JFK, MLK, RFK and the Continuing Unspeakable with Regard to Global Warming Denial

[Dawn Meredith]

You can't pump billions of tons of CO2 into a closed system without having a scientific effect. Those who say this is just another warm period are in denial of the unprecedented CO2 spike along with its accompanying rise in temperature.

Every generation will have its troglodites telling them to stay true to their gods and temple priests...

Only problem is that in each instance of temperature increase, including the most recent, temperatures began rising PRIOR to CO2 levels. This is DOCUMENTED and those scientists who originally had it backwards have recanted. Perhaps increased temperature is caused by natural cycles (solar and oceanic), which in turn CAUSES an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere--not the other way around. The pattern of increased heat followed by increased atmospheric CO2 is not speculation, but fact. It is easily researched and it, among other things, demonstrates the perfidy of Michael Mann, et al, from Penn State University whose "Hockey Stick" graph was disingenuously exploited by Al "Nobel Prize" Gore, but has now been abandoned even by those scientists who once embraced it because it is patently FALSE. Those who continue to peddle the mantra that states: "increased CO2 causes an increase in global temperature" have either not done their homework or are failing to believe the very scientists who first made the claim but have themselves now abandoned it!

And Dawn, let's not mix apples with oranges--or with dog shit here. Just because I recognize the Climate Change disinformation campaign for the hoax it is does not mean I am PRO-Pollution or that I am not militantly anti-pollution. It simply means that I draw conclusions based on more than fear mongering. I recognize that many, indeed most, of those who believe man is responsible for global warming are not disinformation agents. They are merely disinformed themselves and are willing to remain uneducated as to the very serious problems that are inherent in the studies that allegedly support funding for global warming research.

I am not debating pollution. I am resisting the Big Lie.

I am not a scientist. So I sent an email to my Phd friend who has worked at NOAH nearly 20 years. Just got his reply.

Dawn -

Not a hoax. Definitely human-induced.

Very difficult to separate human-induced change from natural variability, but 99.9% of scientists involved in the work feel that the evidence for human impact is very strong.

Like many others, I am utterly mystified by the right wing insistence that this is a conspiracy by world scientists to ... to do what? Destroy business? I don't even get the motivation. It strikes me more as an ostrich effect, in which people don't want to hear bad news, so they ignore it or claim it is invalid. Sorta the same reasoning that continues to drive people to buy a bucket of greasy chicken at PopEye's and claim it won't give them heart disease, or smoke cigarettes and claim that there is no evidence that it will give them cancer. (OK, the latter battle was finally won ....)

Bear in mind that climate change threatens the energy infrastructure of the world, in particular use of oil. coal, gas ... all of which grow exponentially more valuable as they are depleted. We're talking trillions and trillions of dollars. Big enough bucks to fuel wars. Most of the "disinformation" is sponsored by those groups ....

Gotta run.

Cheers,
Joel.

His name is Dr Joel Levy in case someone wants to check out his creds.

I will have nothing further to say on this matter as I am not the expert, but I have known Joel for over 35 years and respect his work and opinions.

Dawn
Glad you are healed and back ...will be interested in your POV re the Boston Marathon.

[Dawn Meredith]

a quick google search before heading out to court:

Joel Levy
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Global Programs
1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1210
Silver Spring, MD 20910

[Keith Millea]

Well,I'm not intelligent enough to talk about climate change but I'll post this article from today.This then gives me the chance to say "Welcome back Monk".

Published on Monday, April 29, 2013 by Common Dreams

Climate Collision Course: CO2 Levels About to Hit 400 PPM

In a first in human history, "it looks like the world is going to blow through the 400-ppm level without losing a beat."

- Common Dreams staff


Concentrations of CO2 are nearing 400 ppm for the first time in human history. (Credit: Scripps Institution of Oceanography)

The world is likely days away from a "sobering milestone" in our planetary history.

Concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide will likely reach 400 parts per million (ppm) for first time in human history, say scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and unless drastic action is taken, we're on track to hit 450 ppm in the near future.

"I wish it weren't true, but it looks like the world is going to blow through the 400-ppm level without losing a beat," said Scripps geochemist Ralph Keeling, whose father Charles David (Dave) Keeling began the "Keeling Curve" to track daily CO2 levels recorded at Mauna Loa Observatory.

The last time the greenhouse gases were at 400 ppm was likely the Pliocene epoch, between 3.2 million and 5 million years ago.

The current reading is at 399.72 ppm -- far past the 350 ppm level many, including noted climate scientist James Hansen, have warned is the upper safe limit before the planet hits a tipping point.

"At this pace we'll hit 450 ppm within a few decades," warned Keeling. Indeed, the rate of rise of CO2 over the past century is "unprecedented."

