I noticed this morning that the trees on Main Street are starting to bud out. And, it's only March 10th in Montana!!! This is very different from the Montana winters I experienced as a youth in the 1950s and 1960s.

Whether one believes in climate change or not, it appears to be happening anyway.

A recent economic report prepared for the Montana Farmers Union indicates that warmer temperatures and drier summers are withering the future of Montana spring wheat, a major cash crop for state farmers.

If you are interested in reading Tom Lutey's article about this which appeared in the Billings Gazette on February 25, 2016, here's the link:

http://billingsgazette.co...44e11.html

I actually believe what the climate scientists have been trying to tell us for years. We should pay attention.

That's the wonderful thing about science...

It's real.

...whether you believe in it, or not.

Just going through another warming cycle here on the 3rd rock from the sun.

Really?

I believe the Nobel Prize winning climate scientists (2007) like Dr. Steven Running, Professor of Global Ecology at the University of Montana, who was one of the authors of one of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In case you missed his recent guest opinion in the Billings Gazette on March 5th, I include the link:

http://billingsgazette.co...7b30e.html

I feel bad for Mary, she hasn't been told it's all a scam yet.

Bridgier wrote:

I feel bad for Mary, she hasn't been told it's all a scam yet.

Let me take care of that........

https://stevengoddard.wor...d-at-noaa/

There is the best book by David Trexler, a Paleontologist from Bynum, MT. The title is "Becoming Dinosaurs" A Prehistoric Perspective on Climate Change Today. What's Happened Before, What's Happening Now, and What We Might Do to Avoid Extinction. If you are not into reading entire books, there is a great summary at the end of the book. Just sharing?

Scam?

In discerning truth from non-truth on this subject, I tend to believe those who are respected in their scientific professions, as well as respected scientific organizations. Because I am not a climate scientist, I chose to be willing to listen to those climate scientists who have devoted their lives to studying the climate and are sounding dire warnings.

In October 21, 2009, the American Association for the Advancement of Science wrote a letter to U.S. Senators stating:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems through the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades."

The letter was signed by the executive director or president of various respected scientific organizations including, but not limited to, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Society of Agronomy, American Statistical Association, Botanical Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, etc.

To read the letter and see which scientific organization signed it, here's the link:

http://www.aaas.org/sites...etter1.pdf

In the meantime, I'm thinking the latest "extreme weather event" in the United States, the terrible flooding in Louisiana this week, may be the most recent example of what the climate scientists have predicted will happen, and will continue to happen if climate change is not mitigated.

That is why I support the goals agreed upon by 190 countries at the United Nations Climate Conference in Paris in December 2015.

By the way, have you noticed how low the Yellowstone River is? I guess that comes under the water scarcity part of what the scientists wrote about.

My god Mary, you are truly being suckered by the international cabal of climate scientists. I'll bet you believe that smoking causes lung cancer as well.

Yes, I remember when the heads of seven major tobacco companies appeared before Congress in 1994, and in sworn testimony, stated that cigarettes are not addictive. This was years after the Surgeon General of the U.S. had warned that tobacco is as addictive as cocaine or heroin. The first Surgeon General warning about cigarettes causing cancer was back in 1964.

And, by the way, the sworn testimony of the cigarette company executives was also after decades during which the tobacco companies had deliberately lied about the causal relationship between smoking and cancer, despite research to the contrary.

Here a link to the Journal of the National Cancer Institute about cigarettes and cancer:

http://jnci.oxfordjournal.../2/99.full

Whatever you do Mary Catherine, DO NOT read anything that may be found by following that link! It's just a bunch of lying "deniers", using NOAA's and NASA's own data against them.

Much less reliable than Huff Post, Salon and the Billings Gazette.

Fox News' Steve Doocy used this "Steven Goddard" (actual name Tony Heller) blog to make the claim that NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming.

Punditfact rated Doocy's claim a "pants on fire" lie based in part on the assertion that temperature readings were altered for the very purpose of validating the global warming claim while giving no coverage to the stated reasons for altering temperature data which is to account for changes over the years in how temperature data is collected.

