The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

I still think CO2 is small potatoes. I am fascinated (in a Spock-like way) by intermediate axis rotation, the Tennis Racket Paradox (a one-time Soviet space secret), and it starts with that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UJKZTjGCss

The Earth isn't a sphere if you look at the gravitation map.

[aerohead]

In Michael Crichton's,2004,'State of Fear','Crichton claims that a prediction James Hansen made in his 1988 congressional testimony had been ' wrong by 300 percent.' '
'Crichton insisted that the technical aspects of his book were accurate;and he advertised this claim with academic-looking footnotes and a bibliography,which for the rare reader who bothered to examine them,demonstrated that he looked exclusively to deniers for scientific insight and misrepresented the conclusions of real scientists as it suited his purpose.'
A review of the book in MIT's national magazine,Technology Review,began,'Michael Crichton has written the rarest of books,an intellectually dishonest novel.'
In the Fall of 2005,Crichton accepted an invitation by Oklahoma,US Senator,James Inhofe,Chairman,Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,to provide testimony on climate science at one of his committee's hearings. (In 2003,Inhofe,on the floor of the Senate said that global warming was 'the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.').
Crichton's testimony parroted that of J.Patrick Michaels,paid climate skeptic of The Marshall Institute,Western Fuels Association,and Exxon-Mobil.Michaels had doctored materials created for Hansen's 1988 congressional testimony,cherry-picking a 'business-as-usual',worse-case-scenario,giving an illusion of evidence to support Michaels' bogus claims.
Crichton ignored 18-years worth of temperature records he had access to,which supported Hansen's predictions.
Crichton also criticized the modern temperature analysis,arguing 'heat-island' bias,without actually reading Hansen et al.,which had long-since corrected all data to reflect heat-island effects.Of which he had clear access to.
And unbeknownst to Crichton,most warming was occurring in remote,non-urban global locations such as Arctic,Siberia,and mountain glaciers.
It's a federal crime to lie to the government.
Since Crichton failed to fact-check his data,tracing it back to it's origin,his book succeeded in:
*character assassination by pseudo-expert
*biased interpretation
*manipulation of data
*misinterpretation of data
*guilt of omission
*distortion of scientific findings for personal gain
*attempting to link a complex dynamic to a simplistic explanation
*implied scientific rigor unsupported by fact
*Obfuscation of critical information impacting federal policy decision-making
*ignoring counterfactual evidence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crichton would become the only climate '
expert' consulting to President George W. Bush at the White House in 2005,brought together by Karl Rove.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A fabulous miscarriage of democracy.And clear and present danger.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This data is from: CENSORING SCIENCE,Inside The Political Attack on DR. James Hansen And Truth of Global Warming,PH.D. Mark Bowan,2008,Dutton (Penguin Group (USA) Inc.,N.Y.,N.Y.,pps 186-87,236,266,272-73
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS I found a copy of 'State of Fear' this morning for $3. I'll have a look for myself.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by litesong

Hundreds of years ago, methane was 0.7ppm. As perma-frost thaws from AGW, theory considered that methane would be produced from the bio-mass. Ten(?) years ago, spot regions of Arctic perma-frost regions were reported over 2ppm methane & later 3ppm. Most recent evidence show spot readings of methane as high as 16ppm over waters on Siberian continental shelves. As methane bubbles toward the surface, much(most?) methane is absorbed in the waters, before reaching the sea & ocean surfaces. Of course, perma-frost thaws on land do not have absorptive ocean waters.
Yeah, we're below 2ppm methane.......... but not for long. Of course, there is way over the amount of perma-frost bio-mass, if heated, to produce many multiples of 2ppm atmospheric methane.

Also, small recent studies of third place GHG nitrous oxide emissions, long considered to be of negligible concern, show twelve times greater perma-frost thawing release than previously thought.

How 'bout this tidbit:
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-crisis

Just wanted to share that,all the quanta I've seen for atmospheric Methane has been reported in parts-per-billion-by volume (ppbv)

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The excuses you make aren't in line with the context of the ipcc report. If you read it you would understand.

they may not be in line with IPCC reports,but they're certainly in line with the science.

[oil pan 4]

Yeah junk science.

[freebeard]

Y'all can go ahead thanking each other for disagreeing and ignore Dzhanibekov.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Yeah junk science.

