8 ms·

Yes, it looks like the election season is 'warming' and someone turned on the propaganda machine again with Goebel's old rule: Just repeat it often enough and

Yes, it looks like the election season is 'warming' and someone turned on the propaganda machine again with Goebel's old rule: Just repeat it often enough and people will come to believe it. Global warming is real to the present depending on when one starts to count from. In the past the earth has been at times warmer than now and cooler than now. Humans responsible? Human are clearly responsible for some global warming: E.g., light a match and warm the earth. But humans clearly are not responsible for all the quite wild changes in climate in the geological record before humans even existed. And it is tough to say that humans had much to do with the earth falling into the Little Ice Age or starting to come out of it. Is current human activity significantly warming the earth? I have looked hard yet seen no credible reports that it is. No, I do not count Guru Ramaswami's 'radiative forcing' crapola at the center of the IPCC documents. For 'climate science', that is nearly all just a flim flam fraud scam by a closed group of people pushing their orthodoxy to push their own careers. I know; I know: One of Al Guru's Yale profs liked to take vacations in Hawaii so put a CO2 sampling station there and has CO2 concentration data for some decades. Then the screaming started: "CO2 is a greenhouse gas, will 'trap' heat and warm the planet, and we will DESTROY THE EARTH." BS. CO2 only absorbs in three narrow bands, one for each of bending, twisting, and stretching of the molecule, and all three bands are out in the infrared. Net, CO2 doesn't absorb much energy and is trivial, a nit, compared with water vapor, methane, clouds, etc. The CO2 is just something to scream about. My understanding is that the predictions of rapid warming by the 'climate scientists' over the past few decades never happened thus seriously hurting their credibility. Heck, the 'leading climate scientist' back in 1970 or so (I'll save the time to look up his name, claims, and date -- but you remember, it was a 'Newsweek' or 'Time' cover story) about 'global cooling'. For the article, it seems to have gotten the memo: Don't talk about 'global warming' and, instead, talk about 'climate change'. So, jumping in with the media, the article seems to go along with the suggestion that human activity has caused climate change has caused extreme climate this spring caused many more than the usual spring tornadoes in the US and, in particular, ones aimed at population centers, all without any serious, numerical, historical data on tornadoes in the US. Sure: ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and PBS can get people up on their hind legs this way, but not me. So, the screaming is just flim flam to stir up hysteria. I have seen no "organized disinformation campaign", and you provided no evidence of one. It's not about a "campaign". Instead it's about the climate and solid evidence and science about the climate. So far, net, 'no worries, mate'. For the flim flam fraudsters, ROFL. I used to debate all this nonsense on Reddit but gave up on Reddit and saw that mostly everyone saw that the global warming crowd was just pushing a fraud and quit listening. So, I quit arguing. So, I'm not going to dig out all my details on the 'radiative forcing' crapola at the center of the IPCC garbage, the NASA guy who makes so much noise, the good work done by the guy at MIT, the Hadley e-mail data, the 50 cent per KWH solar power in Germany, the wacko Al Guru graph that failed to notice that in the geological record from the Vostok ice core data the CO2 increased hundreds of years AFTER the temperature increased, etc. The whole thing is dishonest science and a flim flam fraud scam. I've got good news for you: Relax. F'get about Al Guru, Cap and Trade, shutting down coal plants and, thus, wrecking the US economy, the polar bears, the whales, the rising sea levels, etc. Let the EPA enviro-wackos get real jobs and save the tax money. Let Icemelt Immelt find something useful to do. Let Al Guru find some more acolyte chicks to bed. Tell the UN IPCC to go back to railroad engineering. F'get about the fraud. Give up on the morality play of human sin and evil and the classic dramatic trilogy of transgression, retribution, and redemption. If you like that trilogy, then listen to Wagner's 'Ring' or 'Parsifal' or Tolkien's 'Ring' or 'Star Wars'. Relax. After all, it's just a movie.

