From the newspaper SouthCoastToday.com
Our View: There is no debate on climate change
The “debate” over the reality and cause of climate change stopped being scientific long ago. Today, the “debate” is nothing more than a distraction that serves a political purpose for those who would stand to lose the most by policies that would curtail the release of carbon from its restful, stable location below the surface of the earth, in the form of fossil fuels, into our environment.
One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday agree both that climate change is occurring and that human activity — particularly the combustion of fossil fuels — has a significant impact on it.
The point was made in the meeting that it is not typical that scientists would agree so broadly. There’s a reason for that: Theories aren’t agreed upon in the scientific community, but facts are.
Theories are debated. Facts are facts.
The UMass scientists were invited to discuss three undeniable, provable effects that burning fossil fuels has on our oceans: acidification, warming, and sea level rise.
Read the rest here: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140205/OPINION/402050305
===============================================================
When the public’s right to know is threatened, and when the rights of free speech and free press are at risk, all of the other liberties we hold dear are endangered. -Christopher Dodd
Source h/t to WUWT reader “Vico”
Stuffing newspapers in the cracks to keep reality out.
They don’t even seem to understand what is in dispute.
Just wow. The ability of people to close their minds to dissenting opinions is alive and well. It is only a matter of time before a new Hitler takes over.
This story reeks of desperation. The double down tactic will not end well for those who yell consensus the loudest.
Move along; nothing to see here.
I didn’t see CO2 referred to in the article. They label it carbon which is the first lie. And they just go on from there with some more lies.
Like a pre civil War southern paper refusing to discuss the issue of slavery. Will they just ignore the news that the IPCC is now, by their ‘news’ standard, a skeptical organization?
“Today, the “debate” is nothing more than a distraction that serves a political purpose for those who would stand to lose the most by policies that would curtail the release of carbon from its restful, stable location below the surface of the earth, in the form of fossil fuels, into our environment.”
People who stand to lose the most by these policies include, for example, anyone who drives a car, uses air travel, has products shipped via truck or ship, travels, camps, uses a refrigerator, or has a home which is heated and lit by inexpensive electricity.
100% of progressive scientists agree that purchasing electricity and fuel to use just as the individual who purchases it needs and likes, is killing the planet.
the death of the printed paper sees another nail knocked in the lid of its coffin. You cant handle the truth, you will believe what we tell you to believe!
” One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday agree both that climate change is occurring and that human activity — particularly the combustion of fossil fuels — has a significant impact on it.”
Please obtain the names and qualifications of the participants at the editorial board meeting.
Let’s see if this makes it past their moderator:
Consensus means politics, not science.
Perhaps the SouthCoast Today can explain EXACTLY WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE has that’s man’s CO2 has caused any of the warming since the Little Ice Age. Naturally I don’t expect an answer because there is not a shred of evidence of eny kind.
The paper might also like to explain:
1. The lack of global warming for the past almost 2 decades, despite man having pumped out 1/3 of all his CO2 in this period.
2. The recent 50% INCREASE in Arctic sea ice.
3. The current record high in Antarctic sea ice.
4. The fact that the holocence, Minonan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were all warmer than now.
5. The fact that CO2 levels have been 7 times as high as currently since mammals first walked the Earth.
This does underscore the post regarding how the climate obsessed are winning the war on pretending CO2 is a pollutant. The clowns at this faux new outlet are now labeling carbon itself- the molecule of life- as the problem.
Newspaper editors have a right to print whatever they want. Perhaps the meteor strike that will precipitate their extinction is their own stubbornness about Global Warming. It was a goldmine for so long they are reluctant, to the point of destruction, to give it up.
Is it the ostrich which is supposed to hide by burying its head in the sand?
Won’t they look silly when the sea fails to flood the coastal cities, winters are
much colder and summers cooler, and the ocean remains resolutely alkaline
over the next few decades?
One more small step to help those who are intent on making this country into a third world dictatorship!
This is funny especially during a US and Canadian winter breaking so many cold records, so many snow records across an entire continent. And this is only February. This is not remotely local. If I didn’t know any better I swear I can smell the desperation from here to keep the AGW money train on track. The claims are getting wilder and more outrageous. So desperate in fact they can no longer tolerate rigorous science, nor questions that may question the science itself they so loudly yell – welcome to Obama’s America. If we had relied on consensus the world would still be flat among other silliness.
100% of progressive scientists have a five-year plan to re-make agriculture and the energy sector.
100% of progressive scientists believe that electricity is a luxury item for progressive scientists.
Remarkably effective agitprop by the CAGW “Cause”. It really is like a religion to those folks.
“It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid.”
–George Bernard Shaw
Just nitwits proving that they are also intolerant nitwits.
Only one “scientist” was named. How big was their sample of selected “scientists”? This was a very political editorial with no scientific objectivity.Who are they trying to replace in congress? Who are they trying to get elected?
One hundred percent of the
current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists
[AND] participating in an editorial board meeting
[AND] at The Standard-Times
[AND] on Tuesday
agree
How many could be included in that set? Two?
I’m sure the editors of the L.A. Times must feel all nice and warm and fuzzy inside knowing they aren’t alone anymore when engaging in self-censorship on the issue of CAGW. Who needs government censorship of the media when the editors of publications in this country seem content enough to impose it on themselves?
Since when to the editors of these publications have enough scientific information and enough of a scientific background to do this? The opinions of the “scientists” at just one university (in this case, UMass-Dartmouth) hardly form the basis to justify this action. Money talks, especially when its provided by government, and academia is all-to-easily corrupted by it — as is science itself.
If and when CAGW becomes widely known enough someday to be the fraud that it is, the editors of these publications are going to look and feel very foolish and idiotic. They are digging their own credibility graves, and I for one won’t stop them someday from having to climb down into it.
What is the sound of one hand clapping in an echo chamber?
And here’s the money shot:
“One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday…”
It’s an attempt to stifle debate by the UMass Dartmouth “scientists”. The editor sees it as a way to get the little rag of a publication into the limelight.
It will end up as a sad and forgotten footnote in a long, drawn-out and embarrassing period in the history of humankind. Or should I say “sheepkind”? Yes, I think I should.
JackT says:
February 6, 2014 at 11:24 am
Just nitwits proving that they are also intolerant nitwits.
You hit the nail on the head there :).
Taphonomic says:
February 6, 2014 at 11:27 am “What is the sound of one hand clapping in an echo chamber?”
A paradigm shift.
It would be intersting- maybe even news worthy- to know who arranged the meeting, who ran it, where it was held, when it was held, who managed the agenda, etc. Instead we get a poorly written article taht demonstrates ignorance of the topic, a lack of understanding of current events (ironic at a newspaper) and a commitment to suppress discussion of a topic of interest worldwide. This decision will require the paper to ignore a lot of news.
As Australia and canada seek to dismantle the big green AGW industry, will they simply ignore it? as the Germans build more coal powered plants, is that to be ignored as well?
as the ‘pause’ continues to extend out, will they close their editorial eyes and pretend it is not there? As news of big green corruption continues, will they cover it up for the sake of the settled science?
This editorial decision raises many challenges for a news organization. I look forward to reading how they meet those challenges.
So, the same newspaper should now be calling for huge reductions in funding of climate science, as no research is obviously needed.That would obviously also be in the public interest.
Will this newspaper even exist in a few decades?
I would love to know, those who made that decision, what do they drive, Prius or SUV, and you know they all heat their homes and use electricity, have kids…
Time to get the names of the so-called scientists so we can get them on record if they agree with the contents of the editorial and proposed censorship.
I’ve been arguing for a long time that this is the beginning of a trend. They’re cutting their own throats of course, so as far as I’ concerned it’s good news.
And another mouthpiece for ignorance comes out of the closet.
“Theories are debated. Facts are facts.” Except when GCMs show a degree of warming which empirical measurement utterly refutes.
Notice that after every catastrophe is says “scientists are unclear.”
Seems like the only thing they are clear about is that it is worse than we thought.
Oh man. They got us. The battle is over and we have lost. I suppose there will be no debate after all. 🙁
#sarc
I adore the logic of these fascist broadsheets: the theory of relativity, a topic that I’ve never seen debated in a newspaper, and would be hard to do so per the everyday citizen’s knowledge base, is welcomed, whereas with AGW, a topic common Joe’s can fact check via observation and public records, and have the ability to actively debate, is forbidden.
Someone (undoubtedly a leftie) once said the devil would appear draped in the American flag and holding a bible. I’m starting to think it will more likely be a power-thirsty, bearded, Prius-driving know-it-all carrying a degree from some “prestigious” university.
I guess that means they no longer have any “op” in op-ed.
Stephen Rasey says:
February 6, 2014 at 11:24 am
One hundred percent of the
current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists
[AND] participating in an editorial board meeting
[AND] at The Standard-Times
[AND] on Tuesday
agree
How many could be included in that set? Two?
*
Has to be a low number because “One hundred percent” sounds so much better than 3 or 5 or 10. Then again, maybe there was only one and he agreed with himself.
I wonder what their policy is on the luke warmists — that is, those that hold that the climate’s sensitivy to CO2 is greatly overstated by the IPCC and others.
In my experience, such publications don’t bother differentiating once they’ve decided to reject “deniers”. Any opinion that deviates even slightly from a narrow range of views on climate is given the heave ho.
Why Warmists prevail…
“The concept of watchdog journalism is not free of criticism. The whole field of watchdog journalism has decreased over time and parts of journalism and in 2005 observers affirmed that the current period was “not a time of rich watchdog reporting in any media”. This comes with the framework and the problem that many journalists tend “towards reflecting the status quo, rather than radically challenging it”. This decrease, however, cannot lead to the presumption that there are not enough critical topics to write or report about. In fact, the opposite is the case, and there is enough material to work with. While watchdog journalism in the U.S. helped to force Nixon out of office in 1974, the situation presented itself differently in 2003. During the Iraq war part of the established media turned out to take more of a “pro-war attitude”, without adequately fulfilling their function of a critical watchdog. Many professionals in the media “appeared to feel that it was not their role to challenge the administration”. Critics direct the blame in part to the general public itself, however, since their interest in watchdog journalism is “inconstant and fleeting at times”. They also see the role of watchdog journalism as “driven by its own interests rather than by a desire to protect the public interest”.” Wikipedia
“Newspaper closes mind?”
Difficult to do when you clearly demonstrate that it has none to close!
On their “Our View” web page is a little poll on climate change. Of the 249 responding to the poll:
Man Made = 31.7%
Real but natural = 12.9%
Real, A little of both = 35.3%
Hoax = 20.1%
So if one were to look at the Man Made vs the others, only 31.7% of their readers believe it’s man made, the other 68.3% must be fools for believing it’s not man made (and a little of both), according to their view. I think their view may be on the loosing end. But why should they listen to their readers anyway?
