patrick.net

The Travesty is people HAVE to get their news from Youtube.

THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED DAMMIT!!!!!!!

The satellites were Republican, simple.

Ironman says

Here's a comment posted at the direct Youtube link:

..."you can't get 3 out of 5 people to agree on anything and they want to believe 97% of scientists agree on something?"

Think about that for second.... or longer..

OK I thought about it and realized how dumb it is. I'm pretty sure if you asked 100 scientists if gravity exists, you'd get 100% agreement. If the data shows a convincing conclusion, scientists will agree. That's where scientists are different from you.

Does anyone have a link to the satellite data ? fascinating, the dogma of global warming-err climate change now.

"The Travesty is people HAVE to get their news from Youtube."

More reliable than the networks.

indigenous says

More reliable than the networks.

I'm not disputing that, if you know and trust the source.
But in all reality even the hoaxer "Is this a picture of a Sea-monster" videos have more journalistic integrity than 90% of anything reported err I mean that trickles through the mainstream ministry of propaganda.

What will be interesting is the 18 to 27 year old voters will be sitting this one out. There's a few that will want to feel progressive, by voting for Sanders. But they will be less of those than Noah Trevor's viewing audience in that age range. Had there not been a Comedy Central Network in 2008, then the Democrats would not have won.

It will be interesting to watch CC hobble along without any of the talented masters of deceit, that had their own shows on CC in 2008.

Ya'll remember why I pleaded how dangerous it was to allow CC to pass their comedic relief Propaganda off as news in 2008, and how I said it was dangerous?

These kids are listening to YouTube celebrities now, and they aren't singing that 2008 tired old "Yes we Can!" crap that was around in 2008.
They are saying Yes we got screwed. And no we can't, and Oh No they Just DIDN'T.

Those Obama voter's aren't happy, and they are spending a lot of time on YouTube to find angry people who shares their view.

And to think, at a time when the America media needs them the most.

Ironman says

Crap... How am I going to make money now selling carbon credits??

How many did you buy?

The problem is Cruz doesn't know what he is talking about. The rate of change has been flat for 18 years, not the rise in temperature. CIC/ironbrain and indiginous have the exact same problem understanding the same concept. Is it some type of conservative thing?

Here is the story on the UAH satellite data Cruz was talking about from the people who actually create and report the UAH data. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

Rank, Year, Deg. C (vs 1981-2010 avg.)
1st 1998 0.463
2nd 2010 0.333
3rd 2002 0.195
4th 2005 0.181
5th 2003 0.166
6th 2014 0.151
7th 2007 0.144
8th 2013 0.113
9th 2006 0.098
10th 2001 0.095
11th 2009 0.087
12th 2004 0.060
13th 2012 0.049
14th 1995 0.048
15th 1987 0.026
16th 2011 0.021
17th 1988 0.014
18th 1991 -0.004
19th 1990 -0.012
20th 1997 -0.031
21st 1996 -0.034
22nd 1999 -0.036
23rd 2000 -0.041
24th 1983 -0.065
25th 1980 -0.067
26th 1994 -0.088
27th 2008 -0.114
28th 1981 -0.136
29th 1993 -0.225
30th 1989 -0.232
31st 1979 -0.236
32nd 1986 -0.243
33rd 1984 -0.260
34th 1992 -0.306
35th 1982 -0.320
36th 1985 -0.385

Just bellow Bob's table.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
April 28, 2015 at 11:32 AM

If ENSO and volcanic activity is superimposed on the temperature rankings one will see a fit.

bob2356 says

Here is the story on the UAH satellite data Cruz was talking about from the people who actually create and report the UAH data. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

I thought all of the Scientist agreed with Global warming.
Why are so many of his colleges thanking him for coming forward and agreeing with his findings?
The comments in that blog are many and not your typical CNN and FOX idiots arguing over the Narrative.

a 60 year cycle would coincide with the Atlantic Hurricane pattern.

Huricanes building up over a few decades, to a climax for a decade or so, then winding down to a couple decades of quiet Hurricane seasons.

