How the GW myth is perpetuated
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
JunkScience.com @JunkScience Taliban kill 126, mostly children, at Pakistan school. http://goo.gl/yiYe6c @JohnKerry told #COP20 global warming as impt as terrorism.
"junk science"... it fits you Locutus! Playin the terror card Locutus? How desperate are you? Hey Locutus, why has the U.S. Pentagon and CIA (and other U.S. Information Service orgs) place such a high priority on threat assessment/risk associated with climate change/ Why so, hey Locutus!
What Kerry did say: "And this is not just another policy issue. Measured against the array of global threats that we face today – and there are many – terrorism, extremism, epidemics, poverty, nuclear proliferation – all challenges that know no borders – climate change absolutely ranks up there equal with all of them. And I challenge anyone who has thought about the science or listened – actually listened carefully to national security experts tell us that these dangers are real – I challenge them to tell us otherwise and to show us otherwise."
\
All the same it was an egregious error in the IPCC publication and it should have been caught. A good scientist should just say "Yeah, screwed that up" and move on. Instead the IPCC delayed and obfuscated matters.
I happen to be a proponent of anthropgenic global warming, however first and foremost you have to be honest about the science, whether you like it or not. That means identifying sub-standard science or peer-review wherever you see it, that's all. If we do that, then you don't give the McKitrick's of the world room to operate.
What it really means to be a skeptic is to try to break your own theory. I try to break my own theories all the time. And as a result my my theories change over time. I came rto the conclusion some years ago that (in my opinion) the IPCC calculation for climate sensitivity (from 2 to 4.5 deg C for every doubling of CO2) was too high. It is, at least, higher than what has been observed and (to my mind) so fraught with uncertainty that I don't think it's that useful.
your mad and your dummy is showing again wilbur. careful now, you're losing your tenuous grip. :lol:
this is the 'perpetuated' thread you're in boy. check yer meds again.
no matter none what website linked to kerry equating (man-made) 'climate change' with terrorism and nuclear threats.
as you were.
no matter none what website linked to kerry equating (man-made) 'climate change' with terrorism and nuclear threats.
forget about Kerry... I asked you specifically about the U.S. Pentagon and CIA threat/risk assessments... why did you ignore that, hey Locutus? See the U.S. Department of Defense iterative Quadrennial Defense Review reports:
"The impacts of climate change may increase the frequency, scale, and complexity of future missions, including defense support to civil authorities, while at the same time undermining the capacity of our domestic installations to support training activities"
"Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating."
"The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world.”
"These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence."
oh my Locutus... threat multipliers... aggravate stessors... that will enable TERRORISTS/TERRORISM! Carry on... :mrgreen:"Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating."
"The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world.”
"These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence."
try harder Locutus, try harder! Go check your twitter feeds...
weak Locutus... even for you! Why are ignoring my reference to the U.S. Pentagon/Defense Dept/CIA threat/risk assessments for GW/CC?
1874
1874 was a key date for Russell. In many ways, 1874 was to Russell what 1914 is to Jehovah’'s Witnesses today. 1874 was the time of the second coming or second advent, the start of Jesus' invisible presence, the start of the harvest work and the beginning of the time for the generation that would see the end.
There was a great deal of Scriptural "proof" used to show Jesus' presence began in 1874, such as:
1874 was a key date for Russell. In many ways, 1874 was to Russell what 1914 is to Jehovah’'s Witnesses today. 1874 was the time of the second coming or second advent, the start of Jesus' invisible presence, the start of the harvest work and the beginning of the time for the generation that would see the end.
"The second advent of our Lord in the end or harvest of the Gospel age, occurring in the fall of 1874, proves to be at a point of time exactly parallel to the time of his first advent, in the end of the Jewish age. ... the Jubilee Cycles show October 1874 to be the date of our Lord s return. ... While the time-prophecies thus point to and harmonize with 1874 as the date of our Lord s second presence, assuring us of the fact with mathematical precision, we find ourselves overwhelmed with evidence of another character; for certain peculiar signs, foretold by the Lord and the apostles and prophets, which were to precede his coming, are now clearly recognised as actually fulfilled. ... The cleansing of the sanctuary was also accomplished as predicted, and at a time sufficiently in advance of 1874 to make ready "a people prepared for the Lord" a people in devout expectancy of his coming"" The Time of the Harvest (1911 ed.) pp.125,127,129
"... he would in reality assume the kingly office, power, etc., viz., in the spring of 1878, three and a half years after his second advent at the beginning of the harvest period, in the fall of 1874." The Time of the Harvest (1911 ed.) p.234
"So short a time ago as 1870 we saw, in addition to the first principles of the Gospel, only the two bare facts - the Lord's second coming and the Restitution - and these but vaguely; for though we then saw restitution taught in Scripture, we were much in doubt as to its comprehensiveness, questioning often whether it would include all the billions of the dead whom the god of this world had in the present life blinded. And concerning the Lord's second coming, while we realized that he is no longer a man, but is now the new creature--the express image of the Father's person-- a quickening spirit, yet we failed somehow to make a proper application of this to his second coming, and unthinkingly and ignorantly, rather expected his coming to be as a glorified man, than as a spiritual being. It was not until about 1874 that these things became clearer, so that we realized that when Jesus should come, it would be as unobserved by human eyes as though an angel had come; and that it could be known only by some miracle, by some manifestation or demonstration....
