Climate Change

[BartW]

Why did Inhofe call those hearings again?

Oh yeah...those so-called scientists were caught fixing the data to fit the dogma.

Climategate was a poorly manufactured controversy over some quotes taken way out of context. No scientists were “caught fixing data”. Numerous independent investigations have all come to that same conclusion.

Lol at Inhofe’s statement. Why did he bring a snowball onto the senate floor? Same reason… because his number one source of campaign money is the fossil fuel industry.

The attorney general in question, on the other hand, is using the laws regarding fraud and racketeering to silence criticism of this religion. Note he doesn't merely ask for Exxon's papers. He just happens to request documents from conservative and libertarian organizations who also dare question the evangelical zealots of the alarmist community.

He’s requesting documents from organizations which Exxon has funded. Those thinktanks are safe to spew all the BS they want; they didn’t get hammered in the tobacco racketeering scheme either. Ignorance is not a sin, but deception is. It’s Exxon and other fossil fuel companies that need to walk on eggshells.

Putting aside the fact that you personally don't believe in climate change, don’t you think it would be criminal if it turns out Exxon was paying those organizations specifically to spread doubt and misinformation even though Exxon's own scientists and executives were well aware of the climate risks from burning fossil fuels?

While were at it, let's revisit the 1988 climate predictions of Mr. Hansen

How close did the Pope of Climate Marxism come to meeting his predictions?

Wouldn’t the Pope be “the Pope of Climate Marxism”?

Hansen’s 1988 projection was actually not as bad as you portray. The total greenhouse gas emissions have actually been between scenario B and A (not C). Scenario B the surface trend was 0.26 C/decade so if Hansen had correctly projected greenhouse gas emissions that model would have spit out a trend slightly less than that. And depending on which specific dataset and starting date you use, the observed trend has been 0.16 – 0.19 C/decade. Yes, Hansen’s climate sensitivity for that model was a bit high (~4 C/doubling CO2). The IPCC consensus is that it is somewhere between 2 and 4.5 C, with most studies converging around 3 C. If Hansen had used 3C that model would have underpredicted global warming (like his 1981 projections).

What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?
(the video under 'basic', while poorly narrated, also has some good discussion of Hansen's and other, even earlier projections)

Anyway, comparing projections of surface temperature to measured atmospheric temperature is misleading (and your UAH trend is out of date; it’s up to 0.12). Honestly, though, the whole premise of this post was stupid. “Let’s cherrypick one bad prediction and pretend it’s representative of the whole bunch!” I mean, at least pick a bad prediction. Hansen’s was pretty good. I could pick out numerous predictions from climate contrarians of imminent global cooling over the years. They’re always claiming the trend will stop or reverse next year, yet the mercury keeps on rising.

Remember when NOAA and NASA said 2015 was the "warmest year ever"?

Funny how their own data doesn't match the claim.

It was the warmest year on the surface, you know, where people live. Their press release was quite clear. And the press release did include these atmospheric temperatures. It was the third warmest year in the satellite records, and temperatures ranged from warmest year to third warmest year between the radiosondes.

Several of the past 12 months have been the warmest in the satellite record. 2016 is off to a record start. The satellites and radiosondes show global warming too. Nobody is conspiring to hide them.

The alarmist community deny the right of people like Senator Inhofe to review work produced almost entirely through taxpayer funds. But when it comes to climate studies produced through private sources, the legal authority of the state deems it their right to control and even suppress the criticism.

Exxon’s climate studies all affirm the scientific consensus. Nobody is suppressing this work.

Those right-wing thinktanks, on the other hand, aren’t producing climate studies. Most of them don’t have a single scientist on their whole damn staff (unless you count polysci). They don’t write scientific papers. They just write op-eds in the WSJ and appear as *experts* on Fox News. And nobody is suppressing that garbage, either.

You alarmist fearmonger, you! Boy, the butthurt is still going strong. Better stock up on prep H, I suspect the Exxon story will be around for a while...

What a gish gallop of PRATTs. This would've been another fruitless effort in the never-ending game of climate myth whack-a-mole, but I did find something interesting in your posts. On the front page of one of your websites:

MY CLIMATE PLAN, WHEREIN A CLIMATE SKEPTIC ACTUALLY ADVOCATES FOR A CARBON TAX

 

[BartW]

Don't suppose you've ever heard of El Nino.

Nope

El Nino is a natural event. We can't stop global warming any more than we can stop global cooling. Are you concerned about what will happen to the coral during the next ice age? What are you going to do about it?

