Tom Luongo's multiple lies about climate change
An old friend posted an "article" by Tom Luongo, a former chemist (B.S. from the University of Florida) who now writes the Resolute Wealth Newsletter, on Facebook. Unfortunately, that article is chock full of lies about climate science. Since Facebook comments aren't the best forum for debunking Gish Gallops, I'm taking the liberty of debunking them here.
[Update: Since Luongo got most of his claims from John Casey, I've written something about his brand of science here.]
Claim: "Well, according to NASA’s own data, the world has warmed .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979)."
Response: According to which data set? NASA GISS data show that the world warmed by 0.56ºC (1.01ºF) since 1979. That is 2.8x larger than the 0.36ºF figure that Luongo cites. UAH satellite data, which is taken from NOAA satellites, show that the world has warmed by 0.49ºC (0.88ºF) since 1979, over 2.4x larger than what Luongo stated. Even RSS, which shows false cooling since 2000, shows that the world warmed by 0.44ºC (0.79ºF) since 1979, 2.2x larger than Luongo's claim. So which data set was Luongo using to make his false claim?
Oh, and by the way, Luongo's related claim that "I think you would agree that a .36 degree increase in temperature over the last 35 years is hardly anything to get in a panic about" just shows his rank ignorance about global temperature and ecology. The natural rate of change as shown by Marcott et al. (2013) and the PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) is around 0.0014ºC per decade. The current rate according to UAH satellite data? 0.14ºC per decade, 100x faster than the natural rate. That rapid rate of change in the global average is having multiple effects on the natural world, from species ranges to the timing of bird migrations to insect life cycles to marine plankton productivity. The very real concern is that all those disruptions to species phenology will combine to drive species to extinction. And yet Luongo thinks that it's no big deal. Ignorance at its finest.
Claim: "Fact: We Haven't Seen Any 'Global Warming' for 17 Years!"
Response: Luongo uses three disingenuous tricks to back this claim. First, he uses RSS data, which, as I have already noted, shows false cooling since 2000. The second is that he starts his graph at 1998 and ends at 2014, which is 16 years, not the 17 years he claims. The third is that he starts his graph at 1998, an exceptionally warm year. How exceptionally warm was 1998? Residual graphs give an idea. The general idea with a residuals graph is to remove any trend in the data first, then examine what is left to pick out data that is well above or below the overall trend. Here are the standardized residuals for UAH satellite data after first removing the 1979-2014 linear trend.
Note that large residual spike in the graph above? That's 1998. What that graph shows 1998 was anomalously warm above and beyond the general warming trend in the satellite data since 1979. There's a general rule of thumb in statistics that you should never start a trend at a data point that was either anomalously above or below the trend. Luongo, if he took statistics, should have learned that. Yet starting a trend at an anomaly is precisely what Luongo does. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why he picked 1998.
Notice anything? The starting point really does make a difference in the measured trend. Starting from almost any point other than 1998 gives roughly the same trend. Starting from 1998, the year of the largest El Niño on record and the year of the largest residuals in the satellite record, gives quite a different answer. That is precisely why Luongo chose to begin his trend in 1998. He didn't like the answer he would get if he started in any other year and went with the only time period that would give him his desired answer. His "technique" is the very definition of cherry-picking.
Claim: "We’ve had cooler summers and longer winters."
Response: Only in the last two years and only in the eastern and central USA. Remember 2012-2013? The Year Without a Winter? Spring has been arriving earlier, an average of 10 to 14 days earlier than it did in the late 1980s (Karl et al. 2009), which means winter is getting shorter, not longer as Luongo claimed. Besides, the US is only about 2% of the globe's land surface. Care to take a look at what temperatures have been for the entire planet? Here are some graphs from an earlier set of posts on the subject (found here and here):
See any signs of cooling in the summer? Me neither.
Claim: "Lie No. 2: The Oceans Are Getting Warmer"
Response: It's no lie, Mr. Luongo. It's a fact.
Claim: "Fact: The North Polar Ice Cap Is Increasing in Size!"
Response: I think this graph says enough:
See that red ellipse? That's the only part that Luongo wants you to pay attention to. That's where he's getting his "43% to 63% increase" claim. He's just paying attention to the ice since the record low of 2012. But look at the rest of the data and his claim rings hollow, as that so-called rebound is still a 28% loss compared to 1979. Also note that there was a temporary "rebound" after every new record low—and there's no sign as yet that the latest "rebound" will be any different.
Claims: "Shame on Them, Because That 97% Figure Is Completely Fabricated. "..."When further review was done, it was discovered that a mere 1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change."
Response: Sheer and utter nonsense. Multiple surveys of both scientists and the published literature have repeatedly shown that 97% of bona fide climate scientists agree that human activity is to blame for global warming (i.e. Oreskes 2004, Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al. 2010, Farnsworth and Lichter 2012, Cook et al. 2013). The Doran and Zimmerman (2009) study also found that 86% of all scientists, not just climate scientists, agree that human activity is to blame, not 1% of all scientists as Luongo states. A recently released survey (Jan. 2015) of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) scientists found that 87% agreed that human activity was causing climate change. So where is he getting his ridiculous claim that "a mere1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change"?
Claim: "In outrage, a petition was signed by more than 31,000 scientists that states..."
Response: The Oregon Petition Project has been repeatedly debunked for shoddy methods (i.e. here, here, and here). Of the signatories, only 0.1% are climatologists. The inclusion criteria are so broad (anyone with a Bachelor's degree or higher in any science, from agriculture science to physics) that over 10.6 million Americans qualify to sign the petition—which means only 0.3% of eligible Americans signed that petition. That's hardly evidence that scientists disagree with the general consensus.
