LostSoul45 comments

Cleo, You took the words right out of my mouth. Could you just repeat what you said over and over and over, here, there, and everywhere until all the morons of our so-called "developed" country get it?

Japanese and U.S. officials say the alliance is rock-solid and the atmospherics will be just fine at what will be the first state visit to Tokyo by a U.S. president since Bill Clinton in 1996.

What? Was Obama's visit in 2009 just a figment of my imagination? Does no one remember that one? the one that caused all the silly commotion over the bow/handshake with Emperor Akihito?

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/obamas-bow-to-emperor-causes-outrage-in-washington

Or was that not a genuine "state visit"?

Heda_Madness

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas comprising 0.0397% of the earth's atmosphere. It is emitted not only by fossil fuel burning, but by volcanoes, outgassing of the oceans, and decay of animal and plant matter, etc. It is not toxic and the only way that "too much of it will kill you" is if it's percentage of the air we breath were too high, like Venus' atomsphere which is more than 96% CO2, but only because then we wouldn't get enough oxygen, not because it CO2 is harmful. Again: as plant food, CO2 is absolutely essential for all life. And BTW, the current concentration of 400ppm is historically low. Farmers pump greenhouses up to 1,000ppm to promote better plant crop growth.

If by quotes from Michel Jarraud you mean statements such as: "A rise in sea levels is leading to increasing damage from storm surges and coastal flooding, as demonstrated by Typhoon Haiyan, Jarraud said." ...then my opinion is that it's mostly propaganda. Tide gauge records show sea levels in the Philippines have only risen by about 330mm since 1950 with no acceleration (https://www.bodc.ac.uk/data/information_and_inventories/gloss_handbook/stations/72/plot/522/)

Jarraud also needs to read his organization's own publications:

-"There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change"

"The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical [winter] storms and tornadoes"

"The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"

Source: IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-19 https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX_Full_Report.pdf

The facts are that Global Warming is a phenomenon.

True. So is global cooling (1945 to 1979, etc.)

The facts are it's been made worse by man kind.

No. That is not fact. If you can refute me, please quote just one of the alleged "too many" peer-reviewed studies that prove that claim.

And the facts are the nay sayers are in a very small minority.

Not true. "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

sfjp330,

You are correct that pollution (particularly air pollution) is a real problem that needs to be addressed. However, pollution has nothing to do with climate change or extreme weather events.

Everyone here should be aware that CO2 is not pollution. It is an odorless, colorless trace gas that (as fundamentally plant food) is absolutely essential for all life on earth.

(I find it interesting how my above posts have all been thumbed down when all they do is present facts and ask for claimed evidence to be presented. It just goes to show how much true believers of man-made climate change hate facts).

Strangerland,

You say "every climate change scientist out there says that it's [human activity causing more frequent and severe floods and drought] happening."

That argument has absolutely zero factual basis.

Unlike the dogmatic climate change alarmists, I will provide actual facts to back up my assertions. I quote the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which claims to consist of and represent the foremost climate scientists in the world.

-"There is low confidence in any observed long-term (40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (ie intensity, frequency, duration)."

Source: IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-19 https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX_Full_Report.pdf

"no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century". "confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low" "lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale" "there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century" " [Previous] conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated." " [Although] it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950."

Source: IPCC, 2013: Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (AR5 WG1) http://www.climatechange2013.org/

In addition, accredited climate scientists such as Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, John Christy, Roger Pielke Jr., Fred Singer, and Nils Morner are among the numerous scientists who do not say "it's happening as a result of human activity".

You are superbly representative of the knee-jerk climate alarmists who willfully ignore facts and when challenged resort to clumsy hand waving and blundering ad hominems.

Please note that, unless you have been (in your words) "too stupid" to notice, every one of my assertions is backed up by a factual source. Until you likewise respond with factual evidence, i will completely ignore you as I am not so cruel as to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed "opponent".

Hello Strangerland.

You say "yes there is" evidence for humans causing more frequent and severe floods and droughts. Could you please present that evidence? Or in fact evidence of any trend in extreme weather over the past century?

The "deniers" are the ones who still cling to the wholly unscientific claim that human activity is causing catastrophic climate change in spite of the facts:

There is no evidence that humans are causing more frequent or severe floods or droughts. Science and historical records show no trend in extreme weather.

Globally, there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/nature11575.html

No signifcant trend in global cyclone landfalls since 1970 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2012.04.pdf

Peer-reviewed research shows no conclusive and general proof as to how climate change affects flood behaviour. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.2005.50.5.797

Peer-reviwed study in Nature shows no correlation between temperature changes and long-term drought variations http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/abs/491338a.html?lang=en

And again: there is no scientific evidence that the rise in global temperature since 1850 (which is still only 0.8 degrees C) is causing more extreme weather.

The is also no evidence to back up the claim that the "coal and oil lobby" has caused confusion about the "facts" of climate change. From 2001 to 2007 the US government alone spent over 37 billion dollars on climate change activities http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/fy08climatechange.pdf , wheras Exxon-Mobil funded 16 million dollars in research by skeptics from 1998 to 2005 http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/globalwarming/exxonreport.pdf

US government funding of the manmade climate change scare (to say nothing of total UN, etc. international funding) dwarfs fossil fuel industry funding.

