Because Global Warming

[Townhallsavoy]

TL;DR From a scientist, a study done with no influence from the EPA, UN or any other moonbat from either side of a polticial aisle...look into this guy. Dude is brilliant and absolutely just loves science for what it is. I find his view very intuitive and informative. Oh yeah...hes an ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST and also has a meterology background as well.

This may very be an "Incovenient Truth" for many.

This guy doesn't think his work is so brilliant:

http://brians-satchel.com/test/downloads/The%20Climate%20counter%20consensus%209-Carter.pdf

I would also cast off Dr. Carter's list of "myths" as poorly accommodated science merely by the format he chose.  He summed up years of research by a plethora of the world's scientist as if it were fit for a Facebook post to "like."  Further, there's no link to his study to prove his statements or a link to his work to actually debunk what others have produced. 

[Kaos]

This guy doesn't think his work is so brilliant:

http://brians-satchel.com/test/downloads/The%20Climate%20counter%20consensus%209-Carter.pdf

I would also cast off Dr. Carter's list of "myths" as poorly accommodated science merely by the format he chose.  He summed up years of research by a plethora of the world's scientist as if it were fit for a Facebook post to "like."  Further, there's no link to his study to prove his statements or a link to his work to actually debunk what others have produced.

Circular logic.  There's no proof of anything others have produced other than their own flatulence.  His science is stronger than theirs.  I think Brian has too much cocaine in his satchel. 

I don't think too highly of his work. 

[Kaos]

What's maddening is when people who flatly refuse to understand the science behind climate change use this as a crutch. Yes. It is C.Y.C.L.I.C.A.L. That proves the theory. Climate is different than weather.

I already posted this video that attempts to explain this at a 1st grade comprehension level.

BUT DON'T CLICK! YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING!

I love it when you inadvertently argue my side.

The very fact that it is cyclical, that the climate has followed these very same warming and cooling patterns for EONS debunks your entire position. 

It's like you saying "yes, I understand the moose is made of chocolate but it doesn't contain any chocolate, dammit".

Climate changes. But not because I drive a big car, burn coal like it was weed, cut my grass with a gas powered mower and eat carbon brownies for lunch.

[GH2001]

This guy doesn't think his work is so brilliant:

http://brians-satchel.com/test/downloads/The%20Climate%20counter%20consensus%209-Carter.pdf

I would also cast off Dr. Carter's list of "myths" as poorly accommodated science merely by the format he chose.  He summed up years of research by a plethora of the world's scientist as if it were fit for a Facebook post to "like."  Further, there's no link to his study to prove his statements or a link to his work to actually debunk what others have produced.

A CPA/Financial guy? Really? Cool blog bro.

Merely by the format he chose? What the fuck does that even mean.

Plus, thats all just his opinion of Carter. He doesnt agree or like his format. You lemmings believe what you want. You guys still can't debunk anything Carter is saying with any facts. And neither can Brian or his keen man satchel. Just rhetorical emotionally driven arguments.   

Carter merely summed up something complex as concisely as he could without writing a level novel that would put us to sleep. Dude could post a study that is as concrete as can be without the shadow of a doubt and you wouldn't buy it. But instead would critique it with more muddying the waters emotion and red herrings. Because you don't want to believe it might be true.

Tell me one thing Carter said that was not true. One thing. He even does most of his analysis going back 100,000 years as opposed to the UN and Al Gore's narrow and planned samplings, and out of context pie charts.

[Townhallsavoy]

A CPA/Financial guy? Really? Cool blog bro.

Merely by the format he chose? What the fuck does that even mean.

Plus, thats all just his opinion of Carter. He doesnt agree or like his format. You lemmings believe what you want. You guys still can't debunk anything Carter is saying with any facts. And neither can Brian or his keen man satchel. Just rhetorical emotionally driven arguments.   

Carter merely summed up something complex as concisely as he could without writing a level novel that would put us to sleep. Dude could post a study that is as concrete as can be without the shadow of a doubt and you wouldn't buy it. But instead would critique it with more muddying the waters emotion and red herrings. Because you don't want to believe it might be true.

Tell me one thing Carter said that was not true. One thing. He even does most of his analysis going back 100,000 years as opposed to the UN and Al Gore's narrow and planned samplings, and out of context pie charts.