It’s not as bad as it seems. They would just like to shut down the obvious nonsensical ” ‘debate’
over whether climate change is real or a hoax, however, should be confined to conspiracy websites and political blogs where truth takes a backseat to ideology.”
I suspect that the number of readers here that think that climate change is entirely a “hoax” approaches zero. Opinions may vary, as always, but the vast majority realize the local and planetary climates change, at least incrementally, over time. Academia does tend to be presumptuous and sometimes preposterous, bless their big heads and egos.
It’s just an admission of FAILURE, they don’t have to announce closure of topics , when they have successfully explained something.
..and the usual projection.
– Quack, quack, quack..spot the SunCoastToday.com booth and the next carnival market
..do they by chance have advertisers who sell solar PV, windpower and other eco-products ? Quack science will help them sell more
Simply dont buy or look at that newspaper anymore, really easy…..
cynical_scientist says:
February 6, 2014 at 11:32 am
Will this newspaper even exist in a few
decadesmonths?__________________
fixed
My local newspaper’s “about” page:
“In an era of change, the independent and locally owned newspaper is becoming increasingly rare. Paddock Publications, Inc., an independent publishing company, is an exception and proud of its history.
Hosea C. Paddock started the company more than 120 years ago with the motto, “To fear God, tell the truth and make money.” Four generations of Paddocks built a chain of weekly newspapers into the Daily Herald, the third largest newspaper in Illinois.
The Paddocks have no plans to give up the reins. Their strategic plans include continued expansion in the growing suburban Chicago market and a strong commitment to the communities currently served.
The Paddocks see their publishing powerhouse growing well into the next century.”
==============
Seems like they are telling “the truth”, it’s on my driveway every morning.
I guess that this post would be labeled doubleplus ungood.
http://i.imgur.com/UxgeG.jpg <— Albert Einstein Image
"Albert Einstein's response to the 1931 pamphlet "100 authors against Einstein," commissioned by the German Nazi Party, as a clumsy contradiction to the Relativity Theory, said, "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough."
In this case, 100% of the conflict-of-interest compromised individuals, whose jobs and grants likely depend on perpetuating misinformation and censoring rebuttals, don't want honest facts and research getting to the public. It could change their state-dependent funding. Not a surprise.
This paper is on the south coast of WHERE?
Did they also agree that there are strong net positive feedbacks that will relentlessly drive temperatures much higher? That’s the contrarian’s challenge, not these strawmen.
Some persons just can not handle reality without hiding their head in the sand like ostriches!
Ummm, did they ever print a skeptical opinion in the first place?
Surely a newspaper will print whatever they believe their readers want to read, with the proviso that they make more money in sales and advertising than they lose through libel claims.
Panic is setting in.
Demonstrating the complete collapse of credibility of the editors.
Their 100% could even be less than one.
We asked zero persons and assumed a failure to respond to be an affirmative.
It is always nice when Presstitutes self identify.
Will they last months, or years?
How deep are the pockets propping up this propaganda rag?
I already had a low opinion of journalists and newspapers. Hard to believe it just dipped further down.
Wonder how many people actually pay $69 a year for this?
I don’t think they would have done this if Rupert Murdoch still owned it. Wonder if this was a planned “We’re Not Fox!” bit?
BTW, According to the Alliance for Audited Media, the Standard Times Sunday circulation is down 26% since march 2009…
Sea experts…help!!!!
‘Ocean acidification’: this one always gets me. I was under the impression that the oceans already contain orders of magnitude MORE CO2 than the atmosphere. Is that correct?
If so, given those orders of magnitude MORE CO2 already in the ocean, how can a tiny percentage of an already trace quantity of atmospheric CO2 – that when compared to existing ocean CO2 is probably too small to even measure, drive ‘dangerous ocean warming’?
(Even if it did, given the poor depth & coverage of current & historical ocean data, how would we know?)
Also, how much ‘excess man made’ atmospheric CO2 goes exclusively into the oceans and thus is the difference between ‘normal’ CO2 levels and ‘catastrophe’?
Someone, please explain how a feeble amount of atmospheric CO2 can somehow overwhelm huge amounts of ‘ocean ready’ CO2? This just doesn’t make any sense to me at all.
Hopefully the news papers down South run by Good Ole boys will take a tip and stop debating whether creationism is as valid a fact as the legend of creationism.
Rogerknights, the South Coast of Massachusetts. You’d think they’d at least have some doubts considering the winter they are having. But too many private universities up there have done a pretty thorough job at brainwashing Massachusettians.
HGW xx/7 said… Someone (undoubtedly a leftie) once said the devil would appear draped in the American flag and holding a bible.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Not the fictional devil, but the reality of fascism: (the merger of state and corporate interests – Mussolini)
When fascism came to the United States in the 1930s, it was wrapped in the flag and heralded as a plea for preservation of life an liberty.
An open letter to SouthCoastToday
Given the light cast upon this news source from the current Editorial regarding shutting down debate of CAGW by eliminating Skeptical views posted therein, I here by submit my request for cancellation of my subscription of your News source, and termination of any and all Cookies on my computer that are sourced by it.
Regards
A skeptic concerned about the First ammendment
They all met and agreed that beieving the world was round was harmful to the environment and distressed people with unwanted fears so they proposed that the earth was flat and took polls on how people felt about the issue and called it science. We will no longer debate or get confused by facts now, we are your leaders.
No worries there Gareth Philips, Common Core national standards for public schools feature a top down federal curricula. The science educational standards will stress Climate Change and Evolution. Other sciences, such as chemistry and biology, will have to be de-emphasized for a more “wholistic” understanding. So you will get your wish for the public schools. The standard for scientific literacy is considered to be fulfilled in instruction in Climate Change and Evolutionary Theory.
However, educational freedom, and the right and duty of the parent to direct the upbringing and education of their children, is still respected in many courts.
ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/science/panel-calls-for-broad-changes-in-science-education.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
“Today, the “debate” is nothing more than a distraction that serves a political purpose for those who would stand to lose the most by policies that would curtail the release of carbon from its restful, stable location below the surface of the earth, in the form of fossil fuels, into our environment. ”
Bring on Agenda 21. The people who stand to lose the most are people who like to be alive. What these people seem to not realize is that they are useful idiots. They may be the last to go on the trains or into the camps, but they and their families will go.
Eric
” One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday agree both that climate change is occurring and that human activity — particularly the combustion of fossil fuels — has a significant impact on it.”
Yep. Both of those guys from Dartmouth agreed.
That’s a great word ‘progressive’. It sounds a lot better than communist or socialist or moaist or leninist or marxist.
Luddite-ism is alive and well. Let’s immediately ban the use of any 19 century or later contraptions or medicine and return to a hunter-gatherer existence to the age of 25 or so on average.
If they feel the debate is over and the science settled, I would presume thay haven’t visited WattsUpWithThat. Maybe we should send them a gift subscription?
This is the kind of attitude that this site needs to have to actually do something useful about the ridiculous situatuation I extend same criticism to othe skeptical sites. Legal action needs to be taken against criminal activity in the Climate area. PERIOD
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2014/02/04/global-warmings-tree-ring-circus/
Anthony – this is not surprising. I spoke to a friend who is a reporter at the Glasgow Herald about getting material published, and the truth hit home to me when he said: “but we don’t even have a science correspondent any longer”.
It wasn’t that the paper was not printing our sceptical material, it was that the whole of science was largely a no-go area for the paper.
And you know the cause? It’s because someone – has stolen all the global warming stories and now publishes them on line. So, these days if you want to read up on global warming, you don’t go to the Glasgow Herald, you don’t go to the Independent (about to close) or the Guardian (on its way out) or the SouthCoastToday
… you go online and read WattsUpWithThat!!!
They are not stopping comments because they are keeping you out … they are stopping comments because all their sane readers are deserting them to come and read blogs like this.
AS IF anyone ever cared what the South whatever whatever (I’m not going to scroll back up!) editor has to say. Well, ONE thing is certain, after this little bit of prime ignorance, no one ever will.
So 100% of “scientists” at one of the most liberal universities in the country agree with the govts paid for position.
Color me surprised.
Will they also no langer accept ‘might’, ‘could’ etc. when publishing alarmists claims and instead change that to ‘will’?
I mean, why tolerate the doubt, since the science is settled?
Those scientists at U Mass-Dartmouth are all aware they need to get outside grants to get tenure and promotions. We know that university is aware of NSF’s Broader Impacts criteria in effect now because it is on their university site. http://www.umassd.edu/research/grants/proposaldevelopment/new2013nsfgrantproposalguidechanges/
So the NSF, the managing partner of the Belmont Forum using the spectre of climate change to require actual social, economic, and political change under the banner of Sustainability defined in a manner that mimics Karl Marx’s fondest wishes, says this is what you must believe to get our money. These professors want that money and so they go along. Then that created conflict of interest that undermines science gets used to show that there is no merit to skepticism.
Genuine science does not need gag rules to function.
Bingo!
You know this is in an odd way good news for the tar and feathering industry. You see IF the world goes into decades of cooling then it will serve as a clear lesson to the media about freedom of speech, expression etc. The media insists on its right to freedom of expression yet wishes to deny others theirs.
They don’t understand the implication of the 17 years of surface temperature standstill. They don’t understand the rapid warming between 1910 to 1940. They don’t understand the Arctic Warm Period between 1920 to the 1940s. They don’t understand that water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas (according to the IPCC). They don’t understand that the effect of co2 is logarithmic not linear. They don’t understand that the debate IS about climate sensitivity.
They don’t understand that there has never been such a raging scientific debate that equals CAGW.
That right there is a lie. My view, ban your newspaper. How ya like that eh?
I did some digging (as usual)
Hathaway Publishing from WIKI
Ottaway Newspapers Inc., became The Dow Jones Local Media Group, a subsidiary of Dow Jones & Company, which is itself a subsidiary of News Corp.
Dow Jones is publisher of The Wall Street Journal. (again from WIKI) (a Murdock CORP)
News Corp was split and then on September 4, 2013, sold off Dow Jones Local Media Group to Newcastle Investment Corp.—an affiliate of Fortress Investment Group.
So that more or less explains why a change now.
If UMass Dartmouth scientists are convinced that humans cause climate change, what are they doing to change their own behavior? Why is it that people like these fly around the world to convince the rest of us to lower our carbon footprint when theirs is so much larger than ours? They obviously feel no pressing urgency to reduce their own footprint. Instead, as self-designating members of the elite, they claim an exemption from the rules they wish to impose on the rest of us.
Acidification, warming and sea level rise…. So where is the demonstration that any of these are linked to the rate and mass of CO2 emissions from human activity? The ‘debate’ has been about the absence of any links save in models programmed with said links embedded.
@RaiderDingo
>They don’t even seem to understand what is in dispute.
Exactly. It is slightly embarrassing to admit that I was a student team advisor to this institution a couple of years ago. What on earth have they been teaching them about engineering and logical thought processes? Are they even aware that there has been no meaningful rise in global temps for more than a decade while CO2 emission rates ramp up annually?
