Scientists: Global Warming Threatens Wheat Crops

[Knead2know]

There are a couple big problems with that theory:

1) Wheat (and corn) crop yields increased steadily though the period of "global warming" (~1975-1997).
2) Global warming stopped 16 years ago.

*applause*

[radioartisan]

Yep, the general trend for the past 100 years is up and it's very steady. Case closed.  Man was not doing anything between 100 and 50 years ago that the alarmists can blame for warming back then - it's a recovery from the little ice age.

There are three groups of people heavily vested in the idea of global warming: 1) "scientists" who see an endless string of grants, 2) politicians who see an limitless source of power - if you can regulate CO2, you can regulate all aspects of life, and 3) third world countries who see cash from the first world for global warming related "damages."

Global warming is the biggest scam in the history of the world, IMHO.

Man wasn't doing anything 100 years ago?  Really?  There was a rather vibrant industrial complex and a growing population.

Scientists have work and funding whether or not global warming is real.  As long as there is a search for knowledge, scientists have jobs.  While there may be a few unscrupulous scientists, there certainly are more politicians, corporations, industries, industrialists, and pundits with a vested interest in rallying against global climate change, and standing to make (or preserve) a lot more wealth than any scientist pouring over voluminous and rather boring climate data day in and day out.

Science is purely science.  Opinions are just opinions.  I don't pretend to know the science behind it all, but I'll put my trust in the people with the education, knowledge, and dedication to collect and analyze the data.

[Chicago Bob]

Here we go....

[Tscarborough]

In 1912, industrial pollution was 10,000 times worse than today.  Luckily, it was also 10,000 times smaller in scope than today.

Britain of the 1890s epitomizes the ignorance of resource depletion and pollution.  From that point forward to the present, the goal of government (and thus industry) has been to reduce both.  The 1st world, and to a limited extent the second have achieved an unprecedented level of production at the same time as they have reduced pollutants to the point where the cost/benefit analysis simply does not work for minimizing them further. 

All efforts should be put into improving efficiency and reducing pollution in the 3rd world, and this can only take place by bringing them more technology and education.

Carbon credits are just another bankster scam, and do nothing for the environment.  They were a scam when the Republicans started them and they are a scam now when the Democrats favor them.

Economics drives efficiency, and efficiency decreases pollution.  Create an economic incentive to reduce pollution, and pollution will be reduced. Trading allotments is not an incentive to efficiency, it is an incentive to traders.

[Jackitup]

speculating, lying, scamming all for quick profit!!  Here's another one you all have probably heard of lately.....http://www.wtov9.com/news/news/milk-could-reach-8-gallon/nTc6D/

It just doesn't stop

[radioartisan]

Carbon credits are just another bankster scam, and do nothing for the environment.  They were a scam when the Republicans started them and they are a scam now when the Democrats favor them.

I agree.  It just pushes the problem somewhere else, and someone will figure out how to game the system for a quick buck and create another bubble to burst and sink the economy.

[Jackitup]

And being this is nudging being political, this thread will probably soon be shut. Seems as though most are on the same page at least 

[TXCraig1]

Science is purely science.  Opinions are just opinions.  

Science is science, however calling something science does not make it so. Climate science is largely pseudo-science. There is a systemic blatant disregard for the scientific method. Science has to be falsifiable. The “scientists” have set up AGW so that nothing disproves it. Hot or cold, wet or dry, windy or calm, it doesn’t matter, they have claimed both sides of every weather event as it suits their needs.

Einstein famously said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” The “scientists” you trust have turned this on its ear. They have nothing to prove their theory right, and they completely disregard everything that proves it wrong.

Further, the scientific method requires sharing of data for replication of results. Climate “scientists” have routinely refused to share their data and methodologies – going so far as to conspire to subvert FOIA laws and build systems outside of official channels to put themselves beyond the reach of FOIA .

I don't pretend to know the science behind it all, but I'll put my trust in the people with the education, knowledge, and dedication to collect and analyze the data.

I don’t trust people that manipulate the data without explanation, without notice, and without archiving the old data.

I don’t trust people when every manipulation to the data they make serves to increase the appearance of warming.

