OT - Propaganda Games

"Savageduck" wrote in message
s.com...
On Dec 22, 2015, J. Clarke wrote
(in ):

In news.com,
says...

On Dec 22, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 06:27:07 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 22, 2015, J. Clarke wrote
(in
):

Le Snip

One of the key elements of the scientific process is
independent
replication of results. Where is the independent replication
of NOAA
results? Who else has the resources to conduct data
collection on a
similar scale?

So, because there is no other large source of data, we should
discount
and
doubt what we have accumulated?

Unfortunately we have to work with, and analyze the best data
available.
It
is that, or to live in denial because it doesn?t suit us to
consider human impact on the environment.

For now this is the only canary we have in this mine, and it
seems
there
have been no alternative scientific methods proposed, other
than to
take
the
approach of doubt.

The question is, has the only data we have got been tampered
with?
That was Congessman Lamar Smith's question and the one which NOAA
at
first declined to answer in any way. But that's getting off the
topic
and I have no desire to take this specific example further.

You are siding with Lamar Smith in this!!?
The Lamar Smith who has been paid more than $600,000 by the fossil
fuel
industry?

Having horns, a tail, and carrying a pitchfork does not automatically
make him wrong.

...but being a crooked weasel sure helps.

The Lamar Smith who is a paid skeptic?

I didn't know one could be paid to be a skeptic. Where do I sign up?

Start by becoming a GOP Congressman, preferably in a Texas district.


The Lamar Smith who is conducting a witch hunt against climate
scientists
at
a greater intensity than anything McCarthy had going?

So how many "climate scientists" has he successfully gotten
blacklisted?

Different kind of witch hunt, but if he could get them black listed he
wouldn’t hesitate.

The Lamar Smith who is fighting for the Keystone Pipeline?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It’s a bad thing when members of Congress are in the pocket of the oil
&
gas industry lobbyists.

And being in the pockets of so-called "green energy" lobbyists is OK?
It goes both ways, there's tons of money being thrown around by both
sides.

That Lamar Smith?!!

You should check on who you have in your corner.
http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/20...nsf-and-house-
science-committee-escalates-how-did-it-get-bad

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...rming_lamar_sm
it
h_s_conspiracy_ideations.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...th_harassment_
of
_scientists_continues.html



--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 12/23/2015 3:27 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 20:20:00 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 22, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 15:21:46 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 22, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 06:27:07 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 22, 2015, J. Clarke wrote
(in ):

Le Snip

One of the key elements of the scientific process is independent
replication of results. Where is the independent replication of NOAA
results? Who else has the resources to conduct data collection on a
similar scale?

So, because there is no other large source of data, we should discount
and
doubt what we have accumulated?

Unfortunately we have to work with, and analyze the best data
available.
It
is that, or to live in denial because it doesn’t suit us to
consider human impact on the environment.

For now this is the only canary we have in this mine, and it seems
there
have been no alternative scientific methods proposed, other than to
take
the
approach of doubt.

The question is, has the only data we have got been tampered with?
That was Congessman Lamar Smith's question and the one which NOAA at
first declined to answer in any way. But that's getting off the topic
and I have no desire to take this specific example further.

You are siding with Lamar Smith in this!!?
The Lamar Smith who has been paid more than $600,000 by the fossil fuel
industry?
The Lamar Smith who is a paid skeptic?
The Lamar Smith who is conducting a witch hunt against climate scientists
at
a greater intensity than anything McCarthy had going?
The Lamar Smith who is fighting for the Keystone Pipeline?

I wouldn't have a clue who Lamar Smith may be. Nor do I know anything
about his politics.

You should if you are going to use his politics to support your assertion.

Don't be daft. As I have already said, a person's politics has nothing
to do with the validity of their questions about scientific matters.
I'm surprised you should think otherwise.

The point is he asked perfectly valid questions
and NOAA refused to answer until they were sued by Judicial Watch.

So would you if you were about to figuratively have your throat cut by a paid
assassin.

