I suspect that Moe was motivated to ask this question by claims that recent tornadoes are due to global warming. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/...
Rather than act like there is no reason to be concerned, why not check the data: http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress...
So the frequency of ef4+ (big) tornadoes has gone DOWN over the last few decades. It seems that Moe has a valid point. It seems that this latest anti-science propaganda stunt was delivered by an anonymous author affiliated with the environmental lobby publication "EcoEnquirer". http://www.ecoenquirer.com/tornado-inten...
The absence of an author is a strong indication that the author does not want his name associated with the garbage being published. Hey Dook provides an excellent example in his nap.edu link that uses National Academy of Sciences letterhead but provides no author to take responsibility for the ridiculous quote that Hey Duke extracts from the article.
As for the thermometer data, even GISS does not provide data that should get anyone excited. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistem...
Mapping Tool: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
As for the safety record of the fossil fuel industry, it is excellent compared to the nuclear industry http://www.earthweek.com/2013/ew130524/e...
that is being promoted by the Warmists. http://openyoureyesnews.com/2013/04/11/c...
I do not know where Joe Joyce got the idea that the IPCC studies the climate.
"The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters." http://ipcc.ch/organization/organization...
This business of Mann being cleared of all charges is not even technically true. [1] The original hockey stick eliminated both the Little Ice Age, and the Medieval Warm Period, [2] and has been reproduced by using fraudulent methods in order to discover how Mann did it. [3] Here are your other "reproductions". [4] Notice how only Mann's green line fails to show the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Notice how seriously different the other curves look despite supposedly using Mann's methods.
Edit @Gary F: Pray tell: What evidence have you seen that anything going on climate wise other than radioactive fallout is outside of normal variance?
Edit @Joe Joyce: Sorry, I do appreciate the intelligent things you sometimes say, but limited space does limit me to giving you thumbs most times. In this case, I did not think that your trashing Moe, or your trotting out a fake exoneration of Mann were as egregious as your presenting the IPCC as a "scientific organization". Their mission is not to add anything to science except to give one opinion the pretense of authority. The whole notion that we should have a priesthood to tell us what to think about the evidence is about as anti-science by definition as you can get. It gets me that someone as obviously intelligent as you can miss just how nefarious that is, and fail to ask why.
Edit 2@Gary F: Thank you for the timely response. I agree that it does look like a step function. That indicates only that it has warmed. The question is what makes the amount of warming look abnormal [5] and anthropogenic.
Forget the red noise reproductions. Focus on what happens when one removes the ridiculous Gaspé extrapolation and applies the needed CO2 fertilization adjustment to full length of bristlecone pine series. The Little Ice Age, and the Medieval Warm Period come back. (page 14) [3] Also, consider what happens when unreliable tree ring data is eliminated. [6] Check out the historical data for the Little Ice Age. [7]
Edit @CR: Your link is ridiculously out of date (1987), and in no way reflects the current situation. It also fails to differentiate between relatively harmless exterior radiation and potent internal radiation. When 10% of animals get cancer, so do 10% of people. [8]
I don't know if it is so much misinformation as ignorance of the science. The predicted impacts of climate change are well stated, increased storm destruction is one of them. Therefore politicians and campaigners use any occurrence to further their "cause" ... be it for or against climate change (how many times have we seen articles about no rising temp in 15 years ... all linked to newspaper articles or blogs).
It is all about cherry picking or reading what you want to read. These people have an agenda, and unfortunately the media is a lot more likely to do an article on an "agenda" rather than science. Do you want to read a scientists discussing with themselves that "there is no direct evidence that climate change caused this tornado, however it does align with predictions for climate change" ... or a headline "Climate Change causes Tornado". or perhaps if you like "Climate Change a Hoax".
Sensationalism sells best in the media ... no one wants the "truth" because that is too non-committal, much better to cause controversy.
If I was an anti-global warming company/business I would pay for people to make outrageous claims that global warming caused the tornado ... because then it gives them fodder to later say that this isn't supported by the science (Or scientists can not confirm or the likes). Sort of allows them to "paint" people as alarmists.