From the Punditfact article:

In fact, researchers who have been skeptical of the government’s climate record have looked at the temperature data and found that it holds up (even if it contains errors). Zeke Hausfather, a data scientist, is a member of the group known as Berkeley Earth.

"Despite using different methods, and using about 8 times more raw station data, we ended up with nearly identical results," Hausfather said.

Hausfather provided PunditFact the following graphic. NCDC refers to the National Climatic Data Center, the agency home for the temperature readings. The blue line is Hausfather’s data, the red line is the NCDC’s.

PUNDITFACT.COM: Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming

Mary, my dear...

They were being sarcastic.

The phrase "De Nile is not just a river in Egypt" applies to Oddy and Brandy. Their "beliefs" trump science.

Given (1) that it is currently 62 degrees on March 11, 2016 in Miles City, Montana, and that it is projected to be 73 degrees tomorrow; and, (2) that a record 23 inches of rain just fell and flooded parts of Louisiana in the last 3 days, adversely affecting thousands of people in the South, let's continue this climate change discussion.

In November 2012, The National Academies (comprised of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine and National Research Council) issued a report brief entitled, "Climate and Social Stress: Implications for Security Analysis."

Here are a couple of quotes from that report brief:

"In recent years, the accumulation of scientific evidence that the global climate is changing beyond the bounds of past experience has raised expectations of new stresses on societies around the world, creating possible security risks for the United States. Those stresses include situations in which climate events (e.g., droughts, heat waves, or storms) have the consequences that exceed the capacity of affected countries to cope and respond." . . .

"It is prudent to expect that some climate events will produce consequences that exceed the capacity of the affected societies or global systems to manage, and therefore will have global security implications serious enough to compel international response.

Here's the link to the report brief:

http://sites.nationalacad...073254.pdf

The full report can be read at:

http://www.nap.edu/catalo...y-analysis

Given the seriousness of the problem, I really think we should all pay attention and do whatever we can to mitigate the problem. This week the recently elected Prime Minister of Canada met with President Obama in Washington and discussed how to reduce carbon and methane emissions.

http://www.nytimes.com/20....html?_r=0

As I have said in previous posts on this subject, I generally do not like to post about this as everyone's mind is pretty much made up. The little vote thingeys confirm that.

But, that aside, I would like to thank Dave for researching enough to blow up Oddjob's BS links. One always knows from the getgo that anything Oddy posts has NO scientific basis in reality (if it has not been approved by the Geologists and Scientists Research Branch Subcommittee of the John Birch Society of Northern Nevada), so that anyone who can debunk such garbage, kudos.

Berkeley Earth is run by Richard Muller. Muller is a nuclear physicist who is affectionately referred to on the internets machine as the "author of widely debunked books, blog posts and Wall Street Journal op-eds". Muller was wrong predicting extinction cycles of dinosaurs based on the existence of "death stars" or non-existent comets running around in the Oort Cloud. (Gunnar! You probably had his book Nemesis as required reading at MT. Tech, huh?....Gunnar?)

He started out taking money from the Koch Brothers to do climate research, but soon figured out there was bigger money to be had from George Soros (who is usually credited as "Anonymous Foundation"). He and his group are just another cog in the international collection of anthropogenic global warming and climate change whores.

The really funny part about this is that this group of bumblers is equally hated by the disciples of Gaia.

See, David. My 5 minutes of Google searching works just as well as yours.

So then, "Oddjob", you agree that citing the fact that temperature data was adjusted as proof that NASA is fudging data to support global warming theory is nonsense? You didn't really take a stand on that issue once the scientific basis for the adjustments was brought to light in this discussion.

If the assumptions used to tweak the models reflect the bias of the modeler the result will be what he wants it to be. So far, NOAA, NASA and the rest of the AGW whores refuse to produce the modern data sets and the model parameters for examination by their critics. Much of the early comparison data in what I posted was already in the public domain.

This is the "science" that is found in the article you posted..


