Bias in the Wall Street Journal - Climate Science

[mike]

When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as (equal to) saying society should never take action

This just beggars belief.

This

When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action,it is the same as (equal to) saying society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action

Is true

This

When someone says that society should never take action, it is the same as (equal to) saying society should never take action

Is true

But the first statement is not, they are not the same at all

Every person on the planet has a carbon footprint, the population is increasing at an alarming rate. Ergo if you want to reduce the carbon emissions you reduce population.

Thats the fix.

Are they doing that ?

No, they are allowing the population levels to run away out of control, and taxing those units

Actions speak lounder than words, look at what they are doing rather than what they are saying, when you do that the motives and motivations become obvious.

Again im all for best practise re pollution /environment etc etc.

But we are not seeing best practise here, just a sneaky tax

I'm all for the Govts of the world doing the right thing for this planet and its ecosystem, thats why i'm so passionate about this issue, because when you look at the actions rather than the words, you can see they are doing sweet bugger all.
They are not fixing a bloody thing, this is a dishonest pretend solution whose only function is to make them money

 

[Angel of Ioren]

This is the point. We should keep politics out of the science. We need to look at what the science says. The science says that the earth is getting warmer. It's a fact. Carbon credits help no one. Coming up with replacements for fossil fuel will help. I'm firmly in the middle on the topic of climate change which gets me in trouble with both the denialists and the alarmists.

 

[mike]

The science is politically driven though, why is it the science doesnt mention the root cause

Global population, increasing by 80 million per year (10,000 per hour) is projected to grow to 9.1 billion by 2050.

The additional 2.3 billion, even in low-carbon countries, equates to two more ‘carbon USAs’.

Population growth equals economic growth, thats the elephant in the room, every single "target" proposed by those who sign the various protocols that supposedly address this issue, will be swallowed up by population growth.

Yet "science" rarely mentions it, instead adressing the symptom, not the disease.

That should tell you something about the "science"

The science focus's on our individual carbon footprint, the tax's are aimed at our individual carbon footprint, this serves to hide the truth...... reducing our individual carbon footprint does NOTHING

The word "population" doesnt feature even once in that first letter.

Thats because the so called "science" is a con.

"Science"from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge", would talk about the root cause of this problem, what you are reading is not science but political spin dressed up as such

This is about money pure and simple

Past population growth from one billion in 1800 to 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion today, together with rising resource consumption per head, has already: caused climate change, increasing pollution, rising sea levels and expanding deserts; and has been largely ‘funded’ by rapidly depleting natural capital (finite resources such as fossil fuels,groundwater, minerals, soil fertility, forests, fisheries and biodiversity)

Why is it that first letter doesnt use the P word even once ?

Why does the "science" ignore the facts ? the real cause is growth, not carbon
But those who run the show love growth, growing economy, growing bank balance, growing share price, growing markets, growing market share........

The very fact the "science" is focused on carbon, instead of the culprit, run away growth, should speak to you of the reality here.
This IS politics, not science

 

[pixelsmith]

This is the point. We should keep politics out of the science. We need to look at what the science says. The science says that the earth is getting warmer. It's a fact

that depends on where you start your graph markers.

we are still coming out of the last ice age, Angel which way would you expect temps to go if the earth was coming OUT of an ice age?

 

[pixelsmith]

interesting blog: Global warming nonsense gets a true cold shoulder | thetelegraph.com.au

Global warming nonsense gets a true cold shoulder

• Andrew Bolt
• The Daily Telegraph
• February 01, 2012 12:00AM

LET'S take stock of the great global warming scare and see how it's panning out.
First, the planet hasn't actually warmed for a decade - or even 15 years - according to new temperature data released by Britain's Met Office.
Hmm. That's not what global warming scientists predicted.
Look out of your window. The rain that Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery said in 2007 "isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems" any more has just flooded NSW and Queensland yet again.
The Bureau of Meteorology - which three years ago warned "we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again" - now admits last year was our third wettest on record.
The snowfalls that the University of East Anglia in 2000 said would soon become "a very rare and exciting event" are falling as hard as ever.