That's funny, because we're doing a damn good job of stopping global cooling at the moment!

El Nino is the short-term natural cycle superimposed on the long term warming trend from greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, El Ninos are hot. Yes, El Ninos are getting hotter as the baseline rises. This El Nino peaked at over 0.3 C warmer than the 97-98 El Nino. Remember the escalator gif? That's how global warming progresses.

It's great that you're suddenly concerned about climate change, but we’re not entering an ice age any time soon (probably not for at least 100,000 years at this point). When the globe does naturally cool again it will be plenty slow enough for life to adapt, including corals and ourselves if we’re still around.

They're trying to forget all that crap right now and veer toward different crap like Bart's new chart of global ocean heat content since surface temperatures aren't cooperating. Wow don't you find 10^22 really scary? I sure do.

Did you miss where we’ve now experienced 12 consecutive record hot months? This isn't new news. That's not a new figure. The only part of that ocean heat content graph that’s new is the y-axis being extended every time the heat goes “off the charts” again.

If you want scary numbers, recall that our climate has accumulated over 2 billion Hiroshima atomic bombs of heat and that figure is growing at over 4 Hiroshimas per second!

P.S.-I can't believe you're actually presenting a chart from the NOAA-those charlatan raw data adjusters.

Yeah, like those charlatan raw data adjusters Roy Spencer and John Christy adjusting the **** out of satellite data. Why can’t they just give us the raw microwave radiances?! Leave the raw data alone!

NOAA’s surface temperatures are in excellent agreement with every other surface temperature record (including that skeptic-run, Koch-funded Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature record). Satellite temperature analyses vary significantly. Getting temperatures from microwave emissions is not as easy as reading a thermometer. With satellites there’s much more data processing (using "models") that introduces greater uncertainties. That’s why they’ve undergone several major revisions (“adjustments”) over the years. And unlike NOAA's corrections, UAH's corrections do have a significant effect on temperature trends.

But what am I saying. You know all this already. Sheesh, I can’t believe you’re still going on and on about NOAA’s “adjustments”.

Oh wait. Yes I can.

 

[BartW]

How long have we been keeping records of reef bleaching?

What a reasonable question! SandVol, Buckingham – take note.

There are reports of isolated bleaching throughout the 20th century and beyond I’m sure. We have cores of coral that go back hundreds and in some cases thousands of years. True, we’ve only been keeping a close eye on it in real time since we put up satellites in the ‘70s. But those cores do keep a good high-resolution record of past El Ninos and bleaching events.

No, coral bleaching is not a new phenomenon. Natural temperature fluctuations can cause short, isolated bleaching events from which corals usually recover. But now we are seeing reefs bleach for hundreds and thousands of miles. The first such mass bleaching was witnessed during the 1982-83 El Nino. The first global event was 97-98. Now we’re in year 3 of a global bleaching event that has been ongoing since 2014. Corals have had no reprieve lately. If the bleaching were less severe and less frequent they could recover. Unfortunately, though, many corals are not surviving. Pristine reefs that have been around for hundreds of years, including the Great Barrier Reef, are dying en masse.

I’m sure El Nino regularly caused localized bleaching in the past when the oceans were cooler. But now we could be seeing global bleaching during every El Nino, and even in ENSO neutral years like 2014. It can’t be normal. Simple math tells you we can’t kill off 15% of a population every 5-10 years and have it last very long. If mass bleaching were normal these corals would have died out a long time ago, yet we have living coral reefs that are hundreds (and, again, thousands) of years old. For now.

But who needs coral reefs anyways, am I right? They only house a quarter of world’s marine species. Only half a billion people rely on them for food and storm protection. They only support tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of revenue. Minor casualties

 

[allvol123]

Eek. The cult has awakened.

 

[Herman Hickman]

No scientists were “caught fixing data”. Numerous independent investigations have all come to that same conclusion.

Investigations conducted by government authorities who had a vested interest in protecting the religion.

If the government admits their fraud, then there is no way to fleece money from the public under the guise of climate change.

Lol at Inhofe’s statement. Why did he bring a snowball onto the senate floor? Same reason… because his number one source of campaign money is the fossil fuel industry.

He’s requesting documents from organizations which Exxon has funded. Those thinktanks are safe to spew all the BS they want; they didn’t get hammered in the tobacco racketeering scheme either. Ignorance is not a sin, but deception is. It’s Exxon and other fossil fuel companies that need to walk on eggshells.