Sorry it was kind of difficult to find a better source because Robert M Carter doesn't submit his climate change "science" to peer reviewed journals very often.  But alas, I did find a refutation of the one time he did contribute to a paper submitted to a peer reviewed journal:

http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-000-521.pdf

Some key points:

In this comment, we show that their conclusions are
not valid because their analysis is based on an inappropriate
filtering of the data.

Therefore, their method of
analysis is a priori incapable of addressing the question of
causes of long‐term climate change. In fact, it is widely
acknowledged that the general rise in temperatures over the
2nd half of the 20th century is very likely predominantly
due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, with
natural variability playing a much more minor role
[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007].

Now of course, we're back at the original scope of the discussion - politics infect the results and intentions.  It becomes a matter of which side do you stand.

And speaking of politics, you stated that Carter is a middle of the aisle guy, but in reality, he's featured on Heartland Institute's website: http://heartland.org/robert-m-carter.  Hardly bias free. 

[Kaos]

peer reviewed journals
peer reviewed journal

F

and

F


I think Muslims are full of shit.  The Koran was the dream of a confused guy who starved himself for 16 days and began to hallucinate from hunger.

I'm going to publish that to 15 Southern Baptist journals. 

The peers have reviewed it.  Muslims are full of shit. 

Nick Saban and Bear Bryant are the two greatest coaches in the history of college football. 

I'm going to submit my thesis to Roll Bama Roll, Capstone Report, TideSports and six other Bama blogs. 

The peers have reviewed it.  It is confirmed. 

Peer reviewed my fucking ass.  There is nothing more worthless than that. 

[Townhallsavoy]

[AUChizad]

SEE?!? THERE'S DOUBT!

http://theconversation.com/99-999-certainty-humans-are-driving-global-warming-new-study-29911

99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study

A new study finds overwhelming odds that humans have contributed to higher global temperatures – so how much are we willing to gamble that it’s wrong? Kraevski Vitaly/Shutterstock
There is less than 1 chance in 100,000 that global average temperature over the past 60 years would have been as high without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, our new research shows.

Published in the journal Climate Risk Management today, our research is the first to quantify the probability of historical changes in global temperatures and examines the links to greenhouse gas emissions using rigorous statistical techniques.

Our new CSIRO work provides an objective assessment linking global temperature increases to human activity, which points to a close to certain probability exceeding 99.999%.

Our work extends existing approaches undertaken internationally to detect climate change and attribute it to human or natural causes. The 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report provided an expert consensus that:

It is extremely likely [defined as 95-100% certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [human-caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

Decades of extraordinary temperatures

July 2014 was the 353rd consecutive month in which global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th-century monthly average. The last time the global average surface temperature fell below that 20th-century monthly average was in February 1985, as reported by the US-based National Climate Data Center.

This means that anyone born after February 1985 has not lived a single month where the global temperature was below the long-term average for that month.

We developed a statistical model that related global temperature to various well-known drivers of temperature variation, including El Niño, solar radiation, volcanic aerosols and greenhouse gas concentrations. We tested it to make sure it worked on the historical record and then re-ran it with and without the human influence of greenhouse gas emissions.

Our analysis showed that the probability of getting the same run of warmer-than-average months without the human influence was less than 1 chance in 100,000.

We do not use physical models of Earth’s climate, but observational data and rigorous statistical analysis, which has the advantage that it provides independent validation of the results.

Detecting and measuring human influence

Our research team also explored the chance of relatively short periods of declining global temperature. We found that rather than being an indicator that global warming is not occurring, the observed number of cooling periods in the past 60 years strongly reinforces the case for human influence.

We identified periods of declining temperature by using a moving 10-year window (1950 to 1959, 1951 to 1960, 1952 to 1961, etc.) through the entire 60-year record. We identified 11 such short time periods where global temperatures declined.

Our analysis showed that in the absence of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, there would have been more than twice as many periods of short-term cooling than are found in the observed data.

There was less than 1 chance in 100,000 of observing 11 or fewer such events without the effects of human greenhouse gas emissions.



The problem and the solution

Why is this research important? For a start, it might help put to rest some common misunderstandings about there being no link between human activity and the observed, long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.

