LOL. Politicians was a freudian slip. The two groups would be scientists and media. Pols are never to be trusted. :) Fixed it in the post.

Cheers

Edited by mtnrat on 02/18/2012 15:52:53 MST.

From your comments Sean, I see you care about the environment at least. The people you seem to have sided with don't care about that either, and lobby against caring for it as much as they do the science of AGW. They are anti-science and anti-regulation and can make the best science look bad if it is in their interests. Do you think Gas Frackers care about the environment or water quality? They might if they had to, but organizations like Heartland lobby to let companies do whatever they like and as we all know, this is coming to a head. Our country really is getting dumber, and it's not the fault of scientists.

Edited by wildlife on 02/18/2012 21:32:46 MST.

Sean Staplin says:

"What concerns me the most is the damage that the "scientists" and politicians and media have done to the publics perception of science and environmentalism. It will take a long time to recover to the point where people will trust the scientists and media again. They need to start dealing with real problems not made up alarmist problems. Time effort and money is being wasted on something that will likely have little effect. Effort needs to really be put into real pollution. CO2 is not a pollutant."

+1

I've been saying the same thing on this thread at various points since it started. My fear is that by hitching its pony to the CAGW bandwagon, the environmental movement will be set back decades when the phony science underpinning the carbon taxation scam comes crashing down, as it already is doing. The Chicago Carbon Exchange (principle one Al Gore) flatlined last year. The European Carbon Credits market has more than halved in value in the last few months, despite the unelected Eurocrats having used some 250 BILLION euros of public money to prop it up.

Whose pockets is that money in now?

How much could have been done about real environmental problems with 250 BILLION euro?

David says:
>"Alaska glaciers losing 46 billion tons of ice each year"

I can vouch for this one personally. Exit Glacier, Portage Glacier, etc, etc. And in two dimensions - most are receeding and are also thinning.

It seems it was very much a northern hemisphere phenomenon (that ended a few years ago).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/new-paper-a-high-resolution-surface-mass-balance-map-of-antarctica-shows-no-significant-trend-in-the-1979-2010-ice-sheet/

Dan McHale says:

my use of local meant Climate is primarily limited to direct effects of what happens at this planet, rather than Rogs contention that our climate is being heavily influenced by outside cosmic events, like alignment of our other planets or the influx of cosmic rays

Or even, perhaps, that frackin' huge lump of yellow glowing stuff which possesses 98% of the mass of the solar system (though only 2% of its angular momentum) called the SUN?

Y'know Dan, that Huge object 93,000,000 miles away that dumps about a kilowatt of energy on every midday square metre below it on Earth?

The thing that NASA calls "our variable star"???

There are a few numpties around who need a good whack with the clue bat.

Publish in a real, peer reviewed journal like an actual scientist yet ?

Preeeeety sure we know the answer to that question.

And the answer, of course, is... well, if the warmista gestapo hadn't violated my rights and stolen the laptops containing years of my basement smudgepot-clingfilm-child's-wading-pool research, chances are fairly good that I would have already published my earth-shattering results in Warmist Weekly, an semi-monthly online gazette... they had held two screen pages of space for me right after the comics section (but BEFORE the crossword).

"It seems it was very much a northern hemisphere phenomenon (that ended a few years ago)."

Just published paper in Nature. Through 2010. Can't ask for much more recent data.

Here is what they wrote.


"For completeness, we also estimate that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, including their peripheral GICs, contributed 1.06 ± 0.19 mm yr−1 to sea level rise over the same time period."

Edited by oware on 02/20/2012 17:06:09 MST.

R said---
"It seems it was very much a northern hemisphere phenomenon (that ended a few years ago).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/new-paper-a-high-resolution-surface-mass-balance-map-of-antarctica-shows-no-significant-trend-in-the-1979-2010-ice-sheet/"

-----

Here is a paper in the same journal by some of the same scientists that watts quoted in which they speak more directly to sea level rise from glacial melt.

As Watt's puts it, the money quote

"Using the two‐decade long MBM observation
record, we determine that ice sheet loss is accelerating by
36.3 ± 2 Gt/yr2, or 3 times larger than from mountain glaciers
and ice caps (GIC). The magnitude of the acceleration suggests
that ice sheets will be the dominant contributors to sea
level rise in forthcoming decades, and will likely exceed the
IPCC projections for the contribution of ice sheets to sea level
rise in the 21st century [Meehl et al., 2007]."



http://ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/velicogna/files/rignot_etal_grl2011.pdf

The main problem with these disjointed stats is that sea level seems to be falling rather than rising over the last few years. Best as we can tell from GPS dependent systems which have an error term many times larger than the signal they are trying to measure anyway...

Camoron says:
Publish in a real, peer reviewed journal like an actual scientist yet ?

What, and endanger my reputation as an independent researcher by publishing in the same place as the likes of Kevin 'Travesty' Trenberth and Phil 'Excel for dummies' Jones? No thanks.

Anyway, they charge you big money to hide anything you've said that's worth knowing behind a paywall so no-one will ever read it. My web site has over 620,000 visits and counting at around 3000 more a day. Phd physicists send me emails asking if I'll feature their latest work. Here's how my stats compare with The Team's website these days:

.



Journals are destroying their own reputations. Stitch that Elsevier:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/1000-scientists-and-counting-boycott-elsevier-journal-publishing/

Edited by tallbloke on 02/20/2012 17:45:17 MST.

"I think everyone should see the pyramids before they melt."-----Karl Pilkington

Well... we are in big doo-doo anyway. I looked at your chart from Alexa, went to their site, and here are some global traffic statistics

Facebook = #2
CNN = #62
Pornhub = #76
The Huffington Post = #83
New York Times = #97
Wall Street Journal = #231
Realclimate = #233,062
Tallbloke = 243,431

Rog, do you really think I was excluding the Sun as a factor in Climate? It goes without saying the Sun is the center of attraction in our climate and #2 is what we are doing. In affecting change however, we are #1. Claiming that I forgot about the Sun is a good example of how much you are willing to reach and stretch. What is funny though, is according to you, we should dismiss the IPCC long range projections but pay full attention to your extended 'what if' projections regarding the sun.

I seriously doubt sea levels are falling when Arctic ice can barely maintain, and is losing ground as a trend. This last year was the 4th lowest extent on satelite record. And we have record warm Gulf water again this year. Where do you come up with this stuff?......Oh, I forgot, Anthony Watts!!!!!!!!!! The all time / most valuable data distorter.

Environmentalism does not even need the climate debate as subject matter to exist. Man is wreaking havoc on the rest of the world just fine.

Edited by wildlife on 02/20/2012 21:41:24 MST.

This thread sucks. Just like Dan's website. Oh did that just happen? Oh yes it did.

What website?

You know, that website that sells those overpriced custom packs? The one that takes a genius to figure out how to see the packs being offered? ;)

I hear ya bro. That's why North Face is there. Hey, check this story out. It might get you thinking about something else;

http://theeuropean-magazine.com/373-caldeira-ken/372-climate-change-and-geo-engineering

Edited by wildlife on 02/20/2012 22:30:32 MST.

Hahaha. The North Face is waaaaay too techy and hardcore for me.

Dan said, "This last year was the 4th lowest extent on satelite record."

So what was the satelite record saying 50, 100, 150, 200 years ago?

Edited by MikefaeDundee on 02/20/2012 23:59:33 MST.