Curry. Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change. Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change. Bernie Lewin has written an important new book: SEARCHING FOR THE CATASTROPHE SIGNAL:The Origins of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The importance of this book is reflected in its acknowledgements, in context of assistance and contributions from early leaders and participants in the IPCC: This book would not have been possible without the documents obtained via Mike MacCracken and John Zillman. Their abiding interest in a true and accurate presentation of the facts prevented my research from being led astray. Many of those who participated in the events here described gave generously of their time in responding to my enquiries, they include Ben Santer, Tim Barnett, Tom Wigley, John Houghton, Fred Singer, John Mitchell, Pat Michaels . . . and many more. . . ."
Why did you deflect away from Big Bernie? You know he is not on any faculty. Here is Big Bernie's "self description" of his background at Linked In: Experience Self Employed Company Name Platonic Academy of Melbourne Dates EmployedNov 2018 – Present Employment Duration2 yrs 8 mos Librarian Company Name Parliament of Victoria Dates EmployedMar 2018 – Present Employment Duration3 yrs 4 mos LocationMelbourne, Australia Library Manager Company Name Victorian Government Library Service (SSP, DTF) Dates EmployedJan 2010 – Oct 2015 Employment Duration5 yrs 10 mos Can you get real. You deflected from him because you know damn well he has no academic expertise int he area he discusses. He is yet again another self proclaimed genius. You only refer to him because you agree with him. If he had the same credentials but argued for global warming you would be the first to claim he's unqualified. I will deal with Kuhn in a seperate response so as not to assist your deflection. Bottom line:temperatures have risen and fallen over the past 40 years and CO2 increased steadily the whole time. There were peers such as Bert Bolin, Fred Singer, Chauncey Starr, and Roger Revelle aho argued let us be cautious about attributing most of global warming to CO2 because there are other forces that are powerful enough to reverse the warming for up to ten years and we need to continue searching for answers to this question: has the underlying, longer-term, warming trend of 0.14°C/decade, been caused by mostly natural or mostly human activities and does it matter. So again Lewin picked up on what others had already said. He offered nothing new and that was the IPCC at first saw no immediate need to act on C02 emissions and people like Lewin NOT scientists, argue they changed their mind because of left wing "Marxist" activists. In fact the debate as to what causes gobal warming, how severe it is, what the role CO2 emissions play needs to be answered and debated by scientists not arm chair self proclaimed geniuses with political bias agendas and no science training with is all Big Bernie is.
Yes, some do. How do you know that the Earth is warming? Have you measured the temperature of Earth? (hint: no, you haven't, because it isn't possible to accurately do so)
In regards to Thomas Khun: unlike Bernie Lewin he is in fact the real thing and while it is difficult to condense what he says here is a good article summarizing the man's views and works. He is in fact a scientist critiquing methods of scientific research and was and is treated with respect: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/ However the fact that OTHERS may quote this individual for their own political agendas does not mean he was anti science, anti anything and certainly not a climate warming denier let alone would deny co2 contributes to global warming. In fact if anything he shows why Bernie Lewin is way over his head. Bottom line no scientist denies global warming or that co2 emissions contribute to it. The question remains what are all the causes of global warming, what is the true extent of co2 emissions causing part or all of the global warming and whether we as humans can curtail certain human activities that may be contibuting to or exasperating changes to our environment. Nothing in what Lewin or any climate denier says can make global warming or co2 emissions go away. They can deny the changes to the planet need to be addressed and argue we can continue on as is, but such denial is not based on science but politics and psychology of denial and that is why we get deflections, and arguments that don't actually do not deny the science but try deflect from it with non scientific arguments or statistics that attempt to snap shot global warming into a specific time period and argue in that time period they do not feel there have been changes. They cut the time periods before and after what they select to distort the actual patterns they think they extrapolate. We all agree there is no consensus on the extent and causes of global warming That is one issue. Denying global warming is another distinct issue and the attempt to blur the two as being one and the same or that denial is justified by lack of uniform consensus as to the causes of global warming is not logical, its just politically manipulative.