Our analysis – as well as the work of many others – shows beyond reasonable doubt that humans are contributing to significant changes in our climate.

Good risk management is all about identifying the most likely causes of a problem, and then acting to reduce those risks. Some of the projected impacts of climate change can be avoided, reduced or delayed by effective reduction in global net greenhouse gas emissions and by effective adaptation to the changing climate.

Ignoring the problem is no longer an option. If we are thinking about action to respond to climate change or doing nothing, with a probability exceeding 99.999% that the warming we are seeing is human-induced, we certainly shouldn’t be taking the chance of doing nothing.

[Kaos]

SEE?!? THERE'S DOUBT!

http://theconversation.com/99-999-certainty-humans-are-driving-global-warming-new-study-29911

Published in the journal Climate Risk Management

 

Our work extends existing approaches undertaken internationally to detect climate change and attribute it to human or natural causes.

 

Nothing like starting with a preconceived idea and then massaging data to fit your hypothesis. 

...through the entire 60-year record.

 

Oh. My. God!  They looked at SIXTY ENTIRE YEARS OF DATA!!  Fuck anything that happened over the last quadrillion fucking eons.  They're worse than Kirk fucking Herbstriet.  Georgia beat Clemson.  NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!! Seen all he needs to see. 

My research says there's a 99.999999999999% chance of PFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTT. 

I will be published in early November. 

[CCTAU]

What Chad is really waiting on:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=809053942449865&set=a.467936169894979.103034.100000358003372&type=1

[GH2001]

Ok, lets don't get started on all of this shit again....   


 Good times in FB. No time for global warmingz right now.

[CCTAU]

Ok, lets don't get started on all of this shit again....   


 Good times in FB. No time for global warmingz right now.

Come on. You know he is secretly hoping for this.

That and beachfront property in Arizona.

[GarMan]

Glow-Bull Warming...  See attached...

[AUChizad]

Glow-Bull Warming...  See attached...

[GarMan]

Uh-oh...  Al-gore's not gonna like this one.

http://www.cato.org/blog/new-research-erases-global-warming-pacific-northwest?utm_content=buffer81128&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

OCTOBER 1, 2014 8:55AM
New Research Erases Global Warming from Pacific Northwest
By PAUL C. "CHIP" KNAPPENBERGER and PATRICK J. MICHAELS SHARE

Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

—

Poof, it was gone.

Just like that, the human fingerprints on a century-long warming trend in Northwestern United States were erased and replaced instead by the telltale signs of natural variability.

That is the conclusion of new research published last week by a pair of scientists from the University of Washington. James Johnstone and Nathan Mantua published their paper titled “Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature variability and change 1900-2012” in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

So as not to be accused of putting words in their mouth, here, in full, are the contents of a box labeled “Significance” from their paper:

Northeast Pacific coastal warming since 1900 is often ascribed to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, whereas multidecadal temperature changes are widely interpreted in the framework of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which responds to regional atmospheric dynamics. This study uses several independent data sources to demonstrate that century-long warming around the northeast Pacific margins, like multidecadal variability, can be primarily attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation. It presents a significant reinterpretation of the region’s recent climate change origins, showing that atmospheric conditions have changed substantially over the last century, that these changes are not likely related to historical anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing, and that dynamical mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also apply to observed century-long trends.

...

And...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Challenge UN IPCC :Panel

By Global Research News
Global Research, September 21, 2014
Climate Depot 8 December 2010
Theme: Environment, Science and Medicine
In-depth Report: Climate Change

Note: This report was originally published in 2010. It is of utmost relevance to the ongoing debate on climate change. .

Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal — which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists — detonated upon on the international climate movement. “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.”
...

[GH2001]

Chip Knappenberger?

Cannot be a real name.

[AUTailgatingRules]

Chip Knappenberger?

Cannot be a real name.