And even with all that funding, the CAGW propadanda machine still can't prove manmade CO2 causes dangerous climate change.

(I would humbly request that any counter-arguments be backed up by factual evidence, not dogmatic emotion)

It's offensive to cool people who managed to get past adolescence.....regardless of gender.

All these so-called "men" can keep their 'cute' Stepford Lolita molls.

I'll take the aged-to-perfection full-bodied sexy 40 to 50-something genuine 'women' complete with high-heels, silk stockings, lace garters, daring mini-skirts, G-cups, dynamite smile, lipstick, eyeliner, and silky black or moderately brown tastfully styled hair....

...plus physical fitness, enjoyment of outdoor and athletic activity, a healthy adventurous libido, and the intelligence, worldly experience, and wit to actively engage in stimulating conversation on nearly any topic (as opposed to "ehh? Wakanna--i! hee hee hee").

Ah....I just described my exquisite girfriend.

I'm off to be with her then and stop wasting time here.

See ya!

Frungy,

You can't seriously believe that stating one single term, "melanin" somehow proves beyond all doubt your wholly unfounded view while concurrently somehow irretrievably invalidating my critical skepticism of your assertions.

"Melanin" in the synonymic sense of variation in skin color among human races also took at least 100,000 years to evolve, and even if it didn't your assertion that native peoples living in areas of high natural background radiation undergo rapid DNA adaptation to resist the "harmful" effects is STILL NOT PROVEN. It in fact still lacks any evidence of any kind.

You claimed with very impressive confidence that "DNA analysis has confirmed this hypothesis", so please tell me where I can read about this pivotal DNA analysis. I won't demand a link to peer reviewed studies (and by doing so save you the embarrassment of calling your obviously flimsy bluff), but if you are so kind as to actually provide just one link AND the moderators actually do delete your post, I will challenge them and request that your post is reinstated. How's that sound? I reckon you got a generous bargain.

Frungy,

People who move to these areas with high background radiation DO suffer from higher mortality rates.

I have to echo Mike O'Brien's request: Where's the evidence of this? Can you quote or link to a peer-reviewed study?

People who are native do not. Why? Because all the people with DNA that predisposed them to cancers died off ages ago. DNA analysis has confirmed this hypothesis,

Now, I simply must see the studies that suggest this is true since it implies that human DNA can evolve over the span of just a generations, whereas evolutionary biology demonstrates that it takes a hundred thousand to millions of years for even the tiniest changes in existing characteristcs to be made. Please post the links to those DNA analysis studies.

A radiation safety figure that is based on.... adults. Children are far more sensitive to radiation.

I'm well aware that children are more susceptible to some complications due to radiation, but primarily thyroid cancers caused by Iodine-131, which collects in the thyroid and children have smaller thyroids. This is not the same as some metaphysical claim of extra "sensitivity to radiation"

But even so, this has nothing to do with my point: that the levels of radiation cited are totally insignifcant (as in statistically indistinguishable from zero) compared to many orders of magnitude higher levels of natural background radiation in many parts of the world where healthy human communities live.

Furthermore, even with tens of thousands of rays or particles from natural background radiation hitting the human body per second, this is thousands of times less significant than routine DNA damage normal metabolic oxidation and stress. And even though radiation can cause higher “double strand break” rates in DNA, this damage is still miniscule compared to normal metabolism, heat, or exercise. Then there is also the fact that radiation is shown to stimulate molecular, DNA and cellular repair mechanisms.

Vitamin D insufficiencies due to deprivation of sunlight exposure would carry far more health risks to these children.

Wow. The ignorance and radiophobia on display here are jaw-droppingly shocking.

Please read this section of the article again:

Radiation levels around the Emporium Kindergarten in Koriyama were now down around 0.12-0.14 microsieverts per hour, from 3.1 to 3.7 right after the quake.... This works out to be lower than Japan’s safety level of 1,000 microsieverts a year,...

The immediate post-quake high-end figure of 3.7 uSv/hour works out to 32,434 uSv/year or 32.4 milli-Sv/year (3.7 x 8,766 hours in a year) which might sound scary since it's over 32 times "Japan's safety level", but guess what? It's completely negligible compared with 800 mSv of natural background radiation in southwestern France, 700 mSv in parts of Brazil, and 400 mSv in the Ramsar region of Iran. None of these regions have exceptionally high rates of mortality or disease, cancerous or otherwise.

By the way, following the Chernobyl disaster, the average annual radiation between 1986 and 2005 was 2.4 mSv in Belarus, 1.1 mSv in Russia, and 1.2 mSv in the Ukraine: Again infinitesimal figures by comparison.

