Everything Climate Change

[mcHAPPY]

People in Britain (northern/Scotland mostly) have been most affected over the last month and 13-14 as well.

In Ontario we just had a very unusual green Christmas! I liked it...had a lot of driving to do (airports & shopping etc) and I am just not a fan of crushing the snow on highways driving in slush. But is this a one-of or a pattern building. Climate change as an issue has certainly come up. The El Nino effect (warm ocean currents) as well. The Nino effect is known to be cyclical so far but a considered view by many scientists is that the combination of the two is most likely....the warmth generated by both conditions is translating into deadly weather.

The piece below articulates the phenomena further.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...limate-change/

Shit happens.

Shit has always happened.

Yes, it was warm in Ontario. I really enjoyed my weekend there in early December - 13 degrees was awesome. But it isn't warm everywhere. And the warm temperatures in Ontario are coming to an end - soon.



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-1...-massive-rally


Money talks: check nat gas futures. Buuurrrrrrrr!

[Bendit]

Shit happens.

Shit has always happened.

Yes, it was warm in Ontario. I really enjoyed my weekend there in early December - 13 degrees was awesome. But it isn't warm everywhere. And the warm temperatures in Ontario are coming to an end - soon.



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-1...-massive-rally


Money talks: check nat gas futures. Buuurrrrrrrr!

Yes indeed. Shit happens. This ism however is sometimes used to sweep unexplainable phenomena under the rug so to speak. As we all should know there are many who can explain this shit or at least postulate on a coherent scientific reasoning as to the origins of said shit. Is this current spate of dicey weather a cause for concern?...is really what that article was about given the multiple examples.

You well know that weather patterns at any given time are not uniform all over the globe nor for that matter in as wide-spanned a country as Canada. What is abnormal is that large swaths of land mass are experiencing unseasonal weather. Global warming will do that...and it certainly doesn't mean that earth uniformly has to show warmth to prove that point...for awhile yet.

Below is the uber scientific weather channel site with their prognostications of December-February weather pattern. Notice that seasonal temps. seem to have gone topsy turvy according to those "brainiacs". Personally, I hope it reverses.

Re your closing...have you seen "The Big Short"? Well made I thought and instructive about the herd. Hope those who set the market on gas futures have consulted with the weather channel folks ....just in case.





http://www.weather.com/forecast/nati...nuary-february

[mcHAPPY]

Yes indeed. Shit happens. This ism however is sometimes used to sweep unexplainable phenomena under the rug so to speak. As we all should know there are many who can explain this shit or at least postulate on a coherent scientific reasoning as to the origins of said shit. Is this current spate of dicey weather a cause for concern?...is really what that article was about given the multiple examples.

You well know that weather patterns at any given time are not uniform all over the globe nor for that matter in as wide-spanned a country as Canada. What is abnormal is that large swaths of land mass are experiencing unseasonal weather. Global warming will do that...and it certainly doesn't mean that earth uniformly has to show warmth to prove that point...for awhile yet.

Below is the uber scientific weather channel site with their prognostications of December-February weather pattern. Notice that seasonal temps. seem to have gone topsy turvy according to those "brainiacs". Personally, I hope it reverses.

Re your closing...have you seen "The Big Short"? Well made I thought and instructive about the herd. Hope those who set the market on gas futures have consulted with the weather channel folks ....just in case.





http://www.weather.com/forecast/nati...nuary-february

The examples are shit. That is the point. Nothing is new. Even the IPCC has documented there is no connection linking CO2 and weather patterns or events.

Land erosion in Alaska - climate change.
Forest fire in California - climate change.
Warm temps in Ontario - climate change.
Cold temps in Texas - climate change.
Hurricane - climate change.
Flood - climate change.
Tornado - climate change.


All this shit has happened before and it will happen again. The earth is over 6,000,000,000 years old and nature has much more punch than man. If the earth can survive nature, it can survive man. Humans need to get over themselves.