Claim: "Fact: There Has Always Been, And Always Will Be Climate Change"
Response: This is true—and completely irrelevant. It's the rhetorical equivalent of claiming that there have always been forest fires so humans cannot cause any forest fires.
Claim: "Now, the Question Is . . . What Does Cause Climate Change"
Response: This section is absolutely ridiculous. Luongo blames ALL of global warming on the 11-year sunspot cycle, completely ignoring the empirical evidence that conclusively shows that the increase in carbon dioxide is the main cause. The main problem with Luongo's thesis, beyond the numerous research papers conclusively demonstrating that the sun is not the cause of the current global warming? Sunspots numbers have declined since 1957 whereas global temperatures have risen. In other words, the sun has cooled and become less active since 1957 whereas the planet has warmed.
The mismatch is even more evident with an 11-year moving average.
The correlation between global surface temperatures and sunspot numbers since 1957? Extremely weak (r = -0.083) and the wrong sign to boot. IF Luongo's thesis had any validity, the relationship should be positive, not negative.
Simply put, his "science" is sheer and utter nonsense. The only people who will be fooled by Luongo's "science" are those who have not or cannot examine the data themselves. The rest of his article is simple quote mining and character assassination that skirts very close to libel. The only question is why Luongo sinks to such nonsense given his very real science background.
[Edit] In the comments, Stephen Spencer asked for a graph of sea level rise. Here's a graph combining Church and White's (2011) yearly data from tidal gauges (1880-2009) and a 12-month moving average of satellite data (1993-2014). Sea levels have risen at an average rate of 3.2 mm per year since satellite monitoring began in December 1992, with a total rise of around 210 mm since 1880.
[Update: Since Luongo got most of his claims from John Casey, I've written something about his brand of science here.]
Claim: "Well, according to NASA’s own data, the world has warmed .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979)."
Response: According to which data set? NASA GISS data show that the world warmed by 0.56ºC (1.01ºF) since 1979. That is 2.8x larger than the 0.36ºF figure that Luongo cites. UAH satellite data, which is taken from NOAA satellites, show that the world has warmed by 0.49ºC (0.88ºF) since 1979, over 2.4x larger than what Luongo stated. Even RSS, which shows false cooling since 2000, shows that the world warmed by 0.44ºC (0.79ºF) since 1979, 2.2x larger than Luongo's claim. So which data set was Luongo using to make his false claim?
Oh, and by the way, Luongo's related claim that "I think you would agree that a .36 degree increase in temperature over the last 35 years is hardly anything to get in a panic about" just shows his rank ignorance about global temperature and ecology. The natural rate of change as shown by Marcott et al. (2013) and the PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) is around 0.0014ºC per decade. The current rate according to UAH satellite data? 0.14ºC per decade, 100x faster than the natural rate. That rapid rate of change in the global average is having multiple effects on the natural world, from species ranges to the timing of bird migrations to insect life cycles to marine plankton productivity. The very real concern is that all those disruptions to species phenology will combine to drive species to extinction. And yet Luongo thinks that it's no big deal. Ignorance at its finest.
Claim: "Fact: We Haven't Seen Any 'Global Warming' for 17 Years!"
Response: Luongo uses three disingenuous tricks to back this claim. First, he uses RSS data, which, as I have already noted, shows false cooling since 2000. The second is that he starts his graph at 1998 and ends at 2014, which is 16 years, not the 17 years he claims. The third is that he starts his graph at 1998, an exceptionally warm year. How exceptionally warm was 1998? Residual graphs give an idea. The general idea with a residuals graph is to remove any trend in the data first, then examine what is left to pick out data that is well above or below the overall trend. Here are the standardized residuals for UAH satellite data after first removing the 1979-2014 linear trend.
Note that large residual spike in the graph above? That's 1998. What that graph shows 1998 was anomalously warm above and beyond the general warming trend in the satellite data since 1979. There's a general rule of thumb in statistics that you should never start a trend at a data point that was either anomalously above or below the trend. Luongo, if he took statistics, should have learned that. Yet starting a trend at an anomaly is precisely what Luongo does. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why he picked 1998.
Notice anything? The starting point really does make a difference in the measured trend. Starting from almost any point other than 1998 gives roughly the same trend. Starting from 1998, the year of the largest El Niño on record and the year of the largest residuals in the satellite record, gives quite a different answer. That is precisely why Luongo chose to begin his trend in 1998. He didn't like the answer he would get if he started in any other year and went with the only time period that would give him his desired answer. His "technique" is the very definition of cherry-picking.
Claim: "We’ve had cooler summers and longer winters."
Response: Only in the last two years and only in the eastern and central USA. Remember 2012-2013? The Year Without a Winter? Spring has been arriving earlier, an average of 10 to 14 days earlier than it did in the late 1980s (Karl et al. 2009), which means winter is getting shorter, not longer as Luongo claimed. Besides, the US is only about 2% of the globe's land surface. Care to take a look at what temperatures have been for the entire planet? Here are some graphs from an earlier set of posts on the subject (found here and here):
 |
| Seasonal trends for global temperature data. |
 |
| Seasonal trends for the Northern Hemisphere |
Claim: "Lie No. 2: The Oceans Are Getting Warmer"
Response: It's no lie, Mr. Luongo. It's a fact.
Claim: "Fact: The North Polar Ice Cap Is Increasing in Size!"
Response: I think this graph says enough:
See that red ellipse? That's the only part that Luongo wants you to pay attention to. That's where he's getting his "43% to 63% increase" claim. He's just paying attention to the ice since the record low of 2012. But look at the rest of the data and his claim rings hollow, as that so-called rebound is still a 28% loss compared to 1979. Also note that there was a temporary "rebound" after every new record low—and there's no sign as yet that the latest "rebound" will be any different.