So let me get this straight:

If we are to believe that 99.9% of scientists all agree that global warming is a man made disaster and there are 1,000 scientists cited in the article above, that would mean there are a total of 1,000,000 global warming scientist in the world

Are there really that many people making money off global warming science?  If so, no wonder they all agree.  If it were proved wrong, 1,000,000 nerds would have to move back in with momma

[AUChizad]

Librhul Wall Street Journal...

http://online.wsj.com/articles/report-wildlife-numbers-drop-by-half-since-1970-1412085197

Wildlife Numbers Drop by Half Since 1970, Report Says
Analysis by WWF and Others Was Based on Thousands of Species in Rivers, on Land and at Sea

By GAUTAM NAIK CONNECT
Updated Sept. 30, 2014 2:21 p.m. ET

A new, comprehensive study of the world's wildlife population has drastically reduced its 2012 estimate. Why? WSJ's Jason Bellini has #TheShortAnswer.
Earth lost half its wildlife in the past four decades, according to the most comprehensive study of animal populations to date, a far larger decline than previously reported.

The new study was conducted by scientists at the wildlife group WWF, the Zoological Society of London and other organizations. Based on an analysis of thousands of vertebrate species, it concludes that overall animal populations fell 52% between 1970 and 2010.

The decline was seen everywhere—in rivers, on land and in the seas—and is mainly the result of increased habitat destruction, commercial fishing and hunting, the report said. Climate change also is believed to be a factor, though its consequences are harder to measure.



The previous WWF report analyzing animal populations, published in 2012, suggested a decline of 28% over a similar period. The latest report uses 15% more data than the previous one, is more representative of tropical species and applies an improved methodology.

"We were surprised by the extent of the decline. It means we are not effectively reducing biodiversity loss," said Robin Freeman, a researcher at the Zoological Society of London, which compiled the population database on which the study was based.

The fastest declines were seen in rivers and other freshwaters systems, where populations fell 76% since 1970. By comparison, terrestrial and marine populations each fell 39%. While biodiversity continues to decline in both temperate and tropical parts of the world, the downward trend is greater in the tropics.

The most dramatic decline was in Latin America, where overall populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish fell 83%. Asia-Pacific wasn't far behind.

The findings are calculated using the WWF's Living Planet Index, a measure of biodiversity based on trends in 10,000 populations of about 3,000 animal species.

The WWF has been compiling its index since 1998. It tracks animal populations just as a stock-market index tracks the value of a group of stocks. In some cases—such as the tiger population—it is possible to get a fairly accurate fix on animal numbers. For other species, such as birds, the scientists rely on proxies, such as the number of nests or breeding pairs.

The approach has limitations. For example, an analysis of 3,000 species may provide only a rough approximation of population levels for the thousands of species that inhabit Earth and weren't included in the number crunching. "It leaves room for improvement," said Dr. Freeman, adding that the index would include more species in the future to increase its power.

Another pitfall is bias. Researchers may have included more data from declining species simply because the figures are easier to obtain. That problem may have been averted in this study. Of the 3,000 species included, several had stable populations. Of the remainder, half showed declines and half showed increases—but the declines were vastly greater than the increases.

The WWF report also tries to measure the state of humanity's ability to live in a sustainable way. With the planet's population expected to swell by 2.4 billion people by 2050, the challenge of providing enough food, water and energy will be difficult.

The report calculates a global "ecological footprint," which measures the area required to supply the ecological goods and services humans use. It concludes that humanity currently needs the regenerative capacity of 1.5 Earths to supply these goods and services each year.

"This 'overshoot' is possible because—for now—we can cut trees faster than they mature, harvest more fish than the oceans can replenish, or emit more carbon into the atmosphere than the forests and oceans can absorb," the report said. Since the 1990s, humans have reached that overshoot by the ninth month of each year, it adds.

"It's a very loud wake-up call," said Carter Roberts, chief executive officer of WWF U.S., in an interview. "As we lose natural capital, people lose the ability to feed themselves and to provide for their families—it increases instability exponentially. When that happens, it ceases to be a local problem and becomes a global one."

[Kaos]

Wildlife Numbers Drop by Half Since 1970, Report Says

Obesity epidemic
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/obesity-epidemic-astronomical

Related? 

Damn straight.  It's your fault for eating steak, shrimp, salmon and hamburger.  For wearing leather. For buying Uggs.  YOU did it. 

[AUTailgatingRules]

Wildlife Numbers Drop by Half Since 1970, Report Says

Obesity epidemic
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/obesity-epidemic-astronomical

Related? 

Damn straight.  It's your fault for eating steak, shrimp, salmon and hamburger.  For wearing leather. For buying Uggs.  YOU did it.

Not Uggs....Birkinstocks