Here's some more facts those of you who prefer to live in a state of fear and ignorance will no doubt dismiss in classic knee-jerk fashion: There have been no confirmed fatalities among the general population as a result of the Chernobyl disaster. Fear of thyroid cancers prompted the Soviet authorities to bring in brand new state-of-the-art diagnostic technologies and equipment and implement compulsory annual screening. The sudden use of such high-tech and frequent screening that were not in routine use before the disaster detected 4,000 new thyroid cancer cases among children in Belarus, Russia, and the Ukraine in the vicinity of the Chernobyl plant. But these occult thyroid cancers are extremely common all over the world, with rates of 9.3% in Belarus, 28% in Japan, and 35.6% in Finland. In Finland, occult thyroid cancers are found in 2.4% of children, which is 90 times more than the maximum rate in Bryansk, the most contaminated region of Russia.

So....based on these facts, the logical conclusion is that thyroid cancers in the regions near Chernobyl only appeared to increase due to the much more frequent and in-depth screening applied, which detected occult cancers that would otherwise have gone unnoticed.

So Fukushima is "toxic" you say? Rubbish! Such irrational and harmful hysteria is the real threat to these innocent children.

Please give me all the thumbs down you want, but please, please do some basic fact checking before spewing pernicious fear-mongering.

Slowguy,

Here's a thought experiment: propose to the surviving Korean victims of Japan's enforced sexual slavery that if they should only give up all future claims to personal monetary compensation, in return Japan will agree to officially admit its guilt, proclaim it to the world by having Prime Minister Abe come to Korea to deliver an official apology in person, have textbooks reflect the truth, and build a big, public memorial in the middle of Tokyo that tells the story of Japan's atrocities and states a detailed apology, making the apology permanent and irreversible.

Actually, with the exception of the big public memorial, Japan has already done all of those things. PM Kiichi Miyazawa apologized eight times during his 1992 visit to South Korea. Japanese history textbooks and silibi were revised to include comfort women, and the all-important word "coercion" was included in the Kono declaration at the insistance of the South Korean government, which implied it would then be satisfied and said it would not demand individual compensation.

Japan trusted South Korea then...and got burned.

South Korea's worldwide campaign of defamation against Japan is on a roll now. Japan is wise to take action to bring South Korea's libelous propaganda to a halt.

Christine Dillon Strickland,

awaken to the heath effects from Fukushima

May I inquire which health effects you referring to? Other than mental disorders stemming from forced relocation and radiophobic scare-mongering or accidents befalling emergency workers dealing with the disaster in 2011, how has the Fukushima public's health been affected by nuclear power? Do you have any statistics on significant increases in death or illness with robust causation?

develop renewable sustainable sources... they exist...

May I ask which sources you mean? Do you mean solar power? Well photovoltaic solar panels are dependent on polycrystalline silicon, the production of which is a dirty, polluting process, on top of which China corners the market on it and will not hesitate to jack up prices or restrict supply just to make Japan suffer. Do you mean wind power? Well that depends on rare earths, which are not "renewable" or "sustainable" and China also corners that market, controlling over 90% of global supply.

Yogizuna,

This is an emotional decision, not a logical one.

I respectfully disagree. It is in fact highly logical and un-emotional.

Japan has ZERO natural resources. No coal, no oil, no natural gas. It's economy depends on industry, which depends on secure, stable energy supply. Basing energy policy entirely on fuels that must be imported is a foolhardy dangerous notion that jeopardizes Japan's economy, national security, and public well-being. Using more nuclear power is the most logical choice for Japan, whereas rejecting it due to pathologically exaggerated radiophobia is the most emotional, harmful decision on energy policy it could possibly make.

Chucky3176,

The Japanese command at the war time, believed in "Tokko", which meant "let young men die beautiful deaths with sympathy".

In think you mean "gyokusai", not "tokko", which means "special attack." and refers to the suicide fighter plane attack missions that are generally referred to as "Kamikaze" in English (although gyokusai is the romanticized ideology behind the tokko missions).

Even if the "kamikaze" pilots were "volunteers" as you assert, it was hardly out devout allegiance to the Emperor or Japan's militaristic regime at the time. Owing to the heavy casualties sustained by then, Japan had resorted to widespread conscription from the general public in the closing days of the war (although effective propaganda may have encouraged the practice of referring to the drafted as "volunteers"). Kamikaze weren't even Japan's best pilots, the were new conscripts barely out of their teens who were trained as pilots for a matter of weeks before being sent to their deaths. In return, their starving families would be looked after by the regime (or so they were led to believe). By a similar token, the answer to Eiji's question of "If they were critical of the war, then I wonder... why they didn't suicide bomb into a military headquarter or something." is that they feared that any such act would cause their surviving families to be shamed an ostricized horribly (or worse).

Anecdotal evidence also suggests the pilots were forced to eat, sleep, etc. together constantly in groups in which no single individual would dare speak out against the regime, and that they were administered copious doses of methamphetamine to ensure they would actually carry out their missions. None of this would have been necessary if Japan's military actually had the luxury of volunteers.

"All of them willing volunteers?" Doubtful at best, complete fantasy at worst.

Tessa, I see you're also someone from whom we could all learn a thing or two. Glad you enjoyed Suzy's story. Rock on!

At the risk of sounding like a hackneyed "get off your lazy behind" diatribe, what these "forgotten" women need to do is take action and make society remember them again.