Claims: "Shame on Them, Because That 97% Figure Is Completely Fabricated. "..."When further review was done, it was discovered that a mere 1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change."
Response: Sheer and utter nonsense. Multiple surveys of both scientists and the published literature have repeatedly shown that 97% of bona fide climate scientists agree that human activity is to blame for global warming (i.e. Oreskes 2004, Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al. 2010, Farnsworth and Lichter 2012, Cook et al. 2013). The Doran and Zimmerman (2009) study also found that 86% of all scientists, not just climate scientists, agree that human activity is to blame, not 1% of all scientists as Luongo states. A recently released survey (Jan. 2015) of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) scientists found that 87% agreed that human activity was causing climate change. So where is he getting his ridiculous claim that "a mere1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change"?
Claim: "In outrage, a petition was signed by more than 31,000 scientists that states..."
Response: The Oregon Petition Project has been repeatedly debunked for shoddy methods (i.e. here, here, and here). Of the signatories, only 0.1% are climatologists. The inclusion criteria are so broad (anyone with a Bachelor's degree or higher in any science, from agriculture science to physics) that over 10.6 million Americans qualify to sign the petition—which means only 0.3% of eligible Americans signed that petition. That's hardly evidence that scientists disagree with the general consensus.
Claim: "Fact: There Has Always Been, And Always Will Be Climate Change"
Response: This is true—and completely irrelevant. It's the rhetorical equivalent of claiming that there have always been forest fires so humans cannot cause any forest fires.
Claim: "Now, the Question Is . . . What Does Cause Climate Change"
Response: This section is absolutely ridiculous. Luongo blames ALL of global warming on the 11-year sunspot cycle, completely ignoring the empirical evidence that conclusively shows that the increase in carbon dioxide is the main cause. The main problem with Luongo's thesis, beyond the numerous research papers conclusively demonstrating that the sun is not the cause of the current global warming? Sunspots numbers have declined since 1957 whereas global temperatures have risen. In other words, the sun has cooled and become less active since 1957 whereas the planet has warmed.
The mismatch is even more evident with an 11-year moving average.
The correlation between global surface temperatures and sunspot numbers since 1957? Extremely weak (r = -0.083) and the wrong sign to boot. IF Luongo's thesis had any validity, the relationship should be positive, not negative.
Simply put, his "science" is sheer and utter nonsense. The only people who will be fooled by Luongo's "science" are those who have not or cannot examine the data themselves. The rest of his article is simple quote mining and character assassination that skirts very close to libel. The only question is why Luongo sinks to such nonsense given his very real science background.
[Edit] In the comments, Stephen Spencer asked for a graph of sea level rise. Here's a graph combining Church and White's (2011) yearly data from tidal gauges (1880-2009) and a 12-month moving average of satellite data (1993-2014). Sea levels have risen at an average rate of 3.2 mm per year since satellite monitoring began in December 1992, with a total rise of around 210 mm since 1880.
 |
| Sea level rise since 1880. The black solid line is the average of tidal gauges. Black dashed lines are the 95% confidence intervals. The red solid line is the 12-month moving average of satellite data. |
I read his pitch on NewsMax. It's like the evil offspring of a televangelist mated with a nutritional supplement snake oil huckster, offering free samples yet soliciting credit card numbers for ongoing "donations"...
ReplyDeleteEvil incarnate.
The entire "newsletter" is clever advertising through deception and lies. Luongo is grooming suckers to buy into his newsletter where he "reveals new, deeply undervalued natural resources, commodities, and stock investment picks that allow you to take advantage of these dynamic global economic trends" under the guise of exposing a false hoax. The up-sells he is slinging go on and on. Luongo is just one of many clever, dishonest businessmen trying to make a buck at the expense of others. I suspect he's mainly fueled by greed at this point.
DeleteWell said well said, I wonder if he even takes a look at these blogs to realize how completely wrong he is. Most likely not ad you have pointed out, and it is people like this that leave us wondering why nothing changes. Well hopeful I our lives we can make a difference !
DeleteWell, Luongo himself says that he spent the better part of his life as a scientist. Clearly, the better part of his life is long gone, and now he is simply a a cipher, perhaps a special-interest cipher, perhaps a grudge-holding special-interest cipher, but for sure he has left the building.
DeleteI am glad I found Luongos references to John L Casey who I would at least be interested in hearing out PHD or no but when I got to the part where I understood he was a huckster I just thought "you're not really doing that are you?"
DeleteYou say, "The very real concern is that all those disruptions to species phrenology will combine to drive species to extinction." Phrenology is defined as " the study of the conformation of the skull based on the belief that it is indicative of mental faculties and character." (Mirriam-Webster, Oxford) It is the poster child for pseudo-science. Good one!
ReplyDeleteOops. Thanks for catching that misspelling. I mean phenology.
DeleteI think phrenology is better. A Freudian slip, as it were.
DeleteIPCC? Hell, this organization manipulated and suppressed data in an attempt to "prove AGW". Even the defrocked head of the IPCC, Phil Jones admitted that there was no evidence of global warming in over 15 years. Science doesn't manipulate data. Take your phony graphs and stick them where the sun doesn't shine. BTW, Jonathan Gruber is the poster child for leftist Neo-Democrat party of deceivers...
ReplyDeleteWow, how can people cram so many nonsense in so few words? Phil Jones never was the head of the IPCC, the IPCC has not manipulated (I assume here you use it in the negative sense) nor suppressed data, and Phil Jones did not admit there was no evidence of global warming in over 15 years.