Their throat would be safe if the answers were straightforward. My
concern is whether or not their internal files would reveal another
rerun of Climate-gate. You have heard of Climate-gate?

I didn't want to drag you into an argument but you have provided me
with an excellent example.

You opened that keg of worms when you introduced your oil industry whore
Congressman.

Is this the way you have always discussed science?

You seem to think that the validity of a
question about the origin of data in a scientific matter depends on
the politics of the asker.

Not always, but in this case I should probably plea the Fifth, but I suspect
my bias is all too obvious.

Hell yes, and I'm afraid it has little to do with an unbiased attitude
to climate science. I'm both sorry and surprised to say that.

This is in keeping with the spirit of Propaganda Games.

Then I guess it is a good thing that I am not out friend, job, or house
hunting. I am beginning to feel a bit like that other Smith, Winston Smith.

You misunderstand me. It's not people like you I fear for. It's people
like you I fear.


You don't have to be a climatologist to figure things out.
1. The polar icecaps are shrinking.
2. Earth is undergoing a warming trend.
3. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
4. Man made emissions of CO2 are increasing
5. CO2 causes a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.
6. We have only one planet to live on.
7. Warming causes a disruption in our food supply.
8 warming causes a decrease in our livable land mass.

Logical conclusion?
--
PeterN

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:48:56 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

You don't have to be a climatologist to figure things out.
1. The polar icecaps are shrinking.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=05&sy=2012
or http://tinyurl.com/gt3klqz

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference.../sea-ice-page/ with lots of
links.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07...seen_in_1980s/
or http://tinyurl.com/ocmqevx

http://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-ice-pa...rs-ninth-year/

2. Earth is undergoing a warming trend.

Yes, a sustained warming from a period, only a few hundred years ago,
when even the English Channel was blocked by ice and crews of ships
locked in ice died of cold and starvation in sight of their port. See
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK...s-Frost-Fairs/
"During the Great Winter of 1683 / 84, where even the seas of
southern Britain were frozen solid for up to two miles from shore"

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...Variations.png

But it seems to have stopped for the time being. See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/...lobal-warming/

3. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.

Agreed, and so too is a lot of other rubbish which has no proper place
there. I disaprove all these things being dumped into the atmosphere
in bulk.

4. Man made emissions of CO2 are increasing

Yep. China is building coal fired power plants in large numbers - see
http://tinyurl.com/npto98f So too is India http://tinyurl.com/npto98f
I have seen estimates of 'thousands' over the next ten or twenty
years. They would be cleaner if the burned oil. Even cleaner if they
burned gas. However, before then China is likely to come in with small
Thorium reactors.

5. CO2 causes a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

But not in the sense as it is commonly presented. It's too complicated
to deal with in detail but the effect has been very greatly
exagerated.

6. We have only one planet to live on.

That may not always be the case.

7. Warming causes a disruption in our food supply.

Depends where you are trying to grow food. One thing is certain,
increased CO2 is beneficial to plant growth and the benefits to plant
growth of the current high CO2 level have been determined. We will
have less food with less CO2.

8 warming causes a decrease in our livable land mass.

I presume you are referring to sea level rise. See
http://tinyurl.com/qbc7b5y or it's parent
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F..._Sea_Level.png
Sea levels have been rising for up to 20,000 years with the rate of
rise being between 1.5mm/yr and 3mm/yr for the last several thousand
years. There is no evidence that this rate of rise has measurably
changed over the last few years.

Logical conclusion?

