Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by izen

January 21, 2015, 11:44 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by PMHinSC

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by gbaikie

$

0

0

@-New Class Traitor
“Judith Curry (who unlike most, is interested in actually finding out what is going on, rather than fattening up the funding gravy train)”

There are a number of ‘gravy trains’ trundling around the political system, one of the largest, perhaps it could be called a significant contribution, or ‘most’ of that gravy comes from the fossil fuel industry.

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01

“Companies with interests in oil and gas contributed more than $70 million to federal candidates in the 2012 cycle, more than double the total from 2010. Political donations from the industry – – have taken on an increasingly conservative tint over the past two decades. In the 2012 cycle, 90 percent of its contributions went to the GOP.”

@-” is getting exasperated by the politicization of CAGW by the New Class soft-dictator wannabes. ”

49 senators, all Republican, vote AGAINST an amendment that simply stated that a significant amount of the observed warming is caused by human actions. A scientific position that even our host here agrees with.
But I suspect that is not the politicization that exasperates you.

---

Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by PMHinSC

January 21, 2015, 11:54 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by David Appell (@davidappell)

≪ Previous: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by izen

$

0

0

<i>R. Gates | January 21, 2015 at 9:51 pm | "Most scientists are quite honorable…"</i> What do you base this on and not sure what you mean by honorable. Science has become a business and business people do have to cater to their customers or they go out of business.

Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by David Appell (@davidappell)

January 21, 2015, 11:57 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

≪ Previous: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by PMHinSC

$

0

0

Judith: You have no basis to complain — you’re as political as anyone.

Every blog post you make anymore proves this, with the ridiculous positions you now take, as well as your paper with Lewis, which failed to use, and failed to even acknowledge, the latest data available. There’s simply no excuse for any scientist to do that.

I really cannot understand why you insist on dragging yourself down into the odoriferous pits of Anthony Watts. What do you gain from this? Is it the invitations to Congressional hearings? The opportunity to publish in the WSJ? I can understand how these would be attractive…but I can’t understand how a student of science could dive into denialism while ignoring the thoughts in the back of one’s head.

Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

January 22, 2015, 12:03 am

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by Canman

≪ Previous: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by David Appell (@davidappell)

$

0

0

sigh, only two more years….

Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by Canman

January 22, 2015, 12:05 am

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

≪ Previous: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

$

0

0

CAGW must be a psychosis that aflicts people who fly on private jets. 1,700 Private Jets Fly to Davos, Switzerland to Discuss Global Warming:

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/20/1700-private-jets-fly-to-davos-to-discuss-global-warming/

Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

January 22, 2015, 12:06 am

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

≪ Previous: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by Canman

$

0

0

Politics is a horizontal occupation. Much older than fracking.

Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

January 22, 2015, 12:09 am

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

$

0

0

Why have scientists gotten into this?

It was that Einstein-Szilárd letter what started all this, wasn’t it.

Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by JCH

January 22, 2015, 12:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

≪ Previous: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

$

0

0

Well, ~3 years ago I thought she was angling for a job in the Romney administration.

But I’ve changed my mind. Now I think she’s angling for a job in the Romney administration.

---

Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

January 22, 2015, 12:18 am

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by thomaswfuller2

≪ Previous: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by JCH

$

0

0

China is run by <a href="http://singularityhub.com/2011/05/17/eight-out-of-chinas-top-nine-government-officials-are-scientists/" rel="nofollow">scientists</a>.

Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by thomaswfuller2

January 22, 2015, 12:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

≪ Previous: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

$

0

0

Oh Appel, let it rest. Why on Earth shouldn’t Judith associate with whomever she pleases? Do you think Anthony Watts gives Judith directions? Isn’t it the teensiest bit possible that he may learn something from her?

Why do you characterize Watts blog as an odoriferous pit? It’s a blog. (If you want something stinky, try Deltoid. It’s getting hilarious over there.) Why are you even trying to associate Curry with Watts? Have you seen them holding hands in a diner somewhere? They don’t link to each other that often… You wouldn’t be trying the old guilt by association routine, would you? Of course you would have to establish the guilt part first. Oh, no, this is alarmist politics you’re playing–all you need is the accusation. I forgot for a minute because you didn’t misspell any words.

Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

January 22, 2015, 12:30 am

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by Robert Wagner

≪ Previous: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by thomaswfuller2

$

0

0

Of course there’s a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/24/us-china-corruption-purge-specialreport-idUSKBN0K200320141224" rel="nofollow">purge</a> going on there right now.

Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by Robert Wagner

January 22, 2015, 12:49 am

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by Robert Wagner

≪ Previous: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

$

0

0

Man made climate change is and always has been about politics. This fact was well documented in the documentary The Changing Climate of Global Warming years ago, and almost every point has come true.

The Changing Climate of Global Warming

Facts are climate change is the norm, not the exception, just look at Al Gore’s chart. Simply apply the scientific method to the ice core data and you will see that there is absolutely noting abnormal about the past 50 to 150 years of data, and the claims that this year is the hottest is only true if you ignore the ice core data that shows many warmer periods just in the past 15,000 years. Satellite data also contradicts the ground measurements, an no real science I know chooses to rely on antiquated and inaccurate measurements over highly accurate measurements.Climate Science is so corrupting that we have NASA arguing AGAINST using their satellites, and instead are relying of ground measurements. That is how insane this “science” has become.

Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by Robert Wagner

January 22, 2015, 12:51 am

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

≪ Previous: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by Robert Wagner

$

0

0

Clearly climate “scientists” have failed to study their own data:

Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

January 22, 2015, 12:57 am

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

≪ Previous: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by Robert Wagner

$

0

0

Scientists run a tight ship. <a>miniluv</a> anybody?

Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

January 22, 2015, 1:02 am

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by thomaswfuller2

≪ Previous: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

$

0

0

<a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/07/02/inside-chinas-blackest-box/" rel="nofollow">ungoodlink rectify</a>

---

Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by thomaswfuller2

January 22, 2015, 1:09 am

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by andywest2012

≪ Previous: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by KenW

$

0

0

Hi Robert

Do you by chance have a source for that chart?

Thanks

Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by andywest2012

January 22, 2015, 1:16 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Jaime Jessop

≪ Previous: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by thomaswfuller2

$

0

0

“Naive scientist that I am, it didn’t occur to me until last night that a narrative the NASA/NOAA press release of ‘warmest year’ was needed…”

In the widest sense, it’s all about the narrative. But this by no means implies conspiracy as a driving force. After 30 years of CAGW narrative growth, is the President in charge of the narrative, or the narrative in charge of the president?

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Jaime Jessop

January 22, 2015, 1:18 am

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by beththeserf

≪ Previous: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by andywest2012

$

0

0

Eadler2

Indeed, you are correct in that PDO looks largely neutral since 1950 and we can only reasonably assign a contributory warming trend from about 1980. It also seems fairly obvious that PDO/ENSO has not been the only contributor to the steep warming trend from 1979 to 1998, though we do have that period culminating in the very powerful super El Nino of 1997/98.

AMO is also a very likely contributor to the warming we have seen since 1950. Here in its detrended form:

We must remember that PDO is basically a measure of a cyclical spatial pattern of temp anomalies in the tropical Pacific, which contributes clearly to global warming but, of itself, does not represent warming. The AMO is different in this respect in that it represents actual SSTs. Given the long term trend in AMO since 1880 it seems highly unlikely that increases in N Atlantic SSTs have been driven by CO2, certainly not before 1950. The most obvious forcing to consider is solar. Looking at Lean’s solar irradiance construction combined with PMOD satellite data, this does not appear to be an unreasonable conclusion.

Bob Tisdale has produced a very interesting graph which purports to show N Pacific actual SSTs which also vary cyclically. Effectively, the claim is that one can isolate a mutlidecadal SST cyclical trend in the N Pacific which shows, like the non-detrended AMO, a rising trend in ocean temps since 1880, which we cannot reasonably ascribe to CO2 forcing. I cannot comment with any authority on the credibility of his methodology but, if correct, then we have two major oceanic cycles forcing SSTs in the Northern Hemisphere at least which themselves appear to be forced by increased solar activity over most of that period.

We are left with the possibility that CO2 emissions have indeed contributed to the post 1950 warming trend but the magnitude of that contribution, assumed by the IPCC to be 100% or greater, is in doubt because the arguments put forward for largely ignoring natural variability are not that convincing.

Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by beththeserf

January 22, 2015, 1:47 am

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by Jaime

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Jaime Jessop

$

0

0

There’s the scientific method and then there’s
post modern science narrative. (

Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by Jaime

January 22, 2015, 1:57 am

≫ Next: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by AlecM

≪ Previous: Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by beththeserf

$

0

0

Obama: ‘I know a lot of good scientists in NASA/NOAA and they are the best in the world, so Thermageddon is happening and will happen because they say so, and it will endanger the health of our children unless we all pay a lot more for our energy, impoverish the working and middle classes (UK derived terminology) and wreck the economic competitiveness of the USA. Oh, and just in case you don’t believe me, 2014 was the hottest year ever – probably, or maybe not so probably.’
BS