Anyone had time to read this yet? Because no one said anything about it, not surprisingly:

https://www.heartland.org/sites/defa...s_disagree.pdf

[mcHAPPY]

Re: your Big Short query, no, not yet.

But markets are also cyclical in nature.

You'll notice nat gas was at historic lows and oversold - the herd were all on one side of the trade. The pendulum has swung and we're off to the other side.

When everyone is on one side of the boat, you make your way to the other.... no difference with climate change when serious questions and holes in the theory are no longer discussed or viewed and instead are met with:



For all the scientists and politicians hyping climate change, Paris was quite a toothless let down.



We live in very dangerous times where political correctness is eroding away at civil rights and liberties without a fight or whimper. Climate change has become less about science and more about political correctness. Interesting thoughts on political correctness and it being less about etiquette and more about control:

The Role of “Herd Psychology”

Bernays was quite open and even proud of engaging in the “manufacturing of consent,” a term used by British surgeon and psychologist Wilfred Trotter in his seminal Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War published in 1919.

Bernays took the concept of herd psychology to heart. The herd instinct entails the deep seated psychological need to win approval of one’s social group. The herd overwhelms any other influence; as social humans, our need to fit in is paramount.

But however ingrained, in Bernays’s view the herd instinct cannot be trusted. The herd is irrational and dangerous, and must be steered by wiser men in a thousand imperceptible ways — and this is key. They must not know they are being steered.

The techniques Bernays employed are still very much being used to shape political correctness today.

First, he understood how all-powerful the herd mind and herd instinct really is. We are not the special snowflakes we imagine, according to Bernays. Instead we are timorous and malleable creatures who desperately want to fit in and win acceptance of the group.



Second, he understood the critical importance of using third party authorities to promote causes or products. Celebrities, athletes, models, politicians, and wealthy elites are the people from whom the herd takes its cues, whether they’re endorsing transgender awareness or selling luxury cars. So when George Clooney or Kim Kardashian endorses Hillary Clinton, it resonates with the herd.



Third, he understood the role that emotions play in our tastes and preferences. It’s not a particular candidate or cigarette or a watch or a handbag we really want, it’s the emotional component of the ad that affects us, however subconsciously.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-1...-not-etiquette

[Bendit]

The examples are shit. That is the point. Nothing is new. Even the IPCC has documented there is no connection linking CO2 and weather patterns or events.

Land erosion in Alaska - climate change.
Forest fire in California - climate change.
Warm temps in Ontario - climate change.
Cold temps in Texas - climate change.
Hurricane - climate change.
Flood - climate change.
Tornado - climate change.


All this shit has happened before and it will happen again. The earth is over 6,000,000,000 years old and nature has much more punch than man. If the earth can survive nature, it can survive man. Humans need to get over themselves.


Anyone had time to read this yet? Because no one said anything about it, not surprisingly:

https://www.heartland.org/sites/defa...s_disagree.pdf

First bold: You may have missed this in the Wash. Post link...

Nicola Maxey, a press officer from the Met Office (the U.K.’s national weather service), noted in an email to The Washington Post that it was too early to say for sure whether climate change was a major contributor to this winter’s extreme rainfall — but added that evidence from both physics and the study of weather systems suggests that it may have played a part.

The Met Office, in fact, recently published a report in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society examining the causes behind dozens of extreme weather events in 2014, including similarly severe rainfall in the U.K. in the winter of 2013/2014. Using models, the report concluded that anthropogenic climate change likely had a hand in the extreme conditions that winter — the highest rainfall since 1931 — and that climate change increases the chances of extreme rainfall during a time period of 10 consecutive winter days by a factor of seven.

So while scientists frequently warn that individual weather events can’t always be considered an indicator of long-term climatic patterns, the research in this case suggests that climate change is increasing the odds of extreme winter weather events in the U.K. This is in keeping with research from all over the world that suggests that extreme weather, in general, is likely to increase in frequency and intensity all around the world as a result of climate change.