The Surgeon General's report on tobacco was peer reviewed. The portion of the IPCC report linked in the post mentioning Inhofe, the one you conveniently refused to address in your rebuttal, was never submitted for peer review. It was purposefully doctored to hide data that didn't fit into the result desired by the alarmist community.

Again here is the link to the information you don't wish to address:

https://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

Here is the initial table the 2013 IPCC report produced, clearly showing departures from projections made by earlier IPCC reports:

And here is the table the IPCC replaced the above table with in the final report:

You speak much about the fraud perpetrated by critics. Yet you dismiss, or in this case ignore, clear fraud conducted by government scientists to achieve a political end.

If you can properly refute the findings of your critics, then refute them in open and scientific debate. Instead, you and the other priests proclaim "settled science" and seek to shut down critical observations of work that, for some strange reason, needs adjustment to fit the desires of statist politicians.

That isn't science. That is a religion with a developing legal and political arm out to censor any critical analysis responding to it.

Again...Inhofe has the right to subpoena work produced by these pseudo-scientists because they are paid for by taxpayer funds.

Putting aside the fact that you personally don't believe in climate change, don’t you think it would be criminal if it turns out Exxon was paying those organizations specifically to spread doubt and misinformation even though Exxon's own scientists and executives were well aware of the climate risks from burning fossil fuels?

If the information is incorrect, then prove it in a public forum. Pasteur didn't require government protection to respond to government officials who claimed his studies were false. It was government officials who attempted to use legal means to stifle Pasteur's work. Sound familiar? This is what your sainted government are doing right now to Exxon.

Hansen’s 1988 projection was actually not as bad as you portray.

About as close as you will ever come to seeing a climate zealot admit they've got it wrong. And he still has to qualify it

Those right-wing thinktanks, on the other hand, aren’t producing climate studies. Most of them don’t have a single scientist on their whole damn staff (unless you count polysci). They don’t write scientific papers. They just write op-eds in the WSJ and appear as *experts* on Fox News. And nobody is suppressing that garbage, either.

Yeah...a critical analysis of Hanson's 1988 fable has never been produced...

https://climateaudit.org/2008/01/16/thoughts-on-hansen-et-al-1988/

And there has never, ever been any real dispute over any finding Hansen has produced...

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/

Dr. James Hansen of NASA, has been the world’s leading promoter of the idea that the world is headed towards “climate disaster.” There is little evidence to back this up.

In 2008, Hansen wrote about “stabilizing” the climate :

Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 and climate requires that net CO2 emissions approach zero, because of the long lifetime of CO2

arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

Yet in 1999, he made it quite clear that past climate was not stable, and that there was little evidence to support that idea that the climate was becoming unstable.

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

In that same 1999 report, he showed that US temperatures peaked in 1934, and declined through the rest of the century.

Here is the table from 1999...

You alarmist fearmonger, you! Boy, the butthurt is still going strong. Better stock up on prep H, I suspect the Exxon story will be around for a while...

Exxon is not declaring the science settled. You are.

Exxon is not making threats to imprison people who are critical of global warming. You are.

Exxon is not using an unrelated statute to intimidate those who oppose their point of view from producing reports on the "science" of global warming. You are.

If you were truly confident in your science, then there would be no need to alter tables to hide or confuse findings that fail to fit into your alarmist predictions.

If you were truly comfortable with the work you conducted, then you would submit that work to peer review at every step rather than put it on close hold when the results don't quite go the way you want them to.

If you actually believed the climate was warming, then you would enter into open debate with those who disagree with your findings and have produced reports in opposition to those findings.

You instead declare the case closed and, as was done during the Middle Ages for whatever religion was declared the one true faith, seek to intimidate and punish those who disagree with your dogma.

Yours is a religion posing as science authored by quacks at the behest of crony politicians who seek to profit off of alarmism at the expense of those who will pay dearly for the decisions you want made at the government level.

In all your talk about Exxon's self-interest, it is indeed strange you never mention the interests of politicians in pushing the "settled science."

Forbes Welcome

Pelosi's husband invested in solar firm weeks before lucrative expansion | Fox News

Strange that I don't see you wanting to hunt these fear-mongers for making a killing off of government reports that are clearly fraudulent.

 

[Herman Hickman]

But who needs coral reefs anyways, am I right? They only house a quarter of world’s marine species. Only half a billion people rely on them for food and storm protection. They only support tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of revenue. Minor casualties

Is this to take place before or after the imminent end of snowfall in the world?

Top 5 failed 'snow free' and 'ice free' predictions | The Daily Caller

This quote from Al Gore sums up the pseudo-science of global warming quite well:

I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.