DeleteManipulation of data, and it is meant here in the scientific sense, is a common practice of science, as it is often *necessary* to manipulate data.
What is it with these anonymous people who clearly are not scientists, but claim to know better than scientists what science actually is? I think Dunning & Kruger had a description for that.
Got to love it when a willfully ignorant know-nothing shows up here. First, as Marco noted, Phil Jones was never the head of the IPCC. Second, your misquote of Phil Jones has been debunked multiple times. If you care to learn what Jones actually said, you can read the interview here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
DeleteAbout my graphs, the data is publicly available. Go graph it yourself IF you know how.
About Gruber: His remarks about the ACA were flat-out lies (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/11/13/3591850/jonathan-gruber-lying-obamacare/). If anything, his remarks show the inability of right-wingers to think critically, as they take any and all remarks that appear to confirm their own worldview as gospel truth without bothering to determine if those remarks are true or not.
In an increasingly partisan environment, stereotypes along party lines are increasingly common. I, personally, know many exceptions to both "bible-thumping Republicans" and "pot-smoking Liberals". Of course there are many more exceptions to the latter in my life, but the exceptions to the former cannot be ignored. Just because many Republicans are wrapped up in religion to accept science, does not constitute the whole as being such. It is really a shame when a person makes a fool of themselves in the name of something they believe, as they injure the world's view on what they believe in. Mr. Luongo is one such example. I read his little article and it felt like a commercial aired on FOX towards the end. Always expressing the "$29 value book" as free for a $5 fee. Given his background, it is truely a mystery why a scientist would stoop by such a degree. Either he really believes what he advocates or is a blatant hypocrite fishing in the pockets of those unfortunately desperate enought to ignore the cold truth. Pun intended; the truth is not cold at all.
DeleteI am a PhD statistician and astrophysicist, and participate in numerous conference calls that are initiated by various project and mission directors at NASA and JPL to update us on their research. They get no more or less money at all for their conclusions, and their goals are always to determine what is the case based on the best available evidence. NASA and JPL climatologists are involved in these programs and are tasked with the job of collecting and evaluating data related to global warming. The fact of human caused global change is so clear it pops out at you. Luongo, with a BS in chemistry, portrays himself as a former university scientist. From his website he is a financial planner and a fellow who deals in making money. I have no problem with making money, but that's not the foremost goal of science. To represent yourself as a reputable scientist in the 21st century with a BS in chemistry is not telling the truth is it?. When I read over his claims it was clear he has no clue what he is talking about. He is in fact a clever advocate of conspiracies, and knows that he can make a ton of money taking this position and persuading others to do the same. What is sad is not him making these false claims, but that so many US citizens are not educated enough to see his claims for what they are. Science is not political. Scientists are or can be though. But when scientists are guided by politics they are not doing science. I know many Republican and Democrat party scientists; none are climate deniers though Yes, the Earth does have different climates due to alterations in solar activity, position in orbit (the simple changes in weather caused by the position of the Earth in summer compared to winter) and a variety of other situations. But the changes are never so fast as now. We have over 2 million years of global climate records that are stored for examination in glacial ice packs, much less hundreds of years of records that can be identified in tree rings and other sources. They provide information about the environment. These various records are compared and matched to access validity. Animal species loss is occurring faster now than at any time in the past 66 million years, and changes in the environment are happening faster as well. There is no conspiracy. PhD scientists who devote their lives and reputations to accuracy are not purposefully lying about climate change. Tell me, are financial planners with a BS in chemistry who represent themselves as reputable and even leading university scientists the ones we should turn to for expertise regarding environmental science? Are they the ones we should believe over scientists with doctorates in ecology, planetary science, environmental science, and so forth, and with no political axe to grind? Do you really believe that scientists with NASA, JPL, Los Alamos, and other national labs and university research units are purposefully out to mislead everyone else in order to push a political cause. The scientists I know who are working in this area look for evidence either way and let the data guide their conclusions. There is no agenda to push. But to Luongo and others of his thinking that's what they do. To the climate change deniers, you should only trust financial planners and others like them who really do not have a solid background in environmental science over those with years of training and research in the area, The graphs and stats cited by Luongo are not at all accurate, but to them it makes little difference since these type of fallacious graphs and tables --- or interpretation of graphs and tables --- can be used to persuade others to believe what they want. Finally, the climatologists I know very much wish global climate change was not occurring. But it is. If its largely man-caused we have a possible way to avert a host of resulting problems.
ReplyDeleteThank you! Unfortunately I was so outraged by these claims I had to make a Google account, then lost everything i wrote worth saying! This was nothing more then a guy dumbing down great scientific data and making false claims about research he clearly can't understand himself. Even worse he has attempted to dicredit every scientist for close to 80 years now.
DeleteReal research, not speculation by a economists that has a biased point of view unlike the people that did the research ! Also couldn't have said it any better, he clearly does not understand the data at hand, the implications that can come from such a slight change in temp or that he basically has helped prove that temp has risen in such a short period bye reporting this information again! Any scientist, ecologists, professor or student like myself somewhat capablr of understand the information he put forth from nasa himself could clearly understand he doesn't know what he is talking about and had no idea of anything besides the words "global warming isn't real" cause he hasn't picked up a scientific journal or none biased article I the last decade! Thank you !
Ditto to Jon Magby. While he (Luongo) doesn't outright lie in his depiction of his title, "I am a former scientist with the University of Florida," he only has a B.S. and happened to work in one of the labs. He seems to imply that he was a scientist at the University of Florida, in the sense that he was a PhD research scientist. Check out his LinkedIn profile. Interesting that he graduated in 1991 but he didn't start working at the University of Florida until 1999. What on earth did he do in the 8 years in between? This man is really no scientist.