Next our attention was drawn to the subject of the TIME of our Lord's coming. Before this we had strenuously ignored time, partly because of its being made so much of by "Second Adventists," and because of the frequent failures of their expectations. Moreover, the fact that they claimed the destruction of the world to be the impending event, and used the periods of time mentioned in Scripture to mark the time of that destruction, was another reason why we were disposed to ignore the subject of time. Their erroneous theory of the destruction of the world cast discredit on the time which they associated with it.
When, however, the manner of our Lord's coming was seen in the light of what he is--a spiritual, and no longer a human being--then we saw that our Father had provided TIME in the Bible, that thus we might know, or see with the eye of our understanding, what we could not see with our natural eyes-- viz., the Lord's presence. A careful study of times and seasons taught in Scripture convinced us that the Lord was due to be present in 1874, and other time teachings of the Word showed that in the spring of 1875 the restitution of all things was due to commence." Zion's Watch Tower 1883 Aug p.1
Initially, Russell felt that the battle of Armageddon started in 1874, based on his understanding that this was a social upheaval Next our attention was drawn to the subject of the TIME of our Lord's coming. Before this we had strenuously ignored time, partly because of its being made so much of by "Second Adventists," and because of the frequent failures of their expectations. Moreover, the fact that they claimed the destruction of the world to be the impending event, and used the periods of time mentioned in Scripture to mark the time of that destruction, was another reason why we were disposed to ignore the subject of time. Their erroneous theory of the destruction of the world cast discredit on the time which they associated with it.
When, however, the manner of our Lord's coming was seen in the light of what he is--a spiritual, and no longer a human being--then we saw that our Father had provided TIME in the Bible, that thus we might know, or see with the eye of our understanding, what we could not see with our natural eyes-- viz., the Lord's presence. A careful study of times and seasons taught in Scripture convinced us that the Lord was due to be present in 1874, and other time teachings of the Word showed that in the spring of 1875 the restitution of all things was due to commence." Zion's Watch Tower 1883 Aug p.1
"The date of the close of that "battle" is definitely marked in Scripture as October 1914. It is already in progress, its beginning dating from October, 1874." Zion's Watch Tower 1892 Jan 15 p.23
In 1904, Russell changed the start of Armageddon to be 1914. There was a great deal of Scriptural "proof" used to show Jesus' presence began in 1874, such as:
- The end of the jubilee cycles (Zion's Watch Tower 1881 January).
- It was the end of 6000 years after creation
- Daniel's prophecy of the 1335 days. This was interpreted to mean 1335 years after papal rule had started in 539 AD. Historical years were changed and adjusted in order to fit the year to the prophecy.
- Russell followed Barbour's idea that the Adventists were wrong to think the end of the world would be 1874 as this was just 30 years from 1844. As a generation is 70 years, the end of the world itself would not be until 1914. This fitted nicely with Barbour's understanding of the seven times.
petros dropped a hint earlier, here's da poop:
Now beavers blamed for global warming
Climate change: Beavers boost emissions with 800 million kg of methane every year
Now beavers blamed for global warming
Climate change: Beavers boost emissions with 800 million kg of methane every year
Spectacular Cheating On The NOAA Report Card
The warming Arctic atmosphere was strongly connected to lower latitudes in early 2014 causing cold air outbreaks into the eastern USA and warm air intrusions into Alaska and northern Europe.
Nonsense. In the 1970’s they blamed the identical pattern on excess Arctic ice and global cooling. There isn’t one smidgen of science behind the NOAA claim.
Snow cover extent in April 2014 in Eurasia was the lowest since 1967 and sea ice extent in September was the 6th lowest since 1979.
Mind-boggling levels of dishonesty. Fall/Winter Northern Hemisphere snow cover was at or near the highest on record.
Polar bears numbers in western Hudson Bay and the southern Beaufort Sea are decreasing in connection with a decrease in the availability of sea ice.
Utter nonsense. Hudson Bay froze early this year, and the Hudson Bay Polar Bear population is stable according to Environment Canada.
The tundra is “browning” as the length of the growing season is decreasing in Eurasia, but maximum tundra greenness and biomass are increasing across the Arctic.
It is getting greener and browner at the same time? Did anyone at NOAA make it past middle school?
On the Greenland ice sheet nearly 40% of the surface experienced melting conditions in summer 2014 and the albedo (reflectivity) reached a new record low value in August.
Pure propaganda, and the opposite of reality. Surface melt across 40% of the surface is average, and Greenland has gained near record amounts of ice this autumn.
Spectacular Cheating On The NOAA Report Card | Real Science
What’s new in 2014?