People are used to seeing an effect and wondering about the cause, but this is a case of a ’cause’ without any effect! Good grief. Show me where the sea level rise rate changed from the background level. Show me where the pH of the ocean alters with AG CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. Show me where the warming is hiding this time.
The facts I will agree on are they have not done their homework, came to a debate poorly prepared and seek to bury contrary evidence. Does ‘Ivy’ League mean ‘greenhorn’?
I blew the last comment Robert Thomson and News Corp are no longer owners. So back to digging.
Khwarizmi:
“When fascism came to the United States in the 1930s, it was wrapped in the flag and heralded as a plea for preservation of life an liberty.”
I’m not sure the quote has exactly been placed in the past tense quite yet, let alone specifically to the 30s. While our economic system appears to be trending that way, I feel I was fairly clear in that I was referring to the autocratic implications that come with such an economic system, which in this case is censorship.
Suppress, control, censor, degrade, marginalize, pressure.
Hey, it’s a tried-and-trued method favored by all fascist dictators.
One need only study the ways of Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini…
The following, among many, is why there should be a debate. They talk of facts and get their first ‘fact’ wrong.
“Today, the “debate” is nothing more than a distraction that serves a political purpose for those who would stand to lose the most by policies that would curtail the release of carbon from its restful, stable location below the surface of the earth, in the form of fossil fuels, into our environment. ”
.
OK then, lets just hypothetically take that as a given..The question then is..who would, in fact, stand to lose the most?
Eliza says:
February 6, 2014 at 12:08 pm
Simply don’t buy or look at that newspaper anymore, really easy…..
Exactly. This is the real reason print newspapers are going out of business. You can find all the lies (and then some!!) on the web, but the only place you can find the truth is on the web. Newspapers are easier to read than the computer screen, and that would be where I would get my news–if they would only print it.
I’m waiting for them to fold up shop. Printing on paper is environmentally hazardous and kills Carbon eating trees. Going online uses up too much Carbon-produced electricity that in turns produces too much Carbon pollution. If they were really out to save the world, then they’d close up shop and spread the news by word-of-mouth.
Then do as you preach. Here are some electric vans that are recharged from ?????? generated electricity. Let’s see how “rapidly” the shift “from fossil fuels to alternatives.”
http://www.esb.ie/electric-cars/electric-car-enterprise/choice-of-electric-fleet-vehicles.jsp
Have I got these chaps in a vice grip yet?
Perhaps, in the interest of restoring carbon to its natural resting place, you will turn over all your diamond rings so that the diamonds (pure carbon) may be buried. /sarc/
BTW the ocean is akaline and is warmed by the sun without regard to the amount of CO2 dissolved therein.
I have a watch. At the moment it is 4:28 pm EST. Take away my watch and how would I be able to conclude that everyone who says it is really 11:30 am EST is wrong?
The Board of Directors (Which I was looking for to start with) is HERE
These guys are no light weights! (What is it with bankers as news board of directors?)
Quoted from various pages within the site:
>
Gareth Phillips says:
February 6, 2014 at 12:26 pm
“…take a tip and stop debating…”
So like the news paper above you are for suppression of speech. Do you read the LA Times they don’t allow dissenting opinions?
“that everyone who says it is really 11:30 am EST is wrong?”
I are wanting to correct a typo.
“that everyone who says it is really 11:30 am EST are wrong?”
Oh the humiliation!
From the article:
“Ocean warming: The greenhouse gases — from a variety of sources — that prevent radiational cooling have been raising the temperature of the atmosphere, melting glaciers and polar ice over the decades. The atmosphere warms further because there is less ice to reflect the sun, further diminishing radiational cooling. The oceans warm by absorption both of atmospheric heat and melting ice. Scientists are unclear about how new patterns of currents will affect fish populations and more energetic weather systems.”
This is so dumb I am astonished the editor allowed it to be published.
Any addition of radiational gases (sic), as they call them, increase the ability of the atmosphere in emit heat into space at the TOA, cooling it, increasing the height to which thunderstorms can dump heat. The process dries out the stratosphere (there’s a fact to check). Has Dartmouth perhaps discovered fossil CO2 molecules that are bent so as to emit only downwards? Methinks they have discovered a set of climate coprolites.
Less ice? Where is this ‘less ice’? Globally less ice? Ever been to WUWT to see the Sea Ice Page? I know Americans famously reputed to be ignorant about geography but surely they realize at Dartmouth that Antarctica is ‘polar’?
Are they aware that removing ice from the Arctic sea increases heat loss through the atmosphere dramatically? What did they study in Mechanics 101 and those radiative heat transfer classes?
Students:
Show me one ocean that has been warmed by ‘atmospheric heat’ and explain the mechanism for same. Please explain also ‘ocean cooling’ from a warmer atmosphere. Please demonstrate this warming from your nifty swimming pool footbridge and a hair dryer (keep the plug out of the water). Show me a ‘more energetic weather system’ that is created by a lower Delta T between the low and high pressure side. You are the ones claiming the Arctic cold side is warming! The Tropics are not warming at all; lower ΔT.
Dartmouth, thy new name is Berkeley East.
Step outside and pitch in with the neighbours to shovel all that global warming.
First they came for the sky dragons and I did not speak up, for I was not a sky dragon …
How can you argue with ignoramuses who know nothing of the scientific method?
The hypothesis does not fit the models so it FAILS.
If a purveyor of news elects to decide what you get to read, and which news is worthy of transmitting, that would be one thing. The problem here is they have made an open announcement that they will provide only one side of a debate.
If they can do that without recourse on one subject, they can do it on any and all subjects.
This announcement just removed any possible classification as a reliable news source. And if they’re not reliable, why bother reading them.
I think the papers in is hoping to keep the ‘Useful Idiots’ screaming about the Keystone Pipeline since the parent company is busy buying up R/Rs
Since these guys are partners from Goldman-Sachs, the company that made a killing from the food riots in 2008.
I expect they hope to be in on the Natural Gas ‘Bubble’
They are also supporters of Oxfam International (Can I laugh myself sick now?)
Gail
Now that makes sense – I seem to recall a Timothy Geithner, former Goldman Sachs of Obama fame, the global warming president that heals the oceans and walks on water. How many guesses does one need to suspect the connections?
Cheshirered says:
February 6, 2014 at 12:24 pm
You need to make a differentiation between CO2 in the atmosphere, which is a greenhouse gas, CO2 in the ocean surface (the “mixed” layer) and CO2 in the deep oceans.
The different quantities involved:
atmosphere: ~800 GtC (pure CO2 as gas)
ocean surface: ~1,000 GtC (1% CO2, 90% bicarbonate, 9% carbonate)
deep coeans: ~37,000 GtC (slightly different from the surface)
The ocean surface and the atmosphere are in close contact and exchange CO2 at a high rate. Any increase (or decrease) of CO2 in the atmosphere is followed by a 10% increase (or decrease) of total carbon (thus CO2 + bicarbonate + carbonate, called DIC – dissolved inorganic carbon). That is the buffer factor of CO2 in the oceans. The buffer factor is caused by the reactions which dissociate extra CO2 in water to its different forms, but these reactions also increase the concentration of H+ ions, thus make seawater less alkaline. Some call that more acidic, which is technically correct, but highly misleading for the general public who thinks of “more acidic” as really acid…
Thus an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases the pH of the oceans. Not much, about 0.1 pH unit since the start of the industrial revolution. No fish, algue, mussel or coral that will have troubles with that, as most of these creatures can live and grow in a quite wide pH range… Over time, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increased with about 30%, that increased the 1,000 GtC in the oceans with about 30 GtC or 1,030 GtC, hardly measurable. There were some sporadic measurements of seawater pH, DIC, pCO2 (pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere in equilibrium with the seawater), etc. from the past and there are a few long term measurement series at Bermuda and Hawaii over the past decades:
http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/2509/2012/bg-9-2509-2012.pdf (Bermuda, Fig. 5)
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/30/12235.full.pdf (Hawaii, Fig. 1)
The deep oceans contain such an enormous amount of carbon (in different forms), that the extra CO2 plays no role there, up to now. The exchanges between deep oceans and the atmosphere are limited, so it takes a lot more time to bring these two in equilibrium, but when that happens, all human emissions since ~1850 combined would increase the deep ocean and atmospheric CO2 with only 1% or about 3 ppmv in the atmosphere…
The greenhouse gas effect is not in the oceans, it is in the atmosphere. Some wavelengths of the earth’s heat radiation are absorbed by CO2 molecules and re-emitted in all directions, including the earth’s surface. Which heats (in fact reduces the speed of cooling) the solid earth and the ocean’s surface. The latter is only over a fraction of a mm (IR radiation is directly absorbed by a tiny layer of water), which leads to increased temperature of the ocean’s “skin” and probably more evaporation. But that is a different discussion than that of the pH scare story…
Gail Combs says:
February 6, 2014 at 1:28 pm
The Board of Directors (Which I was looking for to start with) is HERE
These guys are no light weights! (What is it with bankers as news board of directors?)
_______________________
C’mon Gail… that must have been a rhetorical question, because you know full well what’s up with those people. One could say that the “truth about climate change” would affect their bottom line, but the answer goes much deeper- those bankers are in the club and humanity isn’t.
“Does ‘Ivy’ League mean ‘greenhorn’?”
Although one could no doubt find equally dim bulbs among the Dartmouth faculty, the professors they are referring to here are from the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, Massachusetts, a town on Massachusetts’ South Shore. The Ivy League school is different, located in New Hampshire.
Stephen Richards says: @ February 6, 2014 at 12:42 pm
That’s a great word ‘progressive’. It sounds a lot better than communist or socialist or moaist or leninist or marxist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They are using the usual black is white reasoning.
Progressive = Luddite
The Fifth Estate has lost its way.
J. Philip Peterson says:
February 6, 2014 at 11:13 am
I didn’t see CO2 referred to in the article. They label it carbon which is the first lie.
That is my first propaganda bias signal. CO2, the evil gas that should not be spoken by its name.
From the article:
Acidification: Carbon from human activity of burning fossil fuels is being absorbed into and changing the pH of our oceans, thus affecting the growth of corals and the ability of mollusks to make their shells
Carbon from human activity? Exactly as Dr. Ball said not long ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/05/fighting-the-wrong-battle-public-persuaded-about-co2-as-pollutant-not-as-cause-of-warming/
“misrepresentation of CO2 as a pollutant”
Acidifiation?
Well, no wonder the former MSM is losing its battle too as news outlet.
Dr Burns says:
February 6, 2014 at 11:17 am
Let’s see if this makes it past their moderator:
I doubt that.
sophocles says:
February 6, 2014 at 11:19 am
Is it the ostrich which is supposed to hide by burying its head in the sand?
Well said, describes well the action.