The monster hurricanes we were told to expect by Nobel Prize winner Al Gore are coming no more often.
The massive coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef that warmist Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg predicted would occur every second year from 2010 has not been seen in years.
Wherever you look it's the same wake-up-to-yourself story. Sea levels have recently dipped, the oceans have lately cooled, Arctic ice has not retreated since 2007, polar bears are increasing in numbers, global crop yields keep rising and now some solar scientists warn not of global warming, but cooling -- a far deadlier threat.
So what was that warming scare all about?
And how do the warming activists respond to this increasing evidence contradicting their theory that our carbon dioxide is heating the world dangerously?
Simple - they close their eyes in denial.
Take Professor Naomi Oreskes, the author of Merchants of Doubt who famously tried to prove that not one scientific paper dissented from the global warming "consensus".
Last week she complained people still "cling to the idea it is reasonable to maintain an open mind -- It isn't".
To have an academic demand a closed mind on anything, let alone global warming, is a shock.
It shows she's talking not about science but a faith which cannot be doubted.
Her view is depressingly echoed by much of the media, which for years has whipped up the warming scare, refusing to report on scientists who queried it, and demonising the open-minded as "deniers".
They, too, believe a closed mind -- and closed ears -- is how to deal with inconvenient truths of the kind I've listed.
Examples? I remember mentioning on the ABC's Insiders the indisputable fact that the warming had paused, only to be heckled by one fellow panellist while the other, the Sydney Morning Herald's David Marr, theatrically buried his head in a newspaper. Not listening, la la la la la.
What has made the deliberate know-nothingness of such journalists so damaging is that, perversely, in no other country has the media more hysterically spruiked the warming creed.
Warmist researchers from the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado in Boulder have counted how often 50 papers around the world mentioned "global warming" or "climate change" and found that in every year from 2006 to 2011 Australian papers beat the rest of the world.
But see how some of the most obsessed outlets -- especially The Age and the ABC -- resist reporting the growing evidence that the late 20th century warming that's blamed on man's emissions has halted, and that few of the catastrophic consequences predicted have happened.
Man-made emissions do indeed affect the climate in some small way, but not necessarily for the worst and certainly not by as much as many natural influences - some of which may have us heading for cooling.
Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark's National Space Institute, is one of several scientists investigating the effects of the sun and cosmic rays on our climate.
Last week he warned that a recent cut in the sun's output could soon reverse any man-made warming.
"World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more," he said. Who knows if he's right? Best keep an open mind, on this -- and on man-made warming.
Or, as Harvard University physicist Mike Stopa warned last week: "It is possible that CO2 has effectively no influence on global climate."
And he asked: "Suppose it turns out that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with the Earth's climate.
"How will the history of this colossal mistake be written?"

 

[Angel of Ioren]

NASA says otherwise: NASA: Global warming caused mostly by humans

Now, I know Pixel will counter this by saying some sort of nonsense that these people are part of the NWO or something, but read the article and follow the science.

A new NASA study tries to lay to rest the skepticism about climate change, especially noisy on the GOP presidential campaign trail. It finds, like other major scientific research, that greenhouse gases generated by people -- not changes in solar activity -- are the primary cause of global warming.​

NASA researchers updated calculations of the Earth's energy imbalance, which is the difference between the amount of solar energy absorbed by the Earth's surface and the amount returned to space as heat. They found that despite unusually low solar activity between 2005 and 2010, the planet continued to absorb more energy (half a watt more per square meter) than it returned to space during that time period.​

FOLLOW: Green House on Twitter​

"This provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global warming," said James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who led the research released Monday.​

In the Wall Street Journal's opinion page Monday, 16 scientistssigned a piece arguing there's no need for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. "Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now," they wrote without providing data.​

