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”
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: @ur momisugly 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.