Terry Comeau says:
February 6, 2014 at 1:47 pm
The Fifth Estate has lost its way.
____________________
The Fifth Estate became the Fifth Column, long ago.
If SouthCoastToday wants to censor the views of skeptics, how about we contest their First Amendment rights? What’s good for the goose is surely good for the gander here.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
February 6, 2014 at 1:41 pm
You need to make a differentiation between CO2 in the atmosphere, which is a greenhouse gas, CO2 in the ocean surface (the “mixed” layer) and CO2 in the deep oceans.
The different quantities involved:
atmosphere: ~800 GtC (pure CO2 as gas)
ocean surface: ~1,000 GtC (1% CO2, 90% bicarbonate, 9% carbonate)
deep coeans: ~37,000 GtC (slightly different from the surface)
The ocean surface and the atmosphere are in close contact and exchange CO2 at a high rate. Any increase (or decrease) of CO2 in the atmosphere is followed by a 10% increase (or decrease) of total carbon (thus CO2 + bicarbonate + carbonate, called DIC – dissolved inorganic carbon). That is the buffer factor of CO2 in the oceans. The buffer factor is caused by the reactions which dissociate extra CO2 in water to its different forms, but these reactions also increase the concentration of H+ ions, thus make seawater less alkaline. Some call that more acidic, which is technically correct, but highly misleading for the general public who thinks of “more acidic” as really acid.
Thus an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases the pH of the oceans.
…
Ferdinand, your description gives the impression that the atmosphere faces a uniformly saturated ocean and an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is pushing it in the ocean.
not talking about the huge variations in CO2 in the atmosphere due to the photosynthesis now, the ocean content in CO2 is highly variable and looks very far away from your explanation of saturated CO2 at the surface:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/SOCAT+fCO2+map
Alan Robertson says: @ February 6, 2014 at 1:43 pm
C’mon Gail… that must have been a rhetorical question, because you know full well what’s up with those people. One could say that the “truth about climate change” would affect their bottom line, but the answer goes much deeper- those bankers are in the club and humanity isn’t.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I know most papers are Banker Controled but I thought this was a little local paper like my brothers-in-law work for.
As you said the elite view us as ‘chattel’ or is that cattle.
Crispin in Waterloo says:
February 6, 2014 at 1:13 pm
Acidification, warming and sea level rise…. So where is the demonstration that any of these are linked to the rate and mass of CO2 emissions from human activity?
and
Show me where the pH of the ocean alters with AG CO2 emissions from fossil fuels
Don’t push it too far… warming and sea level rise, little or no effect, but “acidification” or pH changes, directly coupled to DIC and atmospheric CO2 are proven, see the DIC and pH changes over the past ~30 years in the previous links I sent. The DIC changes with about 10% of the change in the atmosphere.
And the change in 13C/12C ratio in the ocean surface layer also follows the change in the atmosphere, which is directly in ratio with human emissions:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
Terry Comeau says:@ February 6, 2014 at 1:47 pm
The Fifth Estate has lost its way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Fifth Estate was bought by J.P. Morgan in 1915.
Excuse my butting in, but several have mentioned the “Fifth Estate” in relation to the press. That is not correct. While the “fifth column” does refer to spies and saboteurs, the press is supposed to be the “Fourth Estate”. It refers to the fact it is not Executive, legislative or Judicial (hence 4th) and therefore not government.
Jewish science was also in a great minority in Germany a few decades ago and was shut out in the process.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
February 6, 2014 at 1:41 pm
Thanks for such an in-depth explanation. Would it be fair to summarise your explanation to the question as: human CO2 is unlikely to cause any sort of noticeable difference to ocean heat content or ph levels for many years, if at all?
Lars P. says:
February 6, 2014 at 1:58 pm
Lars, I tried to make it not too difficult for Cheshirered, who is not so technically as you and I may be…
But of course, I know that there are continuous flows of CO2 from upwelling places near the equator to the cold sink places near the poles. And that there are a lot of seasonal movements in and out of the ocean surface… But in average an 100% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will give a 10% increase of CO2 in the ocean surface with a high exchange rate (1-3 years).
Here is a more detailed map of the average exchanges over a full year from the measurements over the oceans in 1995:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/images/fig06.jpg
The 1995 February/August pCO2 differences can be found here:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/maps.shtml
with a lot of explanation in that and previous and following pages…
Cheshirered says:
February 6, 2014 at 2:07 pm
Thanks for such an in-depth explanation. Would it be fair to summarise your explanation to the question as: human CO2 is unlikely to cause any sort of noticeable difference to ocean heat content or ph levels for many years, if at all?
I would be a little more cautious: human CO2 is unlikely to cause any sort of noticiable harm caused by the tiny changes in pH or ocean seawater temperature levels for many years…
I used seawater temperature instead of ocean heat content by purpose, as the heat content is a massive amount in figures, but it is fractions of a degree C (or F) in temperature… Any harm on corals or fish – if any – is by temperature, not by heat content…
I agree with South Coast Today; that’s Texas / Lousiana / MrsHippy / Alibaba / Fluorida ; that the climate has changed and become acidic around Massachoosits; well since the departure of its senior senator (rest his soul).
Just the other day, on one of the five or six leftist SFO T&V network station NEWS broadcasts, the spokesit actually said in so many words, that the oceans had now finally gone slightly acidic.
No I didn’t call them; ignorance is not a disease, and it can be funny to watch.
But for a dead tree publisher to say: “””””.One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday agree both that climate change is occurring and that human activity — particularly the combustion of fossil fuels — has a significant impact on it….. ……””””” is really a statement of obfuscation.
I need nummers !
“””…One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists…”””
HOW MANY are there.
OOPS !!…”””…participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday …”””
Oh now I get it; ALL three of them said so ??
Well I’ll take them off my party list.
Now I have been to board meetings (never again) ; I have chaired board meetings (dumbass); and I have been at board meetings, where a non-board member guest was present (spies; all of them).
You never invite more than one. If the more than one belong to the same organization, as the one, they are superfluous. If the one, doesn’t know all the facts to be discussed then s(he) is superfluous; get somebody who does.
If the more than one, are from different organizations; they don’t want to be discussing their stuff in front of other folks, who are likely competitors (spies).
So DON’T invite more than one.
Hell, when the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (Check Bouncer Babs Boxer’s committee) meets to discuss major USA energy matters (it’s their job); they generally invite about three each of CAGW pushers, and three “realists”. To inform them of the known facts.
Often they include a comic foil such as Bill Nigh ; “The SCIENCE Guy”.
But they never invite enough of anybody, to reach a statistically significant consensus about the facts. It’s all for public show , to create the illusion that they are doing something. . They aren’t of course; there’s thousands of unelected bureaucratic busybodies, busy writing the regulations; tens of thousands of pages of them; while the elected aren’t even reading the Bills, that they sign into law.
I’m sure that Texans are interested in what UMass scientists, past, present and future (triads) think.
Yet another example of why the main stream media ( in this case a small tributary to same) are drying up. It’s all electronic now, and such a print editorial policy can be cross checked electronically in seconds for free, Thank Google. A smaller version of the Guardian, but with the same inevitable end outcome. They will end slipping free papers under doorsteps to boost claimed circulation. It is interesting to watch centuries old business models go extinct. Sad to see them hasten their own oblivion by bowing to PC.
Thank you, Dr. Engelbeen for that beautiful graph. The most amazing part of it is that the sea concentration clearly changes first, followed closely by the atmosphere. I wonder what on Earth could be the mechanism involved?
NICELY DONE GAIL!
Thanks for the info on the board of directors. The Boston Globe has been doing this for quite awhile covering for UPC/First Wind.
Well I thought Dartmouth was a prison; but I see that is Dartmoor that is a prison. Sorry for the mixup.
Southcoasttoday.com has a ciculation of a few thousand illiterates. Another pravda rag promoting stupid not science.
Lady Life Grows says:
February 6, 2014 at 2:28 pm
Thank you, Dr. Engelbeen for that beautiful graph. The most amazing part of it is that the sea concentration clearly changes first, followed closely by the atmosphere.
Which one of the several graphs I referenced do you mean?
BTW, no “Dr.” have a chemical engineer degree (B.Sc.), but after a lot of self-study exercised a job at M.Sc. level of process automation in a large chlorine/VCM/PVC factory…
Cheshirered says:
February 6, 2014 at 12:24 pm
Sea experts…help!!!!
‘Ocean acidification’: this one always gets me. I was under the impression that the oceans already contain orders of magnitude MORE CO2 than the atmosphere. Is that correct?
Something you should consider is that to be acidic water only has to have a concentration of more than 1/10,000,000 grams of H+ /litre.
Even WUWT has a policy to exclude certain topics and groups.So how is that different from Southcoasttoday imposing some limits? Presumably there is somebody there saying WUWT has “a circulation of a few thousand illiterates”.
I am sure 100s of WUWT commenters could out debate their editorial board on a purely scientific basis.
Jeff L., the percentage is about the same as any other debate forum (perhaps even more scientific that in IPCC itself, where, as you know, good scientists abound!!). What´s your point despite cheap sarcasm?
Haven’t the Greenies made their point? They stopped global warming cold!
They are of course wrong on the “science” part, but still, it is stunning to see a newspaper that abhors debates serving a “political purpose”. The last time I have seen this kind of rhetoric was under communist rule. Their prime achievement along this line was that political debates went underground, so much so, that eventually even the ruling class lost faith in the sustainability of that system.
Anyway, no one is obliged to pay for this crap or even read it for free. Fortunately common sense prevails.
Now I know the difference between the scientific method and “science” … people and politics and money! Hey, I think they (MSM) are going to obfuscate or minimize that the Great Lakes are going to have a record freeze in the next couple of weeks. Maybe you or someone with good info access can post on this as it is already quite dramatic – and at least thru the 3rd week of Feb. the ice will continue to grow to record amounts. Very possible Lake Michigan will freeze over, but might need to fly over to verify it … since the media and powers that be are so “underreporting” this right now …
Jeff L., your phrase is more suited to http://www.skepticalscience.com, no? Easier to out debate the editorial board there, in scientific and even in non scientific basis…
Jeff L. says:
February 6, 2014 at 2:52 pm
“I am sure 100s of WUWT commenters could out debate their editorial board on a purely scientific basis.”
Teaching a journalist science only has two effects; you waste your time and the journalist gets irritated.
You want to know the truth?
You want to know the truth?
You cant handle the truth!
(Did you order a code red?)
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
February 6, 2014 at 2:15 pm
But of course, I know that there are continuous flows of CO2 from upwelling places near the equator to the cold sink places near the poles. And that there are a lot of seasonal movements in and out of the ocean surface… But in average an 100% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will give a 10% increase of CO2 in the ocean surface with a high exchange rate (1-3 years).