Oh Wogster haven't you suffered enough recently?

OH an Infograph well why didn't you just say so?

Ah poor Wogster.

There once was a Scientist who dropped his thermometer in the sea, then he noticed it changed one degree, he told a bore, who told a few more.
Now Gore gives speaking engagements for fee.

Ironman says

bob2356 says

Here is the story on the UAH satellite data Cruz was talking about from the people who actually create and report the UAH data. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

You're not allowed to quote Roy Spencer here, he's a denier!! They're going to take away your liberal membership card!

I don't have a liberal membership card. I was a card carrying (literally) member of the pre insane republican party until Bush went to war in Iraq then I registered independent.

Roy Spencer doesn't deny the climate is warming, he denies that it is caused by man. I'm don't know either way, but it couldn't hurt to cut back on CO2 just in case the climate change deniers are wrong.

The point, which you not at all surprisingly missed, was that the satellite data set does not say there has been no warming for the last 18 years and cruz is an idiot for repeatedly saying it does making it the centre point of the hearing.

Ironman says

So, 93.4% of global warming is going into the ocean... (which happens to be over 70% of the surface area)... what a surprise. I wonder where that heat is coming from? Any chance it's this?

Good point. Even better point the sun is in a down cycle of solar output the last 11 years but the earth continues to warm. What's up with that?

+1 BINGO +1
Tenpoundbass says

If ENSO and volcanic activity is superimposed on the temperature rankings one will see a fit.

GW/CC - Nothing a solid maunder minimum can't fix ;)

Question for O.P. or any other conservatives on this issue: what do you think is the incentive driving such a massive scientific fraud? It's easy for me to see what incentives the 3% of dissenting scientists would have (and their supporters for believing then): no AGW means we don't have to change our lifestyles, cooperate with other countries or spend any money to address it. But for the life of me I don't see any corresponding incentive the other way. So do you really think the great majority of climate scientist are just drama queens who like raising panic over nothing? Or are they all unreformed Marxists working to subvert capitalism? I'd really like to know what you think.

bdrasin says

Question for O.P. or any other conservatives on this issue: what do you think is the incentive driving such a massive scientific fraud? It's easy for me to see what incentives the 3% of dissenting scientists would have (and their supporters for believing then): no AGW means we don't have to change our lifestyles, cooperate with other countries or spend any money to address it. But for the life of me I don't see any corresponding incentive the other way. So do you really think the great majority of climate scientist are just drama queens who like raising panic over nothing? Or are they all unreformed Marxists working to subvert capitalism? I'd really like to know what you think.

If you can easily the see (financial) motives behind the dissenters then logically many more scientists should take that route because the desire to make money and succeed is strongly ingrained in human beings. So the reality is that the money (and careers) to be had in big government is a much larger and more powerful source than the fossil fuel industry. Also, just because a big fossil company loves you today for your dissent doesn't mean anything as to whether you will have your job tomorrow. If you work for the government and the consensus science, your job and income is pretty much guaranteed. You won't get a grant for trying to disprove CC/GW, you will get many for toeing the party line. The same holds true for the medical industry. There are many horrible conditions affecting larger chunks of the population that are completely ignored while others are continuous money generators via fund-raisers, grants and social media presence. I think climate change research was genuine in its beginnings, but pretty much by the time al gore came out with his doomsday movie and hockey stick projections, it already had gone south. Doesn't mean GW isn't real, but I think there's nothing wrong with a healthy debate and you should be very very skeptical and have alarm bells ringing when terms such as "deniers" and "dissenters" are introduced and when legislation is being pushed to silence those dissenters with the force of the law if necessary. That is not science.

Ironman says

Wait, didn't the alarmists say the increased ocean temps was from increased CO2? You mean that big fireball in the sky has been heating the water all this time?? Wow....

Are you really this stupid? Do you think scientists are saying that CO2 emits heat?

