Global Warming is Worse - Real Climate Scientists

 
RealClimate 
Twice as Warm

Real Climate Scientists Say Global Warming Much Worse

 Read More Here

Some Like It Hot! 

That was a great movie title with some fabulous stars, but it was never intended to be applied to how we set our global thermostat. Or maybe it has another meaning?  

From the outset one should realize that there are two distinct categories of scientist: Media-Scientists and Real-Scientists. The former are the ones you often see in  the media, on talk shows and print, promoting a favoured point of view that is consistent with those of their benefactors. Very little credibility can be given to these media hucksters for obvious reasons. Real-Scientists, however, labour quietly behind the scenes seeking little public attention for their work; being most happy with their quiet professional achievements and peer approvals. They do not significantly benefit in any other ways from their work, and hence are afforded a much higher degree of trust.

So that is why when these real climate scientist tell us that global warming is double what many  believed for the past fifteen years - we believe them. But we do not do so blindly and look to other corroborating evidence to confirm their assertion. Other supporting evidence includes rising sea levels, more wildfires and floods, extreme weather turbulence, animal migrations, declining insect populations and rapidly melting glaciers and icecaps. Almost overwhelming support!

On the other hand, we also recognize that measuring the global temperature is not so simple. It is a complex process and metric because of the numerous ranges and areas that need to be measured and observed.There is no one absolute measurement or device. Therefore, some form of mathematical averaging and modelling requiring assumptions are needed, but these are also  subjective and open to influence and change. Despite this shortcoming, the integrity of the Real-Scientists who perform these complex calculations is a substantial and positive over-riding persuasion in their favour.

Read the above-attached (linked ) RealScientist  report for yourself; read other source links, go over their site and think about what else supports the report's climate temperature assertion. Then draw your own conclusions.  We did. Things are much hotter than we thought. 

And Some Don't Like It Hot!

Dr Peter G Kinesa

November 20, 2013

Who Should we Believe?
Hmm...

#BBC News - Climate Change Pictures

BBC News 

  Extinction Due to Climate 

(Read More)

We Remember These Guys?

As they say, pictures can be worth a thousand words. So I will let them do the talking.

Dr Peter G Kinesa

September 12, 2013  

Who will remember?

Dr. David Suzuki - Climate Change Denial?

Dr. David Suzuki

  Climate Change Denial?

Whom do we trust?
THIS GUY...

Who do you believe regarding climate change? Who wins the climate debate? Science? Business? Or Politicians? Common sense tells us that scientists should present more objective findings and conclusions. Whereas the latter two groups have tarnished reputations for portraying reality in a way that is biased towards their own vested interests. Put simply - they have no credibility.

But science itself is not perfect as methods, observations and conclusions may be flawed leading to bad information and resultant decisions. So we cannot accept science at face value as well. What to do?

Our best answer to this dilemma is based on applied concepts of corroboration and logic.

Logically the polluting chemicals, heat and radioactive outputs of our human economic and social activities must have some impact on the environment in various ways. That's just a straightforward physical cause and effect linkage. Let's not forget too that the climate is a dynamic state entity - it has always been in some form of change through-out time. Clearly, these are both logical pluses supporting climate-change proponents. 

There are two forms of corroboration to consider; personal experience and third party information. Most of us by now have experienced some displeasures from the possible consequences of global warming, be it heat waves, storms or extreme cold. Further evidence comes from various global media sources reflecting increased frequency and trends  in temperature increases  major storms, floods, wildfires, insect populations, glacial shrinkage, on and on around the world. These two types of corroboration overwhelming suggest that climate-change proponents are correct.

In summary, whether we apply logical common sense or corroborative evidence techniques, we come up with one obvious answer Add in the long history and discrediting character of climate-change deniers, then this becomes an open and shut case. Leading to remaining questions of how bad is it and what should we expect when?

Who will you believe? 

Dr Peter G Kinesa

September 10, 2013

   

...OR THIS GUY?

"Believe me David, your scientists have it all wrong..."

NASA "Our planet is evaporating" (Video)

NASA  "Our planet is evaporating" (Video)

(More)

"LET ME KNOW WHAT LIFE IS LIKE ON JUPITER AND MARS... IN OTHER WORDS"

For a moment, let's not debate what the cause is behind the increased trend in wildfires and lands now exposed to this threat. Rather lets acknowledge that this trend is not good because not only of the explicit life-threatening dangers posed, but also because it places arable farmlands and wildlife in greater jeopardy. This is not good economics by any means. (Remember, Bugonomics last month?)

Many years ago, CPA firms would claim their advisory leadership advantage and unique value proposition was through "getting behind the financial statements numbers". Perhaps economists and policy-makers should steal a page from the CPAs' slogans book and get behind the GDP numbers - because when they do, they should discover that real economic capacities are burning up or evaporating. These are the physical capacities that will drive the GDP numbers of tomorrow. Neat idea?

Maybe this same approach could have perhaps been helpful with urban management too - Detroit, New Orleans, Newark and so forth and thus slowing the evaporation of such centres. 

Hmm - "getting behind the numbers" - it has a catchy ring to it.  
  

Dr Peter G Kinesa
August 7, 2013

Satellite photos: Terra and Aqua

ECONOMIC GRAPH OF THE DAY: UK Wildlife Index Decline (1968 -2010)

ECONOMIC GRAPH OF THE DAY: 

UK Wildlife Index Decline (1968 -2010)
(Read More)

 

To the point, forget about all the graphs, charts and illustrations that you were shown back in school by your economic, business and finance professors. Why? Because the most important ones are those they failed to show and tell you about and just how important they are to markets, GDP and economies. In fact, they are so important that they would turn every other economic thesis upside down - starting with Adam Smith's, Enquiries into The Wealth of Nations. 

Not going to say much more; other than, it is very clear that Smith and his subsequent CULT believers  have missed the point entirely, having no clue as to what "Wealth" really is - we leave the rest for to you to figure out.   

Dr. Peter G Kinesa
July 29, 2013

When bugs are gone, then what happens to GDP?