How do we define the "end of global warming"?

30 Responses to How do we define the "end of global warming"?

1. oldbrew says:

   1 August 2015 at 08:16

   Even the RC church will have to back down eventually – probably in about 400 years from now 😉
2. markstoval says:

   1 August 2015 at 10:46

   When will the global warming scam end?
   An interesting question.
   I disagree that it may end in a few years, like before Obama leaves office or in the first administration of the next president. In my view this will take generations. We have a lot of young people who think that CO2 and “back radiation” warm the planet by 33 degrees. So, more CO2 has got to increase temps!
   The time where we return to looking at gravity, mass, density, conduction, convection, advection, effects of water in the atmosphere, oceans and currents, and all the rest is still a long way off.
   Proof? Go to the largest read luke-warmer site on the internet and try to argue that radiation by CO2 and other radiative gases are cooling agents and not warming agents and you will be darned lucky not to get banned as well as snipped. Regardless, you will be a total outlier there as most blindly accept the dogma of the times — and that at the largest “skeptical” site on the net.
   Oh my goodness.
   This site once ran an article claiming that the “Slayers” were right on the physics but had horrible PR. They got misrepresented across the board and so they go marginalized. Now people think of them as “cranks” and fools. How did that happen? Well, having alarmists, warmists, luke-warmers, and damn near everyone else building straw men and aggressively misquoting what you say will do that.
   I saw the “Hockey Schtick” take on Dr. Brown and the Willis fellow on a recent thread. They have no answer and it is a good thing HS only went on for a couple of replies or he would be another in a long list of banned people there. (no, I am not saying that HS is a “slayer”)
   As a final note, a science teacher friend still thinks DDT was the very worst pesticide every invented and that Freon was the worst refrigerant ever to be manufactured by man. Son of a “B” — how to change anyone’s mind once they think they know something?
3. Yamada says:

   1 August 2015 at 11:05

   It will be over when a new fad takes its place. We will know. The folks behind this sort of thing do not comprehend the meaning of the words moderation or tolerance. If you are being screamed at, that’s the fad taking over.
4. nigelf says:

   1 August 2015 at 12:28

   It’ll be over when the money and politicians move onto the next scam.
5. Scottish-Sceptic says:

   1 August 2015 at 12:53

   I used to think the skydragons were talking non-sense, then as I forced myself to understand what was really happening I realised a lot of what they were saying is credible although very badly put together.
   I now understand that in the same way skydragons ignore the essential aspect of back radiation so do those who believe in backradiation driven global warming ignore the impartant aspect of pressure heating.
   Whilst both are correct in their predictions within narrow and well constrained limits, neither theory is correct on its own.
6. Mark Hodgson says:

   3 August 2015 at 07:01

   Perhaps it will end if and when the BBC ever starts reporting truthfully and openly on the subject again. It has enormous power, and its reporting has enormous traction, Unfortunately lots of people now blindly accept the mantra because the BBC and much of the MSM not only tell them it’s so, but because the propaganda effort is constant, cynical and all-embracing. The damage has already been done – millions are now convinced of it and it could take 2 generations of non brain-washing before common sense breaks out again. Alternatively a sudden return to a little ice age might shock them out of their complacency, but as you point out, although we would have won the argument, we would then have little cause to celebrate.
7. Cedric Katesby says:

   3 August 2015 at 08:25

   We could say “global warming” is over when the next climate scam has taken over …
   NASA is not scamming you. [this is just a link to NASA – who get enormous amounts of money from global warming] Really. There’s no possible mechanism.
8. Scottish-Sceptic says:

   3 August 2015 at 10:26

   Any organisation that knowingly employs an eco-activist like Hansen to compile the global temperature data is either so dim it doesn’t deserve public funding or intentionally trying to stoke up a scare. And the reason is easy to see: it was in order to get politicians to fund all its “research” into global warming by launching more and more satellites to “monitor” the problem.
9. Cedric Katesby says:

   3 August 2015 at 13:55

   And the reason is easy to see:
   You can make up any reason you like. Anybody can do that. That’s the easy part. Creationists can do it. Anti-vaxxers can do it. Moon landing deniers can do it too. Just like you. Same words and everything.
   Only for a vast global scientific conspiracy to have legs, you have to come up with a mechanism. The basic nuts and bolts of such an operation. The “how” bit.
   As in…..How do you actually do it? As in…..How do you organize the basic nuts and bolts of such huge operation?
   It’s a problem of scale.
10. Scottish-Sceptic says:

    3 August 2015 at 14:03

    For 4billion years until the climate extremists came along there was this thing called “natural variation”.
    Then suddenly we have to explain any change – and are only allowed to do so with reference to climate extremist propaganda.
    And you wonder why this scam is falling apart?
11. Cedric Katesby says:

    3 August 2015 at 18:45

    …there was this thing called “natural variation”.
    Sure…but scientists already know that.
    That includes NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    And you wonder why this scam is falling apart?
    There’s no scam. It’s not physically possible. There’s no way to organize anything like that.
    No viable mechanism, remember?
    That’s why I asked you about the “how” part.
    For a vast global scientific conspiracy to have legs, you have to come up with a mechanism. The basic nuts and bolts of such an operation. The “how” bit.
    As in…..How do you actually do it? As in…..How do you organize the basic nuts and bolts of such huge operation?
    The creationists can’t do it. Anti-vaxxers can’t do it. Moon landing deniers can’t do it either.
    Can you?
    Oh and for the record, my first link?
    Yeah….it wasn’t just a link to NASA.
    It was a link to NASA’s climate science page.
12. Scottish Sceptic says:

    3 August 2015 at 18:49

    Yes, scientists like us sceptics know that.
    But you are talking about academics who study climate.
    The difference is that a real scientist, when they postulate a theory or have a model and it does not predict what actually happens, admits it does not work (in scientific terms is invalid).
    That’s how real science works – and the real scientists keep telling the academics their models don’t work and they keep denying it.
13. Cedric Katesby says:

    3 August 2015 at 19:01

    But you are talking about academics who study climate.
    “Academics”?
    No.
    NASA, remember? I even gave you the link.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    …..the real scientists keep….
    Sure. If you say so. “Real” scientists. Only the creationist could say the exact same thing. As could the anti-vaxxers. And the moon landing deniers. Who’s to say who the “real” scientists are? Especially over the internet.? Hmmm.
    On the other hand, there’s NASA.
    And you wonder why this scam is falling apart?
    There’s no scam. It’s not physically possible.
    You yourself cannot come up with a mechanism.
14. Scottish-Sceptic says:

    3 August 2015 at 19:50

    A scientist is someone who follows the scientific method. That method says if you predict warming and the specified amount of warming does not occur, then a scientist is someone who rejects the theory/model.
    That’s the definition of a scientist: someone who follows the scientific method.
    “You yourself cannot come up with a mechanism.”
    Natural variation is large enough to account for all the changes seen in the temperature record. Therefore, as natural variation is the null hypothesis (as Trenberth admits), then because it is not disproved it is a full explanation for the data.
    Again, that’s just very basic science and unless you understand that simple stuff, you haven’t a hope of understand much on my blog.
15. Cedric Katesby says:

    4 August 2015 at 07:18

    A scientist is someone who follows the scientific method.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet knows about the scientific method.
    Natural variation is large enough…
    Not according to NASA.
    unless you understand that simple stuff…
    The scam, remember? You brought it up. There’s no scam. It’s not physically possible.
    You yourself cannot come up with a mechanism…..for the scam.
    The scam…(hoax/fraud/etc.) ….doesn’t work. There’s no way a scam could work.
    No mechanism….for the scam.
    For a vast global scientific conspiracy to have legs, you have to come up with a mechanism. The basic nuts and bolts of such an operation. The “how” bit.
    As in…..How do you actually do it? As in…..How do you organize the basic nuts and bolts of such huge operation?
    The creationists can’t do it. Anti-vaxxers can’t do it. Moon landing deniers can’t do it either.
    Can you?
16. Scottish Sceptic says:

    4 August 2015 at 07:27

    Cedric, a six year is a scientist if they follow the scientific method and a Nobel prize winning physicist is not if they do not.
    It is a scam because there is no harm from CO2, there has been no adverse trends in severe weather, sea level, polar bears … indeed the most noticeable trends have been a greening of the planet, increasing harvests and a reduction in hurricanes.
    If there is any man-made warming it is certainly smaller than natural variation because natural variation has not gone away and the pause shows that it still exists and is greater than any man-made warming.
    So, to take money from the poor and elderly to give to rich landowners to put up birdmincers which likely do not save any energy at all is a complete utter scam. We could build some 10-20 hospitals a year with the money being wasted.
    As for conspiracies – I know you climate extremists love your “BIG OIL funded conspiracy theories”, but sceptics are far more pragmatic and don’t think at all in that way. The simple truth is that sceptics like me have seen what goes on in the real world and we aren’t being fooled by people who say they know what is going on. That’s not a conspiracy, it’s just knowing what happens in the real world.
17. Cedric Katesby says:

    4 August 2015 at 07:46

    It is a scam because there is no harm from CO2….
    I’m not asking you why you think it’s a scam.
    I’m asking you “how”.
    Different question.
    That’s not a conspiracy, it’s just knowing what happens in the real world.
    Great. The that should make it easy for you.
    Tell me what you think is “really” happening in the world with this scam.
    What are the nuts and bolts of the operation?
    Lead me through it.
    Give us a peek behind the curtain.
    There’s no way to make it work.
    The logistics will crush you every time.
    It’s a problem of scale.
    The creationists can’t do it. Anti-vaxxers can’t do it. Moon landing deniers can’t do it either.
    Can you?
18. Mark Hodgson says:

    4 August 2015 at 10:42

    It’s a $1.5trillion industry annually. It might not be a scam in the sense that a lot of people got together and organised a conspiracy, but plenty of people now have a vested interest in keeping it going:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/spot-the-vested-interest-the-1-5-trillion-climate-change-industry/
    Although the link is to a “sceptic” website, the information quoted comes from the Climate Change Business Journal, hardly a “sceptic” vehicle. The very fact that there can even be a publication called the Climate Change Business Journal tells you everything you need to know – climate change is now big business.
19. Scottish-Sceptic says:

    4 August 2015 at 12:19

    Cedric, what is your problem – We are paying for something that is not a problem. Something that no sane person could possibly consider trying to stop: natural variation.
    That is how all scams work – you pay for something that is of no value.
    And the rest of your post is pretty tedious.
20. Cedric Katesby says:

    4 August 2015 at 13:36

    That is how all scams work.
    No.
    Scams can work in various ways. They have to be planned. People have to be in on the scam. Scams do not happen by magic somehow.
    You are not providing a mechanism. You might as well just say “Something something money something”.
    Any creationist or anti-vaxxer or moon landing denier could say the same as you.
    Dictionary definition of the word “scam”.
21. Cedric Katesby says:

    4 August 2015 at 13:43

    It might not be a scam in the sense that a lot of people got together and organised a conspiracy…..
    Then…..it’s not a scam.
    Nor a hoax. Nor a fraud.
    Nor a conspiracy.
    …but plenty of people now have a vested interest in keeping it going.
    That’s the one that creationists use. And the other types.
    If someone (and I mention no names) really wants to claim there’s a scam then…they should at least be able to sketch out a mechanism on the back of a napkin…or admit they are just all mouth.
    NASA is not scamming you. Really. It’s not physically possible. There’s no viable mechanism.
    Can you think of one? You’d be the very first if you could.
22. Scottish-Sceptic says:

    4 August 2015 at 13:44

    A scam is carnival slang and unless I’m mistaken, it doesn’t require a worldwide conspiracy & multimillion pounds of oil money to stick the coconuts in their sockets.
23. Cedric Katesby says:

    4 August 2015 at 14:02

    A scam is carnival slang and unless I’m mistaken, it doesn’t require a worldwide conspiracy & multimillion pounds of oil money to stick the coconuts in their sockets.
    Exactly.
    Carnival scams abound. Many of them are famous.
    And they all have one thing in common: a viable mechanism.
    The carnies can’t just wish your money into their pockets. They’ve got to organize something. There has to be a way to rig things so that the mark loses their money.
    A scam.
    Can you think of a way to rig games at a carnival so that the mark will inevitably lose money?
    Sure you can. Easy really.
    Only that mechanism is applicable to carnies at a sideshow. It’s inevitably something low-tech and small scale. It’s not really useful for…..NASA.
    Or any other scientific community for that matter.
    If you really want to say there’s a scam happening, then you have to provide a viable mechanism.
    Something that could (at a bare minimum) hypothetically work.
    It’s a problem of scale.
24. Scottish-Sceptic says:

    4 August 2015 at 14:12

    Cedric, the mechanism of all scams is the same – some people are very gullible (notably those believing in global warming according to Lewandowsky’s own research).
    CO2 is not a problem – instead it is a huge benefit to the world helping to feed the global populations.
    Only someone who was never taught about the importance of CO2 for plant, growth, a complete moron or someone who is extremely gullible would believe CO2 is harmful.
    But like Goebels, if you have enough greedy people from academics, to greenspin to wind developers with enough money to saturate the news with lies about CO2 …. there will always be gullible people like you to help line their pockets.
25. Cedric Katesby says:

    4 August 2015 at 14:26

    Cedric, the mechanism of all scams is the same – some people are very gullible (notably those believing in global warming according to..
    That’s not a mechanism.
    Let me help you with that….
    You got scammed at a carnival sideshow.
    The carnies took all your money.
    So you go to the police and complain.
    “Officer, those dirty carnies are running a scam. I just lost $20”
    “Oh? Well, that’s terrible. What happened?”
    “Well, I was gullible”
    “I see. So how did they scam you? What did they do?”
    “I just told you. They used my gullibility and they got my $20”
    “No Sir. I don’t think you understand. How did they rip you off to the tune of $20 dollars?”
    “Well…..they scammed me.”
    ” Yes sir. I understand that part. I’m just trying to understand the scam itself.”
    (..awkward silence..)
    “They scammed me”
    Hmm.
    …. if you have enough greedy people from academics, to greenspin to wind developers with enough money to saturate the news with lies about CO2…
    Have all the academics you like. Ladle it on thick and heavy with as much saturation as you need. You are completely unlimited.
    Only….how?
    How do you make this scam of yours work?
    Tell me what you think is “really” happening in the world with this scam.
    What are the nuts and bolts of the operation?
    Lead me through it.
    Give us a peek behind the curtain.
26. Scottish-Sceptic says:

    4 August 2015 at 19:58

    I’ve already told you the mechanism numerous times but you are clearly too obsessed with some kind of conspiracy ideation to understand the obvious.
    People are gullible and getting them to spend money for something of no value is a scam.
27. Cedric Katesby says:

    5 August 2015 at 05:23

    “Officer, those dirty carnies are running a scam. I just lost $20″
    “Oh? Well, that’s terrible. What happened?”
    “Well, I was gullible”
    “I see. So how did they scam you? What did they do?”
    “I just told you. They used my gullibility and they got my $20″
    “No Sir. I don’t think you understand. How did they rip you off to the tune of $20 dollars?”
    “Well…..they scammed me.”
    ” Yes sir. I understand that part. I’m just trying to understand the scam itself.”
    (..awkward silence..)
    “They scammed me”
    “No Sir. I don’t think you…”
    “I’ve already told you how numerous times but you are clearly too obsessed with some kind of understanding what scam it is to understand the obvious.”
    “But…if…”
    “I was gullible. They got me to spend my money on something of no value”
    (…Policeman pulls out a dictionary…)
28. Mark Hodgson says:

    5 August 2015 at 07:20

    You seem a little intense, Cedric, and to have missed my point.
    I agreed with you that it wasn’t a scam in the sense of a lot of people getting together and organising a conspiracy, and your response was to repeat that it’s not a scam. I’m not sure you’re quite with this discussion.
    I then pointed out that the climate change industry is just that – a $1.5 trillion industry annually – and you ignored that point (presumably because you cannot argue against that fact) and went on to argue that I’m like a creationist (“and the others” – whoever they are: scary!) (at least I think that’s what you’re trying to argue) because I pointed out, on the back of the money involved, that lots of people have a vested interest in keeping that industry going. You then went back to your tedious “it’s not a scam” muttering, thereby ignoring the measured and reasonable point I tried to make.
    I repeat, it’s an industry worth $1.5 trillion per annum, which is, frankly, disgraceful. A redistribution of wealth from the poorest in society to the wealthiest, in many cases. I never cease to be surprised at the way global warming alarmists, who usually claim to be on the left wing of society and to hate big industry, seem very content to see money redistributed from the poor to the rich (and to big industry), because they think it’s justified by the cause.
29. Scottish Sceptic says:

    5 August 2015 at 07:37

    Cedric, CO2 is a benefit to humanity. Without it plants would not grow, and with it the planet is greening. There is no global warming (which is just a propaganda campaign).
    Fossil fuels are the single best thing that ever happened to humanity.
    Only a scammer could or a high-way robber would ask us to pay to undo the centuries of benefit from fossil fuel and the benefit of CO2.
    That is how the scam works.
30. Cedric Katesby says:

    5 August 2015 at 08:02

    “Officer, those dirty carnies are running a scam. I just lost $20″
    “Oh? Well, that’s terrible. What happened?”
    “Well, I was gullible”
    “I see. So how did they scam you? What did they do?”
    “I just told you. They used my gullibility and they got my $20″
    “No Sir. I don’t think you understand. How did they rip you off to the tune of $20 dollars?”
    “Well…..they scammed me.”
    ” Yes sir. I understand that part. I’m just trying to understand the scam itself.”
    (..awkward silence..)
    “They scammed me”
    “No Sir. I don’t think you…”
    “I’ve already told you how numerous times but you are clearly too obsessed with some kind of understanding what scam it is to understand the obvious.”
    “But…if…”
    “I was gullible. They got me to spend my money on something of no value”
    “Wait. Sir…”
    “Only a scammer could or a high-way robber would ask us to pay something, something, something. That is how the scam works.”
    Hmm.

Comments are closed.