In other words, it is okay to manipulate data, adjust tables in non-peer reviewed reports, and engage in wild exaggerations in public settings. The desired end result justifies the means.

Gore appears to be your patron saint, as he similarly engages in alarmist hysteria equating any and all environmental incidents with global warming:

Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths' - Telegraph

Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.

Keep pretending the science is settled. It is quite clear that it isn't or we would not be seeing "over-representation" of "facts" before the general public.

 

[Sandvol]

Investigations conducted by government authorities who had a vested interest in protecting the religion.

If the government admits their fraud, then there is no way to fleece money from the public under the guise of climate change.



The Surgeon's General's report on tobacco was peer reviewed. The portion of the IPCC report linked in the post mentioning Inhofe, the one you conveniently refused to address in your rebuttal, was never submitted for peer review. It was purposefully doctored to hide data that didn't fit into the result desired by the alarmist community.

Again here is the link to the information you don't wish to address:

https://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

Here is the initial table the 2013 IPCC report produced, clearly showing departures from projections made by earlier IPCC reports:

And here is the table the IPCC replaced the above table with in the final report:

You speak much about the fraud perpetrated by critics. Yet you dismiss, or in this case ignore, clear fraud conducted by government scientists to achieve a political end.

If you can properly refute the findings of your critics, then refute them in open and scientific debate. Instead, you and the other priests proclaim "settled science" and seek to shut down critical observations of work that, for some strange reason, needs adjustment to fit the desires of statist politicians.

That isn't science. That is a religion with a developing legal and political arm out to censor any critical analysis responding to it.

Again...Inhofe has the right to subpoena work produced by these pseudo-scientists because they are paid for by taxpayer funds.



If the information is incorrect, then prove it in a public forum. Pasteur didn't require government protection to respond to government officials who claimed his studies were false. It was government officials who attempted to use legal means to stifle Pasteur's work. Sound familiar? This is what your sainted government are doing right now to Exxon.



About as close as you will ever come to seeing a climate zealot admit they've got it wrong. And he still has to qualify it



Yeah...a critical analysis of Hanson's 1988 fable has never been produced...

https://climateaudit.org/2008/01/16/thoughts-on-hansen-et-al-1988/

And there has never, ever been any real dispute over any finding Hansen has produced...

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/



Here is the table from 1999...

Exxon is not declaring the science settled. You are.

Exxon is not making threats to imprison people who are critical of global warming. You are.

Exxon is not using an unrelated statute to intimidate those who oppose their point of view from producing reports on the "science" of global warming. You are.

If you were truly confident in your science, then there would be no need to alter tables to hide or confuse findings that fail to fit into your alarmist predictions.

If you were truly comfortable with the work you conducted, then you would submit that work to peer review at every step rather than put it on close hold when the results don't quite go the way you want them to.

If you actually believed the climate was warming, then you would enter into open debate with those who disagree with your findings and have produced reports in opposition to those findings.

You instead declare the case closed and, as was done during the Middle Ages for whatever religion was declared the one true faith, seek to intimidate and punish those who disagree with your dogma.

Yours is a religion posing as science authored by quacks at the behest of crony politicians who seek to profit off of alarmism at the expense of those who will pay dearly for the decisions you want made at the government level.

In all your talk about Exxon's self-interest, it is indeed strange you never mention the interests of politicians in pushing the "settled science."

Forbes Welcome

Pelosi's husband invested in solar firm weeks before lucrative expansion | Fox News

Strange that I don't see you wanting to hunt these fear-mongers for making a killing off of government reports that are clearly fraudulent.

Here's the temperature record in 2015. Good to see there's integrity in climate science. (NOAA)

 

[Sandvol]

What a reasonable question! SandVol, Buckingham – take note.

There are reports of isolated bleaching throughout the 20th century and beyond I’m sure. We have cores of coral that go back hundreds and in some cases thousands of years. True, we’ve only been keeping a close eye on it in real time since we put up satellites in the ‘70s. But those cores do keep a good high-resolution record of past El Ninos and bleaching events.

No, coral bleaching is not a new phenomenon. Natural temperature fluctuations can cause short, isolated bleaching events from which corals usually recover. But now we are seeing reefs bleach for hundreds and thousands of miles. The first such mass bleaching was witnessed during the 1982-83 El Nino. The first global event was 97-98. Now we’re in year 3 of a global bleaching event that has been ongoing since 2014. Corals have had no reprieve lately. If the bleaching were less severe and less frequent they could recover. Unfortunately, though, many corals are not surviving. Pristine reefs that have been around for hundreds of years, including the Great Barrier Reef, are dying en masse.