Deletehttps://www.linkedin.com/pub/tom-luongo/5/384/a59
So how do we fix this "Global Warming"???
DeleteHave the Scientist come-up with a FIX.
What steps have they taking??
But thank you for writing this and exposing Luongo's nonsense.
ReplyDeleteMr Milks, I tried to write a comment to you, but it was evidently lost in the electronic ether. My point was that you said the climate was always changing. For humans, that was true up until the Holocene, when it became much more stable.
ReplyDeleteI tried to post a link to O-18 from ice cores from Greenland & Antarctica for the past 120 K yrs, but evidently links cause problems here. In any case, there were WILD swings in temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere during the last ice age. This was a minor problem for hunter-gatherers, since they could just move on.
Stable temps were absolutely essential for the development of agriculture & civilization. Stable sea level improved food supplies & allowed for water transportation between cities. We think the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were very different climate states, but those differences were trivial compared to what our ancestors faced.
I respectfully disagree. Even over the course of the Holocene, the global climate has changed due to the Milankovitch cycles. Marcott et al. (2013) found that until AD 1900, the planet had cooled by 0.7ºC over the previous 5,000 years. That may seem small, but it is similar (if on the low end) to rates of change over the previous 120k years. What humans took advantage of was a brief window of relative stability in the midst of continuous changes in climate to create what we now call civilization.
Delete"This was a minor problem for hunter-gatherers, since they could just move on."
Homo sapiens nearly went extinct 70,000 years ago, with as few as 2,000 individuals surviving the aftermath of the Toba eruption. Another near miss happened 1.2 million years ago, when as few as 18,500 individuals remained of our entire genus (Homo). Changes in climate, especially abrupt changes, pose major problems, even for hunter-gathers.
I just want to know if they are so interested in getting information out why are they charging for it my husband and I are low income interested just like the guy for the survival guide. They want money so how different are they from our government?? Oh and by the way global warming and ice ages have been a round since the dawning of time. Everything is born lives and die even the earth has its life cycles. So I wish all the soap box pedistal but heads will knock off blaming one another for a natural process. As Jesus said he don't even know when our Father will return, and as far as I'm concerned the abusers and misusers of our earth animals and their fellow man will have a lot of answering to do and even if they say they don't believe in God which will be their mistake they will still have to pay for their sins.
DeleteCan I ask if you feel so strongly why not go out and disprove these claims. In fact everything reads as nothing but a biased opinion on global warming and someone that is clearly not wanting to acknowledge the date he even states in his own papers. NASA .39 degrees in 30 or so years, well obviously this guy is not planning on living for longer then 50 more years but how about your kids and there kids or let's say just in the next 300 years( times .39 by 10) or if you want to be really hopefully unlike him and hope man kind survives another 1000 years. Also scientists, professors, doctors, ecologists and many other people like myself would also say you clearly haven't look everywhere or wanted to understand the actual situation at hand. Disease due to temp rising, loss of wAter, migrations of animals, H+ increase in Ocean causing coral reefs to not be able to build there shells, carbon emmisions trapped in oceans that is recycled due to evaporation and then trapped again and again due to its " long shelf life", plants changing to c4 plants that are more capable of holding higher co2 concentrations in leafs and many more great scientific research done by real scientist on the for front, not I a office. Also more then just nasa data, multiple scientists have also already argued it's closer to a full degree change, and is largely due to industrial revolution in the last (30) or so years. Image that buring fossile fuels builds in the atmosphere and cause it to warm cause the particles reflect and trap heat In the ozone. Or that's great pile of smog in your down town area. Not to mention that spores attach to carbon and can be transported across hundred of miles and is large reason for higher cases of asthma attacks and patients with asthma in large cities. Last cause I'm done wasting my time with someone like this every day, for you readers. Yeah you don't listen to what someone tells you go out and read scientific research done by real scientists that you can interpret yourself other than one mans thoughts on laying claims that global warming is the largest scam ever!!!! Hahah largest scam ever!! In America hahaha that's even funnier, hopefully you guys don't believe that one either.
ReplyDeleteThere's no author's name for the above story so it can't be taken seriously. The question is: Can anyone trust openly any government or former government officials? Nope.
ReplyDeleteI laughed when the UN (controlled by the US) blamed the people for causing the problems in the world. It the leadership to blame, not the people. After all, the government is supposed to lead the people right? It's a complete joke.
When it's time for those types of people to leave this world, God will dispose of such people permanently. We are not to judge and that's why everyone should be scared of their own ultimate judge after leaving this world. What goes around, come around.
[There's no author's name for the above story so it can't be taken seriously.]
DeleteIf you mean there's no author's name on the main post, you are mistaken. My name appears at the end, albeit in small type. If you look at the orange text, you'll see "Posted by Jim Milks at 10:09 PM." Beyond that, if you look on the right-hand column, you'll see an "About Me" link with my name and picture.
[The question is: Can anyone trust openly any government or former government officials?]
I believe our main motto should be "Trust only after verifying." We shouldn't blindly trust anyone until we've verified that what they say is true.
The masses will believe whatever the "mainstream" tells them, whatever govt., the media , or tainted science tells them.I believe it was one of Hitler's cronies that said "Keep the people in fear and you can make them do anything." I'm just a guy, I'm not a scientist, but I do not trust any agency that's funded by any government as is NASA and any number of scientists who want to have their work published. I do however believe in "Trust only after Verifying." if only the majority of people would verify what they read instead of blindly believing "facts" because they appear in their favorite publication.