Ferdinand, the point I am trying to make is that these studies mostly forget that plants like CO2. As the observed greening of the planet over satellite there might be a “greening” of the oceans surface, as long as other nutrients are also available, and I am not sure if this does not get forgotten in the stress to search for “acidification” and “stress”.
I miss the studies showing how well does the ocean do with this bit of increased CO2?
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/ocean-plankton-suck-up-twice-the-carbon-we-thought-they-did/
The ocean content in CO2 goes from lows 200 at the poles to high 600 in the South Pacific current.
Is the carbon not a growth limitation factor in the nutrient rich polar zones, like it is for trees? Just asking. And if such will the biosphere not increase with more CO2?
“Today, the “debate” is nothing more than a distraction that serves a political purpose for those who would stand to lose the most by policies that would curtail the release of carbon from its restful, stable location below the surface of the earth, in the form of fossil fuels, into our environment. ”
That was a typo.
Here is the correction.
Today, the “theory” is nothing more than a tool that serves a political purpose for those who stand to gain the most by policies that would provide them with endless funding for well paid professional hobbies masquerading as careers.in science and academia.
They are required to produce no useful deliverables, retire early and are never held accountable for anything.
In short it is called a racket and they are racketeers.
WUWT is truly a magical blog! It can give a rather unknown newspaper the biggest access spike in their history!! The editorial decision is so “XII Century” that anything that can be written about it is giving it to much importance. Any “science” that needs a “consensus” to prevail (even if it is à lá Cook or à Lá Oreskes), it’s weak science.
Maybe it’s supposed to read, ‘ One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday BOTH AGREE that climate change is occurring and that human activity — particularly the combustion of fossil fuels — has a significant impact on it.
Ferdinand (@StFerdinandIII) says:
February 6, 2014 at 2:43 pm
Southcoasttoday.com has a ciculation of a few thousand illiterates.
———-
The problem is that the Boston Globe has taken the same position as well as other news outlets in the N.E. Region. The Globe itself has a high circulation but ignores evidence regarding a certain Boston based renewables firm when it was submitted, in the same fashion that a certain forensic accountant’s evidence when it was presented, ON A SILVER PLATTER, against Bernie Madoff, was ignored by the S.E.C. et.al. THREE TIMES…
Follow the money.
Gail got it right. Think Cape Wind.
Is it all about wording. Of course there is no debate on ‘climate change’ because that is exactly what the bloody climate does!
What I want to ask the editors is this – is there a debate about climate sensitivity?
Is there a debate about the causes of the global surface temperature standstill?
ANSWER: YES
References: IPCC
DirkH says: @ February 6, 2014 at 3:08 pm
Teaching a journalist science only has two effects; you waste your time and the journalist gets irritated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Brother (in law) have you got that right.
I have two (Brothers-in -law) who are journalists. One is ‘home grown’ and a Viet Nam vet. He is a realist. The other went to Journalism school. He doesn’t even want to hear it because it would put him at odds with his journalist buddies. Both were born in Boston MA.
I have a couple of wee questions for the SouthCoastToday birdcage liner concerning this paragraph in their, ahem, editorial:
‘These arguments are not scientific. They always come from sources with significant political or economic reasons to deny climate change, and they are always debunked by legitimate science.’
Ok, could they please trouble themselves to explain to me precisely who those “sources with significant political or economic reasons to deny climate change” are? So, Standard-Times editorial board; who are they? And if you name names would you fancy yourselves to provide examples in which those “sources with significant … reasons” have advanced those non-scientific arguments? Could you please tell me the venue they used in which to do this? If I ask nicely will you tell me? And after my heart has stopped beating, and the skin has rotted from my bones, and I’ve just maybe (but probably not) gotten an answer, could the Standard-Times editorial board then educate me as to how sources with significant political or economic reasons to advance the idea of carbon (it’s really carbon dioxide, guys – molecules are not atoms) caused catastrophic climate change could possibly be inherently different from “sources with significant political or economic reasons to deny climate change”? Oh, and can you tell me which of those sources, the former or the latter, has greater economic, political, and media advantage in advancing their ideas and point out at least one, single, solitary, itsy bitsy example of this before my human remains can no longer be identified? And can you endeavor to at least claim, if not actually achieve the most minute level of honesty in your answers to my humble questions. And, of course, if I don’t get any answers (I think I put ‘if’ in this sentence out of a sense of generosity) could you please inform me why I should not use your rag for anything other than a birdcage liner?
I added a starchy comment — in my inimitably polite fashion. (I don’t expect ever to see it again.)
Maybe I should add UMass Dartmouth to my resume circular file filter.
Obviously SouthCoastToday doesn’t know enough about the issue to provide counterarguments , so it simply removes any need to make them. Global warming stopped almost two decades ago and these folks are still clueless.I even wonder if these yoyos know the crucial need for carbon
dioxide.
When someone or a body comes out so strongly in favour of CAGW you should look to see their vested interests. Does the media owner have shares in solar or wind companies? Does their wife or kids? Are they a sandal wearing hippy dreamer from the 1960s? Do they have climate scientist friends pulling their chains? Do they actually know what they are arguing about?
They tell us to listen to the experts.
Children won’t know…………….. via Mr Vinebat
IPCC temperature projections on AR1……….. via TeamCRAPTEMP
Ice free Arctic ocean 2013………………. via KnownotWallowski
Ice fee Arctic 2012……………… via Mr. Zwillybat
and so on…………………
“When the public’s right to know is threatened…”
The irony of a double-edged sword.
“Theories are debated. Facts are facts”
The biggest effect and indisputable fact related to increasing CO2 on our planet so far involves the proven law of PHOTOSYNTHESIS.
Even if every bit of warming to this point was caused by mans burning fossil fuels, the fact is:
The earth is greening up. Even deserts are getting greener. Vegetative health, crop yields and world food production is soaring higher because of the increased CO2.
We continue to play their political game and battle over temperatures as they trounce and vilify CO2. Carbon pollution or CO2=pollution has been stamped into all the brainwashed minds.
I will treat these people as authentic and objective scientists, when they include as part of their position/discussion, the 100% long ago proven law of PHOTOSYNTHESIS and recognize all the overwhelming data/facts and studies that show the key role that increasing carbon dioxide is playing in that world.
Actually, it’s the same world, that they assert is being harmed from the same CO2 molecule.
Did one hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists participate in this meeting? Or is this another ‘Cooked” story and are we just talking about 97%.
This is my message to South Coast.com:
You have decided that ‘…The “debate” over the reality and cause of climate change stopped being scientific long ago.’ Whether you like it or not I will use science to prove that global warming does not even exist. Your theory is based on the idea that carbon dioxide causes greenhouse warming by absorbing outgoing infrared radiation and thereby warming the air. The connection with climate was first noticed by Svante Arrhenius who pointed out that doubling the amount of CO2 in the air would raise global temperature. James Hansen went further in 1988. He had a record of global temperature rise from 1860 to 1988. He pointed out that 1988 was the warmest temperature peak ever. There was only a one percent chance, he said, that this could happen by pure chance. Hence it was clear to him that greenhouse warming had caused this temperature rise. Note that his argument is statistical and he did not perform any scientific experiment to prove his point. Nevertheless, IPCC was established that same year to specifically study human influence on climate. Since then temperature kept increasing but not in step with the increase in carbon dioxide as their theory requires. During the twentieth century there were two periods of temperature rise. The first one started in 1910, raised global temperature by half a degree, and stopped in 1940. The second one was a short step warming in 1999. In three years it raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius. That is a total of 0.8 degrees for the century. At this point I have to mention radiation physics. It requires that in order to start a greenhouse warming you must simultaneously increase the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is necessary because the absorbency of a gas for infrared radiation is a property of its molecules and cannot be changed. And fortunately we do know what atmospheric carbon dioxide is doing because Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii has been measuring it since 1958. And for older data we have the ice core data from Law Dome in the Antarctic. And guess what? These data show that there was no addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere either in 1910 or in 1999, the beginning dates of the two twentieth century warming events. These data can be checked by anyone. It follows that there has been no greenhouse warming whatsoever for the entire twentieth century. Hence, the ” three undeniable, provable effects that burning fossil fuels has…” cannot be the effects of burning fossil fuels.
Phil. says:
February 6, 2014 at 2:50 pm
And it currently has less than 1/100,000,000 grams of H+ /litre.
But hey, it has more than 1700 times that much -OH, which is the active ingredient in…LYE!!!!
OMG, we’re all going to die!!!!!
From a storm-tossed UK (as well as a very wet northern Europe, baking Australia and unnaturally cold USA – among other countries and regions becoming increasingly affected by climate change), I would like to thank you all for your pedantic obsessions over who said what and when (and how they didn’t say it correctly or not totally to your liking), and your continued obstructionism and highlighting of any cold records (whole ignoring all the warm ones). Your services to carbon and against humanity will be suitably rewarded, I hope.
J Murphy,
Based on all that “extreme weather” your worried about, you sound like you’re stuck in the back room of your local library and reading Newsweek and Time articles from the 1970s.
And if I want a fire-and-brimstone sermon, I’ll seek out a local Southern Baptist church if it’s all the same to you.
http://www.theledger.com/article/20140203/edit02/140209837?fb_comment_id=fbc_1387954794760330_2614_1388224504733359#gsc.tab=0
I am having success on my end. As long as the IPCC controls the purse strings, scientists have no choice but to stay in line.
I see it over and over.
I’ll bet I could get a creation vs. evolution letter published there, though.
The Los Angeles Times established a ban on printing any climate change skeptic letters long ago. The Times has been conducting a political climate fear propaganda campaign for decades. The material contained in the ridiculous justification for the action reported here is absurd. The real issues of the extent of man made influences versus natural climate change action which is clearly under intense scientific debate as demonstrated by the IPCC AR5 retreat from the results projected by climate models that have all but been abandoned is just ignored here. The exaggeration of man made influences is present in so many areas alleged as being problems and the publication of thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers which challenge the validity of virtually every area of climate scientist alarmism is overwhelming in the justifying the push back. This action demonstrates a clear case of confirmation bias by those making a living at the government funding feed bag.
Reuters’ latest on EU’s attempts to further FIX THE CO2 MARKET PRICE:
EU carbon surges to 13-mth high after parliament vote
LONDON, Feb 6 (Reuters) – European carbon prices surged more than 9 percent to a 13-month high on Thursday after the European Parliament approved a proposal to fast-track efforts to prop up prices, but traders said the market may be over-heated and due for a correction.
https://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.3975390
Bloomberg in a frenzy:
7 Feb: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: Ex-Barclays Carbon Chief Trades From Home as Prices Surge
Louis Redshaw, the former head of carbon trading at Barclays Plc (BARC), returned to the market amid a jump in permit prices since he left the bank in April.
