I just read a great book referred to me titled, Leadership and Self-Deception (Yea, they were probably trying to tell me something.)
Anywho, I couldn’t help but connect the dots between the book’s premise and half of our leadership in D.C when I came across this NASA E.K.G. monitoring climate change.
To me, both the book and the website reflect the classic battle of ideology versus fact to substantiate the cause-and-effect of an outcome.
I highly recommend the book, because we all operate from a high level of self-deception. Why? Perhaps, ironically, it’s Mother Nature’s way of helping us stomach our dreadful realities even at her own demise.
And the Climate Time Machine is a must visit, even if you’re a doubter, because I think she is trying to tell us something.
at 1:42 pm
I don’t get it – are you saying this Climate Time Machine proves humans are solely responsible for the change in weather or climate, or is it ( as I believe )simply a cute reminder that temperatures, ice and sea levels continue to rise and fall as they have for far longer than we have been on Earth?
at 2:03 pm
Pat, how much, if any, do you think humans are impacting climate change?
at 11:55 am
What kind of answer are you hoping for – a percentage? little, medium, lots? None a all, 100%?You are being so disingenuous when you show a picture of shrinking glacier, which has happened for millennia, and conclude from that moment in the history of the planet that it shrank because you flew to Los Angeles the other week. Crazy talk, I say.
at 11:37 am
I’m trying to understand your position on climate change. Do any of these three ideals reflect your stand?
1. The climate change we’re experiencing is a natural occurring event that humans have little to no impact on
2. The climate change we’re experiencing is a natural occurring event that humans are exacerbating
3. The climate change we’re experiencing is mostly caused by humans
Which would you say most closely reflects your position?
at 1:59 pm
“The climate change we’re experiencing” – you state this as if there is only one undisputed definition. Please define the term as you understand it.
at 2:10 pm
Pat, all I’m asking is if you think humans are impacting the climate, and more specifically, by the amount of carbon emitted by our daily activities?
at 2:32 pm
No, that’s not all your asking, your steering me down a path. Humans have effected many things since we started walking upright, and it’s possible climate is one we’ve contributed to, good or bad, but Mother Nature has far, far more say about it than you or I do. Back to your post, how can you point to this deceptive Time Machine animation and conclude from it humans are responsible for changing the weather or climate? m
at 2:37 pm
Please define “the climate change we’re experiencing”.
at 3:01 pm
What I characterize as the “climate change we’re experiencing” includes events that are capturing humanity’s attention, like the increasing average temperatures in many parts of the world, glacial melt at a startling pace, extreme weather events in super cells and hurricanes, etc. Has this happened in the past? I’m sure it has. Does it seem like it’s changing rather rapidly now? It appears to be, at least to me. Are we pumping more carbon into the atmosphere than ever before? Yes. So as you know, I think we are changing the weather. NASA seems to think we are changing the weather. Some fairly prestigious publications report that 97% of scientists think humans are changing the weather http://bit.ly/1bBsQQN. Even if that number is off, even way off, it would still suggest that the majority of the world’s scientists believe we are changing the weather.
I am not steering you down any path, Pat. I just want to know where you stand because you get so upset when I post my opinion on the subject. What I take from your answer above is that you believe humans may have a small impact on climate change, but nothing compared to what Mother Nature has to offer. That’s all I’m asking.
What if, just for argument’s sake, the we actually are doing more harm than Mother Nature can recover from in the next 100 yards? What would that look like?
at 6:34 am
You know 97% of scientists do not agree that humans are responsible for changing the weather or climate, but you pass it on like a chain letter as if it is undisputed fact. For the same reason, you gobble up the Time Machine animations like a Scooby Snack, and pass it along without questioning it’s validity at all. Each category is drama, created purposefully to further an opinion & agenda, and I feel bad that you associate with it.
at 7:25 am
Pat, can we agree that according to organizations like the EPA, NASA, and National Climate Data Center human activities are altering the carbon cycle both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere?
Pat, I did a little more digging on the 97% of scientists agreeing on man-caused global warming. You’re right, to be clear it’s not 97% of all scientists, but those researching and submitting peer-reviewed findings on climate change. Here’s what I found:
“Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ and ‘global warming’ published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.” from this site: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
at 8:10 am
Humans are part of the carbon cycle, so of course we have an effect on it, silly question. Pulling back to the subject of the post, the Time Machine you managed to linked to a book on leadership is little more than disingenuous propaganda, and I still can’t believe you put your name behind it.
at 8:51 am
Pat, do you believe the findings of the National Science Foundation who reported that we are emitting never-before-seen amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and have been for decades? https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=128720 These findings are also captured on graphs like this one from a host of global scientific organizations: http://bit.ly/1H6mpDx Do you think changing the chemistry of our atmosphere to this level has anything to do with climate change?
at 9:27 am
You’re not going to convince me that all motoring around the Potholes you did with a two-stoke outboard motor, or Al Gore flying criss-crossing the world in his private jets is the reason in it supposed to snow in Denver this Sunday. Back to the topic, why is there no filter when you see propaganda pieces like this Time Machine?
at 9:43 am
I think it’s an interesting dichotomy between how the National Aeronautics and Space Association Administration reports about carbon emission and climate change compared to Senator James Inhofe, the Oklahoma chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and how he communicates his position on climate change. Have you seen this? http://slate.me/1GTHrQf
Oklahoma produces more oil than 44 other states.
