Can the atmosphere really warm? Atmospheric gas retention.

RegGuheert said:

I've laid out the scientific data clearly here for all to see. Simply put, there is not a single alarming claim remaining which is not directly contradicted by the data. Not one.

Click to expand...

Reg, do you think you will be nominated for the Nobel prize this year? If not, would you at least publish your findings so the scientific community can stop worrying about global warming?

RegGuheert said:

No need to wonder. I've laid out the scientific data clearly here for all to see. Simply put, there is not a single alarming claim remaining which is not directly contradicted by the data. Not one.

Click to expand...

All the scientific data? All of it?? REALLY????

Your sources seem to be blogs that post some really dubious ... ah ... "stuff". Hint, it isn't science.

I repeat my question. You don't seem convinced by science, you have a different motivation.

What is your motivation?

RegGuheert said:

No need to wonder. I've laid out the scientific data clearly here for all to see. Simply put, there is not a single alarming claim remaining which is not directly contradicted by the data. Not one.

Click to expand...

I think we all took a good long look at the data. Among all the people in this thread I think you did not change a single opinion. Of course that is not very representative as a whole, but bear in mind that everyone discussing this here is actually able to understand and appreciate what you have been showing.

I also think none of us (not even Andy) would reject your data on ideological grounds.

From prior posts, I assume you are not a millennial, so I presume you dont naturally assume that you are the smartest person in this conversation.
So yes, I am very curious as well to hear why you think you are right and we are wrong?

klapauzius said:

I also think none of us (not even Andy) would reject your data on ideological grounds.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure that rejecting lies from paid politically-motivated whack-jobs isn't politically or ideologically motivated. So...I agree.

klapauzius said:

From prior posts, I assume you are not a millennial, so I presume you dont naturally assume that you are the smartest person in this conversation.
So yes, I am very curious as well to hear why you think you are right and we are wrong?

Click to expand...

Deniers don't have to work with facts or logic - they just need to keep spouting the agreed-upon lies come hell or high water. Oddly enough, both are being delivered as we waste time here...

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/23/nei...ce_because_it_conflicts_with_your_philosophy/

Neil deGrasse Tyson exclusive: “I don’t know what kind of democracy that is, if you’re gonna cherry-pick … science because it conflicts with your philosophy”

Click to expand...

WetEV said:

Your sources seem to be blogs that post some really dubious ... ah ... "stuff". Hint, it isn't science.

Click to expand...

Now that isn't entirely true. Here is a description of his go-to source, Anthony Watts:

"Anthony Watts studied Electrical Engineering and Meteorology at Purdue University, but has been unwilling to state whether he graduated. He is a former television meteorologist."

http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sounds like a bona fide scientist to me.

On the other hand, he does lose points for getting funding from the Heartland Institute:

"DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland's ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations."

Who wouldn't trust ExxonMobil to be truthful about how burning fossil fuels would affect climate change?

AndyH said:

Deniers don't have to work with facts or logic - they just need to keep spouting the agreed-upon lies come hell or high water. Oddly enough, both are being delivered as we waste time here...

Click to expand...

True, but I think there is some interest in why people could come to such odd conclusions?
I assume Reg is not paid for posting his opinion, but seems to be genuinely convinced of it.

As a reminder, other people in other debates about seemingly emotional topics seem to be equally at odds with established scientific facts, so no one is immune...apparently it is human nature.
Human nature of course is a wide term, and unsatisfactory to the inquisitive mind, so I am curious what specifically is the reason for taking this position (besides righteously owning and defending the truth).

Stoaty said:

On the other hand, he does lose points for getting funding from the Heartland Institute:

"DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland's ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations."

Who wouldn't trust ExxonMobil to be truthful about how burning fossil fuels would affect climate change?

Click to expand...

Corruption is a rather boring motive. The "true" believers, one would hope, have purer reasons to propagate their non-sense?

It's all part of the Right wing noise machine. They never give an inch an continue to babble until people get tired of hearing it. The only way to stop this is to "stop feeding the troll". You are never going to convince him. In his mind he is right and the rest of the 99% of the world are wrong.

downeykp said:

It's all part of the Right wing noise machine. They never give an inch an continue to babble until people get tired of hearing it. The only way to stop this is to "stop feeding the troll". You are never going to convince him. In his mind he is right and the rest of the 99% of the world are wrong.

Click to expand...