"John Nielsen-Gammon is a researcher at Texas A&M University and is the Texas state climatologist. Nielsen-Gammon finds nothing nefarious in the government analysis of temperature trends.

"It is reasonable to expect the adjusted data record to change over time as the technology for identifying and removing artificial changes improves," Nielsen-Gammon said. "If there are any biases, they are caused by the quality of the underlying data, not by any biases intentionally introduced into the adjustment process.""

Bulls**t.

Again, it gets down to average people (who are not climate scientists) trying to discern the truth of the situation.

When I have questions, one website I like is skepticalscience.com which has various informative links which answers questions and debunks fact from fiction.

Another one is realclimate.org.

I believe what the climate scientists are warning us about, and I believe NASA and NOAA scientists. However, all of us (both climate change believers and deniers) are going to be living through the effects of unmitigated climate change -- and it's not fun or pretty. Just ask the citizens of Louisiana who this week are experiencing record rainfall and flooding.

I think we should all try to mitigate the problem because there is a chance we can lessen the damage. The World Bank published a report called, "Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4 Degree Centigrade World Must be Avoided." http://www.worldbank.org/...is-century

And, the recent news about the amount of increasing carbon in our atmosphere is not encouraging. Currently, the problems seems to be getting worse, instead of better.

"In February 2016, the average global atmospheric carbon dioxide level stood at 402.59 ppm. This is a dramatic increase from pre-industrial times, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels averaged about 280 ppm. The world is currently on course to see carbon dioxide levels push past 450 to 500 parts per million by the end of the current century, unless emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels are cut dramatically during the next two decades."

http://news.yahoo.com/ear....html?nf=1

So this has never made any sense to me. Let's suppose for a moment that there is no climate change or if there is, it is not man-made. Why would moving to cleaner and more sustainable forms of energy not be in our best interest, regardless of the details of climate change. If there is a less invasive or cleaner methods to produce electricity and energy wouldn't we be wise to adopt those methods?

It seems to me that we are better of attempting to harness the sun and wind regardless of any climate change. We should move forward because it is more sustainable. Why does climate change, real or imagined, even matter? Explain this to me.

You are using logic, my friend. Reason and logic are not the best way to appeal to egyptians.

More information

http://www.iflscience.com...ords-began

https://www.bostonglobe.c...story.html

ABC, this AM, Tuesday 3/15. "February's temperatures break records by a shocking amount."

I used to think that the top three environmental problems were loss of biodiversity, ecosystem collapse, and climate change,

I was wrong.

The top three environmental problems are greed, selfishness, and apathy. To deal with these issues we need significant cultural and spiritual transformation. These are not problems science can address.

And willful ignorance. That is a big one.

Amorette Allison wrote:

And willful ignorance. That is a big one.

You got that right.........

How about all the big money Exxon has passed out to fund climate change/global warming denial?

"ExxonMobil gave more than $2.3m to members of Congress and a corporate lobbying group that deny climate change and block efforts to fight climate change – eight years after pledging to stop its funding of climate denial, the Guardian has learned."

Read all about it at:

http://www.theguardian.co...-lawmakers

Another article states that: "In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010."
http://www.scientificamer...al-effort/

All that money on the table, and Oddy's giving it away for free.

Mary Catherine Dunphy wrote:

How about all the big money Exxon has passed out to fund climate change/global warming denial?

"ExxonMobil gave more than $2.3m to members of Congress and a corporate lobbying group that deny climate change and block efforts to fight climate change – eight years after pledging to stop its funding of climate denial, the Guardian has learned."

Read all about it at:

http://www.theguardian.co...-lawmakers

Another article states that: "In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010."
http://www.scientificamer...al-effort/

How about the billions of $$$ in taxpayer money that has been doled out by the government over the last 10 years to fund the AGW whores? Numbers range from $20 Billion to $300 Billion dumped into AGW "research".

Tell me again, how there is no "vested interest" in group think at the money trough.

No private entity or corporation on the planet can compete with the kind of funding the hoaxers get to further their agenda (which, by the way, is not saving the human race).

http://www.cato.org/publi...al-funding

"The Guardian"? Seriously? The Guardian??? Are the "Salon" and "Huff Post" websites down?