Of course it's the fucking sun that is heating the Earth.

mell says

f you can easily the see (financial) motives behind the dissenters then logically many more scientists should take that route because the desire to make money and succeed is strongly ingrained in human beings. So the reality is that the money (and careers) to be had in big government is a much larger and more powerful source than the fossil fuel industry. Also, just because a big fossil company loves you today for your dissent doesn't mean anything as to whether you will have your job tomorrow. If you work for the government and the consensus science, your job and income is pretty much guaranteed. You won't get a grant for trying to disprove CC/GW, you will get many for toeing the party line.

With all due respect, this doesn't actually identify an incentive but simply asserts that one must exist. Since many (most?) of the scientists working in the field have tenure they can't actually be fired for not typing the party line as it were. As for grant money (which by the way researchers don't get to keep for themselves), this just pushes the question back to what incentives "Big Government" (by which I guess you mean the NSF et al) has to bias/bribe/corrupt the academic-scientific field in this way (even if we accept that grant money alone could do it). And again, all the incentives seem to me to be in the other direction because the policy implications are very difficult.

So the simple explanation is that the great majority of scientists in the field, as well as the scientists advising the key grant-issuing bodies, are genuinely convinced that there is a grave problem. Am I missing something?

bdrasin says

So the simple explanation is that the great majority of scientists in the field, as well as the scientists advising the key grant-issuing bodies, are genuinely convinced that there is a grave problem. Am I missing something?

It's a herd mentality paired with a desire to be successful and do research in a "relevant" field. Not all have sinister motives, the majority probably doesn't. However when they start treating dissenters with utter contempt and want to bar them from the discussion - possibly by force of law - something smells very fishy.

bdrasin says

As for grant money (which by the way researchers don't get to keep for themselves)

to deny the existence of conflict of interest in scientific research is to be completely ignorant.

firstly these bunch of peter pans wouldn't be able to function in the real world (of which they lack a basic common understanding) so yes they are deeply dependent on grant money for their accustomed livelihood inside the quad. and fuck off with tenure - academia, big business, and government intersect at the management level and if you don't play the right tune you're definitely going to be out in the cold. what can possibly go wrong when someone is president at a major university and also on the board of directors of a multinational corporation developing green technology with (or even just reducing their carbon footprint for) federal subsidies? what about a former public official pushing a new green agenda within a think tank yet also serving as a university department chair (and maybe the same guy who created the federal subsidies for that green technology being developed by the MNC above)?

further, it's next to impossible to find a job as a professor these days. try pitching your candidacy with an opposing view of climate or online bullying or whatever. pfft - kiss your ass goodbye.

bdrasin says

what incentives "Big Government" (by which I guess you mean the NSF et al) has to bias/bribe/corrupt the academic-scientific field in this way

it's the same trick government used with the church in the old days - academic elitism is the new secular church. government seeks control, especially during periods of civil unrest and economic distress. with the climate narrative, backed by the wealthy ownership class (who by the way could care less as they zip around in private aircraft and power up 10 bedroom estates - so long as they get theirs) and prophesied by the new secular church - the government is in a very good position to exert lots of control over the public at large.

Ironman says

Show us any alarmist stories where they specifically say that.

Have you ever read even the most basic explanation for why CO2 causes warming? It's called the greenhouse effect. Here are a couple of easy articles that even you might be able to follow:

http://www.explainthatstuff.com/globalwarmingforkids.html

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/brief-explanation-global-warming-78863.html

It's implicit in every article that mentions the greenhouse effect. The sun is the source of the heat. For you to not understand this most basic of all concepts is really beyond belief.

Ironman says

I have, but I believe you don't understand the process.

Maybe we're finally making progress with you. Would you like to share with us what makes up the largest percentage of greenhouse gases.

I do understand the process. Let me ask you something. Do you understand that small changes in the amount of some compounds can have huge effects? Hydrogen sulfide, fluorine, et. al can be deadly in ppm concentrations.

landtof says

firstly these bunch of peter pans wouldn't be able to function in the real world (of which they lack a basic common understanding) so yes they are deeply dependent on grant money for their accustomed livelihood inside the quad.