They could all learn a lot from the amazing true life story of a close Japanese female friend of mine who has been to hell and back again and emerged 10-times stronger. She is not only the most hard-working, resourceful, and praise-worthy Japanese women I have ever known. She this the most dynamic, vivacious and all-around amazing human being I have ever met period!. Her story is a shining example of just how much can be accomplished with good old-fashioned elbow grease.

(FYI, I'm an American male, age 42, and I've been living in Japan (mostly nearly Tokyo) for the past 22 years. I speak, read and write Japanese fluently)

My friend, who goes by the handle "Suzy", turned 50 this year. She was born way up north in rural Japan. She learned the value of hard work early in life when a divorce left her mother to support her by starting her own business (that turned out to be quite successful). Working part time in high-school, Suzy saved up enough to by her own stereo set for 300,000 yen, which back then was the equivalent of an average man's annual salary: i.e. a fortune. Suzy always longed to live in Tokyo, and with her mom's reluctant permission at age 20 she left home, but with the strict understanding that she was on her own. And when the cousin she was staying with embezzled her meager month's income, her tearful phone call to mom begging for some emergency cash was met with just two simple options: other come home permanently, or solve your problems on your own. Well, Suzy took choice no. 2.

Not only intelligent and resourceful, but a total knock-out beauty as well, Suzy had plenty suitors but unfortunately ended up marrying a good-looking a$$hole. Running a doomed-to-fail izakaya, he begged Suzy to help out in the kitchen and wait ables after his staff quit when he stopped paying them. And in spite of being 7 months pregnant, she agreed. But when he kept on running the business into the ground, with the birth of their first child just around the corner, Suzy anxiously asked for assurance that they would be able to get by. Her husband's enraged response was to beat her to a pulp. She was hospitalized and required reconstructive surgery on her face to replace her shattered cheekbones.

After the saccharin apologies of a typically abusive husband, then the inevitable infidelity began.

Several years, two more kids, and countless more beatings later, Suzy got sick of turning a blind to her husband's reckless philandering ways, and when he finally stopped supported the family's living expenses, she decided to look for a job (faced with three kids and zero income, she had no choice really).

Minimum wage just wasn't going to cut it, but being a 40-something woman out of the workforce for nearly 20 years, she faced a Herculean uphill battle to find a decent paying job. But every time she got knocked down, she promptly get right up again with no whimpering. Then she realized that selling life insurance was just about the only industry in Japan that offered women any chance of promotion and higher (i.e. livable) wages.

With zero knowledge of insurance or business in general and armed only with her sharp wits and dynamite smile (not mention her still to this day smashing looks), she hit the ground running, walloped the nefarious attempts at sabotage that new women employees typically get from their female coworkers, and in just few instantaneous months rocketed to the top-ranked sales lady of her entire division, then her entire branch. Then, when she needed to close just one more contract to earn in a mere month a new level of certification that most take half a year to attain, she bagged the biggest corporate account her branch had seen in years. Commissions included, her take-home pay that month (and for many thereafter) topped 700,000 yen. That's more than her (typically male) branch manager made and more than her piece-o-$hite husband made. Meanwhile, she was still supporting and bringing up three teenage kids and still enjoying the occasion night out on the town with her female friends (and turning down pickup lines from would-be suitors half her age), while also putting more miles on Harley Davidson motorcycle (she re-wrote the book on sexy biker chicks!), and learning to play guitar! (there wasn't enough time left for the rest of her hobbles though, so she had to give up practicing karate and drumming in her rock band, although she still occasionally found time to hit the dance-club circuit).

During the next round of typical HR reshuffling, the company decided Suzy was far too valuable for just one lucky branch to hog for their own, and transferred her to the regional HQ as a mentor to new recruits to the sales force. There she continued to win the adoration and respect of her apprentices, coworkers, and managers.

After adding weightlifting to her hobbies and further toning her youthful figure, Suzy turned 50 this year. Her kids are nearly all grown up and independent. She's financially stable, and the process of getting her divorce. I've never seen her more happy or more beautiful.

And the crowing glory to her story is that in spite of all the hardship and humiliation she has suffered and endured, not once has she ever said "it's society that's to blame for me predicament" or spoken ill of anyone. She has taken full responsibility, good or bad, for every decision she has made, and when faced with a setback, rather than whining about how "unfair" it is, she just goes straight to work doing whatever it takes to get back on track.

Suzy's lesson for these so-called "forgotten" women is that you'll never improve our life just waiting around for help to arrive. You have to spring to action yourself and squeeze every ounce of potential out of whatever options are available to you. The opportunities are still out there. You just have to go out and grab them.

Cleo, Typhoon Haiyan was one of 58 super-typhoons with pressure of 900 mb or lower that have occurred since 1950, but while there 50 between 1950 and 1987, there have been only 8 in the past 25 years, so they're not increasing.

http://models.weatherbell.com/tokyo_sub900mb

The Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration also ranks Haiyan 7th in terms of wind speed. It was not the biggest in history.

I don't doubt that you feel like weather is becoming more extreme, but that does not make it scientific fact.

Science and historical records show no trend in extreme weather.