At least Scientific American has only been an AGW pimp since it switched over from proclaiming the immediate onset of the next Ice Age, 40 years ago.

You've never answered my question. What if the science is right? What if global warming IS a human-caused threat? What if all those scientists are actually honest and ethical? Or is that completely beyond your imagination, that people can be truthful?

Shhhh, don't disturb "Oddjob". He's busy reading up on everything that is wrong with the world over at townhall.com.

Amorette F. Allison wrote:

You've never answered my question. What if the science is right? What if global warming IS a human-caused threat? What if all those scientists are actually honest and ethical? Or is that completely beyond your imagination, that people can be truthful?

If the science is "right" as you say, and the proponents of AGW are being truthful, then perhaps you can answer my question.

Why do the advocates of this position jealously hide the raw data and their model assumptions that generate the doomsday scenarios? Why do they seek to deny other scientists with contradictory research, access to publish their peer-reviewed papers? If they were true "scientists", they would be open to the scrutiny of ALL their peers, including the ones that disagree with them.

This is climate data, for Pete's sake. It's not a request for a download from the NSA or the key to the iPhone..

But they won't do that. The East Anglia "Climategate" emails and the refusal of NOAA and NASA to allow testimony and release subpoenaed information, more than confirms the fact that they are hiding something.

What do you think that might be?

And, perhaps more importantly; what would they seek to gain?

Is this question begging? I think it's question begging.

Bridgier wrote:

Is this question begging? I think it's question begging.

You have to remember, it's Amorette....

Oddjob wrote:

If the science is "right" as you say, and the proponents of AGW are being truthful, then perhaps you can answer my question.

Why do the advocates of this position jealously hide the raw data and their model assumptions that generate the doomsday scenarios? Why do they seek to deny other scientists with contradictory research, access to publish their peer-reviewed papers? If they were true "scientists", they would be open to the scrutiny of ALL their peers, including the ones that disagree with them.

This is climate data, for Pete's sake. It's not a request for a download from the NSA or the key to the iPhone..

But they won't do that. The East Anglia "Climategate" emails and the refusal of NOAA and NASA to allow testimony and release subpoenaed information, more than confirms the fact that they are hiding something.

What do you think that might be?

And, perhaps more importantly; what would they seek to gain?

I've tried to stay out of this, however:

1. You still didn't answer her question. You simply replied to a question with more questions. That is not an answer.

2. Climate data is readily available to absolutely anyone with an internet connection and a little free time. I'm unaware of where you went to middle school, but I'm assuming they taught you how to chart data points.

3. Published, peer-reviewed papers are not blocked or hidden from anyone. You can access them, again, online. The abstracts to all published scientific papers are typically free and the full text might cost you a couple of dollars.

4. You seem so adamant that climate change is NOT man-made and your opinion will not be swayed by anything. However, where is your proof that it isn't man-made? Why are you so coy with your sources of peer-reviewed papers and scientific findings.

Instead of arguing an argument with more argument. Bring a little tact and fact to the table.

There is no climate change conspiracy. The reality is that our species has nearly completed destroying the planet we inhabit and if you can openly deny that, there's no hope in educating you otherwise.

The challenge science faces in correlation-causation modeling is often about the details of how the experiment and data analysis is conducted.

For example, if I wanted to prove that sex causes babies, but the only couples I include in the study are 50-60 years old, I will conclude, incorrectly, that sex does not cause babies. This despite the fact that people have sex and babies are born all the time.

The climate-change denier crowd is basically looking at cherry-picked data, (only couples that are 50-60 years old) and incorrectly concluding climate-change is not occurring. This, despite the fact there is significant evidence in a multitude of scientific disciplines demonstrating otherwise.

The plotting of temperature data over the last hundred years is but one small piece of evidence. The loss of biodiversity, ecosystem collapse, and desertification are evident just about anywhere you'd bother to look. The changes we observe in vegetation and state-transition modeling correlate to a high degree with temperature data.