The figure should serve as a call to act on the deadly emissions caused by our fossil fuel addiction, the scientists say.

"The 400-ppm threshold is a sobering milestone, and should serve as a wake up call for all of us to support clean energy technology and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, before it's too late for our children and grandchildren," said Tim Lueker, an oceanographer and carbon cycle researcher and part of the Scripps CO2 Group.

To keep a watch on the daily levels, you can visit The Keeling Curve website or follow the daily updates via Twitter.

My question:
So,how did the earth reach this same peak of CO2 back in the non-human Pliocene epoch?

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/04/29-2

[Albert Doyle]

"Most scientists knew the ice core samples showed CO2 rose after temperature." Well, if they knew this to be true why is there a claim being made that CO2 is driving current global warming when that is clearly impossible due to the fact that the one claimed to be the EFFECT (global warming) precedes the one claimed to be the CAUSE (rising CO2 levels)? This is inescapable logically. It is illogical to claim (all temporal restraints being equal) that any given EFFECT precedes the existence of the conditions (CAUSE) necessary to bring that EFFECT about.

I already answered that. I said the Greenhouse Effect is scientifically valid and you failed to include it in your one-sided submission. In other words while you cite the order of cause and effect in the CO2/temperature relationship of long-term cycles you failed to account for the straight Greenhouse Effect caused by the documented rising CO2 levels we presently have. You're arguing a partial argument while ignoring what I said in my last post. The simple answer is there has to be some scientific effect from the present increase in CO2. It is actually your side that offers the bs with its feedback arguments.

The TRUTH (as you admit) is that WE DO NOT KNOW "what, if anything" will "happen" do we? No, we do not. Moreover, your assertion that we now have an unprecedented spike in CO2 levels is without foundation. Depending on the source, CO2 levels were this high between 5 and 15 million years ago...long before humans were here with their industrial revolution to blame.

Very cavalier of you Greg. Except that isn't exactly true. We do know there's enough evidence that increases in CO2, no matter what order they occurred in, were associated with climate events that could result in a mass extinction of the human race if they occurred today. Your arguments are fatally flawed because they fail to acknowledge that you won't find any temperature rise in the ice cores that wasn't accompanied by high CO2 levels.


You show a good example of the flaw in your logic I pointed-out once again here. Just like when you mixed the straight Greenhouse Effect with long-term cycles you conflate CO2 levels with rates of increase or "spikes". You're dead wrong above when you say my citation of unprecedented CO2 spikes is "without foundation". Absolutely wrong. If you studied the data you would find there has never been such a rapid increase in CO2 in such a short time period in the ice core samples. The reason for it is an Earth history-unprecedented transfer of subterranean fossil fuel CO2 into the atmosphere via the economy. This spike is unprecedented and risks triggering a climate event that has never been seen before in Earth history. Instead of minimizing it with flawed logic like you do the more responsible would see a potential serious threat that deserves more concern.

" The flaw in your argument is it doesn't give due heed to the straight Greenhouse Effect that is a valid scientific phenomenon and will raise temperatures on its own as it is mostly likely presently recorded doing. "

You make no sense. You attempt to come across as knowledgeable, yet what you write is gibberish. The Greenhouse Effect is real. It is not a scientific phenomenon. It is a name for a natural process that is necessary for the sustenance of life on Earth. Without it the planet would be a frozen wasteland. More than 98% of the Greenhouse Effect is a function of WATER VAPOR, the exact amount of which is a variable, and therefore unknown.

Sorry Greg. You can't get away with Charles' gibberish bashing with this topic. I'm afraid it is you who is guilty of what you accuse me of since there's no reason why a "phenomenon" can't also be real. Deniers are the ones who brought up the water vapor feedback arguments. They have since been refuted. From your responses I think you just don't understand the point. What I was saying is you have failed to separate the distinct phenomenon of the Greenhouse Effect from Earth's long term cooling and warming cycles. My point was that your logic failed to scientifically account for the necessary Greenhouse Effect from the recorded rise in CO2 that presently exists. Water Vapor is one part of Global Warming but it is the result of human-caused increases in CO2 as the initiating driver. You have to keep the scientific chain of events in correct order. I think you've not only failed to answer my point but show that you don't even understand it.

Wait. Stop. The "cycle timing argument" was not mine. It was and is the "global warming alarmist's" argument--only they have it backwards, as you have already admitted. Nice bait and switch.

Again, you seem to not understand what I'm saying. I was saying you haven't answered for the necessary scientific results of the recorded human-caused increases in atmospheric CO2 and how they relate to the whole process. You are arguing an incomplete argument of long-term CO2/temperature relationship without acknowledging other related valid scientific influences. What I'm trying to say is there is a valid CO2/temperature relationship no matter what order they occur and that you haven't see the possible CO2 reaction that might follow or its climate results. The order of CO2 rises in reaction to temperature increases in natural warming cycles has nothing to do with this. You're failing to answer to the fact there has never been a human-caused unprecedented rise in CO2 before or what its consequences could be.