Globally, “there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/nature11575.html

No signifcant trend in global cyclone landfalls since 1970 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2012.04.pdf

Peer-reviewed research shows no conclusive and general proof as to how climate change affects flood behaviour. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.2005.50.5.797

Peer-reviwed study in Nature shows no correlation between temperature changes and long-term drought variations http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/abs/491338a.html?lang=en

And again: there is no scientific evidence that the rise in global temperature since 1850 (which is still only 0.8 degrees C) is causing more extreme weather.

donkusai, you are living up to your name.

sangetsu03: there has been no global warming since at least 1998. homleand: There's no doubt the earth is going through a period of warming. So who is correct?

Both are correct. The explanation applies to your other statement:

The 10 warmest years since 1880 (those on record) are (in order): 2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2012. Notice something? They have ALL occurred in the last 15 years. Apparently to some this means that there is no global warming. ... average temperatures are CLEARLY rising. ...What deniers latch on to is the unusually hot 1998 caused by a strong El Niño event.

Did you not read any of my posts? Or did you forget them? Or are ignoring them and hoping the facts will go away? The 1998 El Nino temperature spike is cancelled out by the the 1999-2000 La Ninas. The pause in warming is sill evident in all four glogal temperature data sets even when these El Nino/La Nina effects are factored out!

cleo, look at the sources for the temperature reconstruction you linked to: It's made of MBH, i.e. the long since discredited original "hockey stick" (M in MDH is for Michael Mann) and derivative studies using essentially the same flawed data sets. How about this paper that shows the mediaeval warm period as "equaling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions"? http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf

The difference is the speed at which it is occurring this time, bringing with it rapid changes in weather and extreme weather events that we are not prepared for.

There is no scientific evidence to support that statement.

From the IPCC's very own special report on extreme weather: "There is low confidence in any observed long-term (40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (ie intensity, frequency, duration)." IPCC Fifth Assessment Report: "no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century". Again from the IPCC SPEX: "There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change" "The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical [winter] storms and tornadoes" "The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"

I welcome you to prove me wrong by linking to peer-reviewed science that at proves that recent extreme weather events are more frequent and that they are caused by manmade CO2 emissions.

Strangerland: How do you define "global warming deniers"? Any famous examples? And what precisely do they deny? Of what are they ignorant? And how are they dangerous? And will you shame them?

Frungy - I searched through about 20 pages of your past comments and couldn't find your past discussion with Sangetsu, so I'm going to have ask you directly about it.

Now, please don't think I'm just being a contentious ass. None of my questions a rhetorical. I truly am just seeking to clarify the facts.

About the polar ice caps:

while there was more ice in the water the problem was that there's less ice on the land

By land, do you mean Antarctica? or the northern tips of Canada and Greenland? What do you mean by "less"? Less compared to when? And what, specifically, is "the problem"?

the air in many major cities (like New York) is heavily polluted

I don't think anyone would argue that air pollution is bad. However, the anti-global warming legislation being urged by the warmists is aimed nearly exclusively at restricting and reducing CO2 emmissions, and has essentially nothing to do with pollution. So I have to disagree with your statement that:

Any part of a comprehensive strategy to combat global warming would involve huge cuts in pollution.

I'm sure you know this so I'm reiterating this fact not to preach to you but to benefit the less informed who may be reading: CO2 is not pollution. It is a trace gas in the atmosphere that is absolutely essential for all life on the planet.

Pollution should be addressed, but it's a separate issue from global warming.

I would personally like to see the sources for your air pollution data because I find it hard to believe your claim that:

Living in a city like New York is equivalent in health effects to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.

Citation?

We've been struggling with pollution control since the first people built a city. The problems have just magnified with industry.

I can't agree with this either. In the case of New York City, pollution was a much bigger problem before industrialization enabled modern infrastructure like sewage, electric power supply and electric street lamps, paved roads and motorization. Up till then, horses were still widely used for transportation, and the their feces soiled the streets. It either dried up and got carried the wind, caked up on windows, etc. and and breathed in by the population spreading respiratory and other diseases... or got rained on, blended with the dirt on the unpaved streets into a muddy stew and spread around the city and contaminated the clean water supply, causing dysentery and other intestinal diseases. Are you really arguing that these problems have "magnified" (not diminished) with industry? If so, I would like to know what the evidence for your argument is.

Mexico City is also a great success story in overcoming air pollution. You hardly ever hear the once-popular "Make-Sicko City" epithet you once did over a decade ago.

I'm afraid we're getting off topic, but to sum up: Pollution is bad and needs to be addressed, but it is a separate issue from global warming.

Let's ignore the bulk of peer reviewed research and embrace the direct-to-media release, unreviewed "research" funded by donor capital funds and donor trusts that you embrace. Let's pretend that man-made climate change is fiction...

No need to pretend it's fiction and no need to ignore the bulk of peer reviewed research. My position on climate change is based solely on peer-reviewed studies and observational data. I'm naturally skeptical of any dramatic claims and only convinced by observable facts or sound reasoning that strictly adheres to the scientific method. I therefore reject non-peer reviewed studies and I "embrace" absolutely none of the things you say I do.

