Empty Promises On Climate

[Deepwater6]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20639215

 

If we are waiting for the governments of this world to come together to save the planet we are doomed. As the article explains with so many examples of differences between countries.

 

With such vast differences what will it take to make countries seriously address this issue? If they let it get beyond the point of no return we are in serious trouble. They must all agree that they have the ability to do something or else why would they meet, to placate the enviromentalists? They must also agree that the problem is real or they wouldn't waste time or money on it.

 

If as a world body they don't realize the situation, they will continue to dawdle past the tipping point. They have the issue tied up in so much red tape making a practical, useful solution is almost impossible. :angry:

[Deepwater6]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20655444

 

Here is a interview with a summary of how the world came together to fight global warming this week. :angry: :angry:

[belovelife]

ummm, yeah

[alionalizoti]

Promises

 

At least they can spread some good and healthy smelling substances upon our cities,

I hope they go not to far !!!! 

[HydrogenBond]

The main problem, with the theory of manmade global warming, is over the past 15 years the global temperature has fallen, slightly, even with more CO2 being added. The earth is now in denial. This cooling trend may be why the global warming label was rebranded with a whole new name and marketing strategy, called climate change.

 

I often wondered there was a need to change the label. The insiders saw the writing on the wall and could not hide the data, forever.  Climate change is not quantitative, like warming, and allows for more creative freedom to play confidence games, since anything hyped can be called climate change. 

 

The way this is cooling trend is being reasoned away, is the cooling trend only uses short term data and does not look at the longer term trends needed to do statistical analysis of climate. Climate is based on longer trends and not short term blips on a longer curve.

 

The irony is the man made global warming crowd has been doing the same thing, fixating on 100 years, out of millions of years, instead of looking at longer term natural trends that go back to the last ice age and before, to show the earth has gone through many heating and cooling cycles. The deniers have learned how the original data curve scam worked, and beat them at their own game. 

Edited September 20, 2014 by HydrogenBond

[Buffy]

No, it is not in a "cooling trend," the rate of increase--and this is only if you really work hard to cherry-pick a short time period to measure--has slowed slightly. The things that drive it are going through the roof. 

 

As I've said dozens of times before, if you look at the long-term cycles we ought to be headed into an ice age, and we're dramatically overshooting it in the opposite direction.

 

Normal perusal of the non-fringe scientific literature is clear on this, and if you want to spout unconventional ideas like this, you're welcome to actually cite your sources for saying it's cooling so that the rest of us can pick them to pieces.

 

 

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, :phones:

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

The old brand called global warming did not rebrand itself the "new and improved global warming", because that was not consistent with the latest data. It changed the brand to "climate change:, since anything up, down, left or right can be spun to fit such an open template. If you are 21 and never saw a tornado this is new to you, it is climate change. The old timer says this is not new. 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

 

I agree that 15 years is too small of a data set to mean anything, but so is 100 years.. One needs to look in terms of thousands of years to see heating and cooling is the norm with blimps of up and down, also normal. 

 

 

The biggest problem with the theory of manmade global warning now called (manmade) climate change, with the manmade implied but left out for culpable denial, is this assumption has never happened in the history of the earth. Man has never been able to alter the climate in such a scale. It is a prototype theory, like the first 1000 mpg car. It is not a done deal based on precedent. Because it has never been done before there is no tangible precedent to say it is even possible. It is only after the first confirmed reality of undisputed events do we know it is possible. 

 

The reason politics is so important to the sales pitch is because it is unprecedented. I am not saying it is not possible or that it is impossible, only that it has never been done before, so we don't know for sure. This is why this has become so political ,instead of remain in science. Politics allows bad ideas to win based on spin, lies and popularity. Even mudslinging was brought to the science event to disparage good scientists who dare not to see the emperors new clothes. Science is not about consensus, but rather it is about proof. The consensus once said man will never fly, but all it took was one data point of proof to negate the consensus since consensus is not science but politics. 

 

When Al Gore got the liberals pumped up with his global warming doom and gloom predictions, none of which panned out, why didn't the consensus of science of that time clarify all his statements as not going to happen (as history would show). This would have given them more credibility in my eyes and would have demonstrated the models were accurate.

 

Instead, the silence of the consensus either meant they were in on the scam and benefitted by his misleading sales pitch, or the predictions were condoned by the consensus as genuine and reflected their state of the art models. Either way history showed bull and incompetence from top to bottom. The same geniuses are supposed to be trusted now? 