Right. So university climate scientists are stupid and corrupt. They couldn't get industry jobs, and are embezzling their grants for personal use.

landtof says

and fuck off with tenure - academia, big business, and government intersect at the management level and if you don't play the right tune you're definitely going to be out in the cold.

They also must be doing a hell of a good job of keeping the news of all these tenured faculty who got sacked from getting out

landtof says

what can possibly go wrong when someone is president at a major university and also on the board of directors of a multinational corporation developing green technology with (or even just reducing their carbon footprint for) federal subsidies? what about a former public official pushing a new green agenda within a think tank yet also serving as a university department chair (and maybe the same guy who created the federal subsidies for that green technology being developed by the MNC above)?

If all it takes is money, the amount available to renewable energy companies (all subsidies included) must be peanuts compared to what the traditional (fossil fuel) energy companies can bring to bear. So they must be doing a terrible job.

landtof says

further, it's next to impossible to find a job as a professor these days. try pitching your candidacy with an opposing view of climate or online bullying or whatever. pfft - kiss your ass goodbye.

And yet somehow everyone keeps quiet even after they have tenure. Odd.

landtof says

bdrasin says

what incentives "Big Government" (by which I guess you mean the NSF et al) has to bias/bribe/corrupt the academic-scientific field in this way

it's the same trick government used with the church in the old days - academic elitism is the new secular church. government seeks control, especially during periods of civil unrest and economic distress. with the climate narrative, backed by the wealthy ownership class (who by the way could care less as they zip around in private aircraft and power up 10 bedroom estates - so long as they get theirs) and prophesied by the new secular church - the government is in a very good position to exert lots of control over the public at large.

And now we get to the top of the pyramid! The ultimate source of this deep web of corruption: the business and political elites are behind the whole thing (and knowing that it's a lie) for the specific purpose of causing civil unrest and economic distress.

Thank you for the trip down the rabbit hole; I have to say I couldn't have come up with that myself. If I hadn't been on this board for so long I'd think you were trolling. I think I'm going back to lurking now; have fun.

Quigley says

good points on the oceans holding heat. The pacific in particular has been doing that this year. I went to the beach in San Diego two weeks ago and the water was around 75 degrees, which is pretty warm for the pacific. We didn't bother wearing wetsuits for surfing and it felt great.

Hi Quiq,

Not really to jump in this fray, but rather to address your very narrow concern....its happened before. Late 90's I believe, might have been 1998. The water got super warm. Schools of bonito in King Harbor(Redondo Beach) and later that year a school of firecracker yellowtail. In the spring that year, my mom hooked up a mahi mahi off Dana Point. A few weeks later I went out on a 3 quarter day off Newport. We went down to San Onofre and I caught 2 skipjack tuna and a 12 lb Bonito(Huge and a beast to land...bonito fight so hard...ran me around the boat 3 times before the deckhand got the gaff into it). Two more trips that summer to Catalina on 3/4 boats got some really nice Yellowtail.

The mahi and the skipjack are uncommon and the water has to warm up a whole lot to get those types of fish in So Cal waters in any kinds of numbers. Its an el nino cyclical thing though, not evidence of man made global warming.

bdrasin says

Right. So university climate scientists are stupid and corrupt. They couldn't get industry jobs, and are embezzling their grants for personal use.

not what i said, and you are certainly trolling at this point. they don't want to (or socially can't) function inside industry - have you ever known an academic? i do, as very close family friends but they are train wrecks. so yes, they are completely dependent on university funding to perpetually put off becoming a full blown adult.

bdrasin says

They also must be doing a hell of a good job of keeping the news of all these tenured faculty who got sacked from getting out

you're a real piece of shit with no clue what he/she is talking about. a quick search of the cases listed on the FIRE website reveals:

Marquette University: Faculty Member Facing Loss of Tenure for Opinions on Blog
https://www.thefire.org/cases/marquette-university-faculty-member-facing-loss-of-tenure-for-opinions-on-blog/

bdrasin says

If all it takes is money, the amount available to renewable energy companies (all subsidies included) must be peanuts compared to what the traditional (fossil fuel) energy companies can bring to bear. So they must be doing a terrible job.