I don’t trust people who claim process models are scientific evidence then claim 99% confidence when their models show zero predictive ability. If you know anything about statistics and the complexity of the climate, you will understand why claiming 99% confidence is absurd on its face. If you know anything about science, you know that process models are not evidence of anything. They best they can do is help us to understand complicated systems. Notwithstanding, process models form the entire basis AGW theory as put forward by the “scientists” you trust.

I don’t trust people who conspire to circumvent and thwart FOIA laws to hide data and methodologies.

I don’t trust people who tell me the science is settled and the debate is over (while hiding under their desk avoiding debate at all costs).

I don’t trust people that show me a hockey stick chart of global temperatures, refuse to tell me how it was created, and then when it is reverse engineered, it is demonstrated that random data from the phone book creates the same chart.

I don’t trust people who claim they can reconstruct the entire global average temperature from a single tree.

I don’t trust people who spend $millions to fight FOIA requests to see the publically funded communications of the “scientist” behind the previous two statements (while at the same time eagerly releasing the records of a skeptical professor at the same department of the same university to Greenpeace).

I don’t trust people who claim to link AGW to hurricanes for years after such claims have been completely debunked. There is no link with tornadoes either.

I don’t trust people who claim a $10,000 grant from Exxon strips a scientist of all credibility while they take grants many multiples larger – or in the case of Al Gore, make $100 million from the scare (and hide under their desk rather than face a debate).

I don’t trust people who Photoshop pictures of polar bears and flooding houses and Mt. Kilimanjaro and claim it proves AGW.  And in the case of Kilimanjaro – continue to claim AGW causes the ice loss for years if not decades after it was definitively proven it was not.

I don’t trust people who “hide the decline.”

I don’t trust people who claim 99% confidence but can’t explain missing heat predicted by their theory that is the equivalent of 1 BILLION Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs.

I don’t trust people who claim to know the temperature at places on the earth where there isn’t a thermometer within 1000km.

I don’t trust people who claim what has happened over the past 50 or 60 years is more significant than what has happened over geologic time – that somehow a 20 year warming trend that ended 20 years ago should override what we know about the other 4.5 billion years of earth history.

I don’t trust people who avoid debate by calling the other side a denier.

The “scientists” you trust have done all of this and much more. This is not opinion. You are free to blindly follow these shysters, but don’t pretend like you add any value by doing so.

[pizzaboyfan]

But you choose to trust the results of "scientific studies" that are 100% sponsored by the coal industry , the petroleum institute and our old friends the Koch boys.

No agenda there ?

[TXCraig1]

But you choose to trust the results of "scientific studies" that are 100% sponsored by the coal industry , the petroleum institute and our old friends the Koch boys.

No agenda there ?

Where did I write that? This isn't the first time you have tried to put words in my month.

I don't think I've read anything 100% sponsored by any of those groups, and I certainly don't need to trust anything they say.

[TXCraig1]

The data points between 16 years ago and now are equal.  That doesn't necessarily mean global climate change stopped.  If you look at data back further, like 100 years, there are several instances where the temp went down, but the general trend is up.  Climatologists look at long term trends, not recent.

For the past 110 years or so, the planet has been recovering from the little ice age. Even most AGW believers agree that the effects of anthropogenic CO2 were not felt before 1970. Consider the chart below. The trendline across the entire record is based on the temperature record in blue - pre 1970 - before the effects of anthropogenic GHGs. You can see that post-1970 temperatures are on a similar trend and generally within the 95% confidence intervals of the pre-1970 trend. All of the temperature data is Hansen's NASA GISSTemp (global land+water) which is by far the most biased in favor of warming (but that is a different discussion). You can also see that there is no correlation to atmospheric CO2 (green line).

The red line is what Hansen predicted back in 1988 at Al Gore's dog and pony show to Congress on that hot DC summer day when he shut off the AC for full effect. Clearly, Mother Nature has refused to play along. Recent IPCC ensamble forecasts have not performed meaningfully better.

[radioartisan]

I don’t trust people...