I guess so...In the end, they will, as usual, end up on the garbage pile of history.
In a way reassuring, since reason always seems to prevail, albeit not always fast enough to avoid unpleasant consequences.

klapauzius said:

AndyH said:

Deniers don't have to work with facts or logic - they just need to keep spouting the agreed-upon lies come hell or high water. Oddly enough, both are being delivered as we waste time here...

Click to expand...

True, but I think there is some interest in why people could come to such odd conclusions?
I assume Reg is not paid for posting his opinion, but seems to be genuinely convinced of it.

As a reminder, other people in other debates about seemingly emotional topics seem to be equally at odds with established scientific facts, so no one is immune...apparently it is human nature.
Human nature of course is a wide term, and unsatisfactory to the inquisitive mind, so I am curious what specifically is the reason for taking this position (besides righteously owning and defending the truth).

Click to expand...

Unfortunately Klapauzius, I have some experience with this (as both a human and as someone with training in 'applied propaganda' in a military context). Seems all it takes is an ill-informed recipient (plenty of ego is a plus) and 1 part bad information. As long as the propagandist finds a 'soft audience' and gets their message planted in the grey matter first (before the truth, for example), the job's done as it's much more difficult to change a mind than to trash it from the start.

I linked proof from some of the military sources from which I was trained in a thread now in the 'cess pool' of the forum. These same documents are being used by US political groups as well as operatives from right-wing 'think tanks' and the fossil fuel industry - in violation of federal law. Read Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt if you haven't yet - it covers all of this in gory detail from the perspective of an academic/historian - with full references. This article and associated videos supports the topic as well: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...te-science-denial-groups-extremely-successful

Early on in the life of this forum I was chided for 'preaching to the choir' on environmental topics. I think we need a much, much larger choir because the liars are winning the information war - and that doesn't bode well for most of humanity on the planet.

https://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Special_Forces_counterinsurgency_manual_analysis
http://desmogblog.com/gas-fracking-...warfare-tactics-and-personnel-u-s-communities

Earlier posts:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=355416#p355416
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=355356#p355356

Clarifying charts on climate communication:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=17434

AndyH said:

Excellent chart with four quadrants - Science, Climate Justice, Modernization/Neoliberal, Climate Disinformation/Contrarian.

Full size: https://ecolabsblog.files.wordpress...no-2-network-of-actors-july2014-ecolabssm.jpg

Timeline - when did the disinformation start? Who's funding it? What progress has been made in messaging?

Full:
https://ecolabsblog.files.wordpress...munication-no-1-timeline-july2014-ecolabs.jpg


Discourse strategies

Full: https://ecolabsblog.files.wordpress...ation-no-3-strategies-july2014-ecolabs-sm.jpg


Source:
http://ecolabsblog.wordpress.com/

This series of three posters maps climate communication by means of a timeline, a network visualization and a strategy map. The work illustrates
relationships between climate discourses, prominent actors and major organizations participating in climate communication including science institutions, academic institutions, media organizations, think tanks and government agencies – along with the interests and funders linked to these organizations. Various discourses are mapped including climate science; counter-movements (contrarianism); ecological modernization, neoliberalism and corporate capture; and social movements (climate justice). The timeline visualizes the historical processes that have lead to the growth of various ways of communicating climate change. The network visualization illustrates relationships between actors and prominent discourses. The strategy map displays methods used within four discursive realms.

The posters are still work in process. They will be presented at the ‘Changing Climate Communication’ conference in July 2014. Feedback from this presentation will inform a final stage of the visualizations, to be completed in September 2014.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Oh, I have no doubts that ill intentions coupled with solid monetary interest (or simply lust for power) can and will create the most despicable lies, and spread them merrily around, as long as it serves some interest.

Why the 'audience' can (or wants to) be 'soft', despite possessing a capable intellect is what still puzzles me.

That single persons can be bad apples is one thing, but somehow to sanction their irresponsible, greedy and ultimately immoral actions does not become intelligent people.

AndyH said:

Timeline - when did the disinformation start? Who's funding it? What progress has been made in messaging?

Click to expand...

One bit of disagreement with that Timeline.