“I think it is fair to conclude that human-caused climate change here too increased the flooding potential of the recent storms,” said Michael Mann, distinguished professor of meteorology at Penn State University, in an email to The Post. “While climate change didn’t ‘cause’ the storms themselves, it has increased the potential for heavy rainfall and flooding with these storms.”

Dont know about the others quoted but Mann is a member of the IPCC. Notice that these individuals are careful not to be absolutely definite as is fitting for scientists without absolute proof. What is powerful however are the linkages. Are they doing this out of self-importance?

Apologies for not communicating on the Heartland NIPCC (why couldn't they come up with another acronym I wonder) report. It is a long one and I am certainly not qualified to comment on the science debate details in there. That no one else has either is probably because there are some very fundamental and entrenched issues on both sides too difficult to overcome at this time. It also seems we are churning here on our posts on the subject ...what I write here I think I have done so before.

As I (and others) have mentioned previously... I come at this mostly through a sense of the arguments posed by others about the dangers of climate change and that man’s involvement in the production of CO2 is contributing to warming. That measured increases in earth’s temps. have risen so rapidly in the period since industrialization took off is a significant driver for myself.

Ultimately I have to listen to the science/data/arguments presented by either side and ultimately decide which are more believable while also considering why so many brilliant minds on the pro-side are locked into some conspiracy of data manipulation when presenting their arguments. Careerism seems to me to be the most “powerful” argument the anti forces presents as reason enough to persuade someone such as myself to ponder my position.

The paradox is that that the anti side are supported financially by some of the largest fossil fuel producers (the conflict of interest is palpable) and political forces who are fundamentally anti-tax and even anti-science. The extremes even drag religion into the debate. The tax issue is important since that has been proven in the past as being a fairly successful method (and accepted in the past by the business community) of reigning in rampant use of dirty fuels and lessening CO2 emissions.

So, which side has the science, moral high ground or the financial/political interests to pursue their respective agenda?

The Heartland Inst. you cite quite often have in the past been the spear in the arguments for the Tobacco industry and against the Acid rain reality among other projects. Now fossil fuels. I believe Cap&Trade was first developed to combat the acid rain problem and later embraced by business as a successful mechanism. Canada benefitted greatly from this. We know that in the first 2 cases at least the Heartland positions were totally discredited. I am sure their sister inst. the AEI were lockstep as well.

Simply put, their credibility is a big issue.

For those who believe that even if it were discovered the CO2 was not the driving force behind climate change isn’t it worth curbing rather than guessing against and not doing anything? Either way it would be a positive... diminishing pollution and improving health conditions would be immediate benefits.

In the meantime just being dismissive of changing weather patterns makes no sense. Eg. disease has always been part of the human experience as well....that doesn’t mean we don’t attempt to figure out how to combat a particular scourge.

And you cannot use the term “cyclical” with nature as you do with the markets please. Nature changes occur over large time periods vs. mere years (typically single digit) for an economic cycle. However, the human is now involved in altering both nature and the markets...creating CO2 with unregulated industrialization and financial meltdowns with unregulated markets. This has nothing to do with “cycles” imo... though I will concede that maturity of technology/understanding of the science was an issue in the past.

[mcHAPPY]

First bold: You may have missed this in the Wash. Post link...



Dont know about the others quoted but Mann is a member of the IPCC. Notice that these individuals are careful not to be absolutely definite as is fitting for scientists without absolute proof. What is powerful however are the linkages. Are they doing this out of self-importance?

Apologies for not communicating on the Heartland NIPCC (why couldn't they come up with another acronym I wonder) report. It is a long one and I am certainly not qualified to comment on the science debate details in there. That no one else has either is probably because there are some very fundamental and entrenched issues on both sides too difficult to overcome at this time. It also seems we are churning here on our posts on the subject ...what I write here I think I have done so before.

As I (and others) have mentioned previously... I come at this mostly through a sense of the arguments posed by others about the dangers of climate change and that man’s involvement in the production of CO2 is contributing to warming. That measured increases in earth’s temps. have risen so rapidly in the period since industrialization took off is a significant driver for myself.

