David Suzuki tries to challenge the fact the planet isn't warming

[groggy]

Nice try.

The Met Office's findings were released Dec. 24. They were first reported in January, by mainstream media on both the left and the right. The Met Office, which has a well-funded PR unit, has had six months to correct the story. No such correction has been made.

Now, let's go back to my original post. In his column, David Suzuki brought up the reports on the Met Office findings, and asserted they had been falsely reported.

What proof points did he provide to back up that claim: absolutely none.

And what does he say is the correct interpretation of the Met Office results: Suzuki never provides an alternative interpretation.

The findings have been correctly reported, have been reaffirmed by others (including the IPCC), and it is a confirmed fact that the predictions made by the alarmists have so far been proven to be wrong.

Wow.

Its one thing to not read the arguments, or even try to understand the arguments, of the other side but its another thing altogether to not even read the replies to your posts.
From post #23 on this thread.

Newspaper's claim that 'world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago' is simply wrong, says Met Office

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong

That's the third time I've linked to this article which quotes the Met Office as saying the papers got it wrong.

At this point you have shown yourself willfully ignorant as well as too stupid to understand what you are talking about.
You really should stop posting these threads, you're not smart enough.

Again, here's another article which points out why the papers, and you, have got it all wrong.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/resolving-met-office-confusion.html

Read them and stop posting this garbage.

 

[blackrock13]

Let's be even more clear: You don't know what you're talking about.

Even James Hansen has acknowledged that the predictions about global warming haven't materialized: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

As for the "consensus" idiocy, let me borrow a quote from a lecture that was delivered by the late Michael Crichton (since I don't feel like wasting my Sunday teaching science lessons to Fuji). Here's the relevant quote, along with a link to the full lecture in the event that Fuji actually wants to learn about global warming.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html

"Consensus" isn't science. Science is about testing data and producing results that can be verified and replicated.

The global warming alarmists have completely failed to produce such results. In your own words: Deal with it.

I'm not sure how you get that message from Hansen et al, especially when you read this;

The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases2, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements3,4.



Climate Change Expectations. It is relevant to comment on expectations about near-term climate change, especially because it seems likely that solar irradiance observations are in the process of confirming that solar irradiance has weakened modestly over the latest solar cycle. If solar irradiance were the dominant drive of climate change that most global warming contrarians believe, then a global cooling trend might be expected.
On the contrary, however, the continuing planetary energy imbalance and the rapid increase of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use assure that global warming will continue on decadal time scales. Moreover, our interpretation of the larger role of unforced variability in temperature change of the past decade, suggests that global temperature will rise significantly in the next few years as the tropics moves inevitably into the next El Nino phase.

I wonder if you actually read it.

Hansen has said basically the prediction haven't materialized 'as first thought', but what he doesn't say is that global warming isn't happening. You truly show your desperate ignorance with every post.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Hansen has said basically the prediction haven't materialized 'as first thought', but what he doesn't say is that global warming isn't happening. You truly show your desperate ignorance with every post.

I didn't say that Hansen said global warming isn't happening. Here is what I said: "Even James Hansen has acknowledged that the predictions about global warming haven't materialized."

Which you acknowledge is true.

Wow.

Its one thing to not read the arguments, or even try to understand the arguments, of the other side but its another thing altogether to not even read the replies to your posts.
From post #23 on this thread.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong

That's the third time I've linked to this article which quotes the Met Office as saying the papers got it wrong.

At this point you have shown yourself willfully ignorant as well as too stupid to understand what you are talking about.
You really should stop posting these threads, you're not smart enough.

Again, here's another article which points out why the papers, and you, have got it all wrong.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/resolving-met-office-confusion.html

Read them and stop posting this garbage.

I didn't read the Met Office's obfuscation and its posted question and answer, because I've read it before. I had read it before you ever posted it.

And it's total blather. In no way does it refute the actual story, or similar stories which have been run by the BBC and other sources that are sympathetic to the Met Office and its alarmism.

By the way, the opinion piece in the Guardian actually refers to a different story, not the one in January that Suzuki mentioned. And the subheadline to the opinion piece by eco radical Dana Nuccitelli is false -- nothing in his article actually cites the Met Office actually saying the 16-year pause (at that time) was wrong.

As for the more recent story about the Met Office, even David Suzuki can't figure out how it was wrong.

That's because it wasn't.