 

What I would do is go back to Al Gores sales pitch days and see who got it right and make then the leaders. Unlike an untested prototype, those who got it right have proven honesty and/or insightful. Who wants incompetence at the top, due to politics? 

 

The argument about who is right does not change. So let us compare the consensus accepted sales pitch of Al Gore and his predictions and see who remained silent, who supported it and who got it right. This is tangible proof of competent and reliability based on predictions. This will take away the political angle needed to prop up less competent people. 

Edited September 26, 2014 by HydrogenBond

[Buffy]

After using the word "scientists" (plural), the article then goes on to quote only one, well known climate denier Anastasios Tsonis, who is a professor of Math, not meteorology, climate or anything else actually related to the issue. He is famous for--as I alluded to in my previous post--cherry picking very specific ranges of data to show his "cooling" theory is true.

 

Here's a fun page describing a direct discussion between Professor Tsonis and someone who simply tried to ask him the obvious questions that the writer at the Telegraph was either ill-equipped or uninterested in asking: http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/09/open-let-to-prof-anastasios-tsonis-are.html 

 

You altogether ignored the question regarding our planet's radiation budget imbalance: "I don't have a comment on this. It's an open question"

 

To the third question, about the increasing heat being stored in the oceans, you reply "it is another argument without solid proof."  

 

I guess here we can go into a philosophical discussion regarding "solid proof".  I mean, it can be argued that there is no "solid proof" the sun will rise tomorrow morning, either.

 

 

Suffice it to say that yes, there is a statistical 3% of the world's climate scientists who disagree with the statement "climate change is happening and is caused by human activity" but the other 97% is what you'd call "a consensus," but you're right, a consensus is not proof. Unlike with predictions of flight, where the "experts" you hear quoted mostly knew nothing about a very lightly researched topic and those that did knew it wasn't a matter of where he grips it but was simply a matter of weight ratios. Massive amounts of data and research time have gone into this, including gigantic amounts of research specifically funded by people who have an enormous financial interest in "proving" that climate change is not happening, along with a bunch of charlatans who just like their name in the paper. But hey, you can find that many people on the street who will say the sky is day-glo green even though they could look up and see otherwise.

 

The question is, with all that knowledge and data, what does it say?

 

This graph produced by NASA a couple of weeks ago (ibid) is fascinating for a number of reasons:

 

 

One of the main arguments of the deniers is that the data isn't there and that the models and data are inconsistent. The graph is showing measured data using very different combinations of source data. The only way you'd get such highly correlated data would be if the models for selecting and measuring the data were actually valid, or that there is an enormous world wide conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily weather data. Obviously there are some people who will go with the sanity of Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper over Group Captain Lionel Mandrake but neither I nor 97% of all climate scientists are not among them. 

 

The other argument depended upon by Professor Tsonis and many other deniers is to show that we're "actually cooling." Now just about anyone can see that in the graph above, we do go through periods of short term cooling--over single data points (yearly here) there is immediate increases and decreases due to variability and feedback in these highly erratic systems. But there are longer term ones as well. specifically from about 1929-1935, 1941-1970, and 2001-2005.

 

What happened during these odd and inconsistent pauses? Some sudden starting and stopping in the earth's wobble? Some huge and sudden change in solar output? Some gigantic shifts back and forth in the ability of the oceans to absorb heat? You know what the problem is with all these alternative explanations? We have data for all of them and none of these things happened.

 

What did happen were some incredibly significant changes in human activity:

 

• The worldwide depression that started in 1929 cut worldwide industrial output--and thus carbon dioxide output--almost in half. Starting in 1935 though that output, due to socialistic initiatives around the world paid for by deficit spending nearly reversed those effects and warming immediately responded upward.
• World War II however destroyed the majority of the industrial nations starting in 1942, and most of these countries did not recover until the 1970s. Simultaneous with the last half of this period was widespread recognition of the problems with smog that started hitting these economies severely through the late 50s and 60s which governments forcing clean air regulations produced dramatic increases in efficiency with much more modest increases in combustion by-products.
• 2001 was a double whammy of the worldwide financial collapse along with large increases in clean energy coming on line.Past the end of this of course, we had a big bump up to 2008--another big recession--that significantly picked up speed after 2012 (the point at which Prof. Tsonis's data cuts off).