Please cite the evidence your implication the "bulk of peer reviewed research" concludes that man-made CO2 emissions are causing harmful climate change. Given your impressive confidence in your claims, surely you can easily cite at least one source? That will also satisfy my request above for evidence for your assertion that Sangetsu's (and my) position stands in contrast to the majority".

You haven't provided any of the other evidence I requested, though. I'm being a sarcastic twit, here. Facts are my priority, and genuinely want to know if you can show me some facts that I may be missing (in which case I might be convince to change my mind on the subject). So, do you have any evidence that "the bulk" of the research that undermines the case for CAGW (or manmade climate change) is funded by companies opposed to clean energy to provide pre-determined results? If you don't, I hope you will consider that perhaps the reason you assert that allegation with such conviction is primarily that the rhetoric has been repeated so pervasively and persistently that sounds convincing: i.e. the "well everyone knows it's true" presumption. You also haven't cited evidence for your bold declaration that "The BULK of the SCIENCE points clearly that [CAGW] is a problem". If too is a contention that you accept on faith with not need for evidence, you may be surprised what you find when you see what's actually written in "the bulk of" the actual scientific studies. And at the risk of sounding obstinate, do you have any evidence that all CAGW-skeptical scientists are in the pay of agenda-driven corporations? Seriously, I will reconsider my current stance if you can show me convincing evidence of the claims you make, but you're just reciting allegations that you happen to belief as a matter of faith, then please stop trying to use them as the basis for genuine debate.

What we do know FOR SURE is that ocean levels have risen more than 25cm since pre-industrial times

Actually, no we don't know that for sure. It is true, though, that tide gauge-based records imply sea level rise of 10 to 25cm since the late 19th century. The issue of sea level rise, however, turns out to be a big "so what?" It's follows approximately 60 year natural oscillation cycles (PDM, AMO, etc.) and may therefore appear to times to be accelerating, but the long-term trend shows a global average of a mere 0.01mm a year with no acceleration, and 21 century sea level rise estimated at about 27cm, basically the same as the 20th century. (http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/10.1007_s00382-013-1771-3.pdf) So, small Pacific island communities are actually not "seeing their shorelines disappear virtually before their eyes." In fact, in spite of all the heart-rendering stories in the media about Kiribati sinking beneath the waves, its tide gauge record shows a negative sea level trend (http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1371.php).

ocean acidity caused by the absorption of CO2 is on the rise

To be precise, the oceans are not become more acidic. Although ocean pH has dipped from 8.10 to around 8.07, but since this is still well above 7.0, so the oceans are become "less alkaline" but they are not acidifying.

shell deformity of small ocean animals is increasing dramatically

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but...evidence please! Which studies indicate this "dramatic" increase in shell deformity? And you need several such studies from around the world to make the case for a global phenomenon.

Numerous peer-reviewed studies like this one (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0028983) conclude exactly the opposite.

average temperatures by decade are increasing decade to decade, changing climates and affecting everything from animal habitats to wine growing. These points are not up for argument, they are fact.

No! They most certainly are not "fact"! By what authority do you think you can declare any and all further argument invalid?!

You carefully phrase your argument that temps are rising by decade because my first post obliterated the rubbish claim that global temperature are rising faster much faster than predicted. The fact remains, though, that the earth has stopped warming! Temperatures have flatlined for the past 16 years at least! and shown a cooling trend for the past 10! This is what is "fact"! And a temperature rise that is not happening cannot change climates or have the range of affects you claim. Why would you declare so aggressively that such fairy tales are facts when you obviously know they are not?

So this is a good reason to ignore the majority of them

Please provide evidence that Sangetsu's opinion opposed "the majority".

you believe the minority What is your evidence that the views that Sangetsu "believes" are supported by only a minority of scientists.

If you invoke one of those bogus "97%" studies, I'm just going to laugh.

And...unless I overlooked it, I don't think Sangetsu has ever stated in this thread that he "believes" in what any scientist or group of scientests says. He simply provided a scientific fact-based debunking of CAGW polemic.

If "THEY" (as you put it) are "the ones making the mistake", then genuine science will reveal that mistake during the process of independent verification.

the bulk of the anti-man-made climate change research is funded by the very companies that have the most to lose from clean energy

Again: Evidence please! Or at least a link to a source or two.

Your circular logic simply re-emphasizes the importance of facts and the alarming degree to which facts are ignored by so many supposedly educated people. You can't possibly mean oil companies because even if they funded the bulk of any research they are also some of the biggest investors in alternative energy technologies!

The BULK of the SCIENCE points clearly that this is a problem Where is the evidence to back up this claim? Not even the revered IPCC "clearly" says that manmade CO2 emissions are "a problem."

To believe your argument, you'd have the believe that the BULK of scientists are only interested in money

Wrong. To believe Sangetsu's argument, you only have to believe that a corrupt minority of (pseudo-)scientists and bureaucrats are only interested in money (or power).

and that the only ones to be believed are those funded by companies who, weirdly enough, get the very results they want.

Again, please provide evidence to back up your funding argument. From 2001 to 2007 the US government alone spent over 37 billion dollars on climate change activities http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/fy08_climate_change.pdf Wheras Exxon-Mobil funded 16 million dollars in research by skeptics from 1998 to 2005 http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

US government funding of the manmade climate change scare (to nothing of total UN, etc. international funding) dwarfs poor old Exxon's miserly donations.