The case is far from closed.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 12/23/2015 4:53 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:48:56 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

You don't have to be a climatologist to figure things out.
1. The polar icecaps are shrinking.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=05&sy=2012
or http://tinyurl.com/gt3klqz

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference.../sea-ice-page/ with lots of
links.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07...seen_in_1980s/
or http://tinyurl.com/ocmqevx

http://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-ice-pa...rs-ninth-year/

2. Earth is undergoing a warming trend.

Yes, a sustained warming from a period, only a few hundred years ago,
when even the English Channel was blocked by ice and crews of ships
locked in ice died of cold and starvation in sight of their port. See
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK...s-Frost-Fairs/
"During the Great Winter of 1683 / 84, where even the seas of
southern Britain were frozen solid for up to two miles from shore"

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...Variations.png

But it seems to have stopped for the time being. See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/...lobal-warming/

3. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.

Agreed, and so too is a lot of other rubbish which has no proper place
there. I disaprove all these things being dumped into the atmosphere
in bulk.

4. Man made emissions of CO2 are increasing

Yep. China is building coal fired power plants in large numbers - see
http://tinyurl.com/npto98f So too is India http://tinyurl.com/npto98f
I have seen estimates of 'thousands' over the next ten or twenty
years. They would be cleaner if the burned oil. Even cleaner if they
burned gas. However, before then China is likely to come in with small
Thorium reactors.

That does not negate my point.


5. CO2 causes a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

But not in the sense as it is commonly presented. It's too complicated
to deal with in detail but the effect has been very greatly
exagerated.

In what manner?


6. We have only one planet to live on.

That may not always be the case.

"May," is the key word, as opposed to present reality.
Wake up and smell the coffee. It certainly i s the case for now, and at
least the next two generations. I am very concerned that the deniers
will cause us to kill ourselves before that could become a reality.



7. Warming causes a disruption in our food supply.

Depends where you are trying to grow food. One thing is certain,
increased CO2 is beneficial to plant growth and the benefits to plant
growth of the current high CO2 level have been determined. We will
have less food with less CO2.


And the giant squid, with few natural enemies, is not devastating local
fish populations, as they migrate to the newly warmer waters off the
coast of CA.

And swarms of plankton have no effect on our marine life in the bays and
estuaries? (happy Duck?)

8 warming causes a decrease in our livable land mass.

I presume you are referring to sea level rise. See
http://tinyurl.com/qbc7b5y or it's parent
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F..._Sea_Level.png
Sea levels have been rising for up to 20,000 years with the rate of
rise being between 1.5mm/yr and 3mm/yr for the last several thousand
years. There is no evidence that this rate of rise has measurably
changed over the last few years.

Logical conclusion?

The case is far from closed.


Didn't know that kiwis had the same habits as ostriches. (Here is where
you are wrong about question marks, Duck.) ;-)

Sadly by the time some folks finally agree the case really is closed, it
may be too late.

--
PeterN

On Dec 24, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 12/23/2015 4:53 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:48:56 -0500,
wrote:

You don't have to be a climatologist to figure things out.
1. The polar icecaps are shrinking.


http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...fy=1979&sm=02&
sd=05&sy=2012
or http://tinyurl.com/gt3klqz

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference.../sea-ice-page/ with lots of
links.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07...rld_returns_to
_sea_ice_levels_seen_in_1980s/
or http://tinyurl.com/ocmqevx

http://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-ice-pa...rs-ninth-year/

2. Earth is undergoing a warming trend.

Yes, a sustained warming from a period, only a few hundred years ago,
when even the English Channel was blocked by ice and crews of ships
locked in ice died of cold and starvation in sight of their port. See

http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK...es-Frost-Fairs
/
"During the Great Winter of 1683 / 84, where even the seas of
southern Britain were frozen solid for up to two miles from shore"

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...Variations.png

But it seems to have stopped for the time being. See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/...lobal-warming/

3. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.

Agreed, and so too is a lot of other rubbish which has no proper place
there. I disaprove all these things being dumped into the atmosphere
in bulk.

4. Man made emissions of CO2 are increasing

Yep. China is building coal fired power plants in large numbers - see
http://tinyurl.com/npto98f So too is India http://tinyurl.com/npto98f
I have seen estimates of 'thousands' over the next ten or twenty
years. They would be cleaner if the burned oil. Even cleaner if they
burned gas. However, before then China is likely to come in with small
Thorium reactors.