>>How can we educate the public so we view bad weather as a natural reoccurring phenomenon?<<
And therein lies the truth about the anti-science Denier agenda:
You want to "educate" (indoctrinate) the public (everyone) so that they all believe everything is "natural" and nothing is caused by our altering the atmospheric physics of the planet.
Here is how you do it: You lie...and lie...and lie...and keep lying - but, you already know that, huh?
======
Portland --
>>Edit @Gary F: Prey tell: What evidence have you seen that anything going on climate wise other than radioactive fallout is outside of normal variance?<<
Mean global temperature for the last 15 years is out the range of normal variability - even including prior observations that exceed values that can be explained by the known natural drivers of climate.
A run of values that either fall within the top-10 most extreme in the distribution or exceed the existing upper limit is less like than flipping a coin a coming up with ":heads" 15 times in a row - which would be: 0.5(1) x 0.5(2)X...X0.5(15).
If the temperature observations were readings from a mechanical system, you would have identified a non-stationary change in the state space before now. In fact, the graph looks like a step function - and that is a conservative determination because we know that there must be additional potential energy that has not yet hit the system.
You really need to let go of the Hockey Stick Bullshlt. it has been replicated and validated by analysis using independent data. The only error Mann made was in his selection of the matrix rotation method in his PCA - a trivial error that does not change the outcome.
The liars here are, originally McIntyre, and, McKitrick for repeating the lie. McIntyre's "study" allegedly showing that the sharp increase at the end of the Hockey Stick was simply a function of Mann's algorithm is an example of Denier dishonesty in manufacturing false evidence, in the laziness of Deniers to examine their own evidence, and of Denier stupidity.
McIntyre ran a number simulations each generating 10,000 outcomes of Mann's PAC analysis. He then created an index-measure of the steepness of the end of the curve (the "hockey stick index": HSI). Rather than take a random sample of the HSI values - or just any group of 100 HSI values of each run - McIntyre sorted the results and then selected only the top 100 (out of 10,000) most extreme values from each simulation to save for his analysis.
Of course, McIntyre passed off his results as if the values he used were an honest representative sample - when, in fact, he "fixed" the results by intentionally selecting only the most extreme 1% of HSI values for use.
You can see the scumbag liar's code here:
ftp://ftp.agu.org/apend/gl/2004GL021750/...
=======
jerry --
If you're just stopping by to make sure that we do not forget how stupid you are, you can relax.
=====
Pat --
>>Mann produced with the help of Al Gore <<
Have you had a brain scan recently? You should check to be sure that the Reptilians haven't laid eggs in your head.
"If it bleeds, it leads."
The late Julian Simon, PhD, spent a lifetime debunking scary predictions that held no basis in fact. For this crusade, he earned the nickname 'The Doomslayer'. He was famous for proposing and winning a bet with Doomsayer Paul Ehrlich.
But...
"He always found it somewhat peculiar that neither the Science piece nor his public wager with Ehrlich nor anything else that he did, said, or wrote seemed to make much of a dent on the world at large. For some reason he could never comprehend, people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they'd been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days "experts" spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker."
--"The Doomslayer", Wired
Dr. Simon would have been interested in the work of Cass Sunstein, who identified the cognitive biases induced by fear appeals. Once the propagandist succeeds in inducing fear into the target audience, they then over-estimate the probability that the feared event will occur. That over-estimation increases with the severity of the fear, I.e. with the catastrophic nature of the consequences purported to be a necessary consequence of the feared event. Under fear, critical thinking stops, and the fight or flight reflex takes over. The audience will (irrationally) engage in satisficing: the seeking of the first available solution that promises to mitigate the fear. The person presenting the fear is presumed to be the one in possession of the required solution.
Successful propagandists throughout history have been those that mastered the art of the fear appeal. There is no need to abide by the scientific method, nor good logic, if the propagandist can instead induce--and take advantage of--fear.
Who is responsible for spreading alarming misinformation? It is NW Portland Jack, who spreads nonsense about radiation not being within normal variance. We receive 300 times more radiation from nature than from nuclear power. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/...