Redshaw, 41, who resigned from Barclays in London after more than eight years at the company, is buying and selling European Union permits for his own account from his home in the southeast of the capital, he said by phone, declining to provide further details. Allowances climbed 33 percent this year, the best performance of 80 commodities tracked by Bloomberg. They rose to their highest level in more than a year today, trading at 6.74 euros ($9.17) a metric ton on the ICE Futures Europe exchange in London…
EU lawmakers are completing details of a plan to curb an unprecedented oversupply and boost prices, which fell to a record in April. Allowances may rise to as high as 15 euros by 2015, according to Patrick Hummel, an analyst at UBS AG.
“There’s no reason why the market shouldn’t double within the next 18 months,” said Redshaw, who also worked as a trader at Enron Corp. and Electricite de France SA. (EDF) “At 6 euros, it’s still cheap.” …
“If the EU manages to re-establish its emissions trading system as the central pillar of climate policy, that will create growing interest in carbon markets across the world,” Schoenberg, who previously worked at the Bonn-based United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change secretariat, said Feb. 4 by phone. Carbon prices may average about 40 euros a ton from 2019 to 2030, according to Climate Change Capital…
“The commission’s support from the parliament cemented that fact and the future of the market,” Redshaw said. “I’ve been watching developments and now is the right time to get back involved.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-06/ex-barclays-carbon-chief-redshaw-trades-from-home-as-prices-jump.html
Kip Hansen says:
‘J Murphy says:
February 6, 2014 at 4:17 pm
From a storm-tossed UK (as well as a very wet northern Europe, baking Australia and unnaturally cold USA – among other countries and regions becoming increasingly affected by climate change), I would like to thank you all for your pedantic obsessions over who said what and when (and how they didn’t say it correctly or not totally to your liking), and your continued obstructionism and highlighting of any cold records (whole ignoring all the warm ones). Your services to carbon and against humanity will be suitably rewarded, I hope.’
Lol! Great comedy, son. You should do it as a day job.
J Murphy says:
February 6, 2014 at 4:17 pm
“Your services to carbon and against humanity will be suitably rewarded, I hope.”
Hey, J, I didn’t do anything. I just watched the pityful spectacle for the last 4 years because it was amusing watching the warmist movement self-destruct. BTW, it hasn’t been warming for the last 17 years. Your island gets more windy? Can’t be the temperature; it’s not changing. Blame something else. A non changing temperature can’t cause more wind if you can follow me.
Slow day on the south coast of Mass, my guess. An editorial board meeting with scientists. Oh my and gosh, who called who to set up this meeting? The propagandists – er sorry – the scientists, or the newspaper? My guess (again) the propagandists called to offer their opinion tete-a-tete and hey, it was no match for this crew. The ref called it in the first round.
Further, I wonder if the same comatose editors would entertain an editorial proposition from other scientists, you know, those who aren’t into the propaganda business.
Nice says:
February 6, 2014 at 2:51 pm
“Even WUWT has a policy to exclude certain topics and groups.So how is that different from Southcoasttoday imposing some limits? Presumably there is somebody there saying WUWT has “a circulation of a few thousand illiterates”.
Nice,
Prof Richard Lindzen, for example, is among those the NY Times would censor.
The Times won’t censor creationists, as pointed out above. But they will censor one of the world’s premier climatologists, who heads M.I.T.’s atmospheric sciences department.
[How] do you defend that?
J Murphy says:
February 6, 2014 at 4:17 pm
From a storm-tossed UK (as well as a very wet northern Europe, baking Australia and unnaturally cold USA – among other countries and regions becoming increasingly affected by climate change), I would like to thank you all for your pedantic obsessions over who said what and when (and how they didn’t say it correctly or not totally to your liking), and your continued obstructionism and highlighting of any cold records (whole ignoring all the warm ones). Your services to carbon and against humanity will be suitably rewarded, I hope.
*****************************
want a blankie for those tears?
I was suprised by the comments to the decsion in the paper. there was only one supporter the rest were very critical of the southcoast today.
more detail from the Reuters’ carbon (dioxide) price piece:
7 Feb: Business Spectator: Reuters: EU carbon surges to another high after vote
The futures then drifted back down to 6.57 euros by 1535 GMT, up 41 cents or 6.7 per cent on the day…
While the motion must be formally signed off by EU ministers at a Feb. 24 meeting, Thursday’s vote effectively removed the final hurdle for the 28-nation bloc’s executive to begin market intervention and withdraw 400 million allowances from government-backed auctions in 2014…
However, Ferdinand added that prices could fall in the next few sessions as speculators take profits, a view echoed by one emissions trader.
“Long-term we’re going higher, but it’s tricky to say where we go in the short-term. It will be driven by speculator appetite to hold long positions … (so) we’re probably due a bit of a breather,” the trader said.
“We’ve also got at least another month of regular auctions, so that could weigh.”
EU governments are scheduled to sell a total 106.2 million allowances between Friday and mid-March, fresh supply that must be absorbed by the market…
A group of 25 member states on Thursday sold 4 million spot permits for 6.01 euros each, in an auction that attracted bids worth a total 16.8 million units…
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/2/7/carbon-markets/eu-carbon-surges-another-high-after-vote
Gail Combs says:
February 6, 2014 at 1:05 pm
===========================================================================
Gail, thanks for doing some digging. We can always count on you to add content to the discussion. I think you got a little off tract with Fortress Investments, however. I don’t think they are the current owners. I found this at http://www.prnewswire.com
“WILMINGTON, Del., Nov. 26, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — GateHouse Media, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, “GateHouse”), comprising one of the largest publishers of locally based print and online media in the United States, have emerged from prepackaged chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings…..
Upon its emergence from chapter 11, GateHouse is now owned by New Media Investment Group Inc. (“New Media”), and is under common ownership with Local Media Group, Inc. (“Local Media Group”), a company with a strong community media presence and performance that operates eight daily community newspapers and thirteen weeklies.”
I did go the the GateHouse Media website and found this:
“GateHouse Media’s business model is to be the preeminent provider of local content and advertising in the small and midsize markets we serve. Our portfolio of products, which includes 404 community publications and more than 350 related websites and six yellow page directories, serves over 128,000 business advertising accounts and reaches approximately 10 million people on a weekly basis. As of June 30, 2012, our core products included:
78 daily newspapers with total paid circulation of approximately 547,000;”
With 78 dailies with a circulation of 547,000, the dailies have an average circulation of about 7013 each.
When I went to the list of publications, there was Hathaway Publications listed as a daily paper under “Massachusetts.” It also listed LMG (probably Local Media Group) as “operator.” When I clicked on Hathaway Publications, it brought up the South Coast Today website.
Was their decision not to publish skeptic views of CAGW an edict from New Media Investments Group, or the local editors decision? I don’t know, but with that kind of circulation, I’ll bet the editorial board was made up of the editor and his dog. However, it is a shame those 7000 Massachusetts readers will not get the skeptics view from South Coast Today. Hopefully they all have computers and can access WUWT.
keep digging Gail – the carbon cowboys are sweating on this being their “moment” to pounce:
more frenzy from Bloomberg’s CAGW “specialists”:
6 Feb: Bloomberg/Businessweek: Ewa Krukowska/Jonathan Stearns: Fast-Track EU Carbon Fix Approval by Bloc’s Paarliament (2)
“It is the best-case scenario eventually materializing,” said Matteo Mazzoni, an analyst at Bologna, Italy-based Nomisma Energia srl, an adviser to energy companies, governments and banks. “It is good news for the market.” …
Emergency Measure
“We estimate that backloading could start on March 17,” Itamar Orlandi, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London, said in an e-mail…
The emergency measure needs to be cleared by both the Parliament and the EU Council of national governments before it enters into force…
Carbon prices will jump to 7.75 euros a metric ton by the end of the year amid the planned supply curbs, according to the median of nine analyst and trader estimates compiled by Bloomberg News last month…
Complicated Process
New Energy Finance’s prediction that backloading could begin on March 17 assumes that the regulation is published in the week starting Feb. 24 and that the announcement on new auction calendars is made on March 3…
Today’s vote “shows that the will is there but the process was so complicated and flawed and there was so much delay,” Nick Eagle, a trader at Clean Energy Group Ltd. in London, said today in an e-mailed response to questions. “You can’t avoid the fact this was meant to be the easy bit.” …
A more permanent tightening of the market “will be much harder to agree” and realization that this political fight is still to come “could lead to a sell-off after the excitement has died down,” he said.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-02-06/fast-track-eu-carbon-fix-gets-approval-from-european-parliament
6 Feb: Platts/McGraw Hill Financial: EU parliament backs fast CO2 market fix; ministers set to OK plan Feb 24
(WISHFUL THINKING?) Meanwhile, EU ministers are tentatively scheduled to give the EU Council’s formal approval without further discussion on February 24, an EU diplomatic source told Platts Thursday…
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/brussels/eu-parliament-backs-fast-co2-market-fix-ministers-26690934
and politics will play a part in prepping the CO2 market!
6 Feb: Chicago Tribune: Mark Drajem, Bloomberg News: Southern balks at EPA rules that cite its carbon-capture plant
Southern Co., which is building the nation’s only commercial power plant that will capture its own carbon emissions, criticized a proposal from the federal government to require all new coal plants to use the technology.
At a public hearing Thursday at Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Washington, industry representatives said the agency went too far in its proposed limits on carbon-dioxide emissions from new power plants. The technology isn’t commercially available and doesn’t have the rules in place to govern its use, they said.
Southern said the plant it’s building in Kemper, Miss., which the EPA cited in its proposal, shouldn’t be viewed as a model. It “should not be used in developing a national standard for greenhouse gases,” Danny Herrin, the Atlanta-based company’s environmental director, testified…
(MOTHERS & GRANDMOTHERS???) Environmental advocates, religious leaders, medical professionals and mothers and grandmothers also testified Thursday, mostly in support of the plan or asking the agency to go further…
The standard “is supposed to be technology forcing,” said Felice Stadler, senior director for climate at the National Wildlife Federation. “You have to put a marker out there.”…
“It’s about fuel diversity,” said Eric Holdsworth, director of climate programs at Edison Electric Institute, a Washington-based trade group representing utilities such as Southern and American Electric Power Co…
Industry groups also said that standard is too tight, because plants can’t meet it in real-world conditions.
The rules were embraced by environmental groups and other lawmakers who have been seeking new methods to curb carbon emissions, even though have lacked consensus in Congress to achieve their goals.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-epa-southern06-20140206,0,6624868.story
Oh, so the debate on climate change is over? You know what else is over? The debate over what we’re going to DO about it.
J Murphy says:
February 6, 2014 at 4:17 pm
“….Your services to carbon and against humanity will be suitably rewarded, I hope.”
==============
Stick around, we’re all just trying to figure things out.
7 Feb: NYT: Stanley Reed: European Lawmakers Try to Spur Market for Carbon-Emission Credits
After the vote Thursday, carbon permit prices rose about 7 percent, to about 6.60 euros, or $9. But that price is still well under the figure of €25 or more that analysts say is needed to influence business decisions like whether to burn coal, which is a heavy carbon emitter, or natural gas.