you don't get it - if something benefits traditional energy companies they will certainly join in on the fun. i love how all of a sudden the CFO or CEO or whatever of wallmart comes out and says he's worried for his grandkids and that's why he's investing in the bloom energy startup - and now idiots like yourself blindly believe him! so when big business talks about climate, they are necessary telling the truth. that's rich, considering the rate at which china is pumping out pollution.

bdrasin says

And yet somehow everyone keeps quiet even after they have tenure. Odd.

that's a flimsy ass counterpoint. see above about your naive understanding of tenure.

bdrasin says

And now we get to the top of the pyramid! The ultimate source of this deep web of corruption: the business and political elites are behind the whole thing (and knowing that it's a lie) for the specific purpose of causing civil unrest and economic distress.

Thank you for the trip down the rabbit hole; I have to say I couldn't have come up with that myself. If I hadn't been on this board for so long I'd think you were trolling. I think I'm going back to lurking now; have fun.

nice try again mis-characterizing my post due to the fact that your smarmy attempt to uncover "deniers" as morons has backfired on you. it is because of civil unrest and economic distress that governments seek more control, not the other way around. consider the massive digital surveillance programs of recent controversy. increasing taxation in this scenario will not work. sure, there are plenty of gullible people that actually drink the green-aid but at the core of this agenda is an intrusion of government into personal freedoms including how people live, how they get around, and how the work. much easier to downsize americans by their own volition via greenwash than by taking more of their money to help manage a downward spiral.

landtof says

not what i said, and you are certainly trolling at this point. they don't want to (or socially can't) function inside industry - have you ever known an academic? i do, as very close family friends but they are train wrecks. so yes, they are completely dependent on university funding to perpetually put off becoming a full blown adult.

I know and have known a great many and your comment is basically just a tired old cliche. And more to the point, even if what you said was true, so what? Why would climatologists not want to work in academia? Presumably there are far more opportunities for them than the limited openings in the private sector as it is a research based field. They are also free from the obvious pressures that may be exerted when working for certain industries.landtof says

you're a real piece of shit with no clue what he/she is talking about. a quick search of the cases listed on the FIRE website reveals:

Marquette University: Faculty Member Facing Loss of Tenure for Opinions on Blog

https://www.thefire.org/cases/marquette-university-faculty-member-facing-loss-of-tenure-for-opinions-on-blog/

That's a rather poor example considering the reason why he might be facing loss of tenure. That looks like it relates to infringement of the kind of written guidelines (for the protection of student rights) in most (all?) universities. That has nothing to do with singing the supposed right song when it comes to scientific research.

landtof says

that's a flimsy ass counterpoint. see above about your naive understanding of tenure.

Except tenure gives you a great deal of protection within the realms of the work you produce. See your above example as not being evidence of what you thought it was.

landtof says

but at the core of this agenda is an intrusion of government into personal freedoms including how people live, how they get around, and how the work.

And what about 'intruding' into how industries operate? Much better to let big business do whatever the hell it wants so that it's free to maximize profit without a thought given to the future.

Bigsby says

summary of my points:

* academics DO have incentive to pursue certain well-funded research areas and also to withhold or manipulate data to conform to the expectations of the customer - this is called conflict of interest and it would be incredibly ignorant to assume that it does not exist within climate science. many actually contend that COI dominates climate science today because of the government's current interest level and the business opportunities that follow. the assumption that climate change is man-made is a fucking joke considering the age of the planet compared to duration of data collection.

* tenure DOES NOT equal permanent job stability, in fact there are many cases where disagreeing with the popular leftist group-think will get you shit canned. this could easily apply to climate science as it does to gay rights. notice that my original point of new academics searching for jobs being forced into a mould was never countered.