 

[sasemohan123]

Global warming? Instead of taking only one side, please see a FICTIOUS novel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear which has been controversial, and according to Wikipedia:

"Despite being a work of fiction, the book has found use by global warming skeptics. For example, United States Senator Jim Inhofe, who once pronounced global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people",[30][31] made State of Fear “required reading”[32] for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which he chaired from 2003–2007, and to which he called Crichton to testify before in September 2005.[32]
Al Gore said on March 21, 2007 before a US House committee: "The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor [...] if your doctor tells you you need to intervene here, you don't say 'Well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it's not a problem'". Several commentators interpreted this as a reference to State of Fear"

 

[fuji]

I didn't say that Hansen said global warming isn't happening. Here is what I said: "Even James Hansen has acknowledged that the predictions about global warming haven't materialized."

Which you acknowledge is true.

I didn't read the Met Office's obfuscation and its posted question and answer, because I've read it before. I had read it before you ever posted it.

And it's total blather. In no way does it refute the actual story, or similar stories which have been run by the BBC and other sources that are sympathetic to the Met Office and its alarmism.

By the way, the opinion piece in the Guardian actually refers to a different story, not the one in January that Suzuki mentioned. And the subheadline to the opinion piece by eco radical Dana Nuccitelli is false -- nothing in his article actually cites the Met Office actually saying the 16-year pause (at that time) was wrong.

As for the more recent story about the Met Office, even David Suzuki can't figure out how it was wrong.

That's because it wasn't.

Whereas 97% of the published studies say you are wrong, and that really is the end of the debate on what the science says. Research will go on, and if new data comes to light that may change, but it hasn't.

Please stop describing your personal religious beliefs as science.

 

[blackrock13]

I didn't say that Hansen said global warming isn't happening. Here is what I said: "Even James Hansen has acknowledged that the predictions about global warming haven't materialized."

Which you acknowledge is true.

I didn't read the Met Office's obfuscation and its posted question and answer, because I've read it before. I had read it before you ever posted it.

And it's total blather. In no way does it refute the actual story, or similar stories which have been run by the BBC and other sources that are sympathetic to the Met Office and its alarmism.

By the way, the opinion piece in the Guardian actually refers to a different story, not the one in January that Suzuki mentioned. And the subheadline to the opinion piece by eco radical Dana Nuccitelli is false -- nothing in his article actually cites the Met Office actually saying the 16-year pause (at that time) was wrong.

As for the more recent story about the Met Office, even David Suzuki can't figure out how it was wrong.

That's because it wasn't.

Your whole schtick in the various threads has been that the GW science was flawed, wrong, or not to be trusted (pick one), so now you two step boogie just doesn't cut it. Nice try.

 

[groggy]

I didn't say that Hansen said global warming isn't happening. Here is what I said: "Even James Hansen has acknowledged that the predictions about global warming haven't materialized."

Which you acknowledge is true.



I didn't read the Met Office's obfuscation and its posted question and answer, because I've read it before. I had read it before you ever posted it.

And it's total blather. In no way does it refute the actual story, or similar stories which have been run by the BBC and other sources that are sympathetic to the Met Office and its alarmism.

By the way, the opinion piece in the Guardian actually refers to a different story, not the one in January that Suzuki mentioned. And the subheadline to the opinion piece by eco radical Dana Nuccitelli is false -- nothing in his article actually cites the Met Office actually saying the 16-year pause (at that time) was wrong.

As for the more recent story about the Met Office, even David Suzuki can't figure out how it was wrong.

That's because it wasn't.

I don't believe you've read any of those stories, or if you did they went straight over your head.
You can't even summarize the arguments for and against by either side, all you can do is cut and paste.

Here's another challenge you are not smart enough pass.
Since you believe there are two different arguments going on with Met Office info, please summarize the differences between the two issues in your own words.
I know you can't do it.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Since you believe there are two different arguments going on with Met Office info, please summarize the differences between the two issues in your own words.

Actually, I don't believe there are "two different arguments."

What I know ("believe" is misleading) is the Met Office posted findings on Dec. 24, 2012, that showed there has been no change to the Earth's temperature in 17 years -- despite the fact there have been significant increases in man-made carbon dioxide.

That has been dutifully reported by media outlets that are both sympathetic and unsympathetic to the global warming cause, and that conclusion has not been challenged by the Met Office.

David Suzuki, in his column yesterday, tried to claim the reports by the New York Times, the BBC, and other known "deniers" (his words) were false -- but offered no proof points to support that assertion.