DeleteI am a simpleton, not highly educated, and I depend on scientists for the evolution of science! But what I notice hear so far, is that not one of you scientists has said anything about John Casey. Now I can see through Luongo's ability to maybe make some money on this very controversial subject. Heck, if Gore can do it one way, who's to stop a man from doing by going in the opposite direction? It just seems to me that showing me some charts that as best I can figure, can be as cooked up as anything else, allows you wiser than most guys to miss the boat on helping a guy like me come to the truth. The problem with us simpletons is that we hold you guys up there in the labs in a bit higher regard when it comes to teaching the rest of us what it is you think you know through scientific processes or some other accumulated experiences that gives you that apple on the noggin moment. If the politicians that are on your side are not of interest to you, in your science, Then it seems to me you would prefer that they shut the hell up because all they seem to do for you is muddy the mental waters to guys like me. I would like to hear how you guys up there take apart the book this Luongos guy is offering up to the public so that they can learn the truth of this matter. I would like to know why both sides of the Isle don't seem to see eye to eye on this science? I would like to know why Mr. Milks has to step out of his scientific skin and start name calling and talking down to someone he so assuredly states, doesn't understand his charts. Truth, I don't know much. But I am able to pay attention to human nature. And when a scientist, (or anyone else for that matter) starts going the route Mr. Milks goes in talking down to people, I worry that maybe his science is able to be flawed by his own character. Your science sounded good Mr. Milks, but the moment you talked down, you lost my trust in your motives to your science. At best, you have created another red flag against the very thing you so desperately want masses to understand as clearly as you say you do. You showed me what side you're on and you have to admit, your behavior fit the very bullying style that the global warming scientists are accused of. So, after all this reading, I am still not convinced either way. If I were a scientist, I think I would do a scientific study on why this subject in science seems to be so obtuse. Hey, isn't that a synonym for, simpleminded? arrowofo
ReplyDeleteYour comment contains one undeniable truth which I agree with 100% - you are a simpleton.
Delete(I post this with apologies to all others who have kept this discussion civil and on point. Please excuse me for exhibiting trollish behavior)
Why would you write that about him/her if not for want of placing yourself on a higher pedestal? This is the problem with many people in the world... too busy sticking their nose in the air and puffing their chests out to call attention to themselves instead of being a "servant-leader" and helping others. Shame shame.
DeleteJohn Casey anyone??? So far, nothing on John Casey! Is he a hoax? Would any of you scientists here say he is a hoax? Mike??? Is there a reason why I don't hear of Global warming anymore, but now its Climate change? Hello???
Delete[John Casey anyone??? So far, nothing on John Casey! Is he a hoax? Would any of you scientists here say he is a hoax?]
DeleteCasey's "science" is a joke. I've written a response about him here: http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2015/01/john-l-casey-and-climate-denial.html
[Is there a reason why I don't hear of Global warming anymore, but now its Climate change?]
Climate change is the older, more accurate term, having been used in the 1950s. "Global warming" wasn't coined until 1975, when Wallace Broecker wrote a research article titled "Climatic change: Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/189/4201/460.abstract). Note that Broecker used BOTH terms in his paper.
What is the measured rise in sea level say since 1914, or whatever year is convenient? The graph of that shouldbe interesting to both sides ofthe argument. Whereis that info.?
Delete@ Stephen Spencer: Good question. I've added a graph of sea level since 1880 to the bottom of the post. Since 1880, sea level has risen by around 210 mm. Since December 1992, the average rate of rise has been 3.2 mm per year.
DeletePerhaps, your scientific majesty, you could comment on solar warming with regard to axial tilt, wobble and orbital precession? Is it not a fact that colder water absorbes more CO2, and therefore, when it is warmed, it is released into the atmosphere, and is not sunlight the greatest warming engine for our oceans? How does that release correlate with your findings? Furthermore, has any thought ever been given to the influx of water brought to the planet by meteors? Mega tons of water enter the atmosphere daily from this source, but nowhere can I find any reference to this affecting our ocean levels. Perhaps, your majesty, you can comment on these things without first lopping of my head, but then, you'd be out of character, wouldn't you?
Delete@pjscirkus: I took the liberty of answering you here: http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2015/02/nonsense-from-pjscirkus-about-natural.html
DeleteThe bottom line is that most of what you wrote is either misinformed or mistaken.
How about the accumulation and deposits made by the rivers all over the world?
DeleteDoesn't that increase the sea level?
Just check about Danube river delta and how much the land goes into the Black Sea...
For my research paper in high school, I chose the topic " Is Global warming exaggerated?" (Just picked a controversial topic). While doing my research, I found this "research paper" by Tom Luongo . I wasn't convinced by his " research" and after reading your blog, I am glad i wasn't. I really liked the way you explained why you found his "claims" nonsense. Thanks to you ill never be a denier, lol.
ReplyDeleteI read Luongo's Newmax "revelations about how brave and noble John Casey was to come forward and enlighten us all---like some prophet shouting in the wilderness. I haven't researched casey's personal biography but the fact that John is primarily a chemist, certainly doesn't make him an expert on climate change in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAs to his reasons why tens of thousands of learned climate scientists all over the world have all decided to abandon their ethical commitment to the scientific method while Mr. Luongo and Casey are the only ones left who dare disagree with the government--if that were true then all of the many branches of scientific knowledge are also likely to contain vast numbers of unethical scientists willing to sell their souls for research grants?--except John?--HMMMM! Also consider John's claim that if all researchers were honest with the government, their research funding would dry up, since the government would no longer benefit from research contradictory to its political ambitions--does Luongo expect us to believe that research about climate change and global warming, are the only areas in which research needs to be done, or that all climate scientists will suddenly have nothing to research without the government's support?
