99.996% of Castanetters agree: Global warming is false

[logicalview]

If we don't get control over it, .

The biggest hoax of all that's been sold to the truly naïve and gullible is that somehow mankind can control the world's climate. If you can convince someone that this is possible, then there is truly nothing that they won't believe. How someone can scoff at mainstream religions, and yet "believe" preposterous nonsense like AGW or that "we can control the climate" is a huge paradox indeed.

[JLives]

There are these things called facts that I base my decisions on.

By control I mean slow the acceleration while we figure out the next step before the planet in uninhabitable.

[Glacier]

It seems like when people can't attack the argument they start smearing people with unproven links to dirty money.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000292301

[Retrosnap]

An article in the June 13, 2014, issue of Science admits the computer climate models are not effective at forecasting either future or past temperatures. The Science piece says the current models are “bloated with data,” but still cannot represent such huge variables as clouds and shifts in ocean currents. Statisticians are recommending a re-start.

See the rest here...

http://www.cfact.org/2014/07/09/science-recommends-climate-model-re-start/

[logicalview]

There are these things called facts that I base my decisions on.
.

LOL - you mean "unproven scientific hypotheses".

[logicalview]

An article in the June 13, 2014, issue of Science admits the computer climate models are not effective at forecasting either future or past temperatures. The Science piece says the current models are “bloated with data,” but still cannot represent such huge variables as clouds and shifts in ocean currents. Statisticians are recommending a re-start.

See the rest here...

http://www.cfact.org/2014/07/09/science-recommends-climate-model-re-start/

Wow. This is earth-shattering on many levels. First it is important to note that this article is appearing in "Science" magazine, which has been one of those most gob-slobbering in its promotion of the AGW myth. But THEN, to actually read what has been posted, and to see how close it is in agreement with a lot of the "Koch brother financed" "deniers" and "Flat-earthers" have been saying, it is just amazing. Neil Degrasse Tyson is going to blow out his ACL back-pedaling from all of his stupid "gravity" comments. This is HUGE!!!! Bravo to Science! Next up - NATURE!

At the same time, new studies are revealing that the sun has an even bigger role in climate than the current climate models understand.

One of the new papers finds that the amount of time the sun is obscured from the earth by clouds is “highly correlated” with temperatures over the past 50 years. That was true both in the global dimming of the 1960s and 1970s and during the brightening of the 1990s and 2000s. The authors studied 10 climate variables over that period. (Spinoni et al., “Climate of the Carpathian Region in the period 1961–2010,” International Journal of Climatology online.)

The Spinoni team also found a decreasing trend in relative humidity over the past 50 years, which is contrary to the current models’ assumptions. That supports the theory that the greenhouse gas impacts are becoming increasingly saturated and thus less frightening.

Another recent paper in the Journal of Solar and Terrestrial Physics predicts global temperatures will fall by up to 1º C by 2020 due to low solar activity. Solheim et al. note that long solar cycles (like the one we’re currently in) predict more solar dimming. (Solheim et al., “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24,” Journal of Solar and Terrestrial Physics 80, 2012).

- See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/07/09/science ... 3R52z.dpuf

What I expect now is for the eco-cultists and AGW religionists to start spouting nonsense about how Science is funded by "Big Oil" etc. That's their only response to anything that doesn't fall in line with their doomsday nonsense.

[ForestfortheTrees]

Wow. This is earth-shattering on many levels. First it is important to note that this article is appearing in "Science" magazine, which has been one of those most gob-slobbering in its promotion of the AGW myth. But THEN, to actually read what has been posted, and to see how close it is in agreement with a lot of the "Koch brother financed" "deniers" and "Flat-earthers" have been saying, it is just amazing. Neil Degrasse Tyson is going to blow out his ACL back-pedaling from all of his stupid "gravity" comments. This is HUGE!!!! Bravo to Science! Next up - NATURE!

Well, I just read the Science article and it is not as Earth shattering as you, or the author of the cfact article is suggesting. A lot of the discussion is on the differences between deterministic models (which are currently used) and stochastic models (which some scientists are advocating for). One big problem they discuss with the current deterministic models is the amount of processing power required to run them, which makes them slow and expensive. So, the 'restart' is scientist discussing the best ways to model climate, not that there has been some great fraud.