The first item is the William Nierenberg report on climate change. Wikipedia summary of this is:

The scientific facts of the resulting Changing Climate report were largely in line with the previous reports. Its key points were:
* The most probable date of CO 2 "doubling" (to 600 ppm) was 2065 (page 21)
* Global warming due to doubling CO 2 is likely to be between 1-5-4.5 °C, as suggested by the Charney report. Careful review of dissenting inferences suggesting negligible CO 2-induced climate change shows these to be based on misleading analysis (page 28)
* Warming at equilibrium would be 2-3 times as great over the polar regions as over the tropics; and probably greater over the arctic (page 30)
* Sea level might rise 70 cm over a century from thermal expansion, and melting of alpine glaciers. There was great uncertainty of the fate of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet; disintegration could lead to sea-level rise of 5 to 6m over several hundred years (page 42)

The report also contained policy recommendations:
* CO 2 is a cause for concern but not panic; a program of action without a program for learning would be costly and ineffective (page 61)
* A careful, well-designed program of monitoring and analysis is needed to detect the CO2 signal on climate (page 76)

Click to expand...

And in 1980, that wasn't even close to disinformation, but rather a fairly good summary of both the science, and very reasonable policy recommendations for 1980.

The level of concern of course has risen since 1980, and if we delay real and large reductions in CO2 long enough, it will eventually because a cause for panic. And that is just too late.

WetEV said:

AndyH said:

Timeline - when did the disinformation start? Who's funding it? What progress has been made in messaging?

Click to expand...

One bit of disagreement with that Timeline.

The first item is the William Nierenberg report on climate change. Wikipedia summary of this is:

The scientific facts of the resulting Changing Climate report were largely in line with the previous reports. Its key points were:
* The most probable date of CO 2 "doubling" (to 600 ppm) was 2065 (page 21)
* Global warming due to doubling CO 2 is likely to be between 1-5-4.5 °C, as suggested by the Charney report. Careful review of dissenting inferences suggesting negligible CO 2-induced climate change shows these to be based on misleading analysis (page 28)
* Warming at equilibrium would be 2-3 times as great over the polar regions as over the tropics; and probably greater over the arctic (page 30)
* Sea level might rise 70 cm over a century from thermal expansion, and melting of alpine glaciers. There was great uncertainty of the fate of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet; disintegration could lead to sea-level rise of 5 to 6m over several hundred years (page 42)

The report also contained policy recommendations:
* CO 2 is a cause for concern but not panic; a program of action without a program for learning would be costly and ineffective (page 61)
* A careful, well-designed program of monitoring and analysis is needed to detect the CO2 signal on climate (page 76)

Click to expand...

And in 1980, that wasn't even close to disinformation, but rather a fairly good summary of both the science, and very reasonable policy recommendations for 1980.

The level of concern of course has risen since 1980, and if we delay real and large reductions in CO2 long enough, it will eventually because a cause for panic. And that is just too late.

Click to expand...

Oreskes' book covers the timeline better than any other single item I've yet found. US presidents were advised of the impending problem in the 1950s. The denial industry was refining its methods during the tobacco/cancer hearings and the fight to control acid precipitation before turning its attention on climate change.

As to the Nierenberg quibble, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Expedient but easily and often manipulated. There appears to be plenty of back and forth on Nierenberg's message and/or intent - some peer reviewed and some published by his foundation. I'll take peer reviewed.

https://history.ucsd.edu/_files/base-folder1/From Chicken Little to Dr. Pangloss.pdf
http://www.nicolasnierenberg.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/1166378/hsns4003_02.pdf

edit... Wet - not throwing rocks. Since this gent's work is suggested to be an 'opening volley' in the propaganda war, I expect that the early communications from him will have a high percentage of facts with a bit of disinformation tossed in with plenty of spin throughout. Unfortunately, humans often aren't much more sophisticated than cold-war era radar. One effective way to make radar useless back then was to feed it legitimate info, but then start to change one parameter over time. One technique, range-gate pull-off, injected legit target positions but changed the range info so the commanders thought the target was moving away. Not only do they not launch their missiles, but they stop trusting radar as a data source - that can be enough to turn the tables on the war. People can be pulled off track the same way - meet them where they are then slowly pull them to where you want them to go. Like the erroneous 'boiling frog' example...

I also suggest Michael E. Mann's book "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars" to see the depths corps and politicians went to intimidate climate scientists. I knew there was some pushback but the levels of harassment documented on the book are unbelievable.

Mann's book has the added bonus of including a lot of the history of the basic research.

klapauzius said:

Oh, I have no doubts that ill intentions coupled with solid monetary interest (or simply lust for power) can and will create the most despicable lies, and spread them merrily around, as long as it serves some interest.