And consider his allusion to the idea that liberal government officials are the ones spearheading the supposed,"hoax" about global warming. Are we supposed to forget the fact that the basic projections of global warming researchers have been very similar for at least 3 decades of study, or that during the periods in which those studies were conducted, we have never had a conservative Republican in charge of the white house, a Republican controlled Congress, or very strong Republican influence on our government's pursestring? So why during the four years of GW's administration, the four years of Bush senior's presidency, or during the time Reagan ruled the roost, did all those oppressed scientists not rise up and denounce their abuse at the hands of their accursed liberal abusers? Even when Bush failed to agree to the Kyoto protocol, and when he expressed strong doubts about global warming, they still feared to come forward? Was Al Gore stalking them with poison darts? Were they shivering under the threats of liberal politicians and their mafia like goons who promised to destroy them if they revealed their nasty little hoax? Didn't they realize that significant protests from hundreds or more of them would seriously damage the supposed pseudo scientific evidence pushed by the worlds most intelligent and dedicated climate scientists?
And what about the fact that the environmental movement began in the 1960s and 1970s and that its fundamental predictions have remained basically the same for several decades--and actually came true?---What a bunch of lucky bastards and con men--professed justifications for their research really were satisfied in the future! So did the scientific con men in the 60s and 70s use a time machine to travel to the 21st century to gain first hand knowledge about exactly what to predict? Or were they just extremely lucky to be proven accurate?
The examples of how Luongo cherry picked data, and used false stats to build his bogus case, were the most intelligent scams he used to convince us. As for the rest--its all so improbable, and in fact, even impossible, to believe! Perhaps Luongo is practicing for a trophy from his local Liar's Club and denying man-made climate change is how he practices?
I have got to point out that in my comment above I mistakenly referred to (Tom) Luongo as (John) in several places. I must have confused his first name with Mr. Casey's first name.
ReplyDeleteOne more correction---GW Bush was President for 8 years, not 4--as we all know. Why I wrote 4, probably has to do with my mental fatigue.
ReplyDeleteRead Luongo's NewsMax posting and am flabbergasted that you Americans are even exposed to, let alone believe, such nonsense by people who, on cross-checking his academic credentials doesn't even hold a Master's degree. My youngest cousin in class 8 could write a more balanced story about climate change than that but unfortunately since we are living in the Maldives he might not make it into a degree course anymore since we will all be swept away by the Indian Ocean. Expose him, do something, and have some mercy on people elsewhere on the planet....If not, let hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, bush fires and other disasters whatever you call them just consume your continent. Good riddens, though sorry for you few good people.
ReplyDeleteAs a professional rescuer I ask that you, please remove America from your list of people to call when your Country is experiencing another problem.
DeleteNot sure if this was mentioned before as the comments were too long to go through all, but...
ReplyDeleteDepending on the month of the start and end of the data collection, it is indeed 17 years as he said. Jan 98 to Dec 14 is 17 years. '01-'14 = 14 years obviously + '98, '99, '00.
It has been 16 years SINCE '98, but the data including 98 is 17.
Excellent article. The post is nice
ReplyDeleteyour full of SHIT !!!!!
ReplyDeleteI think you need to retake elementary school. Your grammar and spelling skills are sorely lacking.
DeleteBeyond that, you fail to articulate a single example where my calculations or logic are wrong. Care to try again?
YOU LEFT WING LOONIES CRACK ME UP.YOU BITCH ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND YET DRIVE YOUR GAS CAR,AND TURN YOUR GAS FURNACE ON,AND TURN YOUR ELECTRIC AIR CONDITIONER ON AND COOK WITH YOUR GAS OR ELECTRIC STOVE AND DRY YOUR CLOTHES WITH GAS OR ELECTRIC...BLAH...BLAH...BLAH...ITS A DISEASE CALLED LIBERAL GUILT...ALSO NEXT TIME YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS BAILED OUT ,CALL SOMEONE ELSE YOU BUNCH OF FRICKIN PUSSIES !!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteIt's called having to live in the civilization we have while working to make the future possible for our children. It's not "liberal guilt," pal, it's realism. Try curing your conservative disease of willful ignorance first—or as the founder of your religion put it, remove the beam from your own eye first.
DeleteTo Anonymous: This left wing loony lives i a house that is entirely gas free, My heat comes from hot water heated by the sun, and my electricity comes from wind.
DeleteHow about you?
Concerning the Tom Luongo article - it seems to me to be a very amateurish scam - I'd rather send my money to a Nigerian banker!
ReplyDeleteIf the world is warming up and if this is due to the activities of man, then surely the root cause is the world population, which has, over the last 200 years or so, risen somewhere between 7-fold and 10-fold (depending upon which graph you look at). I have read a lot of articles and listened to many debates concerning Global Warming but I can swear that I have not heard the word "population" mentioned once. Are we, as mankind often does, tackling the symptoms rather than the root problem?
Don't get me wrong - I applaud many of the measures being introduced as they save the world's finite resources and often provide cheaper energy in the long term. However, I have a few questions that I hope someone out there can answer, as I am not a climate scientist:
1. Why does the world population not figure highly in global warming debates?
2. It has been alleged that Al Gore fiddled his graph by moving the axis so that it showed what he wanted to prove. Is this true and, if so, why did he need to do it and was the Nobel Prize Committee under the influence of drugs at the time?
3. Why aren't governments all over the cooler climes heavily subsidising thermal insulation, solar panels etc? The response by most governments of the world seems to be very vociferous but lacking in actual action?