That does not negate my point.

5. CO2 causes a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

But not in the sense as it is commonly presented. It's too complicated
to deal with in detail but the effect has been very greatly
exagerated.

In what manner?

6. We have only one planet to live on.

That may not always be the case.

"May," is the key word, as opposed to present reality.
Wake up and smell the coffee. It certainly i s the case for now, and at
least the next two generations. I am very concerned that the deniers
will cause us to kill ourselves before that could become a reality.

7. Warming causes a disruption in our food supply.

Depends where you are trying to grow food. One thing is certain,
increased CO2 is beneficial to plant growth and the benefits to plant
growth of the current high CO2 level have been determined. We will
have less food with less CO2.

And the giant squid, with few natural enemies, is not devastating local
fish populations, as they migrate to the newly warmer waters off the
coast of CA.

And swarms of plankton have no effect on our marine life in the bays and
estuaries? (happy Duck?)

Yup! From Morro Bay North, including San Francisco, the California Dungeness
crab season has not been opened that the commercial and the recreational
fishery.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/n...ness-crab-for-
Christmas-6716184.php


8 warming causes a decrease in our livable land mass.

I presume you are referring to sea level rise. See
http://tinyurl.com/qbc7b5y or it's parent
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F..._Sea_Level.png
Sea levels have been rising for up to 20,000 years with the rate of
rise being between 1.5mm/yr and 3mm/yr for the last several thousand
years. There is no evidence that this rate of rise has measurably
changed over the last few years.

Logical conclusion?

The case is far from closed.

Didn't know that kiwis had the same habits as ostriches. (Here is where
you are wrong about question marks, Duck.) ;-)

Nope! The above is a statement of pseudo fact, no question mark required to
express your sentiment.

Sadly by the time some folks finally agree the case really is closed, it
may be too late.



--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:31:27 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 12/23/2015 4:53 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:48:56 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

You don't have to be a climatologist to figure things out.
1. The polar icecaps are shrinking.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=05&sy=2012
or http://tinyurl.com/gt3klqz

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference.../sea-ice-page/ with lots of
links.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07...seen_in_1980s/
or http://tinyurl.com/ocmqevx

http://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-ice-pa...rs-ninth-year/

2. Earth is undergoing a warming trend.

Yes, a sustained warming from a period, only a few hundred years ago,
when even the English Channel was blocked by ice and crews of ships
locked in ice died of cold and starvation in sight of their port. See
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK...s-Frost-Fairs/
"During the Great Winter of 1683 / 84, where even the seas of
southern Britain were frozen solid for up to two miles from shore"

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...Variations.png

But it seems to have stopped for the time being. See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/...lobal-warming/

3. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.

Agreed, and so too is a lot of other rubbish which has no proper place
there. I disaprove all these things being dumped into the atmosphere
in bulk.

4. Man made emissions of CO2 are increasing

Yep. China is building coal fired power plants in large numbers - see
http://tinyurl.com/npto98f So too is India http://tinyurl.com/npto98f
I have seen estimates of 'thousands' over the next ten or twenty
years. They would be cleaner if the burned oil. Even cleaner if they
burned gas. However, before then China is likely to come in with small
Thorium reactors.

That does not negate my point.


5. CO2 causes a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

But not in the sense as it is commonly presented. It's too complicated
to deal with in detail but the effect has been very greatly
exagerated.

In what manner?

The climate models used by the IPCC use a reinforcing factor of about
6 while comparison with real world temperatures suggests it should be
no more than 2. Further at low concentrations the CO2 greenhouse
effect reaches a plateau which is not allowed for by most models.


6. We have only one planet to live on.

That may not always be the case.

"May," is the key word, as opposed to present reality.
Wake up and smell the coffee. It certainly i s the case for now, and at
least the next two generations. I am very concerned that the deniers
will cause us to kill ourselves before that could become a reality.