He claims that the fossil fuel's safety record is excellent compared to the nuclear industry. Yet, Fukushima was not only no Chernobyl, it was also no Exxon Valdez. In fact, in terms of its impact on nature, Chernobyl was no Exxon Valdez, either. If 10% of the deer, bears and bunny rabbits get cancer, the other 90% populate the area quite nicely.
And
"At least 598 workers died on the job between 2002 and 2007, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics."
http://www.oaoa.com/news/business/articl...
598 more workers than died in nuclear accidents in that time frame.
And what has changed since 1987? But feel free to provide a link from a more recent unbiased source.
You should read the article before making such a claim. From Page 2 of 12
"Natural background radiation comes from three sources:
"? Cosmic Radiation
"? Terrestrial Radiation
"? Internal Radiation"
External radiation =/= natural radiation
Internal radiation =/= nuclear radiation
What people? No one lives in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.
"The Exclusion Zone covers an area of approximately 2,600 km2[7] in Ukraine immediately surrounding the Chernobyl nuclear power plant where radioactive contamination from fallout is highest and public access and inhabitation are restricted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_E...
Pat
No, I would not give you the money. I want scientists to continue to be independent, and not having to say what you want to hear to get paid.
Al Gore.....a former divinity student who has made $Millions flim-flamming the AGW thing......started the misinformation trend that has become the hallmark of the Warming cult.
The vast majority of the public has seen through the questionable claims of the movement and now give the AGW pitchmen less credibility than PeeWee Herman.
Alarmism sells and people have really short memories. Most of the alarmist on YA would love it if everyone believed there was no weird weather before 1970.
"Why after over a decade are we still hearing about bad weather and how much worse it is because of CO2?"
Have you tried avoiding anti-science con-artist blogs sponsored or inspired by the Heartland Institute and other professional liars (who endlessly spout "alarming misinformation" that would indicate, at least to dupes here on YA, that America has been a Stalinist tyranny since the 1920s when gasoline started to be taxed) and opening up an actual science textbook for a change?
The IPCC is mainly responsible for the misinformation. They receive billions from countries to prove that humans are causing the planet to warm. They are far from proving anything of the sort. They are in the beginning stages of understanding how the climate operates. There are too many variables that affect the climate besides CO2.
Give me all of the money that they receive along with 15,000 climate scientists and let's see how the information flow changes. The IPCC is paid to prove it which gives them free reign on divulging whatever information they can to show it. Hard to compete with Global Elites with a lot of money.
Keep up the exposer Moe. People do understand the weather and its normal variations. Weather is weather whether it is cold weather or warm weather. :-)
---------------------------------------...
Gary F - You really have been sniffing too much of that glue you are using to put the "Global Warming" pieces together. You should stop that because you are becoming brain dead. The same time frame in the early 1900s showed a drastic rise in temperature after a drastic fall of temperatures from the previous 30 to 40 years. Most of that rise and fall was due to natural climate variations. The warming that your partner Mann produced with the help of Al Gore ("An Inconvenient Lie") had help due to the El Nino year where the whole of the world's temperature rose by one whole degree on its own. The difference between the late 1800s drop in temperature along with the rise in the early 1900s to 1940s is every bit as natural as the most recent warming. Temperatures have leveled off for the past 15 years so you can not attribute the warming to CO2 levels. There's nothing linear about the temperatures and CO2 levels. Your argument is like a driveway that doesn't quite make it to the street.
Quote by Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."
Quote by Charles Alexander, Time Magazine science editor: “I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”
Because When Sandy hit they were acting like a Hurricane never hit there before .
There was 84 hurricanes before.
And when Sheldon Whitehouse said the Moore Tornado was caused by Global Warming it makes him a idiot and wrong all the time . He is stupid enough to think dust devils
are cause by global warming . He is Chicken little . He sleeps under his bed out of irrational fear.
The Warmers think the Earth was created by their Messiah Obama in 2008 and no weather ever happened before .