Rather than argue with cherry-picking data deniers, we really ought to be focused on how we become adapted to the new realities. If we don't change the focus of the discussion, we will all become collateral damage trying to pull dinosaurs to safety.

[Edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (3/17/2016 12:53:09 PM)]

Which is why I ask the question? If the science is true, wouldn't it be a good idea to actually try to save the planet. Even if global warming isn't as epic a disaster as it appears to be (moved a native tribe today off the coast of Louisiana because they live on a low-lying island. Now there is no island.) isn't developing new technology and doing less damage to the planet (burning coal is bad for MANY reasons) just a good idea.

This isn't personal. This is about (let me try this again) SCIENCE.

I don't have time for her "what if" questions. It's a pointless exercise.

I'm glad to see that you have consulted the Internet and found the truth.

Friday, March 18th -- Today at the bottom of the front page of its print edition, the Billings Gazette published an article, "Beyond Record, Hot, February Was 'Astronomical,' 'Strange'."

It starts off: "Earth got so hot last month that federal scientists struggled to find words, describing temperatures as 'astronomical,' 'staggering' and 'strange."

Georgia Tech climate scientist, Kim Cobb, wrote in an email: "When I look at the new February 2016 temperatures, I feel like I'm looking at something out of a sci-fi movie. In a way we are: it's like someone plucked a value off a graph from 2030 and stuck it on a graph of present temperatures. It is a portent of things to come, and it is sobering that temperature extremes are already on our doorstep."

I couldn't find an e-link to the Billings Gazette story which I found frustrating and strange, given that it was front page news; however, because it was an Associated Press story, that same article was published in other national newspapers.

Here's a link if you care to read just how hot it was, and what the climate scientists are saying.

http://www.telegram.com/n...nd-strange

If there was ever proof that the Odd One is a good Republican, his answer is it! I can't be bothered to think. That might change my opinion, as it has been given to me by my masters. Keep those eyes closed, those ears plugged and singing LALALA as Rome burns around you, Oddy, old boy.

Perhaps it would help if you understood what you are looking at and who's providing it. Seth Borenstein is just a tool for use by the AGW media machine (i.e., Media Matters\Geo Soros). A professor of "journalism" at NYU DC and disgrace to the profession.

http://www.climatedepot.c...reporting/

Kim Cobb of Georgia Tech is one of the many AGW whores who regularly feed the faked data out of the models to the idiot press. Now that the general public realizes that AGW is mostly hype and BS and have quit listening to the voices of doom, the temperature of every month\year has to be "astronomical", "staggering" and "strange".

Yawn......

It's good that you keep paying attention to this stuff though, because pretty soon you will start to notice that it's all coming from the same people....Like Borenstein, Cobb and any number of NOAA/NASA spokesbots.

Spokesbots!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHA! From the KING! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

With regard to climate change denial and deniers, I am reminded of when satellite images from space first showed Earth as a sphere, a member of the Flat Earth Society remarked: "It's easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye".

In the meantime back here on Earth, one of the problems for those of us who do believe the warnings of the climate scientists is that television media does a poor job of covering the story. For example, last year ABC devoted only 13 minutes to climate change despite the fact that: (1) leaders of 190 countries met and agreed in Paris in December to limit greenhouse gas emissions; (2) the Pope issued a major encyclical/statement about climate change called "Laudato Si" (3) the President's issued a Clean Energy Plan; and, (4) Exxon is under investigation to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business.

FOX News covered climate change the most of all the television media but "the vast majority of that coverage included attacks on climate policies or climate science denial, so people who watch Fox for their climate coverage got more of it but they didn't necessarily learn more from watching it."

Here are several links in case you want to read more details about what wasn't adequately covered by the major television networks last year:

http://loe.org/shows/segm...egmentID=2

http://www.c2es.org/inter...is/summary

http://w2.vatican.va/cont...to-si.html

http://www.nytimes.com/20....html?_r=0

https://www.whitehouse.go...-standards

So much for fair and objective reporting on television.