So who exactly is arguing that these shifts in warming are not caused by humans? Shifts in human activity are directly correlated with the shifts in temperature change, and there are no alternative explanations. "It's complicated." "It's inconclusive" and "You're looking at the data wrong" are simply not rational responses to the actual data. 

 

That dear sir, is what you call proof. 

 

As an aside--although you base most of your post on it--the real reason for the shift from saying "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" was indeed on the part of the climatologists precisely because "warming" was being misused by the denialist--most amusingingly/depressingly on Fox News--saying "of course it's warmer! it's summertime!" The hope was that this would make clear that we actually had much worse things to worry about than just "it's getting hotter." Of course the response from the denialists was to turn this into a "conspiracy" and "proof that there is no warming" which is provably incorrect and insisted upon only by the uneducated, the financially interested, and the nutcases like Tsonis.

 

So in this debate, I'll certainly agree that one side is deluded, although we disagree as to which one, but I'm quite sure I know which side the data supports.

 

 

Sir, as an officer in Her Majesty's Air Force, it is my clear duty, under the present circumstances, to issue the recall code, upon my own authority, and bring back the Wing. If you'll excuse me, sir, :phones:

Buffy

 

[HydrogenBond]

The two sides of this issue can't agree due to this being interwoven with politics. Politics is why the global warming marketeers rebranded the product into "climate change". Why did they need to change to a more flexible sales pitch that can be spun easier? 

 

I suggested we use Al Gore's first media propaganda speech, as a source of pro-global warming predictions to see who in the science community supported and/or remained compliant to what he claimed, and who spoke out against this. We can do a side-by-side comparison to see if the correct people were leading based on the present results. 

 

One of the main predictions was the north polar cap was supposed to be melted by this time. Who supported that and who said this would not occur, when AL Gore became the spokesman for a political movement? This offers a way to put aside political promises and use hard data to decide who was qualified to lead the science.

 

Maybe we can start a new topic where we post the original speech, narrow that down to the top ten predictions and then the opinions of key scientists pro and con. 

Edited September 28, 2014 by HydrogenBond

[HydrogenBond]

The main problem I have with man made global warming or manmade climate change is this theory does not have precedent on the earth. This theory is a prototype theory that is new and unique and is only about this time in history and no other time in the history of the earth. This prototype theory, was at the test stage and needed resources to offset the expensive nature of testing. Al Gore was the front man for the sales pitch to get the resources to build the prototype. He did get a lot of resources, but that by itself does not mean it was means tested. 

 

As an analogy,  say I claim I have a design for a automobile gasoline engine that gets 200 mpg. This is a prototype theory of a never before seem engine. This engine design does not have precedent since no other car engine in history has even done this. People will naturally be skeptical, because it has never been done before and all we have is a design strategy. Proof is not about a good sales pitch, but rather it is about a demonstration. Going from theory to an actual engine will require development. Development can be expensive so you need front men/women to sell the idea to gather resources. This may require hype and promises you may not be able to keep, but as long as it gets the money for development it is fine, due to the potential if it works. 

 

Manmade global warming started as a theoretical prototype concept. All Gore was the salesman to gather resources to help cover the expense of the development effort needed to create the prototype. This was not panning out as original sold during the sales pitch. They needed to rebrand the 200 mpg engine into something else to continue to receiving resources, with the hope good would eventually appear from the continuing efforts. Politics is needed because it is a key part of the sales pitch for money, since government has the deepest pockets.  

 

When I suggested looking at Al Gore fund raiser speech and his predictions, and then looking at all those who publicly reacted to his speech, one will be able to see the original credibility of the various players both pro and con. One can also see who got it right from the beginning. Then we compare what became of each, to see if the right people ended were rewarded or abused or whether politics allowed the least or most qualified to lead.  

 

I would prefer a pro-global warming person to do the Al Gore speech comparison, so they can see this is not a trick.

 

There is a reason why the political says pitch of Al Gore resonated with the liberals. Unlike the 200 mpg engine example, which promises something good, the manmade made global warming prototype theory promises something that is scary. Fear makes people react easier than an enticement for something good. The reason is fear makes some people willing to go along with anything if it can appease fear. Enticement can create fear of the unknown and lead to resistance and willingness to stay where they are; if it works don't fix it. 