Doyle Engineer June 18, 2015
ReplyDeleteI have read most of the comments here regarding climate change and I am no better informed now than when I started. It seems that both side of the issue can bend the data to support their case regarding climate change.
I am not a scientist and do not claim to be qualified to make a decision either way regarding climate change. However, I am a Retired Engineer that spent several years studying weather cycles as related to precipitation and the potential for Hydro Electric Power Generation. What I did learn was that our weather has been very cyclic since we began collecting weather data. There appears to be a consistent 10 year, 20 year and 50 year cycle that continually repeats itself.
Here are some very basic facts that I have never seen either side present that may shed some light on the issue that everyone can understand and may come to their own conclusions regarding climate change.
The earth’s atmosphere is made up of 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 0.9% Argon and 0.1% for all other gasses. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) now makes up 0.04% of the earth‘s atmosphere. To put that in perspective, in ten thousand cubic feet of air, 4 cubic feet is CO2.
My question is, can such a small percentage of CO2 have such a drastic effect on our climate? Maybe we should be spending more time studying the effect of Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon on our weather system. It seems that 0.04% CO2 is barely enough to support all the earth’s vegetation.
Another fact that both sides have disregarded is that if we go back in the history of this planet several billion years when the earth was just water and rock, all the carbon that is now tied up in all the coal, oil, gas and vegetation was in our atmosphere. This fact is verified by the samples taken from the ice core samples that have been analyzed and was many hundred times higher than at present time.
I do not question that we are experiencing climate change. However, there are so many factors that affect Climate such as Ocean current cycles, Ocean plant life cycles, Sun Spot Cycles, and many other factors to numerous to mention. I have a very hard time blaming the insignificant amount of CO2 as the only cause or main cause of climate change.
Dear Anonymous:
DeleteDuring your studies, did you ever study which gases are opaque to infrared radiation? If not, please look that information up as that will answer your question. You could also read a few of my earlier posts on that issue found here: http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/p/basics-of-global-warming.html
The above 6/18/15 comment is one of the few that isn't
ReplyDeletesteeped in the morass of "true believer"-ism.
Its just a great blog on exercises I really liked it reading so many new thing here I came to know with your blog. Thanks for sharing here with us.
ReplyDeleteAir Conditioning
I see how you didn't mention leaked emails showing where the scientist have lied and manipulated the data to prove the there side only of global warming also save their findings why did they have to manipulate the data got a you there don't I
ReplyDeleteActually, there were multiple separate investigations into those stolen e-mails. All cleared the scientists involved of any data manipulation. Perhaps you'd like to educate yourself a bit better before opening your mouth and removing all doubt that you're a fool?
DeleteSee:
http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2016/05/climategateseriously.html
I didn't read all of the comments so I'm not sure if anyone said this but sunspots are cold. If there is a decrease is sunspots doesn't that mean the sun is hotter?
ReplyDeleteNo. Just the opposite, actually. Sunspots appear when the sun gets slightly hotter. The more sunspots, the more radiation the sun is producing. Conversely, the fewer the number of sunspots, the cooler the sun. Sunspots rise and fall in an 11-year cycle. The number of sunspots per cycle peaked in the late 1950s and have been declining since, with the current solar cycle being the coolest in at least 100 years.
DeleteHey, friends! Climate is changing and scientists can't predict the result of these alterations but I'd recommend visiting the following source to find out more about this crucial problem post
ReplyDeleteClimate alarmists cherry pick data from warming periods. The earth's climate has NEVER been stable, was NEVER meant to be stable and will NEVER be stable. The earth is ALIVE and CHANGING! It has survived several advanced civilizations that have come and gone. Anybody who thinks man-made CO2 is causing climate problems are really too stupid to even debate with.
ReplyDeleteCalling people stupid doesn't really do anything to prove your point. BTW, man-made CO2 is causing climate problems.
DeleteClimate change is a complex issue that affects every aspect of our lives, including our furry friends. As temperatures rise and weather patterns become more unpredictable, dogs may experience changes in their grooming needs. For example, warmer temperatures may lead to more shedding, while increased humidity can cause mats and tangles in a dog's coat.
ReplyDeleteAs a result, dog grooming professionals need to stay up-to-date on the latest grooming techniques and trends to help dogs stay comfortable and healthy in a changing climate. This is where dog grooming schools play an important role. By providing comprehensive training on everything from bathing and brushing to trimming and styling, these schools help groomers develop the skills they need to provide top-quality grooming services for dogs of all breeds and sizes, no matter what the climate throws their way.
So, if you're passionate about dogs and want to make a difference in their lives, consider enrolling in a dog grooming school. With the right training and expertise, you can help ensure that our furry friends stay happy, healthy, and well-groomed, no matter how much the climate changes.
Fantastic blog! It's truly remarkable. Keep pushing for the best. How about exploring posts on different Dog gears too? That could be a great addition!
ReplyDeleteThank you for this wonderful information! I really appreciate your efforts in sharing knowledge. Can't wait to discover more. Keep the posts coming!"\
ReplyDeletetreat dispenser toys for dogs
But NASA never lies.
ReplyDeleteHi I have check your website . Its really informative .I love to read about world chemical reaction and global warming effect in human lives. Hope we all take care of our earth. Your website is great and sea of knowledge. If you want to make your site more attractive here is our wordpress website design company
ReplyDeleteYou can get tips here how to make more interesting website.
Hi No one predict Climate result alterations but we all should change our habit to protect our Earth from Pollution . Your website is great source of knowledge. It is essential to you want to make it protective from bugs here we hire good wordpress website expert
ReplyDelete