Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming

Seems pretty unambiguous.

We don't need perfect knowledge to take reasonable steps to mitigate potential risk, and the data gets less and less ambiguous year after year.

After another 20 years of warming, what will you say then?

(shakes head)

Doesn't it bother you that none of the "experts" they have with that statement are physicists or climatologists?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming

Seems pretty unambiguous.

We don't need perfect knowledge to take reasonable steps to mitigate potential risk, and the data gets less and less ambiguous year after year.

After another 20 years of warming, what will you say then?

(shakes head)

He spent a week calling you out for unfairly characterizing his arguments. When he was demonstrated making those arguments he just blithely continues on. He doesn't even argue science anymore and resorts to rhetoric.

It's pretty obvious he is either just trolling for attention, mindnumbingly stupid, or both. It's better to just keep trucking with the new that is coming out in science and stop treating him like he is earnest. He clearly is not and gets his jollies when you do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Doesn't it bother you that none of the "experts" they have with that statement are physicists or climatologists?

Does it bother you that they are ecologists, biologists, economists, chemists, and environmental scientists while you change parts whose properties you don't understand how they work, doing so based on a checklist an engineer made for you, and having no degree yourself?

[Wild Cobra]

Does it bother you that they are ecologists, biologists, economists, chemists, and environmental scientists while you change parts whose properties you don't understand how they work, doing so based on a checklist an engineer made for you, and having no degree yourself?

You just don't get it.

They don't have the qualifications to determine these things independently. they are only appealing to authority... The IPCC et al. Such a statement needs to be signed by scientists in the field. Not by proxy. Almost all the scientists in the field never make such claims.

[boutons_deux]

Earth's Relentless Warming Just Hit a Terrible New Threshold

In an age of broken temperature records, this one is especially worrisome.



The number of climate records broken in the last few years is stunning.

But here's a new measure of misery: Not only did we just experience the hottest April in 137 years of record keeping, but it was the 12th consecutive month to set a new record.

It's been relentless. May 2015 was the hottest May in records dating back to 1880. That was followed by the hottest June.

Then came a record July, August, September, October, November, December, January, February, March—and, we learned from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Wednesday—the hottest April.

In an age of rising temperatures, monthly heat records have become all too common. Still, a string of 12 of them is without precedent.

Perhaps even more remarkable is the magnitude of the new records. The extremes of recent months are such that we're only four months into 2016 and already there's a greater than 99 percent likelihood that this year will be the hottest on record, according to Gavin Schmidt, who directs NASA's Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies.

The chart below shows earth's warming climate, measured by land and sea, dating back to 1880.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/featur...-new-threshold

BigCarbon and its evil/ignorant/duped supporters are killing us all, for obscene profits.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh No...

More fear-mongering...

[RandomGuy]

Doesn't it bother you that none of the "experts" they have with that statement are physicists or climatologists?

Are you sure about that?

Or did you just glance at some of them, and not scroll all the way through?

[RandomGuy]

Jason Funk
Senior Climate Scientist

Jason Funk is a senior climate scientist for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. His efforts focus on building a better understanding of the impacts of climate change among communities, stakeholders, and policymakers, and developing effective solutions to reduce these impacts.

Dr. Funk earned his Ph.D. in the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources at Stanford University, and he holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in Environmental Science from the Ohio State University.

[Winehole23]

Dunning-Kruger effect. Actually reading what he objects to would put WC's amazing streak of wrong takes in jeopardy.

[RandomGuy]

Jamesine Rogers Gibson
Western States Senior Climate Analyst

Jamesine Rogers Gibson is the Western states senior climate analyst for the Climate & Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Ms. Rogers Gibson conducts research and policy analysis to inform and build support for robust climate policies in California and the Western states. Her work focuses on approaches that reduce global warming emissions and increase resilience to climate impacts, while maximizing health, air quality, and economic benefits.

Ms. Rogers Gibson earned a master’s in public health in environmental health sciences from the University of California, Berkeley, and a bachelor of arts in environmental science and policy from Duke University.

[RandomGuy]

Brenda Ekwurzel
Senior Climate Scientist

Brenda Ekwurzel is a senior climate scientist with the Climate & Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). She is leading UCS's climate science education work aimed at strengthening support for sound U.S. climate policies.

She holds a Ph.D. in isotope geochemistry from the Department of Earth Sciences at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and conducted post-doctoral research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in California.