This is the premise from which I based my post.
at 10:09 am
Park – the Time Machine you posted is nothing but slick propaganda that you reposted without a second thought about the content, because its supposedly supports the agenda (at least until someone’s questions it)
at 10:27 am
Pat, why do you feel the Time Machine is biased or misleading?
at 11:33 am
pick one of the topics
at 11:51 am
Let’s start with the carbon dioxide module.
at 1:09 pm
You offer this CO2 animation as proof humans are responsible for anything bad that happens with weather or climate, but it proves nothing. At best, it’s an artist’s rendering of how CO2 levels could be depicted. In order for it to be effective as intended, you must believe that CO2 is bad, that is a large portion of greenhouse gas, that it negatively affects life on earth and that humans have the power to regulate the “perfect level”. The animation purportedly relies on data up to 2009, but shows very dramatic changes from 2009 thru 2014, without citing a source. It cherry picks 1.9 to 8 miles for some reason – don’t you wonder why? Could it be editorializing instead of reporting the news?
at 1:40 pm
When I dig deeper, I find a lot of interesting information about the amount of carbon dioxide we’re emitting into the atmosphere and very logical discussions about how it impacts our climate.
Here’s a NASA explanation: http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
What the National Science Foundation has to say about it: https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/climate/intro_background.jsp
A quick and interesting podcast from MIT: The Research and Science of Climate Change http://bit.ly/1bDUqgo
I’m curious what NASA stands to gain by reporting inaccurate information about climate change?
So next up, what do you think of global temperature model?
at 1:52 pm
I’ll keep going with the critique of the Time Machine if you address my original beef with your post – is the CO2 animation you offered as proof humans are responsible for “something bad happening”, which can be changed by leaders in Washington D.C., based on indisputable fact, or was there creative license taken?
at 2:09 pm
Yes, I believe NASA’s Climate Time Machine is based on climate science with a heavy does of irrefutable facts and some speculation as to what this all holds for mankind. In fact, I’ve shared just a few of those resources in this thread. I don’t think the Time Machine was meant to be a thesis on climate change, but a quick exploration of four models to get people to think and ask themselves where they stand on anthropogenic climate change.
Where do you stand?
at 2:28 pm
The Time Machine animators cherry picked facts, omitted very relevant details, filled in blank spots with whatever seemed to create the most drama, but never said a word about linking their creation to AGW – you did that. Again, back to my beef, you put your name behind a disingenuous opinion piece and portrayed it as undisputed fact, and it’s not.
at 2:45 pm
I respect your right to share your opinion about it being a disingenuous opinion piece, even as I view it as a pretty accurate reflection of what is happening on our planet. I will resolve in my mind that you do not share NASA’s opinion, based on climate science, that humans are impacting climate change.
at 3:03 pm
You view the animations as a pretty accurate reflection of what’s happening on our planet, because you look for anything that supports your opinion that humans can control the weather or climate. It defies logic to state humans were responsible for the modest warming period that ended twenty years ago, or so, yet had nothing to do with the little ice age or Medieval Warm Period that preceded it. I’m not going to change your opinions on global warming, and although I will try hard, I can’t promise not to respond to future blog posts that don’t smell right, like this one.
at 3:36 pm
Pat, I believe humans are significantly impacting our client, because I trust in the science. I have shared many resources with the facts that support my position, and you share ideology to support yours. That is the premise of this post in the first place.
at 9:39 pm
My objection with your post is the use of a disingenuous animation, that you claim prove humans interference with nature. It doesn’t. There is far more drama and prediction in the Time Machine than there is science. Does the science you trust in include the fact that last month had record high Antarctic Sea Ice? – why wouldn’t your animators include that scientific fact in the Time Machine?
at 8:55 am
NASA did report on last month’s record high Antarctic Sea Ice: “The planet as a whole is doing what is expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent.” Parkinson said.
The planet doesn’t warm uniformly. It really should be called climate chaos versus climate warming.
I’m puzzled why you continue to characterize the Time Machine as being disingenuous. What does NASA have to gain and what does it have to lose to be anything other than honest in this dashboard animation? It is a reflection of their research and others, like NOAA: “Separating out the impact of human activity from natural climate variation is extremely difficult. Nonetheless, the IPCC concluded there is a ‘discernible human influence’ on climate. This means the observed global warming is unlikely to be the result of natural variability alone and that human activities are at least partially responsible.”