Other observers, including IPCC experts and James Hansen, have also acknowledged a "pause" that is well below what the climate researchers predicted. I guess they should now be called "deniers," as well.

I think the blog, Democracy in America, in the Economist sums it up rather nicely.

As a rule, climate scientists were previously very confident that the planet would be warmer than it is by now, and no one knows for sure why it isn't. This isn't a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/climate-change

Deny the science all you want. It is what it is.

 

[groggy]

Actually, I don't believe there are "two different arguments."

What I know ("believe" is misleading) is the Met Office posted findings on Dec. 24, 2012, that showed there has been no change to the Earth's temperature in 17 years -- despite the fact there have been significant increases in man-made carbon dioxide.

Right, that's a start. You now admit that there is only one story about the Met data.
Do you know the source of the incorrect stories you keep cutting and pasting without understanding?
It all came from Dr David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which refuses to state where their millions of pounds of funding comes from and has been caught out three times previously sending out false information. In other words you are parroting the words of an Exxon funded hack.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2013/Jan/media-coverage-of-met-office-new-short-term-forecast.aspx

The GWPF raises only 1.6% of its cash through donations, the rest they won't divulge.
They supplied a study refuting global warming claiming 900 works, but it was found 9 of 10 of their authors were tied to Exxon-Mobile.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation


Not only is the story you keep repeating wrong, it was corrected by the Met Office, which you ignore, the story itself most likely came straight from Exxon funded hacks.

 

[fuji]

What I know ("believe" is misleading) is the Met Office posted findings on Dec. 24, 2012, that showed there has been no change to the Earth's temperature in 17 years

Where did you get the ludicrous idea that 17 was the right number?

Answer: You cherry picked that number because of your biases. Or rather, you got it from some miserable anti-scientific blog that cherry picked it for you, because you weren't smart or informed enough to have looked that up yourself. Somebody else told you what to believe.

The legitimate science looks at changes over a number of decades, anything shorter isn't significant. If you look back over the period of human activity there have been other periods where the temperature has fluctuated down, but a regression against all the data over the whole period of human activity, controlling for every other factor known to influence temperatures, leaves you with only one conclusion, the one reached by 97% of the published studies:

Human activity has caused climate change. Period.

Has human activity been THE cause of ALL climate change? Nobody says that. What we do know is that our activities contribute to global warming, in a complex model in which many other factors also contribute, positively and negatively, to the overall global temperature. There is SIGNIFICANT variation year over year, decade over decade, to the temperature. The point is that, inclusive of all those factors, the temperature is now warmer than it would have been had it not been for our activity.

To wit: Let's say without human activity we would have seen a global decline of 3 points over the last 17 years, but instead we saw a flatline, because human activity offset other factors. That is still a global warming impact of human activity.

You just have no idea what you are talking about, and blather on here thinking you are clever, when all you really do is reveal how biased and ignorant you actually are.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Human activity has caused climate change. Period.

Perhaps. But that's not quite the same thing as saying that man-made carbon dioxide causes global warming.

Not only is the story you keep repeating wrong, it was corrected by the Met Office, which you ignore, the story itself most likely came straight from Exxon funded hacks.

No, in spite of all the obfuscation from the Met Office, the stories weren't refuted. That's the problem Suzuki had when he wrote his dishonest column -- he couldn't actually find any proof points to explain what was incorrect in the stories.

As for the conspiracy theory that the New York Times, the BBC, the Economist, the New Republic and other left-leaning news organizations are all in the back pocket of the Koch Brothers and Exxon, I'm afraid I'm not buying it.

 

[groggy]

No, in spite of all the obfuscation from the Met Office, the stories weren't refuted.

Lets just stop there.
That is wrong.

Newspaper's claim that 'world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago' is simply wrong, says Met Office

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong

That's a fourth time I've linked to a story with quotes from the Met Office refuting your arguments.
You can't keep lying and say the story wasn't refuted when I've given you a direct quote 4 times now.

I know you're too stupid to understand the science, but at least try to understand that one sentence.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Lets just stop there.
That is wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong

That's a fourth time I've linked to a story with quotes from the Met Office refuting your arguments.
You can't keep lying and say the story wasn't refuted when I've given you a direct quote 4 times now.

I know you're too stupid to understand the science, but at least try to understand that one sentence.