7. Warming causes a disruption in our food supply.

Depends where you are trying to grow food. One thing is certain,
increased CO2 is beneficial to plant growth and the benefits to plant
growth of the current high CO2 level have been determined. We will
have less food with less CO2.


And the giant squid, with few natural enemies, is not devastating local
fish populations, as they migrate to the newly warmer waters off the
coast of CA.

You are changing the subject. In any case that is a local effect
caused by the current particularly strong el Nino.

And swarms of plankton have no effect on our marine life in the bays and
estuaries? (happy Duck?)

They probably will be very happy.

8 warming causes a decrease in our livable land mass.

I presume you are referring to sea level rise. See
http://tinyurl.com/qbc7b5y or it's parent
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F..._Sea_Level.png
Sea levels have been rising for up to 20,000 years with the rate of
rise being between 1.5mm/yr and 3mm/yr for the last several thousand
years. There is no evidence that this rate of rise has measurably
changed over the last few years.

Logical conclusion?

The case is far from closed.


Didn't know that kiwis had the same habits as ostriches. (Here is where
you are wrong about question marks, Duck.) ;-)

Sadly by the time some folks finally agree the case really is closed, it
may be too late.

Thank you for so finely illustrating my original point.

The current theory which seems to best explain the recent temperature
history ties it to volcanic sulphate aerosols with the impact of
chloronated hydrocarbons on the ozone layer explaining both the post
WW2 temperature rise and the later hiatus. It will be interesting to
see how well it is accepted.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 09:03:05 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

The current theory which seems to best explain the recent temperature
history ties it to volcanic sulphate aerosols with the impact of
chloronated hydrocarbons on the ozone layer explaining both the post
WW2 temperature rise and the later hiatus. It will be interesting to
see how well it is accepted.

It depends on how much money can be wrung out of it.

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:38:48 -0800, Bill W
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 09:03:05 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

The current theory which seems to best explain the recent temperature
history ties it to volcanic sulphate aerosols with the impact of
chloronated hydrocarbons on the ozone layer explaining both the post
WW2 temperature rise and the later hiatus. It will be interesting to
see how well it is accepted.

It depends on how much money can be wrung out of it.

Cynic

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/2...limate-change/
or http://tinyurl.com/hsesk7j
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 10:55:55 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:38:48 -0800, Bill W
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 09:03:05 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

The current theory which seems to best explain the recent temperature
history ties it to volcanic sulphate aerosols with the impact of
chloronated hydrocarbons on the ozone layer explaining both the post
WW2 temperature rise and the later hiatus. It will be interesting to
see how well it is accepted.

It depends on how much money can be wrung out of it.

Cynic

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/2...limate-change/
or http://tinyurl.com/hsesk7j

Well, skeptic, for sure. We know essentially nothing about the
subject, and its causes, but we do know for certain that those
trillions they want to spend to prevent their speculative catastrophes
could be better spent on things that will actually benefit people, and
benefit them now. "Science" has become a running joke written by
politicians.

But there is hope, and your cite is an example of that hope. At least
some people are still doing real science.

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 14:55:11 -0800, Bill W
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 10:55:55 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:38:48 -0800, Bill W
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 09:03:05 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

The current theory which seems to best explain the recent temperature
history ties it to volcanic sulphate aerosols with the impact of
chloronated hydrocarbons on the ozone layer explaining both the post
WW2 temperature rise and the later hiatus. It will be interesting to
see how well it is accepted.

It depends on how much money can be wrung out of it.

Cynic

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/2...limate-change/
or http://tinyurl.com/hsesk7j

Well, skeptic, for sure. We know essentially nothing about the
subject, and its causes, but we do know for certain that those
trillions they want to spend to prevent their speculative catastrophes
could be better spent on things that will actually benefit people, and
benefit them now. "Science" has become a running joke written by
politicians.

But there is hope, and your cite is an example of that hope. At least
some people are still doing real science.

Let's hope they are not totally extinguished.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens