Between AR4 and AR5 the IPCC lowered their estimates for Climate Sensitivity. If the pause continues, they are likely to continue lowering it. The 80s and 90s had a warming trend driven by the oceans but was mislabeled as entirely driven by CO2.
What trend is down?
CO2 and its effect on temperature. IPCC shows that.
How's that?
Between AR4 and AR5 the IPCC lowered their estimates for Climate Sensitivity. If the pause continues, they are likely to continue lowering it. The 80s and 90s had a warming trend driven by the oceans but was mislabeled as entirely driven by CO2.
His first two sentences are correct...I don't know about the last one.
when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.
xxxxxxx was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community.[6] By 1928 there were 376 separate university courses in some of the United States' leading schools, enrolling more than 20,000 students, which included xxxxxxx in the curriculum.[14] It did, however, have scientific detractors (notably, Thomas Hunt Morgan, one of the few Mendelians to explicitly criticize xxxxxxxx), though most of these focused more on what they considered the crude methodology of xxxxxxxx, and the characterization of almost every human characteristic as being hereditary, rather than the idea of xxxxxxxx itself.[15]
By 1910, there was a large and dynamic network of scientists, reformers and professionals engaged in national xxxxxxxx projects and actively promoting eugenic legislation. The American Breeder’s Association was the first xxxxxxx body in the U.S., established in 1906 under the direction of biologist Charles B. Davenport. The ABA was formed specifically to “investigate and report on heredity in the human race, and emphasize the value of superior blood and the menace to society of inferior blood.” Membership included Alexander Graham Bell, Stanford president David Starr Jordan and Luther Burbank.[16][17] The American Association for the Study and Prevention of Infant Mortality was one of the first organizations to begin investigating infant mortality rates in terms of xxxxxxx.[18] They promoted government intervention in attempts to promote the health of future citizens.[19][verification needed]
Eugenics, the social movement claiming to improve the genetic features of human populations through selective breeding and sterilization,[1] based on the idea that it is possible to distinguish between superior and inferior elements of society,[2] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States prior to its involvement in World War II.[3]
Eugenics was practised in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany[4] and U.S. programs provided much of the inspiration for the latter.[5][6][7] Stefan Kühl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands.[5]
A hallmark of the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century, now generally associated with racist and nativist elements (as the movement was to some extent a reaction to a change in emigration from Europe) rather than scientific genetics, eugenics was considered a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups in the population.
Shhh...my wife is the jealous type!Doc,
You know you are all sexy and stuff when you talk about the climate. Just saying.....
Between AR4 and AR5 the IPCC lowered their estimates for Climate Sensitivity. If the pause continues, they are likely to continue lowering it. The 80s and 90s had a warming trend driven by the oceans but was mislabeled as entirely driven by CO2.
Does that matter? Are you seriously using the childish logic that if everyone isn't helping then why should we?
That must be some of that leadership talk the right is always complaining about.
Great, now the liberals have gotten to the farmers,...
http://globegazette.com/news/local/...512b-8434-41dea82a2cf7.html?mobile_touch=true
I couldn't care less about who caused it, a clean environment is a good think, whether it's clean air, clean water, and clean land. Until the US cleans up it's mess we have no room to ask other countries to do the same.
Then how come when someone suggests that progressives voluntarily pay the higher taxes they want passed into law, you just refuse saying it's a "collective action problem"?
Same thing applies with climate change. If you in blue states and cities want to impose carbon taxes on yourselves, ban SUVs, or whatever other ideas you desire for your portion of the citizenry, knock yourselves out.
Wow, a whole pair of Iowa famers. What a mass movement you have there.
You understand that when we offshore production of goods that require energy (both to directly produce, but also the raw stuffs in their creation, along with the transportation to get them here), that even if we pare back US emissions to as close to zero as possible, TRoTW would still be puking out emissions, right? Which means, the US would destroy itself and the world would still warm, er, cool, change. This isn't a US problem, this is a World problem.
You can't have US citizens consuming energy and goods, which produce a massive pollution footprint, and then go tell the developing world countries who are living in sh1t conditions, Hey, you, Mutumbo, you can't run that steel factory without emission controls to get business to make money and raise your country up like we did, you need to cut back!
You need to make up your mind. But first, take a step back and look at the larger picture...
What do you think happens to the energy during these changes, where does it go?
I hope I need not explain how distribution of energy is affected by ocean currents, or that those fluctuate on multidecadal timescales. Our satellite records have only just completed half a cycle, too infantile in duration to exclude the effect PDO and AMO have on short term (30 year) temperature trends.
If you wish to argue we have measurements going further back... okay, why did the 30s and 40s do the same thing? This present trend is not unusual if it pauses here and remains as such for another ~20 years. That's a requirement of the ocean argument.
If our surface temperature resumes warming while the PDO is negative, then I will attribute that change to CO2.
Really? Why can't we? Do we not have the capability of determining what we allow into this country? Or are you afraid that having such high standards will cause a rise in consumer goods? That's why I also advocate for higher pay for all Americans. I see the larger picture, it's you who doesn't.
Keep making excuses! What do you care? You'll be dead before it becomes a "real" threat but that's just how short sighted assholes think
I'm really not sure you're grasping this. Do you not understand that the American consumer demands cheap goods?.
If you were in a desert with only one bucket of water to survive, and the other 5 people you were with were guzzling it down like crazy, and you were taking small sips, would you actually entertain them telling you that Everyone needed to conserve water so you needed to take smaller sips, all the while they either didn't stop guzzling it down, and/or, just hogged more water to a lesser degree?
That is in effect what the developed rich world is telling these developing countries. If you think the average first worlder is going to consume less unless forced to - and that force would come from Politicians, who, surprise!, want to get re-elected, which means, they kick those hard decision (read: unpopular) cans down the road everytime - you are simply crazy. We can just agree to disagree at this point.
Really? Why can't we? Do we not have the capability of determining what we allow into this country? Or are you afraid that having such high standards will cause a rise in consumer goods? That's why I also advocate for higher pay for all Americans. I see the larger picture, it's you who doesn't.
Keep making excuses! What do you care? You'll be dead before it becomes a "real" threat but that's just how short sighted assholes think
Lol. Okay. I'm curious then if you are pro unions or not.
Wealth inequality yadda yadda I know there are alot of issues. But its also not like you can just legislate higher wages into existence. It would lead to an even worse shortage of jobs. It would be like a price control on labor.
And I also agree that taxes aren't going to help the environment. We just have to burn less fossil fuel in all stages of production. On the other hand I've heard that the bacteria that breakdown the roots of rice after harvest release a shitload of CO2. I'm actually not sure how much CO2 they claim is from fossil fuel vs other sources anyway. Methane from cow farts is going to destroy the planet because its so much more potent than CO2... who knows. I'd like it actually broken down crystal clear. Oh wait all they have is computer sims thats right LOL.
If you were in a desert with only one bucket of water to survive, and the other 5 people you were with were guzzling it down like crazy, and you were taking small sips, would you actually entertain them telling you that Everyone needed to conserve water so you needed to take smaller sips, all the while they either didn't stop guzzling it down, and/or, just hogged more water to a lesser degree?
That is in effect what the developed rich world is telling these developing countries. If you think the average first worlder is going to consume less unless forced to - and that force would come from Politicians, who, surprise!, want to get re-elected, which means, they kick those hard decision (read: unpopular) cans down the road everytime - you are simply crazy. We can just agree to disagree at this point.
Politicians and their lack of will to do anything is a whole other issue.
[insert] faithinhumanity.png
If government is the only answer, the world is already done for. No point is arguing about the details.
If you were in a desert with only one bucket of water to survive, and the other 5 people you were with were guzzling it down like crazy, and you were taking small sips, would you actually entertain them telling you that Everyone needed to conserve water so you needed to take smaller sips, all the while they either didn't stop guzzling it down, and/or, just hogged more water to a lesser degree?
That is in effect what the developed rich world is telling these developing countries. If you think the average first worlder is going to consume less unless forced to - and that force would come from Politicians, who, surprise!, want to get re-elected, which means, they kick those hard decision (read: unpopular) cans down the road everytime - you are simply crazy. We can just agree to disagree at this point.
If you start guzzling water just because other people are, you run out of water faster and die sooner.
I'm not asking you to take in more water than what you're sipping, I'm asking you now to take in less. Don't worry though, I'm way over-consuming full steam ahead. You're cool with that right?