I’m sure El Nino regularly caused localized bleaching in the past when the oceans were cooler. But now we could be seeing global bleaching during every El Nino, and even in ENSO neutral years like 2014. It can’t be normal. Simple math tells you we can’t kill off 15% of a population every 5-10 years and have it last very long. If mass bleaching were normal these corals would have died out a long time ago, yet we have living coral reefs that are hundreds (and, again, thousands) of years old. For now.

But who needs coral reefs anyways, am I right? They only house a quarter of world’s marine species. Only half a billion people rely on them for food and storm protection. They only support tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of revenue. Minor casualties

So Bart, how much cooler were the oceans say in the 1950's than they were in 1998? That is how much did the oceans warm from 1950 to 1998? For instance, the Great Barrier Reef is in the South Pacific, how much did the Pacific Ocean warm from 1950 to 1998?

 

[Herman Hickman]

I wonder why these individuals are not being investigated by the Climate Science Inquisition?

Top Dem Steered $150 Million in Gov Loans to Spanish Company | Frontpage Mag

Bill Richardson, former New Mexico Governor and presidential candidate, sure is busy these days. He sits on both the board of the US Export-Import Bank and a Spanish Green energy conglomerate known as Abengoa. And if you can smell a conflict of interest, then your nose isn't stuffed up with the blue media Obama flu.

Now that 150 million is a small piece of the big chunk of change that came to Abengoa from Obama Inc. The Department of Energy provided Abengoa with 1.45 billion dollars in a widely debated deal and the total may have come to 2.8 billion dollars making it the second largest recipient of DOE loan guarantees.

But according to the alarmist crowd, the Cato Institute and others are being paid off by Exxon.

The truth, however, is rather inconvenient for adherents of crony government like Bart.

 

[Sandvol]

Here's a good scaremongering article for Bart.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sea-level-rise-claims-five-islands-solomons-study-064622512.html

 

[apevol]

Here's a good scaremongering article for Bart.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sea-level-rise-claims-five-islands-solomons-study-064622512.html

I ain't seen you around much lately

 

[AM64]

Here's a good scaremongering article for Bart.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sea-level-rise-claims-five-islands-solomons-study-064622512.html

Guess maybe they should have hired the Chinese to come in and dredge and drop for them. The article significantly fails to differentiate between an island being swamped versus an island reduced by erosion. If you assume that a sandbar - even one uncovered during normal high tides is safe for building purposes, you'd likely be in for a nasty surprise. Most stable Pacific islands are volcanic in nature with significant rock mass well above sea level.

Snark aside, however, has anyone seen any real articles that somehow link actual ice inventory on dry land to the sea water inventory needed to raise sea level to the catastrophic heights predicted? Considering land vs sea area, limited ice covered landmass, and ice vs water density; the larger numbers seem implausible.

 

[Sandvol]

I ain't seen you around much lately

I try to stay out of the trees.

 

[BartW]

Investigations conducted by government authorities who had a vested interest in protecting the religion.

If the government admits their fraud, then there is no way to fleece money from the public under the guise of climate change.

There you have it folks! Right off the bat. That’s the self-sealing nature of conspiracy theories.

Concerning climate denial, a case in point is the response to events surrounding the illegal hacking of personal emails by climate scientists, mainly at the University of East Anglia, in 2009. Selected content of those emails was used to support the theory that climate scientists conspired to conceal evidence against climate change or manipulated the data (see, e.g., Montford, 2010; Sussman, 2010). After the scientists in question were exonerated by 9 investigations in 2 countries, including various parliamentary and government committees in the U.S. and U. K., those exonerations were re-branded as a whitewash” (see, e.g., U.S. Representative Rohrabacher’s speech in Congress on 8 December 2011), thereby broadening the presumed involvement of people and institutions in the alleged conspiracy. We refer to this “self-sealing” criterion by the short label SS.

The Surgeon General's report on tobacco was peer reviewed. The portion of the IPCC report linked in the post mentioning Inhofe, the one you conveniently refused to address in your rebuttal, was never submitted for peer review. It was purposefully doctored to hide data that didn't fit into the result desired by the alarmist community.

Again here is the link to the information you don't wish to address:

https://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

I’m not addressing your rhetoric line by line. These posts are well into tl;dr territory already. I’ll try to just stick to the main points, but if you feel like I’ve neglected something you dearly wish resolved I’ll be glad to go back and address it for you.