Rising air and sea temperatures continue to trigger changes in the Arctic. The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of anywhere else on Earth.
Nonsense. The Arctic hasn’t warmed for a decade.Rising air and sea temperatures continue to trigger changes in the Arctic. The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of anywhere else on Earth.
The warming Arctic atmosphere was strongly connected to lower latitudes in early 2014 causing cold air outbreaks into the eastern USA and warm air intrusions into Alaska and northern Europe.
Nonsense. In the 1970’s they blamed the identical pattern on excess Arctic ice and global cooling. There isn’t one smidgen of science behind the NOAA claim.
Snow cover extent in April 2014 in Eurasia was the lowest since 1967 and sea ice extent in September was the 6th lowest since 1979.
Mind-boggling levels of dishonesty. Fall/Winter Northern Hemisphere snow cover was at or near the highest on record.
Polar bears numbers in western Hudson Bay and the southern Beaufort Sea are decreasing in connection with a decrease in the availability of sea ice.
Utter nonsense. Hudson Bay froze early this year, and the Hudson Bay Polar Bear population is stable according to Environment Canada.
The tundra is “browning” as the length of the growing season is decreasing in Eurasia, but maximum tundra greenness and biomass are increasing across the Arctic.
It is getting greener and browner at the same time? Did anyone at NOAA make it past middle school?
Sea surface temperatures and primary production are increasing as the sea ice retreats throughout the Arctic Ocean.
Utter nonsense. Arctic sea ice extent is at a 10 year high, and has been for almost two months
On the Greenland ice sheet nearly 40% of the surface experienced melting conditions in summer 2014 and the albedo (reflectivity) reached a new record low value in August.
Pure propaganda, and the opposite of reality. Surface melt across 40% of the surface is average, and Greenland has gained near record amounts of ice this autumn.
Spectacular Cheating On The NOAA Report Card | Real Science
Locutus... more... yet more of your C&P wizardry of "Steve Goddard" misinformation? Again, Locutus, Goddard has been thoroughly and consistently debunked over his ongoing missive against NOAA these past years. I've shown you some of that through your earlier parroting of Goddard..... and yet, you persist in perpetuating the known misinformation of Goddard! What does that you Locutus? As I asked you early on when I first noticed you dropping GoddardTurds, why hasn't the guy ever published anything... why hasn't he formally challenged NOAA on it's results/methodology... why does Goddard spew his nonsense from the isolation of his denier blog (and all the other denier sites more than willing to simply repeat whatever he writes). Why is that, hey Locutus?
But wait Locutus, you didn't include his full details, and graphs. No graphs Locutus, why so? Here, let me help you out; let me post you his entire piece of crapola for this particular segment? As follows, this is it Locutus... this is the sole basis of support used by your charlatan Goddard to substantiate this particular claim. Locutus, is this why you chose not to include the graphics? :mrgreen:
For those interested, here's the findings that Goddard is refuting:
Arctic Report Card
It's a thoroughly researched and peer reviewed document--unlike Goddard's dismissive one-sentence denials.
Goddard is so out there, even the other deniers don't want anything to do with him.
you've been nattering on this point for a while now! Why do you imply the results should be "identical"?
of course! As pointed out to member Locutus previously... clearly member Locutus knows this... recognizes this! And yet, member Locutus persists in perpetuating the purposeful Goddard misinformation.
in my prior post I included the graphics member Locutus chose not to directly post. This image is of the same time period Goddard chose to include:
Goddard's second image is a great slight of hand: he now reverts to reanalysis instead of direct observation measurements... it appears reanalysis and RSS have become the favoured go-to's of deniers now! For the oddest of reasons Goddard highlights the melt season period by placing a coloured bar through it... and his caption centers on the melt season; specifically, Goddard states, "North of 80N, the melt season was the coldest on record, with below normal temperature every day". Of course, the melt season temperature rarely changes in the Arctic summer where air temperatures have varied little over the entire instrumental period as air temperature close to the surface is limited by the ice melt temperature to just above 0 °C. Within that graph, temperature increase shows within the freeze phases on both sides of the melt season... that is why Goddard distracts from that and focuses incorrectly on the melt season temperature... purposeful misinformation per this graph of his:
NOAA Arctic Report Card 2014
Arctic Report Card: Update for 2014 - Tracking recent environmental changes, with 10 essays prepared by an international team of 63 scientists from 13 different countries and an independent peer-review organized by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme of the Arctic Council.
Last edited:
Yeah, that's a good question. Not the same data sets, but statistically there is no difference despite the fact that they are very different. GISS uses a base period 1951-1980. NOAA uses a base period 1981-2010. GISS uses 2° x 2° gridded data (so globally that's a sample space of 360 x 180). NOAA uses 5° x 5° gridded data (so globally that's a sample space of 72 x 36).
Completely different datasets. Statistically the same.
and, of course... their respective methodologies are not identical... yet, as you say, statistically similar results. Comparison with the Met and JMA included