It seems that everytime there is an extreme bad thing happening in the world we have to hear about it's relation to AGW, only to find out later that nobody ever made that claim. Who is making this stuff up and why? Why after over a decade are we still hearing about bad weather and how much worse it is because of CO2? How can we educate the public so we view bad weather as a natural reoccurring phenomenon?
Of far more concern is the misinformation put out by deniers, contrary to climate change science
Denying global warming is at the level of believing in the flat earth. The evidence is overwhelming.
Hey, Moe, you seem to be doing it pretty well. It requires a coordinated effort and a lot of money. It starts with the groundwork laid about 30 years ago, by the big energy boys, who follow the science a lot closer than you do. Then you buy a few scientists, and set up "institutes" with names like Marshall and Heritage, and hire the best ad people money can buy to plant stories in the media about how this is all natural. Then tie it into politics - there is always a minority party somewhere to take your money and do your bidding, or you can create one or two yourself. The goal is to get people to ignore their thermometers and their own eyes, and accept ever-worsening conditions as the norm.
Make an alliance with a major TV network that is willing to spin anything for money. Try to make a science issue into a political issue instead. Tie your interests to that of a major party with lots of campaign contributions. Buy senators and congressmen, and lots and lots of local politicians - they are much cheaper and easier to buy than scientists, and once you've got a few scientists, you don't need any more. Politicians are a much bigger bang for the buck.
Try to get religion involved, especially fundamentalism, because fundamentalists will believe and act on anything their religious leaders tell them. Really, if you can't get people to disbelieve science with politics, co-opt religion and see if that works. It does for a significant chunk of the population. You can always find someone who is greedy and selfish to step up in front of the mike and huckster for you, and who is both a preacher and a politician. So you take this guy, call him Mike Huckster, and put him on TV, and run him for congress and governor and whatnot so he looks credible. Get him to talk about religion, politics, and science in a way that confuses all the issues with each other, so that his listeners will think their religion and/or their politics say the science is wrong, because the actual science of AGW has been pretty solid for decades.
This all involves attacking science, reason, and rationality on a daily basis, for decades, on multiple fronts. Play a lot of commercials saying how good American coal is for the economy, and how it means jobs. Ignore the safety record of the US coal industry, and the fact that coal has been shown to rain pollutants down hundreds and thousands of miles downwind. Use your political clout to gut the agencies, like the EPA, that are responsible for protecting the people and the country from the hazards involved by flat-out lying about those hazards. Do the same for oil drilling and use, and ditto for fracking and methane. Claim it's all safe, and advertise how the Gulf of Mexico is just marvelous these days, ignore the fact that oil is concentrating up the food chain in the gulf, and we're eating BP-spilled oil with our shrimp. That little bit can't hurt us, right?
So, Moe, we're almost home. Next, you get "ordinary" people to write into the media about how evil the lying scientists are, how they are making billions to trillions each from AGW, and how how they are hurting "honest" people. And that's where you come in. As one of the minions, you get the exciting work of making the world better for the Koch brothers and worse for the rest of us.
But you are wrong when you say there are no efforts to stop this misinformation. In reaction to the lies, a lot of other people including actual climate scientists have come forward to set the record straight. But well before the lies, an organization was put together by the governments of the world to study the climate, called the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This and other organizations, like the USA's NASA and NOAA, or Great Britain's Hadley Climate Research Unit, lead the way in putting the actual numbers out to the public. But they don't support the science like the people who make all the money from pollution - a billion dollars a day in pure profit for the big energy boys - support the anti-science. A billion dollars a day has bought a lot of lies.
If you didn't buy into the lies, Moe, you'd know this. Exxon was busted for it, and forced to admit it was lying. It's a matter of public record. Heritage was busted for trying to get the lies into schoolbooks. It's a matter of public record. Michael Mann was legally cleared of all Ken Cucinelli's trumped-up charges, and the "hockey stick" has been replicated independently at least 14 times now. It's a matter of public record. Phil Jones was cleared of all wrongdoing in at least 7 separate inquiries - start with Muir Russell. It's a matter of public record.
Who is responsible for all the alarming misinformation
gary f