Why Curry, McIntyre, and Co. are Still Wrong about IPCC Climate Model Accuracy

In this case a quick google could have saved us the diatribe. That draft figure was improperly baselined. It’s quite obvious once you realize it. From a statistician who noticed and wrote this 9 months before your article made its rounds throughout the “skeptic” blogosphere:

The flaw is this: all the series (both projections and observations) are aligned at 1990. But observations include random year-to-year fluctuations, whereas the projections do not because the average of multiple models averages those out. Using a single-year baseline (1990) offsets all subsequent years by the fluctuation of that baseline year. Instead, the projections should be aligned to the value due to the existing trend in observations at 1990.

Aligning the projections with a single extra-hot year makes the projections seem too hot, so observations are too cool by comparison. This is indeed a mistake — it would be just as much a mistake to align the projections with a single extra-cool year (like 1992), which would make the projections too cool and observations too hot by comparison.

The trends in the draft and final figure are identical. The Y-axes in the draft figure just weren’t lined up properly. Some conspiracy! :thud:

Pasteur didn't require government protection to respond to government officials who claimed his studies were false. It was government officials who attempted to use legal means to stifle Pasteur's work. Sound familiar? This is what your sainted government are doing right now to Exxon.

Sounds like the Bush administration. Sounds like Inhofe and Lamar Smith.

Nobody is stifling Exxon’s work, though. According to their spokesman, "ExxonMobil has included information about the business risk of climate change for many years in our 10-K, Corporate Citizenship Report and in other reports to shareholders. We unequivocally reject allegations that ExxonMobil suppressed climate change research contained in media reports that are inaccurate distortions of ExxonMobil's nearly 40-year history of climate research that was conducted publicly in conjunction with the Department of Energy, academics and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

Exxon’s work is on display in the scientific literature and in internal documents revealed through investigative reporting (and the subpoenas). Exxon has understood the reality of climate change for decades. Their work is not being stifled. Don’t you get it? Exxon is in on your grand climate conspiracy! Heck, they even support a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

POLITICO: Exxon scrambles to contain climate crusade

They scurred... And just today there’s been some more material published from Exxon’s other half, Mobil.

Mobil's Chief Executive Warned of CO2 From Oil Sands Fuels in 1982

"The switch to heavier fossil fuels has already caused much popular concern, primarily seen in some nations' fear of the effects of acid rain," he wrote, "and the general fear that excessive use of these fuels may so build up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that the earth's temperature may increase, with some disastrous consequences.
"Both of these fears should be seriously addressed."

"As for the so-called 'greenhouse effect' of carbon dioxide buildup," he wrote, "I recognize that this too may become a serious issue for the future.
"But I believe such international efforts as UNEP's Earthwatch international surveillance network, and studies by government agencies and such prestigious institutions as the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, can supply us with the information to deal with this problem well before the catastrophic consequences which some predict can happen."

Yeah...a critical analysis of Hanson's 1988 fable has never been produced...

https://climateaudit.org/2008/01/16/thoughts-on-hansen-et-al-1988/

And there has never, ever been any real dispute over any finding Hansen has produced...

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/



Here is the table from 1999...

Another tangent. Lovely. Look, I don’t care to follow all your gish gallop. My only point there was that you picked a bad example to hold up as a failed prediction. Hansen’s 1988 projection was quite good.

I will say that Hansen is a bit of an outlier though, especially nowadays. Plenty of scientists have disputed aspects of Hansen’s works. But they also dispute aspects of each other’s research. That’s how science works. Scientists argue. We don’t just sit around and nod in agreement. Getting scientists to agree about anything is like herding cats. And still there is overwhelming consensus among scientists that humans are causing global warming.

Exxon is not declaring the science settled. You are.

Exxon is not making threats to imprison people who are critical of global warming. You are.

Exxon is not using an unrelated statute to intimidate those who oppose their point of view from producing reports on the "science" of global warming. You are.

I’ve done no such thing.

Again, Exxon openly acknowledges the realities of anthropogenic climate change. Exxon is not “critical of global warming”. Exxon is not producing climate reports from the contrarian point of view (not that y’all have a consistent point of view). I’m sorry, they’re not on your team either.

In all your talk about Exxon's self-interest, it is indeed strange you never mention the interests of politicians in pushing the "settled science."

Forbes Welcome

Pelosi's husband invested in solar firm weeks before lucrative expansion | Fox News

Strange that I don't see you wanting to hunt these fear-mongers for making a killing off of government reports that are clearly fraudulent.