Ultimately I have to listen to the science/data/arguments presented by either side and ultimately decide which are more believable while also considering why so many brilliant minds on the pro-side are locked into some conspiracy of data manipulation when presenting their arguments. Careerism seems to me to be the most “powerful” argument the anti forces presents as reason enough to persuade someone such as myself to ponder my position.

The paradox is that that the anti side are supported financially by some of the largest fossil fuel producers (the conflict of interest is palpable) and political forces who are fundamentally anti-tax and even anti-science. The extremes even drag religion into the debate. The tax issue is important since that has been proven in the past as being a fairly successful method (and accepted in the past by the business community) of reigning in rampant use of dirty fuels and lessening CO2 emissions.

So, which side has the science, moral high ground or the financial/political interests to pursue their respective agenda?

The Heartland Inst. you cite quite often have in the past been the spear in the arguments for the Tobacco industry and against the Acid rain reality among other projects. Now fossil fuels. I believe Cap&Trade was first developed to combat the acid rain problem and later embraced by business as a successful mechanism. Canada benefitted greatly from this. We know that in the first 2 cases at least the Heartland positions were totally discredited. I am sure their sister inst. the AEI were lockstep as well.

Simply put, their credibility is a big issue.

For those who believe that even if it were discovered the CO2 was not the driving force behind climate change isn’t it worth curbing rather than guessing against and not doing anything? Either way it would be a positive... diminishing pollution and improving health conditions would be immediate benefits.

In the meantime just being dismissive of changing weather patterns makes no sense. Eg. disease has always been part of the human experience as well....that doesn’t mean we don’t attempt to figure out how to combat a particular scourge.

And you cannot use the term “cyclical” with nature as you do with the markets please. Nature changes occur over large time periods vs. mere years (typically single digit) for an economic cycle. However, the human is now involved in altering both nature and the markets...creating CO2 with unregulated industrialization and financial meltdowns with unregulated markets. This has nothing to do with “cycles” imo... though I will concede that maturity of technology/understanding of the science was an issue in the past.

I find the credibility argument to be a cop out. There are hundreds if not thousands of articles in that link - many by people supporting climate change despite their own evidence to contrary. But if we are going to start questioning credibility Climategate, adjusted data, etc. lots of credibility issues to be thrown around.

There is evidence of cycles in weather. Cycles are everywhere in just about everything.

http://rexresearch.com/prophist/phf9.htm#PHF66

[Bendit]

I find the credibility argument to be a cop out. There are hundreds if not thousands of articles in that link - many by people supporting climate change despite their own evidence to contrary. But if we are going to start questioning credibility Climategate, adjusted data, etc. lots of credibility issues to be thrown around.

There is evidence of cycles in weather. Cycles are everywhere in just about everything.

http://rexresearch.com/prophist/phf9.htm#PHF66

Bold: Seriously? Did you just gloss over my reasoning or do you refuse to accept their involvement in supporting (for financial gain of course) some pretty sketchy projects when in possession of their own evidence to the contrary? Used to be Phillip Morris et al now it's Exxon...the same m.o. What about this viewpoint of mine on credibility escapes you? They maybe have a point somewhere in all of their arguments and factoids...BUT....they still have a credibility issue.

Seems I have been recommending movies lately. Here's another good one..The Insider about a whistleblower on the tobacco industry...and what they tried to do to him. Think ...Heartland in there helping out.

Re Climategate...you well know how many investigations/factchecks done by orgs. from outside the CC institutional setup who have explained/exonerated/found no insidious intent (whatever) to manipulate etc. that is being thrown their way. What has become btw of Prof Ewert's recent claims about Nasa? I notice that even Heartland makes no mention of him or his claims on their site. At least I cant find any. Isn't that strange?

Your link is interesting reading (better than the Heartland Npicc report) ...learn something all the time. But he also has that disclaimer at the very end.