And even with all that funding, the CAGW propadanda machine still can't prove manmade CO2 causes dangerous climate change.

No one knows how much or how little greenhouse gases affect the climate, it is not possible to know.

Sangetsu, by that statement I think you are probably deliberately dumbing down the explanation for the benefit of the uninformed, but I prefer not to let the willfully ignorant CAGW fear-mongers off the hook so easily. These are the zealots who refuse to acknowledge facts, but argue with daggers drawn that CAGW is real based on their "faith" in the prophets of so-called "consensus climate science".

Actually, after all the disproportionate attention given to CO2, the affect of CO2 alone on the climate is actually relatively well known (since you've read the IPCC reports, I assume you already know this and are just being kind to the opposition given their serious disadvantage in the debate). As I related in my post above, all other factors being equal, even a doubling of CO2 will only result in little more than 1 degree C warming. the rest of the doomsday climate change polemic depends entirely on positive feedbacks (water vapor, etc.) to amplify the minimal CO2-induced warming, and this is where the "no one knows" label really applies. The science is light years away from determining whether feedbacks will be positive or negative (e.g. increased cloud formation).

The IPPC's latest "extremely likely" verdict that humans are causing climate change, by their own definition is actually not 97%, but 95% certainty (up from "very likely", or 90% certainty, in the AR4 seven years ago), but as you yourself have pointed out, the science (as stated in the actual main text of the assessment report, not the propaganda-laden Summary for Policy Makers) has actually become less certain. The method the IPCC use to nevertheless claim 95% certainty is little more than a show of hands, what they term "referral to expert opinion." In other words: about as un-scientific as you can get.

"Raise your hand if you want to lie bald faced to the world that science is now more certain than ever that human greenhouse gasses are causing dangerous climate change, guarantee your employment for another seven years, keep the grant money and UN funding flowing in, continue living high on the hog at the taxpayers' expense, and enjoy the adoration of flocks of unquestioning worshipers" Wow! Obtaining a "consensus" is a cinch, isn't it?

"BTW, don't spend that heap of cash all at once. Be smart. Invest it. Especially since one seems to care or even bother to check if we have any conflicts of interest, put that stash in any number of "green" businesses subsidized to the hilt by taxpayer funds and backed by government guarantee. And if anyone does start to get nosy, just call them dirty names like "denier" in public and let your loyal worshippers and the faithful media take care of the rest. It's the easiest money you've ever made!"

Climate change is the perfect religion. Spot on, Sangetsu. Climate change, or CAGW, is the ultimate post-modern religion in nearly every way. Fortunately, I put my trust in science not dogma, facts not fantasy, so I'm free to life my life safe in the knowledge that human society and industry is not causing the not catastrophic global warming that is not happening.

Here's the third part of the global warming question: Question 3) Is human activity responsible for the observed warming? Certainly human activity has contributed to temperature rise in some way and to some degree, primarily through change in land use. If we're talking about man-made CO2 emissions, though, the answer is that current scientific knowledge says "no." First of all, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Noone "denies" that. But it's a weak one whose effects are logarithmic (i.e. diminishing returns). So, how sensitive is the climate to CO2? Remember that IPCC prediction of a temperature rise of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C for a doubling of CO2? Well, even the IPCC acknowledges that an increase of that magnitude requires feedbacks to CO2-induced warming, whereas CO2 alone will cause no more than around 1C total temperature rise (don't believe me? Read the IPCC assessment reports (not just the propagandized Summary for Policy Makers)). The CAGW belief argues that "feedbacks" (notably water vapor) will "amplify" the minimal CO2 warming, based on the assumption that such feedbacks will be nearly universally positive. But the science is a long way from making any such definitive conclusion. The jury is well and truly still out on whether feedbacks will be net positive or negative, but they're looking more likely to be negative (see research by Prof. Richard Lindzen among others). Just for the sake of argument, though, let's assume that CO2 actually could cause serious warming. How of the warming so far has been caused by manmade CO2? First of all, the IPCC concludes that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (or "extremely likely" in the AR5) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." The IPCC also asserts that CO2 added the atmosphere remains there to 100 to 200 years. The "Bern Model" of carbon cycling on which all computer climate models rely, presumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is exclusively due to manmade CO2 emissions and is aligned to the Keeling Curve showing a steady long-term increase in atmospheric CO2 levels since 1958. The Bern Model also assumes that CO2 has an equilibrium constant of 0.217, implying that more than a fifth CO2 added to the atmosphere will remain there essentially forever. The historical evidence-based Bomb Test Curve, however, when applied to the IPCC's own carbon cycle analysis results in an equilibrium constant of 0.015, implying that only 1.5% of CO2 added to the atmosphere will remain there at all permanently. In fact, added CO2 is shown to nearly entirely disappear from the atmosphere within 50 years, with a residential half-life of just 10 years. The curve further implies that only 20% of manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 have remained airborne, meaning that manmade CO2 emissions are responsible for only half of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The already-dead CAGW-caused-by-manmade-CO2 polemic is further eviscerated by facts acknowledged by the IPCC itself. Although the IPCC talks about most the warming "since the mid-20th century", global temperatures were actually falling in the 1950s and didn't start rising again until the late 1970s. Climate science and the IPCC also further acknowledge that fossil fuel burning by human industrial activity in the early 20th century was not pervasive enough to be blamed for the warming observed, meaning only human fossil fuel use, i.e. CO2 emissions, since the mid-1940s could be responsible for any observed warming, and since it was cooling from 1945 to the late 1970s, manmade CO2 emissions could only possibly be responsible (if at all) for the warming since the late 1970s. That warming trend, of course, ended in the mid-1990s. So the consistent increase in CO2, only half of which at most has been manmade, can only possibly have caused around 15 years of warming, which was followed by 15 years of flat temperatures and then the slight cooling we are seeing now even though CO2 has continued to increase.