[Phil Dragoo]

Professor Kong Qingdong 73d generation descendant of Confucius accuses U.S. of waging "meteorological war" on China.

As PLA officer accuses U.S. of creating current H7N9 virus.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/11883-ch...onspiracy/

[Greg Burnham]

You can't pump billions of tons of CO2 into a closed system without having a scientific effect. Those who say this is just another warm period are in denial of the unprecedented CO2 spike along with its accompanying rise in temperature.

Every generation will have its troglodites telling them to stay true to their gods and temple priests...

Only problem is that in each instance of temperature increase, including the most recent, temperatures began rising PRIOR to CO2 levels. This is DOCUMENTED and those scientists who originally had it backwards have recanted. Perhaps increased temperature is caused by natural cycles (solar and oceanic), which in turn CAUSES an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere--not the other way around. The pattern of increased heat followed by increased atmospheric CO2 is not speculation, but fact. It is easily researched and it, among other things, demonstrates the perfidy of Michael Mann, et al, from Penn State University whose "Hockey Stick" graph was disingenuously exploited by Al "Nobel Prize" Gore, but has now been abandoned even by those scientists who once embraced it because it is patently FALSE. Those who continue to peddle the mantra that states: "increased CO2 causes an increase in global temperature" have either not done their homework or are failing to believe the very scientists who first made the claim but have themselves now abandoned it!

And Dawn, let's not mix apples with oranges--or with dog shit here. Just because I recognize the Climate Change disinformation campaign for the hoax it is does not mean I am PRO-Pollution or that I am not militantly anti-pollution. It simply means that I draw conclusions based on more than fear mongering. I recognize that many, indeed most, of those who believe man is responsible for global warming are not disinformation agents. They are merely disinformed themselves and are willing to remain uneducated as to the very serious problems that are inherent in the studies that allegedly support funding for global warming research.

I am not debating pollution. I am resisting the Big Lie.

I am not a scientist. So I sent an email to my Phd friend who has worked at NOAH nearly 20 years. Just got his reply.

Dawn -

Not a hoax. Definitely human-induced.

Very difficult to separate human-induced change from natural variability, but 99.9% of scientists involved in the work feel that the evidence for human impact is very strong.

Like many others, I am utterly mystified by the right wing insistence that this is a conspiracy by world scientists to ... to do what? Destroy business? I don't even get the motivation. It strikes me more as an ostrich effect, in which people don't want to hear bad news, so they ignore it or claim it is invalid. Sorta the same reasoning that continues to drive people to buy a bucket of greasy chicken at PopEye's and claim it won't give them heart disease, or smoke cigarettes and claim that there is no evidence that it will give them cancer. (OK, the latter battle was finally won ....)

Bear in mind that climate change threatens the energy infrastructure of the world, in particular use of oil. coal, gas ... all of which grow exponentially more valuable as they are depleted. We're talking trillions and trillions of dollars. Big enough bucks to fuel wars. Most of the "disinformation" is sponsored by those groups ....

Gotta run.

Cheers,
Joel.

His name is Dr Joel Levy in case someone wants to check out his creds.

I will have nothing further to say on this matter as I am not the expert, but I have known Joel for over 35 years and respect his work and opinions.

Dawn
Glad you are healed and back ...will be interested in your POV re the Boston Marathon.

As for the "right wing" I am not a member of any wing. I am not claiming any conspiracy exists beyond that required to insure continued FUNDING (by taxpayers) to those involved in so-called climate research.
As my dear friend, Jack White (RIP), was fond of saying: "CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is plant food and it is what humans exhale when they breath."

Dawn, since you brought in an expert who disagrees with me, perhaps you could ask him a question: "How can CO2 be the driving force behind global warming when the warming has always PRECEDED the increase in CO2, both currently and historically?"

And:

"Since climate is a complex / dynamical (non-linear) system is it not true that the accuracy of any prediction will be hyper-sensitive to the accuracy of the initial conditions input into any model attempting to predict future climatic behavior?"

If so, (and it is) does it not seem reasonable for us to heed the lessons learned by Edward Lorenz, et al? Ever heard of the Butterfly Effect? Although that is a trite euphemism, the central idea is inescapably apropos. If the numbers are not DEAD ON PRECISE when input as the initial conditions pertaining to a complex / dynamical system, the resultant outcome can and will easily yield values that are completely wrong. Even if the initial condition values are only "slightly" askew, the accuracy of the resultant values will be UNPREDICTABLY off.