The Hansen-led study, published in the December issue ofAtmospheric Chemistry and Physics, said the magnitude of the Earth's energy imbalance is fundamental to climate science. If the imbalance is positive and more energy enters the system than exits, the Earth warms. If the imbalance is negative, the planet cools.​

The researchers concluded that the 0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy budget to equilibrium. They say the most recent measurements put CO2 levels at 392 parts per million and those concentrations are expected to keep rising.​

Scientists have been refining calculations of the Earth's energy imbalance for years, but NASA researchers say their newest estimate is an improvement because they had access to better measurements of ocean temperature.​

 

[pixelsmith]

lmao... NASA and Hansen.... 'nuff said. BOTH have been caught falsifying data.

 

[mike]

IT'S a good thing December is almost over - it's been the coldest for more than 50 years.
With two days to go, it seems certain Sydney will record its coldest December since 1960, with the average daily maximum so far this month 2.2C below the long-term average.
Sydney's average top temperature so far this month was a chilly 23C - only 0.2C more than in 1960.
That isn't going to change much over the next two days, with the Bureau of Meteorology forecasting showers and tops of just 24C.
Not once has the temperature reached 30C in the city this month, the first time since 1999 the mercury has failed to reach that mark in December.

Even in 1960, Sydney recorded two days with top temperatures above 30C.
The Weather Channel meteorologist Dick Whitaker said Sydney wasn't the only city to suffer a cold start to summer, with Canberra and Brisbane also experiencing below average temperatures.

Deep freeze death toll rises to 48 as eastern Europe is battered by heavy snow

• Severe cold snap kills at least 48 people across region
• Ukraine: 18 die of hypothermia, 500 people seek medical help
• Poland: At least 10 people dead as cold reaches -26C
• Serbia: 3 dead and two missing; Romania: 4 people dead; Bulgaria: 1 dead
• Turkey: 200 flights cancelled after heavy snowfall
• Cold weather expected to last through the week

By Lee Moran

Last updated at 6:35 PM on 31st January 2012


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093891/Dozens-freeze-death-temperatures-plunge-MINUS-26C-parts-Eastern-Europe.html#ixzz1l5OrcRwr


Now i know the labels have changed, we no longer talk about global "warming", but rather global climate change. But what does this change of conclusion label tell us about the accuracy of the premise

The "science" claimed we would get global warming, when the reverse started happening, they had to move the goal posts and rename it climate change.
To have gotton the conclusion so wrong says alot about the "science"

I find those scientists who are tying the climate change to solar cycles far more credible than those who say its carbon

 

[pixelsmith]

actually in the late 60s early 70s our Nations science czar John Holdren said there was an ice age coming (along with population explosion) and we would all be dead by 2000, that didnt happen so they changed it to global warming was coming, that didnt happen so they changed it to climate change is coming, that one no one can really dispute because as we all know the climate has been changing for over 4 billion years.
Please keep in mind that CO2 was considered to be the cause of this climate change. This has been proven to be false so the whole AGW/CC theory is a bust.

 

[pixelsmith]

i forgot... climate change has now been changed to Global Climate Disruption.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

actually in the late 60s early 70s our Nations science czar John Holdren said there was an ice age coming (along with population explosion) and we would all be dead by 2000, that didnt happen so they changed it to global warming was coming, that didnt happen so they changed it to climate change is coming, that one no one can really dispute because as we all know the climate has been changing for over 4 billion years.
Please keep in mind that CO2 was considered to be the cause of this climate change. This has been proven to be false so the whole AGW/CC theory is a bust.

Actually, CO2 is still a green house gas, so no, that hasn't been proven false. Lets in the heat, and doesn't let it out. That's causing a disruption in the climate - Colder in some places, like Europe, warming in others, like where I live.

 

[pixelsmith]

again you show your ignorance. you couldn't be more wrong. CO2 is the GHG that has been singled out as the cause of human caused global warming.