I don’t give two ****s about Gore or Pelosi or just about any politician. My in-laws are politicians. Nobody likes politicians.

Be careful with the F word or a lawsuit might be headed your way, too!

Is this to take place before or after the imminent end of snowfall in the world?

Top 5 failed 'snow free' and 'ice free' predictions | The Daily Caller


Gore appears to be your patron saint, as he similarly engages in alarmist hysteria equating any and all environmental incidents with global warming

Again, I don’t care about Gore. Al Gore isn’t a scientist. And again, you’re obviously cherrypicking outlier predictions. Arctic ice loss has been progressing faster than mean IPCC projections.

Keep pretending the science is settled. It is quite clear that it isn't or we would not be seeing "over-representation" of "facts" before the general public.

And observed sea level rise is at the high end of IPCC projections, too. Scientists are by nature generally conservative in their predictions. Al Gore is not a scientist. There is no need to exaggerate.

If you want to talk about misrepresentation of facts, though, a good place to start would be those fossil fuel-funded thinktanks and their blogs. For example, your article on that IPCC figure. This stuff is pitiful man. I've seen the quality of these websites while chasing down SandVol's misinformation. It’s all a bunch of disjointed, thoroughly debunked talking points; just throw **** out there and see what sticks. All innuendo, no substance. If you don’t have anything fresh, just recycle an old meme. The followers will slop it up and pass it around without the least bit of fact-checking anyway.

The truth, however, is rather inconvenient for adherents of crony government like Bart.

 

[BartW]

So Bart, how much cooler were the oceans say in the 1950's than they were in 1998? That is how much did the oceans warm from 1950 to 1998? For instance, the Great Barrier Reef is in the South Pacific, how much did the Pacific Ocean warm from 1950 to 1998?

About half a degree.

Climate at a Glance

You could easily look it up. I can't imagine this is an honest question out of pure curiosity. So what are you getting at?

 

[BartW]

Guess maybe they should have hired the Chinese to come in and dredge and drop for them. The article significantly fails to differentiate between an island being swamped versus an island reduced by erosion. If you assume that a sandbar - even one uncovered during normal high tides is safe for building purposes, you'd likely be in for a nasty surprise. Most stable Pacific islands are volcanic in nature with significant rock mass well above sea level.

A coastal geologist once told me that each foot of sea level rise increases its erosive power by a factor of 30. I’m not sure what exactly that figure is based on, but obviously an island being swamped will suffer increased erosion and vice versa.

Many “stable” Pacific islands are also coral atolls which have been inhabited for millennia. They’re obviously not a great place to develop now, but tell that to the people that have lived there their entire lives. We’re literally wiping their homes off the map.

Snark aside, however, has anyone seen any real articles that somehow link actual ice inventory on dry land to the sea water inventory needed to raise sea level to the catastrophic heights predicted? Considering land vs sea area, limited ice covered landmass, and ice vs water density; the larger numbers seem implausible.

You can check the extreme pretty easily. Antarctica covers about 14 million km2. The oceans cover about 360 million km2. On average, Antarctica is covered in about 2 km of ice. If it all melted that would result in about (14 million km2)*(2 km)/(360 million km2) = .078 km = 78 m, or about 250 feet of sea level rise.

That’s a back-of-the-envelope calculation ignoring the density difference and such, but it’s pretty close. All in all we have about 200 feet of sea level rise locked up in Antarctica and 20 feet in Greenland.

 

[theFallGuy]

Are all the polar bears gone yet?

"Polar bears. An iconic photograph of a polar bear clinging to a chunk of melting Arctic ice has driven home the idea that polar bears are going extinct due to global warming. But the science doesn’t necessarily back this up. There are 19 subpopulations of polar bears and eight of them are in decline. Warmer temperatures and shorter-lived ice mean that fewer polar bears can be supported than in the recent past, but there are more than enough to ensure the survival of the species.

There are currently about 25,000 polar bears worldwide. In the 1970s the species numbered somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000; their recovery since then is owed in part to a 1975 treaty regulating the hunting of polar bears. The International Union for Conservation of Nature predicts that numbers will decrease by 30 percent or more by the year 2053, mostly due to climate change. That is a dramatic loss, but it will still put polar bear numbers ahead of where they were.

DNA studies have shown that polar bears have existed as a species for about 600,000 years. They have lived through many warming and cooling periods in Earth’s history, and they didn’t become extinct during times when ice disappeared. Polar bears also interbred with brown bears during those phases when they had to seek out food on land rather than the seals that they now prefer. Neither hybridization nor global warming are likely to wipe out the polar bear anytime soon."