And you know this how? Because you went on a web-site and it told you that? What data do you refer to and what evidence proves it was fabricated? I won't hold my breath for an answer
Your answer is illogical. To start with I have expressed no personal remark that I myself am a scientist anymore than you are. I present arguments to counter global warming deniers based on what scientists say not on what I say. So asking me whether I took the earth's temperature is nonsensical. Next why did you ask the question you did? All you had to do was type in how do scientists measure the earth's temperature and numerous explanations would come up. Why would you ask me? https://www.theccc.org.uk/what-is-c...ear, natural,identify a genuine climate trend. Had you bothered to educate yourself you would have not made the statement that its not possible to accurately measure the earth's temperature simply because "its not accurate". Your statement is illogical and it shows a lack of understanding of scientific methodology and how scientists deal with variables. The article above is many that explain: "Global average surface temperature: Climate change is most commonly measured using the average surface temperature of the planet. Measurements of near-surface air temperature from weather stations can be combined with measurements of ocean surface temperature from ships and buoys to create a record of the planet’s surface temperature going back to the mid-19th century. Different estimates from the UK Met Office, NASA, NOAA and Berkeley Earth all show a rising trend in average global surface temperature over the last century despite using slightly different methodologies. Looking across datasets, the IPCC concluded that the average of the 2006-2015 decade was around 0.87°C (0.75°C to 0.99°C) above the average of the second half of the 19th century (an approximation for pre-industrial levels). Year-on-year, natural fluctuations can be seen on top of this long-term warming. For this reason, scientists traditionally use a period of at least 30 years to identify a genuine climate trend." It goes on to explain how scientists analyze rising sea levels and their levels of acidity, changes to the cryosphere including satellite-based observations fo Arctic sea-ice and extreme weather events. What you have shown is you deny science methodology as being inaccurate but you don't even know what the methodology is and you have no arguments to indicate what you claim is inaccurate is inaccurate. In fact all you did is probably read a web-site which told you scientists do not all have consensus as to the cause and effect of global warming and assume because of that there is no global warming. There are many things to study in regards to the climate and of course they are full of trends, patterns and variables. Scientists know that and look at emerging patterns from many sources of evidence. It doesn't mean because its varied it can not be used at all to predict and understand patterns of warming. Instead of asking questions which indicate you can't be bothereds to understand the science of global warming and then making statements of false assumptions about variables at least do more than web surf to an article you agree with.
Further to my above response to explain how global warming is measured: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2876/...dence-in-nasas-measure-of-earths-temperature/ https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/34/what-kinds-of-data-do-scientists-use-to-study-climate/ https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/measuring-climate https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/climate-data-monitoring Keeing in mind many deniers of climate change do not read more than a sentence here is an easy explanation even those with abbreviated attention spans can look at: "Each year, global average surface temperature is calculated. How do we measure the temperature of the entire planet? It takes thousands of thermometers, but the math is pretty simple. Here are the steps. Measure temperature above land and the ocean in THOUSANDS of places around the world. Subtract the temperature you measure at each location from the usual temperature on that day. The difference is called the anomaly. Repeat steps 1 and 2 for each day of the year. Divide the planet into a grid of 2,592 squares. Calculate the average temperature anomaly for each square. At the end of the year you will have 946,080 temperature anomalies resulting from 2,592 locations in the grid multiplied by 365 daily temperatures. Take the average of all temperature anomalies from all over the world. Compare this with other years." source: https://scied.ucar.edu/image/measure-global-average-temperature-five-easy-steps
I certainly attempted no deflection, but rather to answer your question and correct your apparently deficient understanding of the importance of the history of science. I'm afraid the balance of your response suggests that you remain uninformed about the focus of Lewin's research and writing. There's nothing in Lewin's book about "left wing Marxist activists." Rather, he tells the story in the words of the participants themselves.