 

This fear strategy always works with liberals, since their entire political movements is based on the other side trying to screw you and yours. The men are doing this to women, the rich to the poor, the whites to the blacks, management to labor, America to the rest of the world, man to the environment, humans to the earth, farmers to frogs, etc. There is a sales template that automatically causes liberals to just accept anyone who incites fear. 

Edited September 29, 2014 by HydrogenBond

[Buffy]

Seriously? The "it's never been done before" argument?

 

Yes, please ignore all the actual data, the "problem you have with it" is yours, dear.

 

Sounds like your real argument is simply on the political grounds of not liking "those liberals," rather than any actual science. If you'd like to actually discuss science, please do.

 

 

‘Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming.’ As one focus group participant noted, climate change ‘sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.’ While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge, :phones: (Seriously, look up who said that...)

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

‘Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming.’ As one focus group participant noted, climate change ‘sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.’ While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge,  :phones: (Seriously, look up who said that...)

Buffy

 

Climate change was chosen because is easier to spin, than an objective measure like  average global temperature. Any new record or novel local occurrence can be spun as climate change. If is the hottest day, coldest day, most rain, least rain, biggest storm, lack of hurricanes, too many hurricanes, hurricane go more north, or hurricanes go less north, wind is stronger or wind is weaker than normal, whatever will work and will be inferred to mean climate change.

 

If a young mind sees his first blizzard, he/she will assume climate change because it is new to him/her. This helps to create jobs since now we need experts everywhere, from wind to snow, which may be part of the scam. Jobs are good, but con jobs, based on selling fear, is not the way to go. 

 

The main tell that climate change, formally called global warming, was more about politics than science was the sales pitch of consensus science. Science is not about a consensus. Politics is about consensus with the majority able to elect whatever they want, good or bad.

 

Science is about facts and data with one good data point able to override 99% bad data points. Only in politics does 99% bad data and spin win. When Einstein introduced relativity the consensus believed in Newtonian Mechanics. If we allowed the consensus to win, those in power would have squashed Einstein to retain their positions. Luckily science is based on evidence and not majority rule. 

 

You are not willing to look with 20/20 hindsight, at who just accepted Al Gore's promises, to see who was right and whether political consensus was used to override truth in science?

 

Edited September 30, 2014 by HydrogenBond

[Buffy]

Hahahahahaha!

 

You didn't even look up who said that? I'll save you the time: it's Frank Luntz. Look him up. He's one of the folks whose propaganda you're parroting.

 

You keep speaking of "truth": I certainly apologize for not fully respecting your right to believe that data that contradicts your beliefs actually supports them. 

 

I'm not really trying to convince you of anything, just making sure that--purely for the benefit of the audience here--the beliefs that you're presenting are properly ridiculed for being the falsehoods they are.

 

 

Never explain--your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe you anyway, :phones:

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

If Frank Luntz, whoever that is, said this, we came to the same conclusions. I don't read much unless I look for a quick reference with a Goggle search. I create a lot of ideas, not because I read what others say and rehash it, but because I work it out independently.

 

Think logically instead of politically. Climate change has an order of magnitude more ways to create fear than the more specific term global warming. The original sales pitch of global warming did not make it easy for an educated person to independently extrapolate all the original doom and gloom predictions, apart from memorizing, since the data was not following. 

 

One would assume the warmer it is, the evaporation would go up and therefore there will be more rain.  Tell that to draught areas all over the USA. It also means more melting of the poles, but north and south poles are not following the rules like the hype originally promised. It means more hurricanes and larger storms like originally promised, but that was not happening. The earth was going the wrong way, with the new explanations getting too convoluted for the independent thinker to come up with this on their own. The memorizer did not care if it was backwards since fear will adapt to anything that promises to reduce the fear. 

 

If we you change global warming to climate change, and none of the original promises occur, you can still call that climate change. No matter what scenario you come up with you can find an example for everyone. Even young people will see a new thing in their time. All you need is the media to hype key incidents, call it climate change, until it appears more common than it is. If a plane crashes many assume this is a major trend in flying, with fears demanding a call for action. It is done by fixating on one incident and parading long winded expert analysis. The Ebola scare is using the same tactic and many will call for drastic action out of fear. A hand full of cases can sound like an epidemic if you parade enough mercenaries. 

 

I did notice you did not seem to want to go back to the original hype, (All Gore's predictions) to see who condoned this out loud and who remained silent, and who was against this, so we can see how credible various sources originally were. Then we see who is where now. 