European officials “wanted to give a signal that the E.T.S. is not dead, and they managed to get it through,” said Roland Vetter, an analyst at CF Partners, a London-based trading house…
But it will be many months before those policies are ironed out, and with a new European Parliament to be elected in May, there is no guarantee that efforts already underway will become law…
Beginning as early as March, European officials will reduce the number of credits released over the next three years by about 900 million tons or about half of the estimated two billion ton surplus…
But after much early fanfare, the European system lost momentum. The long economic slowdown, since the financial crisis of 2008 reduced industrial activity and energy use in Europe, creating a surplus of permits in the system that has depressed the price of allowances. Heavy subsidies for renewable energy by countries like Germany have also undermined the trading system, some analysts say…
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/business/international/european-lawmakers-try-to-spur-market-for-carbon-emission-credits.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=0
“Theories are debated. Facts are facts.”
Anyone who thinks that “facts are facts” needs to remember that merely believing that something is a fact does not make it a fact. It was once a “fact” that the Sun circled the Earth, once a “fact” that heavy objects fell faster than lighter objects, once a “fact” that atoms could not be split. Even more outrageous, it was recently a “fact” that doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations would raise temperatures by several degrees. How outdated…
Gail Combs says:
February 6, 2014 at 1:13 pm
===========================================================================
Gail, perhaps I spoke to soon. Trying to find something about New Media Investments I was lead back to Newcastle Investment Group and this dated Nov. 6, 2013, at http://www.highyieldbond.com/gatehouse-media-prepackaged-reorganization-plan-approved/
“GateHouse Media Inc. won bankruptcy court approval of its prepackaged reorganization plan and disclosure statement today, less than six weeks after filing for bankruptcy in Wilmington, Del.
The company, one of the largest publishers of locally based print and online media in the U.S., announced on Sept. 11 that it had entered into a plan support agreement with Newcastle Investment Group, an affiliate of Fortress Investment Group, and certain lenders under its 2007 secured credit facility. GateHouse filed for Chapter 11 protection on Sept. 27 with the support of all but one of its 80 lenders
Under the plan approved today, about $1.117 billion in secured holder claims will be offered a cash-out option of 40 cents on the dollar plus accrued interest at the non-default rate, or a pro rata share of stock in the reorganized company, which will be called New Media, and the proceeds of a new $150 million debt facility.”
So who really owns this little local daily newspaper with a circulation of several thousand? I’m not sure, but it sounds like it ultimately could be Fortress Investment Group. However, I still think the decision not to publish skeptic views of CAGW was made by the local editor.
“””””…..jrlagoni says:
February 6, 2014 at 3:07 pm
Now I know the difference between the scientific method and “science” … people and politics and money! Hey, I think they (MSM) are going to obfuscate or minimize that the Great Lakes are going to have a record freeze in the next couple of weeks. Maybe you or someone with good info access can post on this as it is already quite dramatic – and at least thru the 3rd week of Feb. the ice will continue to grow to record amounts. Very possible Lake Michigan will freeze over, …..”””””
Well Lake Superior has already frozen over; so who gives a rats if Michigan does too.
this was hidden way down (4 pages) in the google AlGore-ithms results:
6 Feb: Bloomberg: Rachel Morison: Changes to U.K. Carbon Floor Price Will Harm Liquidity, EDF Says
Freezing or changing plans for the U.K. carbon floor price would “severely damage” power market liquidity, according to Electricite de France SA.
***The floor price, set in the national budget each April, will rise to 18.08 pounds ($29.42) a metric ton of emissions in the year through March 2016, up from 4.94 pounds, the Treasury said last March. The government plans to freeze the carbon price from 2016, the Daily Mail newspaper reported Jan. 25…
Emitters such as factories and power stations must pay the floor price in addition to buying European emissions allowances, which have fallen 80 percent from a record 31 euros a ton in April 2006.
“It is no secret that the trajectory for floor prices is way out of line with carbon prices,” Michael Fallon, minister of state for energy, said at a conference in London. “This is significant for industry and we are bound to show an interest in this.” …
The carbon floor price will add 10 percent to electricity prices by 2015, according to Gareth Stace, head of climate and environment policy at manufacturers organization EEF.
“Some of our members would be happy to see it abolished altogether,” Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group said yesterday by phone from London. “We are arguing for the trajectory for the carbon floor price to come down towards the end of this decade and beyond.” …
The lack of clarity on the carbon floor price is unsatisfactory, according to Tim Yeo, chairman of the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, said in London.
“I can sympathize that it provides a healthy revenue stream and the chancellor doesn’t want to lose it,” he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-05/changes-to-u-k-carbon-floor-price-will-harm-liquidity-edf-says.html
The term “climate change” is defined by the UNFCCC as being man made driven changes to the earth’s climate but this is not the definition of “climate change” used by by either the EPA or even generally by the IPCC where changes include both man made and natural variability drivers.
george e. smith says:
February 6, 2014 at 7:42 pm
“Well Lake Superior has already frozen over; so who gives a rats if Michigan does too.”
==============
Well….. per:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-11-13/news/0211130174_1_lake-michigan-lake-erie-great-lakes
“According to the Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab at Ann Arbor, Mich., Lake Michigan has never completely frozen over, a result of the vast reservoir of heat contained in the lake, along with the constant wind and wave action. In some of our harshest winters, (1903-04, 1976-77 and most recently 1978-79) Lake Michigan was more than 90 percent ice-covered.
In an average winter, ice covers a little less than half the lake. Because the lake extends more than 300 miles from north to south, most of the open water is in the south part where the cold is less severe.”
——
So, apparently, I give “a rats”.
Or I wouldn’t have gone to all this trouble to post this info.
(the lake still has a long way to go to be frozen over).
The forecast though looks to produce much ice.
Wow. So, in essence, they’re saying that Bill McKibbon, David Suzuki and Michael Mann are normal, and the rest of us are crazy? Not sure that I’d want to stake MY reputation on such a premise if I ran a media outlet, but to each their own.
So, Dr Lew and his buddy Cook trained some folks on how to do stats, eh?
Must have done a good training job because already they figured, screw the 97% biz we say it’s 100% of every scientist who has ever been a Dartmouth scientist since the beginning of time (whatever that means?) all agree it’s warmed and man did it. We asked every single one and they all agreed, 100%.
Well fancy that.
Not a mere 97%…not even a lousy 99.7%… but 100%
cn
At the current time there are 187 comments on WUWT and 54 on the newspaper SouthCoastToday.com and over 90 are from sceptics. Yet they tell us there really is no debate and they tell us that we are living in denial.
The newspaper was very careful to lightly skirt round this.
Somehow it’s not important. It is because it has a direct bearing on the IPCC’s projections for the rest of the 21st century. It fuels the real debate about climate sensitivity.
Small correction, I should have said.
“At the current time there are 187 comments on WUWT and 54 on the newspaper SouthCoastToday.com and over 90% are from sceptics.”
Here is a comment over at the newspaper from a Warmist. [my bold]
Why do people write such easily rebutted rubbish? No wonder I don’t last long on Warmist comment sections. 🙂 My reply would be for the commenter to tell that to the astronomer and physicist Dr. James Hansen. The Father of global warming. He too is no climate scientist by his ‘logic.’ LOL.
Here is the comment under jperk
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140205/OPINION/402050305#comment-1391721936-196-965
Remember that classic scene in The Waltons when the local Church organizes a German book burning party to protest against the Nazis in Germany.John Boy rushes in and stops it and he get a woman of German decent to read one of the books and it the Christian Bible.Classic clip used to be on YouTube but i assume it got deleted because of Copyright.
Small step from Burning books to burning Jews and Russian Cities
Someone tell this Newspaper Denying Deniers the right to Democratic free speech is F__king with Democracy
So this Newspaper follow the establishment line and reject publishing articles about Climate Skepticism okay
Then their government can step in and tell them what other articles they can print about example Edward Snowdon, Gun Control ,Obama Care ,The Banking Collapse ,Police Corruption in Public Office, Water Boarding,Taxes ,Veterens Welfare,The Iraq War,Guantanamo,Crumbling Infrastructure,
US Loses in Afghanistan,Human Rights Abuses in China Russia Saudi Arabia Nigeria US trading partners and allies on the War on Terror
Don’t like Skepticism about Manmade Climate Change why should you like Skeptism and Criticism anything else.
,
Let me remind – also newspaper SouthCoastToday, these opinions supporters (at least partially) the theory of a. global warming:
Atte Korhola , the Professor of Environmental Change (http://www.helsinki.fi/news/archive/2-2010/15-16-18-33):
“The mistakes demonstrate that IPCC has taken on too much when trying to cram the entirety of diverse climate research in one book and force it into consensus.”
“However, science develops all the time and reduction of scientific ambiguity is not realistic.”
… once again H. von Storch (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html):
“Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people.”
“Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth.”
old engineer says: @ February 6, 2014 at 6:46 pm
I had a devil of a time finding anything and ended up using WIKI that said News Corp was split-up and then on September 4, 2013 it sold off Dow Jones Local Media Group to Newcastle Investment Corp.—an affiliate of Fortress Investment Group.
Looks Like WIKI got it correct:
With the heavy investment in real estate related assets they may be looking at Wind (and Solar) Farm rental fees. That is where the British crown is making gobs of money. Fortress Investment Group LLC investment in R/Rs would mesh nicely, since Shell VP Ged Davis’s B1 ‘Sustainability’ scenario that he wrote for the IPCC had wind, solar and natural gas as energy sources.
Fortress Investment Group LLC is also heavy into real estate.
dmacleo says: @ February 6, 2014 at 6:26 pm
J Murphy says:@ February 6, 2014 at 4:17 pm
Your services to carbon and against humanity will be suitably rewarded, I hope.
*****************************
dmacleo says: @ February 6, 2014 at 6:26 pm
want a blankie for those tears?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When I read that type of stuff from the emotional but useful idiotic serfs of the elite, I am very tempted to say; “You want a short nasty brutal life with no energy, go for it but don’t come whining to me when you have blisters on your hands and feet, and you are wet, cold shivering and hungry.”
If people like J Murphy ever got what they think they want they would be dead inside a month. To bad they are too brainwashed to ever figure that out.
The Farce Is Complete: Blythe Masters Joining CFTC
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-06/farce-complete-blythe-masters-joining-cftc
We thought today’s newsflow and “market action” ranked pretty high on the absurd surrealism scale. And then we saw this.
That’s right – you read it correct: “Blythe Masters, head of JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s commodities division, is joining an advisory committee of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, said Steve Adamske, a spokesman for the regulator. Masters, 44, was invited by acting Chairman Mark Wetjen to sit on a global markets committee at the Washington-based regulator of futures and swaps, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. Masters is scheduled to participate in a CFTC meeting on Feb. 12 to discuss cross-border guidance on rules, the person said.”