* government has the obligation to regulate business in cases where such regulation protects the people. e.g. dumping toxic waste that may cause higher cancer rates in nearby communities. it does not have the authority to use a grand-scale unproven global theory to exert itself over every industry and individual activity that it deems "unclean and contributory to the global theory" while incentivizing those it favors.

landtof says

* academics DO have incentive to pursue certain well-funded research areas and also to withhold or manipulate data to conform to the expectations of the customer - this is called conflict of interest and it would be incredibly ignorant to assume that it does not exist within climate science. many actually contend that COI dominates climate science today because of the government's current interest level and the business opportunities that follow. the assumption that climate change is man-made is a fucking joke considering the age of the planet compared to duration of data collection.

A grant is a grant. They put forward their research proposal and get funding or not. Once they have the funding, who exactly are they beholden to? They don't profit from the grant - it simply allows them to pursue the areas they are interested in. You are talking about the overwhelming majority of people working in the field and are trying to make some kind of mileage out of a supposed conflict of interest. It is the scientists in academia who have the least conflict of interest. Look at those scientists working for oil etc. for the real problem.

landtof says

* tenure DOES NOT equal permanent job stability, in fact there are many cases where disagreeing with the popular leftist group-think will get you shit canned. this could easily apply to climate science as it does to gay rights. notice that my original point of new academics searching for jobs being forced into a mould was never countered.

We are talking about climatology. Show me examples where a scientist has lost their tenure based on actual research they've done rather than say voicing homophobic beliefs or the like (and that obviously run contrary to the type of written guidelines you see at universities these days).

landtof says

* government has the obligation to regulate business in cases where such regulation protects the people. e.g. dumping toxic waste that may cause higher cancer rates in nearby communities. it does not have the authority to use a grand-scale unproven global theory to exert itself over every industry and individual activity that it deems "unclean and contributory to the global theory" while incentivizing those it favors.

Unproven according to whom? When 97% of the peer-reviewed papers on the subject run contrary to what you are saying, then tell me where it gets much more 'proven' than that. Just because you don't want to accept it, doesn't mean that science hasn't, and hey, who should we put more trust in, you who knows nothing about the science involved, or the people who actually dedicate their lives to doing the research?

Which answers the question of conflict of interest.
If enough headway is not made during the timeframe of the first grant, successive grants (read "paychecks") are in jeopardy. Time to massage the numbers for personal security??

Bigsby says

A grant is a grant. They put forward their research proposal and get funding or not.

SoftShell says

Which answers the question of conflict of interest.

If enough headway is not made during the timeframe of the first grant, successive grants (read "paychecks") are in jeopardy. Time to massage the numbers for personal security??

Grants aren't paychecks for tenured professors, are they? They're funding for research of interest to them. And what do you think a grant proposal entails? They aren't saying that 'I'm going to prove global warming by doing X,' are they? The scientists do very specific research that contributes to overall understanding of what is happening.

Ironman says

Like when CO2 goes from 300 ppm to 400 ppm means we're all going to die? Any idea what the optimum level of CO2 is for plant growth?

A quick google search says ~1500ppm is best for plant growth. Unfortunately, best for plants doesn't equal best for humans.

Bigsby says

Unproven according to whom? When 97% of the peer-reviewed papers on the subject run contrary to what you are saying, then tell me where it gets much more 'proven' than that. Just because you don't want to accept it, doesn't mean that science hasn't, and hey, who should we put more trust in, you who knows nothing about the science involved, or the people who actually dedicate their lives to doing the research?

see my post about the new secular church. the basic assumption of this research that climate change is man-made is egregious. trying to claim proven understanding about weather with a limited set of data compared to the age of the planet is absolute nonsense.

landtof says

see my post about the new secular church. the basic assumption of this research that climate change is man-made is egregious. trying to claim proven understanding about weather with a limited set of data compared to the age of the planet is absolute nonsense.

'The new secular church?'You mean science rather than religion? What would your comments be if we were talking about evolution? That it's only a 'theory'?
You claiming that it is a nonsense is the only nonsense here. This has nothing to do with assumptions and everything to do with hard science. You are dismissing thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed papers based on what exactly?

anonymous says

Climate bad - financial services (Banks, Wall Street, etc.) good. Is this how it works ?

nobody is saying that. different topic altogether. most people here would agree that lax regulation of wall street is a serious problem.