 

It sort of like the Y2K scare with many people preaching and gaining advantages. When it did not pan out, the irrational fear was nipped in the bud. With the global warming scare, they same people continued on, being allowed to rebrand the scam, without any accountably. How is that possible? 

 

If this was the Y2K scam and it did not pan out, but the behind the scenes scammers needed these same scammers to continue, you would need to revise their original claims with something more flexible like y3K. 

 

If we stick to just science discussions, the consensus does have the most data, because it also has most of the funding, by design. This is the distraction for the magic trick, since it is led by leaders who got it wrong during the original sales pitch. Magic is fun to see through. 

 

 

Never explain--your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe you anyway,  :phones:

Buffy

 

I am not an enemy just someone who things logically, unless logic is the enemy of magic. Magic is about imagination and wanting something to be true. 

Edited October 2, 2014 by HydrogenBond

[Buffy]

If Frank Luntz, whoever that is, said this, we came to the same conclusions. I don't read much unless I look for a quick reference with a Goggle search. I create a lot of ideas, not because I read what others say and rehash it, but because I work it out independently.

 

Think logically instead of politically. Climate change has an order of magnitude more ways to create fear than the more specific term global warming.  

 

Frank Luntz is one of the most influential messaging gurus of the conservative movement in America. He's well compensated by Republican candidates, conservative PACs and major corporations for coming up with the terms, buzzwords, phrases and basic arguments that advance conservative causes. Liberals who disagree with him are still in awe of his talents of manipulation that many have--to invoke Godwin's Law--compared to Goebbels (and you should look up what he said about Orwell...).

 

Now what's interesting about his quote I used.. (and I'll repeat it here for reference:

 

‘Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming.’ As one focus group participant noted, climate change ‘sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.’ While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

 

)...is that he's quite explicitly making the opposite argument that you are: He's *advocating* the use of Climate Change precisely because it is *less* frightening (at least to science-challenged conservatives). And the fascinating part is that he's saying that if conservatives use "Climate Change" then the result is both to get people to think it's not really a problem, and be able to set up the whole "logical" argument of "it's snowing outside? how can the earth be getting warmer?" 

 

That argument of course works just fine for people (unfortunately the majority in America) who have no idea what the difference is between "weather" and "climate."

 

Your logic is unfortunately succumbs to just this sort of simplistic analysis:

 

 

One would assume the warmer it is, the evaporation would go up and therefore there will be more rain.  Tell that to draught areas all over the USA.

 

So you're saying that if it's warmer it would rain more *everywhere*? If that were true, there would never have been deserts anywhere in the world through out the entire history of the earth. This requires completely ignoring that weather is a complex system and develops patterns based on geography, all of which are easy to see in the real world. Just because there's more moisture in the air on average, doesn't mean you're going to get more rain everywhere, especially if the *patterns* of the weather change to make it more severe. Some places will get a lot more rain, others will get less.

 

 

It also means more melting of the poles, but north and south poles are not following the rules like the hype originally promised. 

 

There has been more melting at the poles. Unprecedented melting at that. In fact the melting being measured is greater than that predicted by the models that are supposed to be so wrong.

 

Surprise! Yep, they're wrong, and that's because they weren't pessimistic *enough*.

 

It means more hurricanes and larger storms like originally promised, but that was not happening. 

 

So far this year we have had a quiet year in the Atlantic, but Southern Baja California just got hit by the biggest hurricane ever recorded there, and Hawaii had a couple of close calls.

 

Once again, it's necessary to completely ignore the actual data in order to see these "obvious" and "logical" things.

 

Which of course makes them not at all obvious or logical.

 

I did notice you did not seem to want to go back to the original hype, (All Gore's predictions) to see who condoned this out loud and who remained silent, and who was against this, so we can see how credible various sources originally were. Then we see who is where now.

 

That's because there's nothing really to go back to. Al Gore is turning out to be right. Simply calling it "hype" does not make it so no matter how many times you repeat it.

 

It sort of like the Y2K scare with many people preaching and gaining advantages. When it did not pan out, the irrational fear was nipped in the bud. With the global warming scare, they same people continued on, being allowed to rebrand the scam, without any accountably. How is that possible? 

 

If this was the Y2K scam and it did not pan out, but the behind the scenes scammers needed these same scammers to continue, you would need to revise their original claims with something more flexible like y3K. 