[Winehole23]

WC gets it exactly wrong so often I sometimes wonder if he isn't doing it on purpose

[Winehole23]

nah

[RandomGuy]

She has published on topics that include climate variability and fire, isotopic dating of groundwater, Arctic Ocean tracer oceanography, paleohydrology, and coastal sediment erosion. Earlier in her career, Dr. Ekwurzel was a hydrologist, working with communities to protect groundwater sources, at the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

[RandomGuy]

WC gets it exactly wrong so often I sometimes wonder if he isn't doing it on purpose

One has to wonder.

Lazy, sloppy thinking in terms of rationally considering available evidence and an inability to grasp how confirmation bias might effect ones analysis. Might be a good time to explore that.

[Wild Cobra]

Are you sure about that?

Or did you just glance at some of them, and not scroll all the way through?

Environmental science is not climatology.

Environmental studies incorporates more of the social sciences for understanding human relationships, perceptions and policies towards the environment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_science

You really should learn what you speak about. You are always looking like a fool. Trying to get to bouton's level by chance?

[DarrinS]

Four weeks or so away from det "tipping point". Oh noes! End of days!

http://www.9news.com.au/national/201...search-station

[Wild Cobra]

Four weeks or so away from det "tipping point". Oh noes! End of days!

http://www.9news.com.au/national/201...search-station

LOL...

6/6/16...

Even that is a decade late!

[RandomGuy]

Environmental science is not climatology.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_science

You really should learn what you speak about. You are always looking like a fool. Trying to get to bouton's level by chance?

I put that in there on purpose to bait you, because it speaks to how the ultimate impact of what the climate scientists say could happen, especially when it comes to economic and social impacts.

If you want to not only speak to the science of climate, but what will happen to the humans who live in that, you would want exactly someone with expertise in that.

Which is exactly what the Union of Concerned Scientists appears to have done.

Hook, line, and sinker.

Notice you said all about the qualifications of the other real scientists who disagree with you on the impacts and scope of human caused climate change.

[RandomGuy]

..

[RandomGuy]

"a bachelor of arts in environmental science and policy from Duke University"

The A.B. degree is designed for students interested in the interdisciplinary study of environmental issues. The major permits students to combine studies in natural sciences and engineering with courses in social sciences and humanities to develop particular focus areas or themes relevant to students’ individual interests.

Solving the world’s environmental problems requires an understanding not only of ecological systems but also of the cultural, social, economic, and political forces that act on those systems. The A. B. degree in Environmental Sciences and Policy provides students with this background.

https://nicholas.duke.edu/programs/u...isites-for-esp

I could list the science courses required for the degree, but hey, you can read if you want to.

I would be willing to bet that there is more science wrapped up in this degree than Wild Cobra has.

Ecology, biology, microeconomics, physics, calculus, etc.

[DarrinS]

I put that in there on purpose to bait you, because it speaks to how the ultimate impact of what the climate scientists say could happen, especially when it comes to economic and social impacts.

If you want to not only speak to the science of climate, but what will happen to the humans who live in that, you would want exactly someone with expertise in that.

Which is exactly what the Union of Concerned Scientists appears to have done.

Hook, line, and sinker.

Notice you said all about the qualifications of the other real scientists who disagree with you on the impacts and scope of human caused climate change.

You know how one becomes a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists?

You give them at least $25

https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/...961.1463692507

[FuzzyLumpkins]

WC and Darrin 2006-2014: AGW is false, CO2 does not drive temperature like they claim. SOOT! SODA OCEANS! I used to be like you but I learned that it was a farce.

WC and Darrin 2015-: I never said AGW wasn't real. I just believe they are overblowing the impacts. You cannot even quantify the impacts and they are just trying to scare us so we should do nothing. You misrepresent what I said before.

At least they stopped posting from their denial sites.

[DarrinS]

WC and Darrin 2006-2014: AGW is false, CO2 does not drive temperature like they claim. SOOT! SODA OCEANS! I used to be like you but I learned that it was a farce.

WC and Darrin 2015-: I never said AGW wasn't real. I just believe they are overblowing the impacts. You cannot even quantify the impacts and they are just trying to scare us so we should do nothing. You misrepresent what I said before.

At least they stopped posting from their denial sites.

If AGW means the greenhouse effect that humans contribute some amount to, then I've never claimed that was false.

If AGW means CAWG (C = catastrophic), then, yes, I am skeptical of that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If AGW means the greenhouse effect that humans contribute some amount to, then I've never claimed that was false.

If AGW means CAWG (C = catastrophic), then, yes, I am skeptical of that.

I need to make a Darrin and WC are full of in the denial of their denials thread. Gimme a sec. I'll search for it again.