Here is the paragraph this is of most interest:

Last year, for example, scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) systematically compared the predictions of 20 major climate models against the past 6 decades of climate data. The results were disappointing, says Ben Kirtman, a climate scientist at the University of Miami in Florida and coordinating author of the near-term predictability chapter of last year's fifth IPCC assessment report. The models performed well in predicting the global mean surface temperature and had some predictive value in the Atlantic Ocean, but they were virtually useless at forecasting conditions over the vast Pacific Ocean

I imagine some will fixate on The results were disappointing and they were virtually useless at forecasting conditions over the vast Pacific Ocean while others will fixate on The models performed well in predicting the global mean surface temperature. What that all means is that it's not a perfect world and people are discussing the best ways to move forward. Not, that this is some Earth-shattering revelation about some great fraud.

Speaking of fraud, it is interesting to note that the 'cfact' article runs the headline "Science recommends climate model re-start," but then he only mentions the 'Science' magazine article in the first paragraph. All the rest of the content is drawn from elsewhere and his own conjecture.

Also, for interest sake, the author of the Science article is a "scientific writer."

[Oxl3y]

Personally I believe that it is arrogant as a species to believe we have any sort of lasting effect on our planet. The earth is going to do whatever it wants and although it may be possible that we could accelerate it the weather changes we are witnessing they would have occurred naturally without us.

However this doesn't mean that I think we don't need to take steps to reduce emissions, or attempt to be as environmentally friendly as possible. It's our home we are messing up and even animals are intelligent to not crap where they sleep. Stopping pipelines and other major projects like that is just not realistic but striving to make every project better than the last in terms of environmental impact should be our goal.

[The Rooster]

If Al Gore or David Suzuki live in a yacht floating on top of a sky scraper powered by burning endangered animals it does not change the fact we are accelerating climate change. The science has nothing to do with the lifestyles of media personalities and celebrities.

You realize that the earth is spinning on an axis right ? It's Moooovvviiinnnggggg, when things move they change . Too much wind and the tops of trees die , tsunami in Idonesia was cause by an earth quake . The earth has gone through multiple ice ages , the climate is always changing , but it's not Canada's fault . Go after the three big polluters that cause 80% of the worlds GHG 's . The USA , China, India .

Canada needs to focus on it own , and stop trying to be big shots , because "We're not" . Other countries reflect attention to us because they want it off them . *removed*

[Omnitheo]

it's not Canada's fault . Go after the three big polluters that cause 80% of the worlds GHG 's . The USA , China, India .

You say that, but as an average Canadian, you are using 3-4 times as much energy as the average person from China or India. Same with your pollution.

China has a population of 1.3 billion. If you're going to compare a beetle to an elephant, at least try and match the mass. Get all the other beetles and bugs together. Lets look at the energy consumption and pollution levels of western nations who's combined population equals 1.3 billion, and maybe you'll be inclined to shift your views slightly as to where the problem lies.

[maryjane48]

Personally I believe that it is arrogant as a species to believe we have any sort of lasting effect on our planet. The earth is going to do whatever it wants and although it may be possible that we could accelerate it the weather changes we are witnessing they would have occurred naturally without us.

However this doesn't mean that I think we don't need to take steps to reduce emissions, or attempt to be as environmentally friendly as possible. It's our home we are messing up and even animals are intelligent to not crap where they sleep. Stopping pipelines and other major projects like that is just not realistic but striving to make every project better than the last in terms of environmental impact should be our goal.

not true , a nuclear winter will directly affect the planet, in a way that nature would not have

[logicalview]

You say that, but as an average Canadian, you are using 3-4 times as much energy as the average person from China or India. Same with your pollution.

China has a population of 1.3 billion. If you're going to compare a beetle to an elephant, at least try and match the mass. Get all the other beetles and bugs together. Lets look at the energy consumption and pollution levels of western nations who's combined population equals 1.3 billion, and maybe you'll be inclined to shift your views slightly as to where the problem lies.

If you want to live like the people in India to feel better about yourself then go ahead. If you honestly think those people using less energy wouldn't trade places with you in a heartbeat then you are truly naïve.

[Oxl3y]

not true , a nuclear winter will directly affect the planet, in a way that nature would not have

We would die but it would be a mere blip in the life of our planet. So an iceage came early, things will return to normal once the dust settles and the radiation decays.

[coolworx]

Heh...
So 99.996% of Castanetters aren't climatologists.

I bet 99.996% of Castanetters don't believe that dark energy is causing space to expand, but I'll still listen to the astrophysicists.

[Glacier]

Heh...
So 99.996% of Castanetters aren't climatologists.

That is true, but climatologists are fairly evenly divided over the issue just as we find among the general public.