oelewapperke 15y ago
Well the answer you're looking for is that you're right. CO2 is only responsible for a tiny part of global warming. However, there's a feedback loop. The theory is that the climate system is fundamentally unstable. A relatively tiny (but still quite large) amount of warming "upsets the balance" and causes warming by increasing water vapor in the athmosphere, the real greenhouse gas, which is a runaway mechanism. Additionally increased heat releases CO2 from the oceans, again increasing the situation. So once CO2 started to cause a tiny bit of warming (probably before or during the 19th century, and more likely volcanic than human in origin), the reaction started, and it's been running ever since. Of course, this does mean that even if all humans died today, after carefully shutting down every car and power plant, global warming wouldn't stop. It might (the simulations are inconclusive on this point) slow down.
leot 15y ago
Oh for heaven's sake: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php
- NY_USA_Hacker 15y ago
  I have no connection with Exxon or anything in climate studies. Instead, my interests are well represented here on HN. I have never gotten even one penny in research grants from anything having to do with climate in any sense. So, the claim of the Web site at your URL that Exxon is funding 'skeptics' is irrelevant to me. There's nothing significant against Exxon at that Web site, certainly nothing like your "organized disinformation campaign". Maybe Exxon funded some 'climate science', although the Web site gave no evidence. Well, how'd the whole 'global warming' thing get started anyway? Sure: VP Al Guru told the NSF, etc. to fund his buddies for 'climate alarmism'. That's how the 'closed community' of 'climate science' alarmists got started: They all reviewed each other's research papers and grant proposals, and they all knew that there was only one source of money, Al Guru, and that that source wanted only one answer -- human CO2 raising temperatures. Now that they are on the back of that tiger, and could not have a career in science anywhere else, they have to just keep riding that tiger. But your URL has alarmist nonsense about extreme weather -- droughts heat waves, etc. There's essentially no connection between such things and the arguments about global warming, at least not for decades or centuries. So, the increases in temperature over the past few decades are so small that they are tough to measure or to show an increase, but even without showing an increase in temperature we are supposed to believe that the increase, too small to measure, is causing massive climate 'change' now, as with the tornadoes this spring? Total reeking BS. But when the predictions for global warming clearly didn't happen, there was a memo to talk about climate 'change'. While global 'warming' can be characterized by just average temperature, say, over the planet, over a year, measured by, say, satellite, and while some temperature records go back hundreds of years and some temperature evidence, say, ice core data, goes back hundreds of thousands of years, climate 'change' is MUCH more difficult to evaluate, e.g., compare with the past. While the past temperature record is nothing like what we can measure today, the climate 'change' record is much worse. So, the climate change screamers can keep screaming, as for the tornadoes this spring, without much comparison with the past. For the funding corrupting science, f'get about Exxon and concentrate on Al Guru. That is, the LESS data they have, the MORE screaming they are free to do. We just should refuse to listen. Besides, the usual media, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, just LOVE the morality play of evil humans doing transgressions and causing retribution and the drama of tornadoes. Grab'm by the gut, and their eyeballs will be sure to follow, and then get the ad revenue. Those media outlets are in the ad business and will push anything at all, any sewage -- crime, scandal, blood, danger -- that can be turned into drama to grab people by the heart, the gut, and below the belt. E.g., what was the frequency of tornadoes in the area of the present state of Kansas each year over the past 400 years? Not a chance of getting good data. And, heck, the media won't even report such frequency data over the past, say, decade. Why not? The data would show no significant change, have no drama, and would kill the made up story with drama. So, the tornadoes this spring can be screamed to be from 'climate change' from evil humans, as we have heard. You are spouting just alarmist nonsense. The data for human caused significant global warming is BS; for climate change, much worse. You have no serious evidence. You didn't take my advice just to relax and f'get about Al Guru. How much are YOU getting paid?

oelewapperke 15y ago

Well the answer you're looking for is that you're right. CO2 is only responsible for a tiny part of global warming. However, there's a feedback loop. The theory is that the climate system is fundamentally unstable. A relatively tiny (but still quite large) amount of warming "upsets the balance" and causes warming by increasing water vapor in the athmosphere, the real greenhouse gas, which is a runaway mechanism. Additionally increased heat releases CO2 from the oceans, again increasing the situation. So once CO2 started to cause a tiny bit of warming (probably before or during the 19th century, and more likely volcanic than human in origin), the reaction started, and it's been running ever since. Of course, this does mean that even if all humans died today, after carefully shutting down every car and power plant, global warming wouldn't stop. It might (the simulations are inconclusive on this point) slow down.

leot 15y ago

Oh for heaven's sake: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php

NY_USA_Hacker 15y ago
I have no connection with Exxon or anything in climate studies. Instead, my interests are well represented here on HN. I have never gotten even one penny in research grants from anything having to do with climate in any sense. So, the claim of the Web site at your URL that Exxon is funding 'skeptics' is irrelevant to me. There's nothing significant against Exxon at that Web site, certainly nothing like your "organized disinformation campaign". Maybe Exxon funded some 'climate science', although the Web site gave no evidence. Well, how'd the whole 'global warming' thing get started anyway? Sure: VP Al Guru told the NSF, etc. to fund his buddies for 'climate alarmism'. That's how the 'closed community' of 'climate science' alarmists got started: They all reviewed each other's research papers and grant proposals, and they all knew that there was only one source of money, Al Guru, and that that source wanted only one answer -- human CO2 raising temperatures. Now that they are on the back of that tiger, and could not have a career in science anywhere else, they have to just keep riding that tiger. But your URL has alarmist nonsense about extreme weather -- droughts heat waves, etc. There's essentially no connection between such things and the arguments about global warming, at least not for decades or centuries. So, the increases in temperature over the past few decades are so small that they are tough to measure or to show an increase, but even without showing an increase in temperature we are supposed to believe that the increase, too small to measure, is causing massive climate 'change' now, as with the tornadoes this spring? Total reeking BS. But when the predictions for global warming clearly didn't happen, there was a memo to talk about climate 'change'. While global 'warming' can be characterized by just average temperature, say, over the planet, over a year, measured by, say, satellite, and while some temperature records go back hundreds of years and some temperature evidence, say, ice core data, goes back hundreds of thousands of years, climate 'change' is MUCH more difficult to evaluate, e.g., compare with the past. While the past temperature record is nothing like what we can measure today, the climate 'change' record is much worse. So, the climate change screamers can keep screaming, as for the tornadoes this spring, without much comparison with the past. For the funding corrupting science, f'get about Exxon and concentrate on Al Guru. That is, the LESS data they have, the MORE screaming they are free to do. We just should refuse to listen. Besides, the usual media, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, just LOVE the morality play of evil humans doing transgressions and causing retribution and the drama of tornadoes. Grab'm by the gut, and their eyeballs will be sure to follow, and then get the ad revenue. Those media outlets are in the ad business and will push anything at all, any sewage -- crime, scandal, blood, danger -- that can be turned into drama to grab people by the heart, the gut, and below the belt. E.g., what was the frequency of tornadoes in the area of the present state of Kansas each year over the past 400 years? Not a chance of getting good data. And, heck, the media won't even report such frequency data over the past, say, decade. Why not? The data would show no significant change, have no drama, and would kill the made up story with drama. So, the tornadoes this spring can be screamed to be from 'climate change' from evil humans, as we have heard. You are spouting just alarmist nonsense. The data for human caused significant global warming is BS; for climate change, much worse. You have no serious evidence. You didn't take my advice just to relax and f'get about Al Guru. How much are YOU getting paid?