Pat, I am surmising that the argument here is that I believe we are having a real impact on our climate, and your position is that Mother Nature is too vast and powerful for us to have an impact, and therefore when I post items like the Time Machine it pisses you off because I’m being shortsighted, and perhaps even ignorant, on the subject as though I’m being hoodwinked by disingenuous science. Is this accurate?
at 10:31 am
Pat, in addition to the larger than norm antarctic ice pact last year, it occurred to me two other climactic events weren’t spelled out in the Time Machine either. They include the record-low snow pack in the Pacific Northwest: http://bit.ly/1bG92f3, and the record snowfall in New England: http://www.weather.com/news/news/new-england-boston-record-snow-tracker Additionally, NASA doesn’t specifically call out the fact that California is in its fourth year of record drought: http://cbsn.ws/1zNQHbr.
I view the Time Machine as a depiction of overall trends, not specific events that help make up the trending analysis. In fact, when you look at the Sea Ice model, you can see that in some years the ice pack is greater than in others. However, it’s the overall trend of declining sea ice due to a warming planet which is being accurately communicated here.
at 2:57 pm
But your Time Machine said nothing about the record Antarctic Sea Ice – it cherry picked a moment in the very long history of earth, and allowed people like you to post it as if it was proof humans caused the weather and climate to change. It’s proven science, not hypothesized science, that says the Arctic has had periods of far less ice, and far more ice in the past. How can you give those causes a mere nod? You ask why organizations as large as NOAA or NASA, who depend on government grants, would have biased people maybe chasing funding set aside to further the anthropogenic global warming drama? Are you kidding me? Back to my original beef with your post – I can’t believe you passed this on like a chain letter, as if it were proof humans cause the weather and climate to change. It’s nonsense.
at 4:26 pm
I have finally arrived at a conclusion in our respective positions on climate change. I believe humans are having an impact on our warming planet and you believe we are not. Fair enough?
at 7:06 am
You’re putting words in my mouth – humans do influence many things that happen on earth, maybe even climate, but no where near the amount you believe. I think your position on the subject is mis-directed emotion, and I believe your posting of this silly Time Machine fabrication solidifies my belief you are leading with your heart, instead of reason & fact. The absence of hard facts, the “Clinton-speak” – such as “I rely on science” (which is code for your science should not be questioned), global warmer predictions that have failed spectacularly, if, maybe, perhaps, highly likely, projected to be, could,…. give me a break. Back to my original beef – if you view the Time Machine without the rose-colored glasses, it’s crap, and I don’t know why you’re still trying to prop it up.
at 9:53 am
Pat, do the reasons and facts that I have presented throughout this dialogue count for nothing? Aren’t these hard facts arrived at by scientists who reported through peer-reviewed studies? Can you point me to the peer-reviewed science that backs up your assertion that “global warming predictions have failed spectacularly.” What are you basing your position on?
I have presenting facts, and you rebut them with nothing more than attacks on my character. I think this is a great example of why people are so divided on the subject of climate change. I am presenting facts that create the basis for my opinion, which is indeed emotional, because what if these scientists are right? What if these prediction are accurate? Our great grandchildren are screwed. What do we have to lose in trying to find solutions to our carbon-emitting ways? Imagine the technology that will be developed in the process? For instance, AT&T has developed a process to make rubber telephone cases by catching carbon emissions from the manufacturing process. They literally are creating products out of thin air, eliminating carbon emission and using no natural resources in the process.
That’s why smart communications tools like the Climate Time Table are so important. They get the masses to consider the ramifications of a warming planet, and the good that can come from trying to find solutions, and hopefully get them to dig a little deeper with their natural curiosity.
More insights on climate change from some pretty smart people:
• Neil deGrasse Tyson on “Cosmos”: http://bit.ly/1EZLDjn
• Stephen Hawking on human “…we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. – See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2012/01/06/stephen-hawking-warns-of-climate-disaster-ahead-of-70th-birthday/#sthash.PDmjYhTQ.dpuf
• Carl Sagan on man made global warming: http://bit.ly/1FdUYqZ
• Here’s a site the explores the pros and cons of climate change: http://climatechange.procon.org/#background
In each instance, they discuss both sides of the issue, and yet they seem to arrive at the fact that we’re having a major impact in our climate with the greenhouse gasses we’re emitting through our industrialized societies.
Please, please stop calling me names and start presenting the compelling stats, facts and data that refute this information and support your position.
Even the Pope, arguably one of the most ideological leaders in the global warming debate, calls for mankind to curb its climate changing ways. http://nbcnews.to/1dVyuin
How do you square with that?
at 7:00 am
For every global warming piece you find on the internet, I can find one with a solid refutation, and the reason I can do it is because the science isn’t settled. I’m not going to change your view on global warming, and I’m not even trying to – all I’ve said from the beginning of this thread is that I can’t believe you put forward the Time Machine propaganda piece as if it was proof that humans are responsible for all bad weather or climate, and I haven’t even started on your theory that politicians have the power or ability to change the weather or climate. Sorry you feel I attacked your character – if so, it was unintended.