From Wiki:

Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. This was summarised by Edward Lorenz as follows:

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather....
====

My beef with those selling this "science" is that they do not explain how they get around Chaos Theory... It would appear that they have not gotten around it at all. They pretend as though it doesn't exist. But it does. Chaos Theory is not easily explained away--no matter how many super computers one has working on predicting the future behavior of a complex / dynamical system. If the initial values entered are even a little bit off the outcome will be unrecognizably random.

I am not claiming that human activity cannot possibly effect climate. I am claiming that none of us can PREDICT what effect our CO2 activity will have on climate. I am further arguing that scientists cannot measure the EXACT amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and therefore, any "predictions" they make about its impact on the future behavior of a Chaotic System are severely, indeed terminally, doomed to be wrong because the initial conditions can never be accurately represented (exact level of CO2, for instance). Without such precision the equations CANNOT be relied upon. Ever.

---

It's good to be back.

[Dawn Meredith]

I did not say you were right wing. I described you as an extremly intelligent JFK researcher. Who is calling man made "climate change" a "big lie".
I posted his reply now, as I said before, I am out of this discussion. And I do not know why it is even in the JFK section. I have zero expertise in this area but Joel was here for Thanksgiving
two years ago and another friend was over who gets all his news from Rush. Thus a discussion ensued. So I remembered Joel's position vs Steven's, (who is a rock and roll buddy of mine with whom I refuse to discuss politics). ( Joel is also a musician friend, thus the odd combination at dinner. ) Forgive the mangled syntax...Been a very long day. Too much to do and too little time.

Dawn

[Greg Burnham]

I did not say you were right wing. I described you as an extremly intelligent JFK researcher. Who is calling man made "climate change" a "big lie".
I posted his reply now, as I said before, I am out of this discussion. And I do not know why it is even in the JFK section. I have zero expertise in this area but Joel was here for Thanksgiving
two years ago and another friend was over who gets all his news from Rush. Thus a discussion ensued. So I remembered Joel's position vs Steven's, (who is a rock and roll buddy of mine with whom I refuse to discuss politics). ( Joel is also a musician friend, thus the odd combination at dinner. ) Forgive the mangled syntax...Been a very long day. Too much to do and too little time.

Dawn

Well, I would think that anyone who respects the credentialed opinion--of a friend who is an expert in this area--enough to offer it as a rebuttal on a forum such as this has a dog in the fight.

I think we all have a dog in this fight. If I am wrong, we may all burn up. But...

If I am correct about the unpredictability of long term climate behavior due to the reasons I have given, especially Chaos Theory, then the question becomes why have climate scientists who are presumably well versed in Chaos Theory and its implications on the predictability of complex systems, such as, weather and climate, failed to even address it.

I would love to hear or read a cogent and exhaustive explanation as to why Chaos Theory no longer applies to climate even though it remains a non-linear, complex, dynamical system. Why is climate suddenly exempt from Chaos Theory?

Once the math is worked out the motive for the perfidy will follow.

[Albert Doyle]

[
If I am correct about the unpredictability of long term climate behavior due to the reasons I have given, especially Chaos Theory, then the question becomes why have climate scientists who are presumably well versed in Chaos Theory and its implications on the predictability of complex systems, such as, weather and climate, failed to even address it.

The Chaos theory is too vague and general in this case. The main issue Greg doesn't seem to grasp is that all scientific records show all known temperature rises in Earth's history are accompanied by CO2 increases whether before or after the temperature rises. The flaw in Greg's argument is that it indirectly suggests that even though we are experiencing a very well founded unprecedented increase in CO2 that somehow through "CO2 is plant food" logic there will be no accompanying temperature increase even though the scientific record shows there is no increase in CO2 that wasn't accompanied by a corresponding increase in temperature. What Greg is indirectly suggesting here is that this present CO2 spike will be the first one ever to not be accompanied by a corresponding temperature increase. It is actually he who should be answering the questions here not me. He should be made to answer how exactly this CO2 increase will be the only one in history to not show any temperature increase and why?


Referencing the Chaos theory isn't valid here because the Greenhouse Effect in the closed system of Earth's atmosphere is predictable enough, especially when it is accompanied by the firm scientific record of the ice core samples.


Greg gives no objective scientific heed to the obvious point that there are no natural occurrences of CO2 rises happening prior to temperatures rises in the ice core record exactly because there has never been any human-caused insertion of vast amounts of subterranean CO2 into the atmosphere before.


Somebody should remind Greg that the scientists he questioned happen to have their Global Warming models presently verifying.


"Gibberish"? That's a foolish thing to say. Or, like Global Warming denialists, are we just going to ignore what we can't answer like Greg does?

[Albert Doyle]

This post I find as better science than some.
Thanks Greg for this data.
Jim

Mr Hackett, I'd be very interested in your response to my last post to Greg and how it relates to what you said here.