 

[Sandvol]

About half a degree.

Climate at a Glance

You could easily look it up. I can't imagine this is an honest question out of pure curiosity. So what are you getting at?

Just wanted to see if you've given this any thought at all or if you're just throwing stuff out there. You really think increased ocean heat content has caused some kind of world wide environmental stress to the coral? Because I think your number of 0.5 C is about 5 to 10 times too high if it is even that. The Argo numbers are showing about 0.007 C per decade warming in the Pacific and those are adjusted numbers. The raw data is showing no warming.

 

[theFallGuy]

How Climate Change Is Damaging The Great Lakes, With Implications For The Environment And The Economy | ThinkProgress

Warming Lakes: Climate Change and Variability Drive Low Water Levels on the Great Lakes | National Geographic (blogs)

Oh wait, you mean the lake levels are actually way higher now? Crap

Higher Lake Michigan water level means less beach

Evanston parks director: 'All of our beaches are shrinking' - Evanston Review

National Geographic and Think Progress better find another normal nature cycle that they can peddle as a potential catastrophe.

 

[volmanbill]

This is an interesting read:

Current El Niño’s strength due partly to an earlier fizzle

 

[FLVOL_79]

Ugh...liberals
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVZD--zVNa4[/youtube]

 

[KentheOrange]

I don't understand all the talk about the current causes of climate change and I hear nothing about the earth's axis wobble, or the polarity change of the sun, or the 20% reduction of Brazil's rainforest in the past 50 years (with CO2 being the most prominent greenhouse gas). That is the reason I am convinced that the governments predictions are complete BS.

 

[red butler]

I don't really want to join the climate change debate, but I can't help but notice the similarities with climate science and nutritional science from this article.
The sugar conspiracy | Ian Leslie | Society | The Guardian. It's about a scientist whose research suggested sugar was a major cause of obesity 35 years before it became accepted. Of course the scientist was pretty much destroyed and discredited by the "scientific community".

We tend to think of heretics as contrarians, individuals with a compulsion to flout conventional wisdom. But sometimes a heretic is simply a mainstream thinker who stays facing the same way while everyone around him turns 180 degrees. When, in 1957, John Yudkin first floated his hypothesis that sugar was a hazard to public health, it was taken seriously, as was its proponent. By the time Yudkin retired, 14 years later, both theory and author had been marginalised and derided. Only now is Yudkin’s work being returned, posthumously, to the scientific mainstream.

They were even using the "propaganda" for big business meme back then lol.

Ancel Keys was intensely aware that Yudkin’s sugar hypothesis posed an alternative to his own. If Yudkin published a paper, Keys would excoriate it, and him. He called Yudkin’s theory “a mountain of nonsense”, and accused him of issuing “propaganda” for the meat and dairy industries. “Yudkin and his commercial backers are not deterred by the facts,” he said. “They continue to sing the same discredited tune.” Yudkin never responded in kind. He was a mild-mannered man, unskilled in the art of political combat.

Scientists also used the cherry-picked big data back then as well:

Keys was the original big data guy (a contemporary remarked: “Every time you question this man Keys, he says, ‘I’ve got 5,000 cases. How many do you have?’). Despite its monumental stature, however, the Seven Countries Study, which was the basis for a cascade of subsequent papers by its original authors, was a rickety construction. There was no objective basis for the countries chosen by Keys, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he picked only those he suspected would support his hypothesis. After all, it is quite something to choose seven nations in Europe and leave out France and what was then West Germany, but then, Keys already knew that the French and Germans had relatively low rates of heart disease, despite living on a diet rich in saturated fats.

They also used the whole "the 99.9% of the scientific community is in complete agreement" line

John Yudkin’s scientific reputation had been all but sunk. He found himself uninvited from international conferences on nutrition. Research journals refused his papers. He was talked about by fellow scientists as an eccentric, a lone obsessive. Eventually, he became a scare story. Sheldon Reiser, one of the few researchers to continue working on the effects of refined carbohydrates and sugar through the 1970s, told Gary Taubes in 2011: “Yudkin was so discredited. He was ridiculed in a way. And anybody else who said something bad about sucrose [sugar], they’d say, ‘He’s just like Yudkin.’”

 

[KentheOrange]

Two old sayings fit this situation. Publish or perish and follow the money.

Speaking of which:

| National Review

 

[Sandvol]

Speaking of which:

| National Review

Of course. Something we all have pretty much come to realize. That is the one thing Bart has really helped us with is the magnitude of this scam.