Meanwhile, of course, CO2 is in essence plant food, and satellite records have shown an increase in vegetation around the world and the greening if deserts.

So you see, unless honest, bonafide research that obeys the principles of the scientific method produces consistent results that prove otherwise, the idea that manmade CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming is patently ludicrous.

Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming? FICTION!

Yup: Badly worded survey. It should be “Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?” The answer to that is very clearly: “Fiction”

The issue consists of three main questions: 1) Is the earth warming? 2) If so, is that warming dangerous? 3) Is human activity responsible for the observed warming?

It looks like @sangetsu03 is the only one here who has actually researched the subject, which is a shame because his posts are stating facts that have been imprudently discounted by uninformed zealots.

Let’s take question 1): No intelligent persona actually denies that the earth has warmed. All the temperature records indicate that it has….by about 0.8C since the late 19th Century at the end of Little Ice Age. But the warming has stalled for at least 15 years now. All four major global temperature data sets show no statistically significant warming for 17 to 23 years: GISS: no significant warming for 17 years HadCRUT: no significant warming for 18 years UAH: no significant warming for 19 years RSS: no significant warming for 23 years This has nothing to do with starting at the unusually warm 1998. That strong El Nino year was followed by a strong La Nina 1999, and removing them does not affect the trend. Those of you who put the data into an excel sheet and plot the trend for yourself, please don’t holler your joyous discovery of a positive trend (usually around +0.1 C) without including the margin of error. If the margin is even close to the value of the trend (to say nothing of exceeding it), your trend value is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

The fact that global warming has stalled for at least 15 years is also not negated by shouting “No! The decade-on-decade temperature is clearly rising!” I’m amazed that people actually think this is a logical argument. If temperatures rise for the first half of the 1990s, but remain flat with no change in the second half, and then remain flat for the decade through 2010 as well, then of course the decade to 2010 is going to be hotter than the preceding 1990s decade, but that does not change the fact that the temperature has stopped rising.

A simpler (but no less accurate example) for those who still don’t get it: In “Decade 1” temperatures start at 1C and rise by 1C annually for the first five years, but stay unchanged for the last five years, like this:

Year 1: Temperature is 1C Year 2: 2C Year 3: 3C Year 4: 4C Year 5: 5C Year 6: 5C Year 7: 5C Year 8: 5C Year 9: 5C Year 10:5C Decade 1’s average temperature is 4C

Then, in the following “Decade 2”, temperatures remain unchanged at 5C for all 10 years: Year 11: Temperature is 5C Year 12: 5C Year 13: 5C Year 14: 5C Year 15: 5C Year 16: 5C Year 17: 5C Year 18: 5C Year 19: 5C Year 20: 5C Decade 2’s average temperature is 5C. Yes! 5 is higher than 4, but that does not change the fact that the temperature has not budged for 15 years! Got it everyone?

Question 2) Is warming of the earth dangerous? The warming of the earth since the industrial revolution, 0.8C, is well below daily temperature variation and is therefore most definitely not dangerous. So, what if the global temperature starts to rise again? Then will it be dangerous? Well, let’s consult the latest declarations of the IPCC (the prophet of truth for loyal believers of the CAGW faith). The IPCC blames temperature rise primarily on rising atmospheric CO2 concentration, which is now around 400ppm (vs. around 290ppm at the start of the industrial revolution). In its latest Fifth Assessment Report it predicts a temperature rise of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C for a doubling of CO2, which, minus the 0.8C rise we’ve already had is 0.7 to 3.7C, still not much (if at all) larger than the daily noon to night temperature variation in most places. Not much to worry about here.

As for the (non-existing since at least 1995) global warming causing an increase in violent weather and natural disasters: No, in the peer-reviewed literature there is no evidence that CO2-induced temperature rise causes more violent weather. The IPCC states in its AR5 that it has “low confidence” in predicting more frequent or more extreme droughts or tropical cyclones. Global records also show historically low levels of hurricanes, devastating tornadoes, floods, or drought.

In fact, cold is far more dangerous than heat. Freezing temperatures cause far more deaths than uncomfortably hot temperatures. Biodiversity also plummets as you move closer to the poles (i.e. cold climates). Cold is the enemy of life. Warmth supports life.

At the very least: There is no evidence that global warming is dangerous.