Earth day

Nice work Dave! I would say the science is now settled, and the consensus among peer reviewed data is that man made global warming is not a big issue, at least 99.9999% of the time!

Time for you to start thinking about your next monster thread!?! What's bugging you these days?    

Hansel wrote: Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual." Accordingly I am going to go with the vast majority of scientists and policymakers and get on board, hoping for the best but planning for the worst. I hope someday you too will get on board. Until then, safe boating during these "extremely unusual" times.

Jamin, I find it interesting that your summation is model based. I asked twice how many of the models have meet there statistical mean, your response.

Hansel wrote: models incorporating CO2 produced by humans failing to perfectly predict climate change

that is as kind of a description of their accuracy as I can think of. I know as a scientist you understand bell curves and statistical deviations.


If the models were based on good science we would expect 68% of the models to achieve their mean predictions and a few would over or under predict. From what I have seen most have fallen short of their margin of error completely, and a few have snuck in meeting their their lowest predictions. As a scientist this should be a huge red flag to you about the legitimacy of the models predictions, and yet you stand by them. The models seem to be designed to incite panic rather then be an accurate predictor of future temperatures. Someone else said something about garbage in and garbage out, you asked about the garbage. As non-scientists finding the garbage is not our job. Garbage in and garbage out goes both ways, if you are getting garbage out you know garbage is going in. As voters, citizens or whatever we are supposed to be,our responsibility is to be able to recognize when we are being fed agenda based garbage. Based on the accuracy of the models to date,the one thing I do not expect is that the world will warm 2 to 6 degrees Celsius in the next century or that it will warm AT LEAST 20 times faster than it has been, so I just can not get on board.

Safe boating? It's safe sledding for the next few months, and for me that means the little red plastic ones, not the ones that produce carbon.

"All models are wrong, but some are useful"

Dave, you may want to read this book, "The Climate Modelling Primer" (many pages provided to get you started). I too could surely benefit, since I am definitely no expert in climate models.

Let's quickly examine one commonly used model CMIP5, that does an excellent job of predicting temperatures from 1986-2005 (Extended Data Fig. 1 b & c from Mora et al. 2013 Nature).



From their caption, "comparison between actual and multi-model minimum (b, e) and maximum (c, f) temperatures for the 20-year period 1986–2005 (the time frame for which actual observations were mostly available). Dashed lines indicate the 1:1 relationship." Just in case you missed it modeled temps are on the X-axis, and actual temps are on the Y-axis. The points are pretty much all on the 1:1 line, meaning that the model is very accurate for this time period.

These are air temperatures, and it is worth noting here that using this model the paper predicts that by around 2050, plus or minus 15 years, annual average temperatures will be outside of historic norms.

Maybe we should consult the guys over at East Anglia Univ. in England. Rumor has it they have lots of good papers on the topic! Oh wait, I think they already "publicized" those papers. Something about having to cover up the real truth because climate change was not really as severe as they had portrayed. I don't know, it all gets so confusing to us non-climate scientists.

When you don't like the real answer, turn to the internet for anecdotal evidence in your favor.

No, I'm not that technical riding a board, I can't even do it. That's why we argue details here and enjoy watching the talented ones here ski, board, and foil without criticism or input.

A timely news story ripped from today's headlines

Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific proof humans are dominant cause of warming climate

"Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist and business consultant who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like the one he helped establish use faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet.
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” he said.
Even if the planet is warming up, Moore claimed it would not be calamitous for men, which he described as a “subtropical species.”"



I always considered the environmentalists to be nut jobs, but I did not expect a founder of Greenpeace to join us in the flat earth society.

The co-founder of Greenpeace speaking before a senate sub committee and basically calling global warming BS has to be news, and yet the liberal propaganda rags have seemed to missed this story, it is not that the story is not news, it is that they don't want the story to be news.

OverMyHead wrote: A timely news story ripped from today's headlines Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific proof humans are dominant cause of warming climate "Patrick Moore, ...blah blah blah I always considered the environmentalists to be nut jobs, but I did not expect a founder of Greenpeace to join us in the flat earth society. The co-founder of Greenpeace speaking before a senate sub committee and basically calling global warming BS has to be news, and yet the liberal propaganda rags have seemed to missed this story, it is not that the story is not news, it is that they don't want the story to be news.

Luckily we have you to rip from the headlines all the crap that isnt fit to read and then repost it on the internet with your own embelishment and mischarecterization of the original mischarecterization. Even faux news only called him a co-founder… you heard “The co-founder” and posted it that way cause it made you happier, It is not that it is news it is just that you want the story to be news

Here is what greenpeace had to say about industry lobbiest and owner/founder of a public relations firm Patrick Moore 4 years ago .. when it also wasn't news.


Background - December 7, 2010
Patrick Moore, a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry, frequently cites a long-ago affiliation with Greenpeace to gain legitimacy in the media. Media outlets often either state or imply that Mr. Moore still represents Greenpeace, or fail to mention that he is a paid lobbyist and not an independent source. This page contains information about how to accurately describe Mr. Moore and to judge his credibility.

Patrick Moore is a Paid Spokesperson for the Nuclear Industry
In April 2006, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the principal lobby for the nuclear industry, launched the Clean And Safe Energy Coalition and installed former Bush Administration EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and Mr. Moore as its co-chairs. The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition was part of a public relations project spearheaded by the public relations giant Hill & Knowlton as part of its estimated $8 million contract with the nuclear industry.(1)

Patrick Moore Does Not Represent Greenpeace
For more than 20 years, Mr. Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. Most of these industries hired Mr. Moore only after becoming the focus of a Greenpeace campaign to improve their environmental performance. Mr. Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace. Greenpeace opposes the use of nuclear energy because it is a dangerous and expensive distraction from real solutions to climate change.

Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace
Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace's response are available here (PDF).

Patrick Moore Has Provided Inaccurate Information on Nuclear Power
In 2004, Mr. Moore published an article in the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) journal entitled "Nuclear Re-think." According to Mr. Moore, "Three Mile Island was a success story. The concrete containment structure did as it was designed to do: it prevented radiation from escaping into the environment."(2)

Contrary to Mr. Moore's claim, the damaged reactor spewed radiation into the environment for days. It appears that Mr. Moore didn't even bother to check his facts. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's fact sheet on Three Mile Island (TMI) acknowledges that the meltdown resulted in "a significant release of radiation…"(3)

Even the International Atomic Energy Agency, which published Mr. Moore's article, acknowledges that the TMI meltdown released radiation into the surrounding community. As a result, the IAEA ranks the accident as a Level 5 on a scale of 7, an Accident With Wider Consequences. (Only Chernobyl & the Soviet nuclear waste tank explosion in 1957 rank worse than the Three Mile Island meltdown.)(4)

According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 10 million curies of radiation escaped the damaged reactor core. However, nuclear engineers who reexamined the accident estimate that as much as 150 million curies of radiation may have escaped from the reactor.(5) The meltdown at Three Mile Island turned a multimillion dollar asset into a multibillion dollar liability overnight and helped seal the fate of nuclear power in the United States. To claim otherwise is nothing but public relations spin.

Unfortunately, Mr. Moore's pro nuclear spin is not confined to the Three Mile Island meltdown. While praising the Bush Administration for rejecting the Kyoto Protocol(6), Moore promotes nuclear power as a solution to global warming because,"(i)t produces no harmful greenhouse gases…"(7)

However, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) already determined in 1999 that the Nuclear Energy Institute's claims touting nuclear power's supposed environmental benefits were misleading because it did not disclose the fact that the production of nuclear fuel produced greenhouse gases. The FTC concluded that NEI's claims could not be substantiated, "(s)ince there is not yet any permanent disposal system for radioactive waste and since the process of uranium enrichment that fuels nuclear reactors emits greenhouse gases…"(8)

Patrick Moore's Own Words
Consider Patrick Moore's own words when considering his claims and those of the nuclear industry: "It should be remembered that there are employed in the nuclear industry some very high-powered public relations organizations. One can no more trust them to tell the truth about nuclear power than about which brand of toothpaste will result in the sexiest smile,"(9) he wrote before becoming a spokesman for polluters.

I think they ought to figure out a good solution as to what to do with the waste before they build more nukes. When you figure in the cost of storing/disposing the waste, it's not so cost efficient. Our nuke got shut down pre maturely quite a while ago and all the waste is still stored "temporarily" on site.

They may do some things that we don't do, but I don't think they lead us anywhere. Nuclear is a great option, but we have to do something with the waste. For a while there was talk of storing it in Maine in our vast granite formations under ground. That wasn't a very popular idea around here.

While I admire much of their culture and engineering, I won't be packing up for a move there anytime soon. It is possible that my daughter and her husband may sometime in the future since they hold many of the jobs in HEP phenomenology at CERN.

Riley wrote: Google "Down in France" by Frank Zappa. I know a guy from near France that told me FZ hit it on the money. All kidding aside, solving the permanent storage of nuclear waste isn't that important? I must live in an upside down world.

Did someone say it isn't important? The French are doing it permanently and in a method I believe is reasonably safe now. We need to follow their lead and do the same.

JoeinNY wrote: Luckily we have you to rip from the headlines all the crap that isnt fit to read and then repost it on the internet with your own embelishment and mischarecterization of the original mischarecterization. Even faux news only called him a co-founder… you heard “The co-founder” and posted it that way cause it made you happier, It is not that it is news it is just that you want the story to be news Here is what greenpeace had to say about industry lobbiest and owner/founder of a public relations firm Patrick Moore 4 years ago .. when it also wasn't news.

Joe. going to Greenpeace on Patrick Moore is like going to Philip Morris on second hand smoke. Both have an agenda to significantly bend the facts.

Here is what greenpeace says about its founders on its website today.


The Founders
There's an old joke that in any bar in Vancouver Canada you can sit down next to someone who claims to have founded Greenpeace. In fact, there was no single founder, and the name, idea, spirit, tactics, and internationalism of the organization all can be said to have separate lineages. Here's a few facts.

Don't make a wave committee

In 1970, the Don't Make A Wave Committee was established; its sole objective was to stop a second nuclear weapons test at Amchitka Island in the Aleutians.

The committee's founders were Dorothy and Irving Stowe, Marie and Jim Bohlen, Ben and Dorothy Metcalfe, and Bob Hunter. Its first directors were Stowe, Bohlen, and a student named Paul Cote.

Canadian ecologist Bill Darnell came up with the dynamic combination of words to bind together the group's concern for the planet and opposition to nuclear arms. In the words of Bob Hunter, "Somebody flashed two fingers as we were leaving the church basement and said "Peace!" Bill said "Let's make it a Green Peace. And we all went Ommmmmmmm." Jim Bohlen's son Paul, having trouble making the two words fit on a button, linked them together into the committee's new name: Greenpeace.

Marie Bohlen was the first to suggest taking a ship up to Amchtka to oppose the US plans. The group organised a boat, the Phyllis Cormack, and set sail to Amchitka to "bear witness" (a Quaker tradition of silent protest) to the nuclear test. On board were:
•      Captain John Cormack, the boat's owner
•      Jim Bohlen, Greenpeace
•      Bill Darnell, Greenpeace
•      Dr Lyle Thurston, medical practitioner
•      Dave Birmingham, engineer
•      Terry Simmons, cultural geographer
•      Richard Fineberg, political science teacher
•      Robert Hunter, journalist
•      Ben Metcalfe, journalist
•      Bob Cummings, journalist
•      Bob Keziere, photographer

Stowe, who suffered from sea-sickness, stayed on shore to coordinate political pressure. Cote stayed behind too, because he was about to represent Canada in an Olympic sailing race.

Bob Hunter would take the lessons of that first voyage forward and improvise upon them to the point that he, more than anyone else, invented Greenpeace's brand of individual activism.







You are right, there is no mention of Patrick Moore as a founder or anything else,but if we go back in archives of the same section of their website in say 2005 we see this.


There's an old joke that in any bar in Vancouver Canada you can sit down next to someone who founded Greenpeace. In fact, there was no single founder, and the name, idea, spirit, tactics, and internationalism of the organisation all can be said to have separate lineages. Here's a few facts.
In 1970, the Don't Make A Wave Committee was established; its sole objective was to stop a second nuclear weapons test at Amchitka Island in the Aleutians. The committee's founders and first members included:

•      Paul Cote, a law student at the University of British Columbia
•      Jim Bohlen, a former deep-sea diver and radar operator in the US Navy
•      Irving Stowe, a Quaker and Yale-educated lawyer
•      Patrick Moore, ecology student at the University of British Columbia
•      Bill Darnell, a social worker

Darnell came up with the dynamic combination of words to bind together the group's concern for the planet and opposition to nuclear arms. In the words of Bob Hunter, "Somebody flashed two fingers as we were leaving the church basement and said "Peace!" Bill said "Let's make it a Green Peace. And we all went Ommmmmmmm." The committee was renamed Greenpeace.

The group organised a boat, the Phyllis Cormack, and set sail to Amchitka to "bear witness" (a Quaker tradition of silent protest) to the nuclear test. On board were:
•      Captain John Cormack, the boat's owner
•      Jim Bohlen, Greenpeace
•      Bill Darnell, Greenpeace
•      Patrick Moore, Greenpeace
•      Dr Lyle Thurston, medical practitioner
•      Dave Birmingham, engineer
•      Terry Simmons, cultural geographer
•      Richard Fineberg, political science teacher
•      Robert Hunter, journalist
•      Ben Metcalfe, journalist
•      Bob Cummings, journalist
•      Bob Keziere, photographer

Stowe, who suffered from sea-sickness, stayed on shore to coordinate political pressure. Cote stayed behind too, because he was about to represent Canada in an Olympic sailing race.

Bob Hunter would take the lessons of that first voyage forward and improvise upon them to the point that he, more than anyone else, invented Greenpeace's brand of individual activism aimed right between the eyes of the world's attention.

Link



There is Patrick Moore on a list of "Founders and First Members", and there is no differentiation as to which is one or the other, so they seem to be claiming them all proudly on equal footing. If Moore is not a true "Founder" he is making only a very small stretch in saying so as he is clearly a core member of Greenpeace way back to its first endeavors. They even took Moore off the passenger list on their first cruise!!!! He's been erased!!!!!! You may notice that none of their curently claimed founders,Cote, Bohlen, or Stowe had a background in science, but Patrick Moore does.

As for the rest of the "facts" in the Greenpeace hit piece on Moore, Considering their penchant to revise history to fit their message, I am considering all the information suspect.

Its hard to project any more propaganda onto the global warming movement. They gave been all propaganda all the time since Al's movie ( the one that the courts in England reguire to be accompanied by a disclaimer of its factual errors) was first shown and then forced on our public school children. Maybe indoctrination is a better term.I guess I'm not surprised you had the manual handy.

The "manual" of which you speak is the ability to think independently and to research the facts of an event.