[mcHAPPY]

Bold: Seriously? Did you just gloss over my reasoning or do you refuse to accept their involvement in supporting (for financial gain of course) some pretty sketchy projects when in possession of their own evidence to the contrary? Used to be Phillip Morris et al now it's Exxon...the same m.o. What about this viewpoint of mine on credibility escapes you? They maybe have a point somewhere in all of their arguments and factoids...BUT....they still have a credibility issue.

Seems I have been recommending movies lately. Here's another good one..The Insider about a whistleblower on the tobacco industry...and what they tried to do to him. Think ...Heartland in there helping out.

Re Climategate...you well know how many investigations/factchecks done by orgs. from outside the CC institutional setup who have explained/exonerated/found no insidious intent (whatever) to manipulate etc. that is being thrown their way. What has become btw of Prof Ewert's recent claims about Nasa? I notice that even Heartland makes no mention of him or his claims on their site. At least I cant find any. Isn't that strange?

Your link is interesting reading (better than the Heartland Npicc report) ...learn something all the time. But he also has that disclaimer at the very end.

You focus on heartland, they are merely a financial backer of the Npicc.

So instead of focusing on what the scientists at the NPICC have found through all sorts of peered reviewed research, you continue to hammer at Heartland.

[Bendit]

You focus on heartland, they are merely a financial backer of the Npicc.

So instead of focusing on what the scientists at the NPICC have found through all sorts of peered reviewed research, you continue to hammer at Heartland.

I don't really want to "pound the rock" anymore on this except to close by observing that there would be no NPICC without Heartland. They are inextricably linked in all manners.

In any case we live in a system which only improves with opposing viewpoints. And in science especially this is important. We should all welcome reviews of any presented data pointing (or not) to real conditions in the climate area. Hope Heartland continues to exist and provide credible opposition. It can only serve to make the IPCC more accountable at least.

One more point: the term "peer review" is tenuous in these polarized circumstances. Can you point to any specific pronouncement/papers produced by the anti Anti-CC side which was peer reviewed and agreed upon by scientists in the IPCC group? I am sure that similar results exist in a role reversal. Hence...stalemate...entrenchment of views.

We shall just have to play this out I am afraid until there is "unequivocal" and undisputable scientific based realization on this matter. Even then as evidenced by the still on going debate (in some circles) on evolution, Darwin etc there shall be dissent.

[Nilanka]

If the earth can survive nature, it can survive man.

You're absolutely right. Earth will survive anything man does to it. There's nothing to worry about there.

But Earth is not the concern. Man's ability to live on Earth, is the concern.

[SkywalkerAC]

You're absolutely right. Earth will survive anything man does to it. There's nothing to worry about there.

But Earth is not the concern. Man's ability to live on Earth, is the concern.

Along with the number of species and human lives that will be extinguished as the biosphere adapts.

[Nilanka]

Merchants of Doubt

Finally got around to watching this. This discussion is almost laughable in hindsight.

[Bendit]

Finally got around to watching this. This discussion is almost laughable in hindsight.

The poor chimpanzee ....

Remember the rude, loudmouth tv talk show host boasting about his habit? Here is a blurb re Downey...

In 1996, Downey was diagnosed with lung cancer and had one of his lungs removed. He did a complete about-face on the issue of tobacco use, going from a one-time member of the National Smokers Alliance to a staunch anti-smoking activist.[44] He continued to speak against smoking until his death from lung cancer in 2001.

After being diagnosed with lung cancer, he commented, "I had spawned a generation of kids to think it was cool to smoke a cigarette. Kids walked up to me until a matter of weeks ago, they'd have a cigarette in their hand and they'd say, 'Hey, Mort,' or, 'Hey, Mouth, autograph my cigarette.' And I'd do it."[2] He also blamed tobacco companies for lying to consumers about cigarettes.

He shoulda apologized to the chimp as well.

[SkywalkerAC]

Finally got around to watching this. This discussion is almost laughable in hindsight.

It was always laughable regardless.

[Miekenstien]

http://news.yahoo.com/why-greenland-...000737703.html