 

As someone who was smack dab in the middle of the Y2K debates (I was a frequently quoted industry analyst at the time), I can tell you that you've picked an excellent example here and you're right, the people with the most to gain financially turned out to be the ones "hyping" it the most. But you know what? Those of us who were independent were saying it was an issue too, and the main reason Y2K was a "dud" was that those of us crying wolf got these companies off their asses in time for them to fix the problem before in blew up in their faces and cost billions of dollars.

 

A lot of us have been hoping that the same thing can be done about Climate Change/Global Warming before it's too late.

 

Because of "logic" like yours though, it looks like we may not make it.

 

If we stick to just science discussions, the consensus does have the most data, because it also has most of the funding, by design. This is the distraction for the magic trick, since it is led by leaders who got it wrong during the original sales pitch. Magic is fun to see through. 

 

The "consensus" most categorically does not have the most funding. The oil companies and the Koch brothers have been buying not only individual professors but entire University departments, in order to manufacture the facts that deny climate change.

 

If the "consensus" was blindly willing to say whatever the money wanted them to say, they'd have a much easier time going to work for David Koch or Exxon.

 

Meanwhile the Republicans--especially during the first 6 years of the Bush II administration absolutely decimated funding through the National Science Foundation as well as shredding the budget of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which gathers large amounts of the data. That's why so much of the data that gets used actually comes from abroad now. So much for making the US a leader in scientific research.

 

I am not an enemy just someone who things logically, unless logic is the enemy of magic. Magic is about imagination and wanting something to be true. 

 

Well I'll agree with you that logic is the enemy of magic, but logic does require facts.

 

And the facts are not on your side, only the magic part is.

 

 

Against logic there is no armor like ignorance, :phones:

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

Sorry, Buffy, I am having a hard time using the quote feature. The copy and paste, either won't go into the quote box, or if I get it in the quote box, it will not let me out of the quote box, to post my own ideas. I will have to skip that normal step. 

 

 

The Y2K scare was way more hype than what was needed based on the reality of the problem. All the problem was, was the time stamp only used the last two digits of the year, with 2000 going to be written as 1900, at the year 2000. When that standard was set nobody figure it would be such a big deal since any programmer could fix it, which turned out to be true. The problem and the fix was not a big deal compared to what the hype tried to create, as history would show. 

 

The hype created the illusion of something beyond what it was, such the laymen to computers were made to panic. History shows the panic was more of a problem than the actual problem, with the scam pitching the doom and gloom of a shut down of the entire global computer system; manmade global computer warming. The doom and gloom hype was effective, via the media and got the herd to stampede until anyone not with the program was a denier. The game sounds familiar.  

 

You did indicate the hype moved the system to fix the problem, but you failed to mention the level of exaggerated doom and gloom used to move the herd. Maybe you are implying that hyping doom and gloom is OK if the ends justices the means? 

 

I wanted to go back to Al Gore's original pep rally of hype and see who went along, seeing enough time has passed to compare some of the predictions, like with the Y2K hype, to see who benefitted by the scam and who was silenced but turned out to be right. 

 

Here is a link that shows how the raw global temperature data was altered in 2000 to better reflect computer simulations. In the 1989 the raw data was presented and showed a cooling trend over 50 years. 

 

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

Edited October 4, 2014 by HydrogenBond

[Buffy]

 

Sorry, Buffy, I am having a hard time using the quote feature. The copy and paste, either won't go into the quote box, or if I get it in the quote box, it will not let me out of the quote box, to post my own ideas. I will have to skip that normal step. 

 

Once you hit the "Quote" button, be sure to insert some new lines before and after the quote before copying it. The changes in IPBoard's new editing feature take some getting used to.

 

 

 

The Y2K scare was way more hype than what was needed based on the reality of the problem. All the problem was, was the time stamp only used the last two digits of the year, with 2000 going to be written as 1900, at the year 2000. When that standard was set nobody figure it would be such a big deal since any programmer could fix it, which turned out to be true. The problem and the fix was not a big deal compared to what the hype tried to create, as history would show.

 

Isn't throwing around subjective opinions with superlative phrases exactly what you're railing about? Mr. Pot, you're calling the Vice President Kettle black.

 

In fact Y2K was indeed a big deal. I advised dozens of Fortune 500 companies on it, and they had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars fixing problems that would have caused their systems to come to a grinding halt. Many of these programs were written on machines that had a premium on space and simply did not have the bytes allocated to support larger dates, and as a result in many cases these systems were simply tossed far in advance of their planned replacement dates in favor of newer systems which had to be converted to in a rush, adding huge amounts to IT expenditures.