Why the 'audience' can (or wants to) be 'soft', despite possessing a capable intellect is what still puzzles me.

That single persons can be bad apples is one thing, but somehow to sanction their irresponsible, greedy and ultimately immoral actions does not become intelligent people.

Click to expand...

For an example of how its done and how effective counterinsurgency and information warfare tactics can be, look at the development of the Tea Party in the US. While it might have started as a truly 'grass roots' movement, it was very quickly co-opted by a small group with plenty of money - and the puppet masters have been running things since. The rank and file membership strongly believes what's become the 'grass roots myth' - and they'll fight anyone that suggests otherwise. This is yet another example of why corporations limit access to data/research while widely and openly spreading the marketing message.

Unfortunately, science had evolved a process that helps the deniers - papers they write are kept from the public by a pay-wall. Heartland, et al spread their propaganda far and wide through their own methods and by leveraging corporate media's appearance of 'fairness'. Repetition anchors 'facts' in people's minds, even if the 'facts' are incorrect. Once the message in the press is under control, they moved on to our kids...
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=7921

Crap...had this waiting in my in-box this morning...
http://climatecrocks.com/2014/07/25/heartland-joins-creationists-takes-aim-at-us-education/

The Heartland Institute, famous for misinforming on the Health effects of cigarettes, and the bogus science of climate denial, now promotes the views of the creationist Discovery Institute, in attacking Science education as “propaganda”.

Not a surprise to me, as, when I attended the Heartland “science” Conference in 2012, I sat thru a lecture where former astronaut “Jack” Schmitt expressed support for education bills passed in Tennessee and Louisiana, which essentially allow schools to teach religious tracts as part of the science curriculum – see above.

Click to expand...

The general public doesn't know about information warfare, counterinsurgency, or the psychology of crafting marketing messages - they just hear over and over that when they hear the word 'propaganda' they're supposed to think 'scientist'.

AndyH said:

Crap...had this waiting in my in-box this morning...
http://climatecrocks.com/2014/07/25/heartland-joins-creationists-takes-aim-at-us-education/

Click to expand...

The Heartland leader, Joe Bast, first denied he had written that cigarettes aren't harmful, then when confronted with his writing reluctantly affirmed his stance that "moderate" tobacco use is not harmful. Note that this happened in 2014!

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/04/30/video-heartland-institute-s-joe-bast-reluctantly-stands-denial-cigarette-smoking-risks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stoaty said:

The Heartland leader, Joe Bast, first denied he had written that cigarettes aren't harmful, then when confronted with his writing reluctantly affirmed his stance that "moderate" tobacco use is not harmful. Note that this happened in 2014!
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/04/30/video-heartland-institute-s-joe-bast-reluctantly-stands-denial-cigarette-smoking-risks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

People will do anything for personal gain... Here of course we are in the legal grey area between free speech and harmful lies.

But morally it is clear where these people stand.
In a few decades, the climate deniers will be viewed the same, joining slave holders, racists, religious fanatics etc. (all accepted views at some time in history)

klapauzius said:

Stoaty said:

The Heartland leader, Joe Bast, first denied he had written that cigarettes aren't harmful, then when confronted with his writing reluctantly affirmed his stance that "moderate" tobacco use is not harmful. Note that this happened in 2014!
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/04/30/video-heartland-institute-s-joe-bast-reluctantly-stands-denial-cigarette-smoking-risks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

People will do anything for personal gain... Here of course we are in the legal grey area between free speech and harmful lies.

But morally it is clear where these people stand.
In a few decades, the climate deniers will be viewed the same, joining slave holders, racists, religious fanatics etc. (all accepted views at some time in history)

Click to expand...

When I started driving, Klap, my dad showed me a cartoon. It was the center aisle in a church with two coffins side by side. The 'talk bubble' over one was "But I had the right of way".

One can judge the deniers to be 'immoral' and one can continue to 'indulge' them. But at the end of the day it hurts all of us, not just them.

AndyH said:

When I started driving, Klap, my dad showed me a cartoon. It was the center aisle in a church with two coffins side by side. The 'talk bubble' over one was "But I had the right of way".

One can judge the deniers to be 'immoral' and one can continue to 'indulge' them. But at the end of the day it hurts all of us, not just them.

Click to expand...

Yes...?