Everything you listed is general, anecdotal, and not scientific.  The fact is despite all the red herrings, Al Gore wannabees, and Photoshopped Facebook reposts, there are plenty of published peer-reviewed studies supporting it, and to call it an outright scam isn't being objective.  When you cut through all the bull and the sins of both sides of the debate, there are more published peer-reviewed studies supporting AGW than not.  I don't claim AGW is absolutely determined at this point.  However to claim it's a scam and support that with claims that scientists have vested interests in it being real while there are several orders of magnitude more individuals with a vested interest in it being not true, and actively outspending those with scientific interests, the claim doesn't hold water.

[TXCraig1]

Everything you listed is general, anecdotal, and not scientific.  The fact is despite all the red herrings, Al Gore wannabees, and Photoshopped Facebook reposts, there are plenty of published peer-reviewed studies supporting it, and to call it an outright scam isn't being objective.  When you cut through all the bull and the sins of both sides of the debate, there are more published peer-reviewed studies supporting AGW than not.  

Trust is not a matter of scientific evidence. Unlike you, I’ve watched this issue closely for the past 5+ years, and I’ve seen the decidedly unscientific behavior of the “scientists” over and over and over. The small sample of reasons I gave for not trusting the “scientists,” are not opinion – they are all documented.

You wrote “I don't pretend to know the science behind it all,” so I’m guessing you have not read many, if any, of the peer reviews studies on either side. Fair enough? I can’t think of a single peer-reviewed study that expressly supports AGW theory that has not had major problems (perhaps you can point one out?). You know what you are fed by the media – the scare stories that make good news. What you don’t know about is the myriad of otherwise boring and too technical to be easily distilled peer reviewed studies that poke holes in AGW theory – some small – some gaping – that are completely ignored by the AGW believers while they call me the denier. Hence my earlier Einstein quote. There are three main buckets of interest for me that these studies fall into 1) studies that have found major faults in the climate models, 2) studies that have demonstrated that the MWP was as warm or warmer than today (the vast majority that directly address the issue do), and 3) studies that have demonstrated solar-climate links.

One of the most patently unscientific behaviors of the “scientists” you trust is their claims that process models are scientific evidence (show me the peer reviewed study supporting AGW that doesn’t). There is simply no empirical evidence to support AGW theory (or perhaps you’ve seen some I haven’t that you would like to share?). There has been no statistically significant warming of the atmosphere in the past two decades, and while the oceans have warmed some (and almost none in the past 5 or so years), it is nowhere near what was predicted – these is literally the energy equivalent of 1 BILLION – read that again – 1 billion Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs missing if you believe in AGW theory. Where is it? Why can’t the “scientists” you trust tell you? After all, they are 99% certain AGW theory is correct.

Physics also does not directly support AGW. Yes, the physics behind GHGs is correct, however, even a doubling of CO2, for example, would have a trivial direct effect on the climate as the absorption spectrum is already almost fully saturated in the relevant wavelengths. The only way the “scientists” get their scary results is to program the climate models to show positive feedbacks (for example – warming from CO2 triggers more water vapor in the atmosphere). It cannot be overstated that these hypothesized feedbacks have NEVER been observed in nature. In fact, the only direct measurements (such as those from the ERBE satellites) have suggested that the actual feedbacks are NEGATIVE.

Since Mother Nature refuses to play along with their game, all they have left is computer models. A process model is not scientific evidence. They are only as good as the inputs, and can only help us understand a complex system. They CANNOT prove anything! Climate “scientists” will admit that they have no idea how to model some of the most important climate systems such as clouds for example. Did you know a mere 2% change in the cloud cover assumption would explain 100% of the observed warming of the 20th century? Tell me when exactly was the last time that a climate model accurately predicted anything? I’d love to see an example. They certainly have not been able to forecast warming or heat accumulation. Add to this that on a near weekly basis new peer-reviewed studies come out that highlight major problems in the “scientists” model the climate. Yet, the “scientists” continue to claim the models are direct proof of AGW – show me the peer reviewed study that does not rely on the output of a process model (likewise, show me the peer review paper that pokes holes in AGW that does!), and they continue to make absurd claims like they are 99% confident.