It must really be bothering you that the science doesn't support your views. I can't think of any other reason why you're being so childish.

Let me repeat what I already said: That subheadline was wrong. There was absolutely nothing in Nuccitelli's column to support the statement in that headline.

By the way, it wasn't a story, it was an opinion piece. It doesn't qualify as news reporting and doesn't represent a rebuttal by the Met Office.

The Met Office has never refuted the reporting by the BBC, the New York Times, etc., because the reporting was accurate. Period.

 

[groggy]

It must really be bothering you that the science doesn't support your views.

Coming from someone who apparently doesn't understand even the basics of the science, that is funny.
You can't even understand the points in the articles linked here.
The claim is that Exxon funded GWPF put out a press release that was picked up that used cherry picking of data to falsely back up their incorrect thesis.
You don't even understand what the arguments is about, all you can do is repeat what you copied from some denier hack site.

Let me repeat what I already said: That subheadline was wrong. There was absolutely nothing in Nuccitelli's column to support the statement in that headline.

Sure there was:
"Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual."
Again, the general trend is up, but it goes up in squiggly lines, your hack Exxon site just picked the biggest downard squiggle and called it a trend.
Wrong.

By the way, it wasn't a "story," it was an opinion piece. It doesn't qualify as news reporting.

No, it was a story about misrepresentation sourcing the original data.
The only opinion piece is from your Exxon publicist, Whitehouse.

The Met Office has never refuted the reporting of the findings by the BBC, the New York Times, etc., because the reporting was accurate. Period.

Sure they did, and here's the quote for the fifth time.

Newspaper's claim that 'world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago' is simply wrong, says Met Office

It doesn't get much clearer then that.

Face it.
You're wrong and you don't even understand why.
You're not smart enough to be arguing these points.

 

[blackrock13]

I have to admit, it's kind of fun watching Groggy bitch slap MF2. He doesn't always get it right, but this time, it looks good as he's clearly got his facts straight which is more than can be said about MF2.

 

[Moviefan-2]

First of all, Groggy, it is an opinion piece. If you're going to make mean-spirited comments about my reading abilities, the least you could do is learn how the media work.

Second, the so-called "rebuttal" -- that Nuccitelli (and perhaps the Met Office) -- would have preferred the reporter look at the 140-year trend is an interesting point. But it's not a rebuttal.

Saying that Nuccitelli would have covered the story differently doesn't mean the stories, as they were covered, were wrong.

The stories weren't wrong, and the Met Office never rebutted them. The argument that the Met Office would have preferred a different angle isn't a rebuttal.

Period.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I have to admit, it's kind of fun watching Groggy bitch slap MF2. He doesn't always get it right, but this time, it looks good as he's clearly got his facts straight which is more than can be said about MF2.

If only the facts and the science were on his side. Oh, well...

 

[blackrock13]

If only the facts and the science were on his side. Oh, well...

They are, so nothing to fear. You've shown you haven't got the most basic understanding of climatology and try to depend on liars an shit disturbers for support. As a result, I waste as little time and effort debating the points with you any more. That cherry picked 16 years stretch has been discussed and put down in flames more than once in the various threads, yet you still trumpet its importance and validity.

 

[Moviefan-2]

They are, so nothing to fear. You've shown you haven't got the most basic understanding of climatology and try to depend on liars an shit disturbers for support. As a result, I waste as little time and effort debating the points with you any more.

The New York Times and the BBC are "liars and shit disturbers" when it comes to challenging the theory of global warming? News to me.

 

[fuji]

Perhaps. But that's not quite the same thing as saying that man-made carbon dioxide causes global warming.

Human activities have caused global warming, including the production of man-made carbon dioxide. It's a fact confirmed by 97% of the published studies.

Is it the only single factor influencing the climate? Hell no. Is it a significant factor? Hell yes.

The predicted increase in temperature is very small, each year. Depending on the model and prediction, perhaps only 3/100th of a degree per year, versus very high year over year variability in global temperatures. It is really not surprising to see a LOT of variability year over year, so what makes you think a 17 year "plateau" is statistically significant on a 200 year warming trend with these sorts of numbers? Considering the prediction would be an increase of what, half a degree over that time period?! You need much longer than 17 years to see a trend on those sorts of rates--you need to look at spans of 50 to 100 years.

I think you are an innumerate idiot prophesizing all sorts of fanciful religious ideas and railing against the scientists. You might as well start puffing off next about creationism and other nonsense.