 

 

The hype created the illusion of something beyond what it was, such the laymen to computers were made to panic.

 

And as for personal computers that Average Joe would use? I had several break on me, including a program to compute Reserve Funds for a condominium association that started spitting out very hard to identify discrepancies in its computations starting in 1996.

 

Dear, you really have no idea what you're talking about on the Y2K problem, so I'd stop digging if I were you.

 

 

History shows the panic was more of a problem than the actual problem, with the scam pitching the doom and gloom of a shut down of the entire global computer system; manmade global computer warming. The doom and gloom hype was effective, via the media and got the herd to stampede until anyone not with the program was a denier. The game sounds familiar.

 

Of course what you're saying here is "since the popular press and non-scientists are incapable of representing the exact level of risk, there is no risk whatsoever.

 

I can't think of a less logical argument.

 

You did indicate the hype moved the system to fix the problem, but you failed to mention the level of exaggerated doom and gloom used to move the herd. Maybe you are implying that hyping doom and gloom is OK if the ends justices the means?

 

No, the "hype" did NOT fix the problem. In fact the hype did not occur until long after the experts had convinced a lot of companies to get off their butts and do something, based on actual data and reasoned arguments, and the companies actually investigating their own situation.

 

There is always going to be hype. All of us science types encourage questioning of data and investigation on one's own to find out what is happening. But when you have to start ignoring data or putting up specious arguments to refute it, you're succumbing to "anti-hype": rejecting truth purely for the sake of it's popularity.

 

 

I wanted to go back to Al Gore's original pep rally of hype and see who went along, seeing enough time has passed to compare some of the predictions, like with the Y2K hype, to see who benefitted by the scam and who was silenced but turned out to be right. 

 

Not a bad idea. So have I. You know who "benefited" the most from the most spending? The bought-off professors in that 3% denialist group who are getting huge grants from Koch and Exxon. 

 

Dressing up your argument with pejoratives like "hype" "scam" and "silenced" does not validate that any of your implications are true. In fact you're just hyping the anti-hype.

 

Not very effective rhetoric, dude.

 

Here is a link that shows how the raw global temperature data was altered in 2000 to better reflect computer simulations. In the 1989 the raw data was presented and showed a cooling trend over 50 years. 

 

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

 

You really ought to have read the comments on that link, dear. There's a link to a top level refutation of the argument in the second comment, and that link has many others that provide more details. The crux of it though is:

 

Climate scientists, however, are asserting that the uproar over the data corrections is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot. NASA GISS scientist Jim Hansen, who helped devise the algorithm used to correct for the various climate factors, wrote in an Aug. 10 e-mail that the errors were introduced when the U.S. stations switched between two different datasets in 2000, with the faulty assumption that the second dataset also included the necessary corrections, an error that was recognized and fixed, Hansen said. Acknowledging that 1934 now appears to have been slightly hotter than 1998 in the United States, he noted that the difference in the mean between the two years, of 0.02 degrees Celsius, was and always had been smaller than the uncertainty, although their relative positions are now flipflopped. Globally, however, the changes had no effect on rankings, and 1998 was still by far the warmest year on record before 2005, he says. "For two days I have been besieged by rants that I have wronged the president [bush], that I must 'step down,' or that I must 'vanish,'" he wrote.

 

Thus that "convincing' graph showing cooling consists of one set of data that was correct showing warming, grafted onto an incomparable set of data that did not use the same methods of collection and analysis that shows cooling.

 

If you tried to do this in a dissertation you'd be sure never to get your PhD.

 

What's even more damning is that the whole argument in this post is all hype: "OMG! NASA changed the data to make it look like warming! Conspiracy!"

 

Pay no attention to the fact that the originally published data was for the US only and did not correlate to every other data set of global temperatures ever taken. 

 

That's right: the data that "shows" cooling immediately got called out because it was wrong and obviously so. So NASA went back and figured out their error.

 

But no, there's no global warming because there is conspiracy at NASA to fake it.

 

Tell that to Buzz Aldrin.

 

Remember you're not being silenced here: you're free to post all the falsehoods you want, but you've got no right to not be ridiculed in public for posting such foolishness.

 

Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors, :phones:

Buffy