Statements like “there are more published peer-reviewed studies supporting AGW than not” are based on very narrow definitions that do not take into account whether or not the study was demonstrated to right (it’s one thing to have a study that supports AGW, but it is entirely another if the study is demonstrated to have problems or fails to have any predictive ability). Such statements also do not take into account studies that make no mention of AGW directly but directly refute key assumptions. Of these there are many. Statements like yours are not science; they are the method of choice to avoid debate and the decided lack of scientific evidence to support AGW theory.  I’m surprised you would make such a statement given that you are so focused on science and not opinion…

I don't claim AGW is absolutely determined at this point.  However to claim it's a scam and support that with claims that scientists have vested interests in it being real while there are several orders of magnitude more individuals with a vested interest in it being not true, and actively outspending those with scientific interests, the claim doesn't hold water.

As I wrote earlier, it’s my opinion that it is a scam.  I can’t ignore the unscientific behavior of the “scientists.” I can’t ignore the ever growing mountain of evidence that directly contradicts individual elements of AGW theory (and the “scientists” do), nor can I ignore the ever growing body of evidence supporting the solar/cosmic ray theory (and the “scientists” do).

Yes, vested interests are deep on both sides, but you are flat out backwards wrong when it comes to the amount of money funding the two sides. It’s not even remotely close. There are literally 10’s of $BILLIONS flowing to “scientists” who conveniently keep finding new baseless scares while grants to skeptics can be counted in the 10’s of millions. The difference is three orders of magnitude – and not in the direction you believe from watching TV. And they still can’t come up with any hard science to support AGW? And they still can’t demonstrate any predictive ability? The hindcasts are perfect, but the margin of error around their forecasts has not improved in 20 years despite this level of spending? How is that possible unless they are programming the models to produce a desired result that does not flow from nature? When I see that, my BS alarm goes off.

Try turning off the TV and doing a little research of your own.

[Tscarborough]

The simple reality is that climate changes, and there is not a damn thing mankind can do about it, one way or another.  Is improving efficiency and reducing pollution a good thing?  Of course it is, and we have done so and are down to the nth degree in the 1st world.

In developing countries it is hard to sell reducing pollution when their lives depend upon the processes that produce it, but that is where the true concern would be placed, if the actual goal of the green movement were to reduce pollution.

It is not, however, it is about fundraising and control, and thus not worthy of consideration or support.

[TXCraig1]

I also agree that improving efficiency and reducing pollution are worthy goals. I would however disagree that CO2 is a pollutant as repeatedly claimed by the folks who want to scare us into believing in AGW but don't have the scientific evidence to back it up. That would be like a plant telling us that oxygen is a pollutant.

The chart above demonstrates that there is no obvious correlation between CO2 emissions and global average surface temperature over a meaningful period of time (it becomes even more obvious over geologic time). As Tom suggests, the same cannot be said for the correlation between CO2 emissions and GDP - or the correlation between GDP and life expectancy...

[Tscarborough]

CO2 is ubiquitous and obviously not a pollutant unless you are trying to make money from it's existence.

[radioartisan]

Unlike you, I’ve watched this issue closely for the past 5+ years...

Try turning off the TV and doing a little research of your own.

You have no clue how much I've watched this issue, or what sources I use.  (Likewise, I could presumptively tell you to stop reading Anthony Watts blog entries.)  I'm not here to debate AGW or sway anyone.  You've obviously made up your mind.  I haven't, but I do know it's disingenuous to paint a whole research community with a broad brush of dishonesty.  Any discussion of AGW that involves discussing politics, religion, jobs, costs, or the motives of others isn't worth having.

[Chicago Bob]

Any discussion of AGW that involves discussing politics, religion, jobs, costs, or the motives of others isn't worth having.

radioartisan,
I respect your views but can't help but to take exception to your ideals that "jobs, costs, and motives" are anything less than the driving forces behind this topic.

Of course since "money" is involved it interplays with politics...but that discussion is a no no here on this forum.

[Tscarborough]

It is a social problem, not a political one.

[Chicago Bob]

It is a social problem, not a political one.

Yeah right....sorta like contraception or aids. Power and money does not enter into the motivation(propaganda) or causal effects.