Ok – ignore, if you will, all alegations about Blythe Masters “interventions” in the precious metals markets.
But don’t ignore Blythe’s CNBC interview in which the soon to be former JPMorganite said, days before the London Whale fiasco was exposed and so were JPM’s attempts to corner the bond market, that JPM has “offsetting positions. We have no stake in whether prices rise or decline. Rather we’re running a flat or relatively flat matched book” – a statement that was a bold faced lie, and was followed up with “what is commonly out there is that JPMorgan is manipulating the metals market. It’s not part of our business model. it would be wrong and we don’t do it.”
No, Blythe had much greater manipulative ambitions, namely becoming the next Enron, which we learned after than the FERC fined JPMorgan – and the group ran by Blythe Masters – for manipulating electricity prices in California and other states.
Fast forward to today when we learn that this certified commodity market manipulator just got a job with none other than the head commodity regulators in the US?
In other words, you too can get a job at the CFTC if only you can answer yes to the following two questions (h/t Manal):
Has your bank manipulated energy markets under your watch, and
Have you been found guilty of commodity price manipulation
We could ask what Elizabeth Warren would think about this hilarious rotating door out of the most punished for its legal transgressions bank – with about $25 billion in legal fees, expenses and settlement charges – the same Warren who earlier today was parading with pandering populism at the Senate hearing, as a result of which nothing would change…
… but we won’t. Because as we noted: nothing will ever change. Actually correction – now it will be Blythe Masters on top of the one regulators that is supposed to enforce a fair, honest and efficient commodities market.
It’s almost as if they are explicitly telling the handful of people who still care about this entire charade a resounding “fuck you.”
Lars P. says:
February 6, 2014 at 3:12 pm
I miss the studies showing how well does the ocean do with this bit of increased CO2?
CO2 is more than abundant in the oceans, it is not the limiting factor for algal growth at all. The main limitations are in micro-nutritients, especially iron, but at some places phosphor, nitrogen,… Reason why upwelling waters (including the huge mix by polar winds) show most abundant life.
If you look at Fig. 4 in Bates e.a.:
http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/2509/2012/bg-9-2509-2012.pdf
you can see that the winter/summer difference in total carbon (DIC) is 40 μmol/kg over 2020 μmol/kg or about 2% of the total carbon content of the ocean surface at Bermuda…
Thus biolife in the oceans is not dependent of CO2 levels, but biolife on land depends on it as one of the several factors that influence plant growth: CO2 levels, water, nutritients, trace elements, fertilizers,…
The oxygen balance shows how much the (land) biosphere did grow over the past 1.5 decade:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
They calculated that the whole biosphere increased from a net small source before the 1990’s to a net CO2 sink of about 1 GtC/year. The latter includes the balance between human destruction of tropical forests and the real extra uptake by the biosphere caused by the increased CO2 level, so the real increase in uptake may be several GtC/year…
“Theories aren’t agreed upon in the scientific community, but facts are.Theories are debated. Facts are facts.”
I think gravity may be well agreed on with in the scientific community. But then that was something that was proven with experimentation and is reproducible using the results of observations. AGW? Not so much. At all. Just like when nearly 100% of scientists all agreed the planet Earth was flat. That was was an undeniable fact as well.
Here’s a funny cartoon of Gore in a straitjacket:
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/zegs-take/2013/10/burning-mad/
This newspaper is just trying trying to be like NPR, BBC, and most other so-called major media and ignore the news they do not approve of. They are simply more blatant about how they are going to lie about the news than most.of the others.
Amazing this same story showed up around 1500:
Debate settled: Sun revolves around the Earth
Can you imagine if this ‘extreme weather event’ happened today, what the alarmists would be shouting from the rooftop about the urgency to repent, cough up at the Poor Box and reform our lives to stamp out the original carbon sin of a wayward humanity?
“In the year 823 or 824, lightning set fire to a multitude of buildings and killed many people and huge hail ravaged the countryside in France. In addition, all historians assure, that we dare not believe without the unanimity of their testimony, that by the summer solstice [around 20 or 21 June] in Autun [sic] in the region of Burgundy, France, was seen falling from the sky, following a sudden storm and amidst a terrible hailstorm, real ice blocks (we are sure of these measures) of 4.6 meters (15 feet) long by 1.8 meters (6 feet) wide and 0.6 meters (2 feet) thick. (These facts were confirmed in the Annals of Einhard, the chronicle of Adhemar, the short Chronicle of Reims, the Annals of Fulda, the Chronicle of Hermann, all contemporary sources.”
I am so thankful for the poster who provided this link to real weather extremes, not the pablum we have today. My goodness, we live in glorious and congenial times!
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf
@hunter
“This newspaper is just trying trying to be like NPR, BBC, and most other so-called major media and ignore the news they do not approve of. They are simply more blatant about how they are going to lie about the news than most.of the others.”
This is a tried and true propaganda technique used by all major powers. There is a book called “The Spike” which explains how to do it. It covers/exposes the way certain keep positions in major Western news media were infiltrated by USSR operatives with training on how to ‘affect perceptions’ of the public not by printing the usual obvious garbage we would spot, but how to kill stories that give contradictory evidence. Over time the attitude of people is affected on a grand scale.
That these people are in these said key positions if manifestly evident on a daily basis. The beating drum, “We are all guilty of a sin we must undo, think of the children and the fluffy puppies you are killing with your excesses!” continues on a daily basis assisted by the usual dupes and those who want to have societal influence far beyond their knowledge base.
There are several examples of this in the movie medium but exploring them would take us off topic. The point of “The Spike” is that it takes very few people in key positions to render this approach effective. It relies on people not hearing a certain set of truths, or opinions, or falsehoods.
The internet is a surprisingly effective antidote to it but we are still working out how to use the opportunity it presents.
As a PS, in the book “The Spike” there is a chapter claiming that USA cruise missiles carried WMD’s. This chapter was clearly written by someone else. It has a different writing style, tone and contains grammatical errors not present in the rest of the book. It was written separately and inserted into the rest. It is possible that the book was in fact a USSR propaganda tool created by Western cooperators with the following plan: Reveal how the manipulation of media is taking place and give really valuable insights, then include in it blatant propaganda designed to undermine support in the West for deploying cruise missiles in Europe – at the time a great fear as the USSR had no effective defense system capable of dealing with them.
Journalists hate Science. It takes up valuable space that should be devoted to Justin Bieber, or covering the lack of new information in “The Bridge Scandal”.
NOTE- This is a made up scenario not true, but represents an prospective view.
Our View: There is no debate on whether we are going to make staff redundant”
A spokesperson from Newspaper SouthCoastToday.com have stated no staff will be made redundant.this year and wont discuss the issue any further.
17 years ago the company made staff redundant for the first time, There have been people losing jobs every year since the company stated yearly that staff will not be made redundant. 17 consecutive years of staff made redundant due to cutting costs or other factors to improve efficiency. When the company says no redundancies will occur next year, who are you going to believe the staff or the company?
After 17 years if any group/company told you the same thing every year, but nothing had changed, could you trust them?
Pro-carbon-(dioxide) is pro-human. It is entirely beneficial, up to one or two orders of magnitude higher concentration.
Jimbo says:
“Here is a comment over at the newspaper from a Warmist. [my bold]
As for equating astrophysicists with climate scientists, by that logic maybe I should go to my Harvard Med School-trained podiatrist when I need neurosurgery. After all, a doctor is a doctor is a doctor, right?
Why do people write such easily rebutted rubbish? No wonder I don’t last long on Warmist comment sections. 🙂 My reply would be for the commenter to tell that to the astronomer and physicist Dr. James Hansen. The Father of global warming. He too is no climate scientist by his ‘logic.’ LOL”
That is funny Jimbo!
I’ve been an operational meteorologist for 32 years and have on many occasions, when explaining something crystal clear to me in order to assist somebody that disagrees with me but can’t really explain why, been told “Well, you aren’t a climate scientist”……. 97% of climate scientists disagree with you and I’m just going with what all the experts in this field say”
I realize that a “climate scientist” is more likely to have a PhD and most of them went to college longer than me( I was actually a classmate with Jeff Masters, who continued to later earn his PhD)
However, it doesn’t matter how smart you are or how many years you went to school, once you think you know something, your brain interprets new information based on certain assumptions.
If you teach, profess and makes others aware of what you think you know, after awhile, those initial assumptions become unshakable truths. Your reputation/credibility are at stake and your ego sabotages your brain from allowing things that contradict your assumptions.
Even the smartest humans sometimes have false assumptions. Sometimes, the smartest ones take the longest to recognize that they just filled their heads with bogus knowledge because of the delay in recognizing a mistake that snowballed because of subjectivity.
Linus Pauling was one of the the world’s most brilliant and respected scientists. If there ever was an example of a genius that was right about so much and smarter than anybody else for much of his life, that led to his demise, he was it…………. simply because it caused him to be unable to see objectively and to not believe he could possibly be wrong.
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html
”What a terrible thing to have lost one’s mind. Or not to have a mind at all. How true that is.”
(Guess who.)
In a way, skeptics have helped in the confusion put out by the war mists by constantly using the term climate change rather than catastrophic man-made global warming (which is what the concern has always been about).
The Guardian newspaper in the UK not only will not print skeptical AGW opinions, as with this writer, they just don’t accept your comments at all.
So when newspapers do this, it demonstrates they cannot defend the AGW propaganda.
[snip waaaay waaaay off topic – drone strikes in Pakistan? – mod]
Okay Antony
Just making the point about the media and public monitoring and necessary challenging all governments and all government policies.
Defend Democracy and Free Speech etc etc
Just before i go quick question so is using unsubstantiated DATA to deny the Developing World cheap abundant fossils fuels thereby not allowing them Industrial development unabled to lift themselves out of grinding poverty .Maybe another typical example of western arrogance as hitting the poor 3rd world innocent undervalued masses with “Vietnam Style” missiles from 10 thousand feet.
Antony take care .
Respect great as always
Linus Pauling was one of the the world’s most brilliant and respected scientists. If there ever was an example of a genius that was right about so much and smarter than anybody else for much of his life, that led to his demise, he was it………….
It would be good if you pointed out which Pauling error. I have used megadoses of vitamin C to combat infection. All I can say is that it worked for me.
I’m not going to slam the people of Southeastern Massachusetts (now called “South Coast”) since the comments from some of them in the link to the editorial pretty much match the ones here. But U-Mass-Dartmouth has become one of the premier campuses of the state university system, and it should be interesting what the university has to say about the controversy, since the poll of their faculty is at the heart of it. If it were up to the faculty alone, they would probably go all-in on the editorial policy, but I suspect there are administrators who have enough political acumen to attempt to separate the school from the newspaper’s action. HOW they do it will be the interesting part.
[Stop screaming, do not use all capital letters. Write clear sentences. Use facts. Mod]