If you'd like to expand your comment about the context of junk science in the IPCC report, that would help us all to understand our obvious intellectual shortcomings.Unlike yourself,I remain unable to accomplish Vulcan mind-melds via a computer screen,and rarely have any idea what you're talking about.
Mostly,my experience from your posts are weaponized language in which there's rarely any actual information exchanged,just vitriol.It's quite tiresome.
If you want to urinate, defecate,push your chest out and beat on it,performing intellectual dominance rituals I suppose you're free to do so.
What would really be the deal-breaker for me though,would be for you to demonstrate a true intellectual command of the data.Reading doesn't qualify as understanding.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Y'all can go ahead thanking each other for disagreeing and ignore Dzhanibekov.

I'm done with Skeptical Inquirer for life.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

In Michael Crichton's,2004,'State of Fear','Crichton claims that a prediction James Hansen made in his 1988 congressional testimony had been ' wrong by 300 percent.' '
'Crichton insisted that the technical aspects of his book were accurate;and he advertised this claim with academic-looking footnotes and a bibliography,which for the rare reader who bothered to examine them,demonstrated that he looked exclusively to deniers for scientific insight and misrepresented the conclusions of real scientists as it suited his purpose.'
A review of the book in MIT's national magazine,Technology Review,began,'Michael Crichton has written the rarest of books,an intellectually dishonest novel.'
In the Fall of 2005,Crichton accepted an invitation by Oklahoma,US Senator,James Inhofe,Chairman,Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,to provide testimony on climate science at one of his committee's hearings. (In 2003,Inhofe,on the floor of the Senate said that global warming was 'the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.').
Crichton's testimony parroted that of J.Patrick Michaels,paid climate skeptic of The Marshall Institute,Western Fuels Association,and Exxon-Mobil.Michaels had doctored materials created for Hansen's 1988 congressional testimony,cherry-picking a 'business-as-usual',worse-case-scenario,giving an illusion of evidence to support Michaels' bogus claims.
Crichton ignored 18-years worth of temperature records he had access to,which supported Hansen's predictions.
Crichton also criticized the modern temperature analysis,arguing 'heat-island' bias,without actually reading Hansen et al.,which had long-since corrected all data to reflect heat-island effects.Of which he had clear access to.
And unbeknownst to Crichton,most warming was occurring in remote,non-urban global locations such as Arctic,Siberia,and mountain glaciers.
It's a federal crime to lie to the government.
Since Crichton failed to fact-check his data,tracing it back to it's origin,his book succeeded in:
*character assassination by pseudo-expert
*biased interpretation
*manipulation of data
*misinterpretation of data
*guilt of omission
*distortion of scientific findings for personal gain
*attempting to link a complex dynamic to a simplistic explanation
*implied scientific rigor unsupported by fact
*Obfuscation of critical information impacting federal policy decision-making
*ignoring counterfactual evidence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crichton would become the only climate '
expert' consulting to President George W. Bush at the White House in 2005,brought together by Karl Rove.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A fabulous miscarriage of democracy.And clear and present danger.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This data is from: CENSORING SCIENCE,Inside The Political Attack on DR. James Hansen And Truth of Global Warming,PH.D. Mark Bowan,2008,Dutton (Penguin Group (USA) Inc.,N.Y.,N.Y.,pps 186-87,236,266,272-73
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS I found a copy of 'State of Fear' this morning for $3. I'll have a look for myself.

Except, he said none of what you claimed under oath before congress. I listened to the 10min comments, and he opened by reinforcing the scientific method and how it is meant to be apolitical, and the necessity to have claims independently verified to avoid bias.

The middle was criticism about Mann's methods and practices surrounding his research.

He ended by saying his remarks are not to be construed to ignore climate change.

Not sure where you gathered all the other stuff.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

If you'd like to expand your comment about the context of junk science in the IPCC report, that would help us all to understand our obvious intellectual shortcomings.Unlike yourself,I remain unable to accomplish Vulcan mind-melds via a computer screen,and rarely have any idea what you're talking about.
Mostly,my experience from your posts are weaponized language in which there's rarely any actual information exchanged,just vitriol.It's quite tiresome.
If you want to urinate, defecate,push your chest out and beat on it,performing intellectual dominance rituals I suppose you're free to do so.
What would really be the deal-breaker for me though,would be for you to demonstrate a true intellectual command of the data.Reading doesn't qualify as understanding.

I cite specific portions of a report and you make vague excuses for the ipcc that don't seem to even apply to what I was talking about.
That's alright because in only about 300 pages I found 3 other inconsistencies I was saving incase we got past the first one.

Over all I like the ipcc a lot more since their very public, messy breakup with the dooms day climate cultists.
I for one want the ipcc to do air tight peer reviewed science.
I think that is the worst thing that could happen to the crazy climate nut jobs.