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

[DarrinS]

Hot: we're all gonna die
Cold: weather is not climate, you idiot

[RandomGuy]

Like I have said before, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. Read the article I posted and quit flapping your lips. Chumpkins.


Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center (for ill-informed people you, they are part of NOAA)



In the Southern Hemisphere, autumn is well underway, and sea ice extent is growing rapidly. Antarctic sea ice extent for April 2014 reached 9.00 million square kilometers (3.47 million square miles), the largest ice extent on record by a significant margin. This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000 square kilometers (124,000 square miles), which was set in April 2008.
Antarctic ice extent graph

Figure 6b. The graph above shows Antarctic sea ice extent as of May 5, 2014, along with daily ice extent data for four previous years. 2014 is shown in blue, 2013 in green, 2011 in orange, 2007 in brown, and 2006 in purple. The 1981 to 2010 average is in dark gray. Sea Ice Index data.



Following near-record levels in March, a slightly higher-than-average rate of increase led to a record April ice extent, compared to the satellite record since 1978. During April, ice extent increased by an average of 112,600 square kilometers (43,500 square miles) per day. Ice extent on April 30 was a record for that day; record levels continue to be set in early May.

You will note they speak of sea ice.

Periodic ice coverage is meaningless without wider context. This is what is known as cherry-picking.

How thick is the ice cover? what is the volume, what does it imply, what is the other pole doing? etc, etc, etc.

It is possible for there to be more surface area of ice, but less volume. What does your linked report say about that? (ok it wasn't linked, but I found the information anyway).

This is not convincing evidence. This is simply poor reasoning.

[RandomGuy]

Hot: we're all gonna die
Cold: weather is not climate, you idiot

Climate change is man-made: environmentalist hysteria
Climate change isn't real and/or natural: solid science.

Get off the stage.

[Wild Cobra]

Periodic ice coverage is meaningless without wider context. This is what is known as cherry-picking.

How thick is the ice cover? what is the volume, what does it imply, what is the other pole doing? etc, etc, etc.

It is possible for there to be more surface area of ice, but less volume. What does your linked report say about that? (ok it wasn't linked, but I found the information anyway).

This is not convincing evidence. This is simply poor reasoning.

All true, but the hysteria over our limited time of being able to determine ice mass is completely laughable. Now if we had satellite records dating back thousands of years, that would be different. We only have conjecture. Same with other climate scare tactics. We simply do not have proper evaluations comparable to what we see today.

[Wild Cobra]

Climate change is man-made: environmentalist hysteria
Climate change isn't real and/or natural: solid science.

Get off the stage.

That's right, jump to the extreme conclusion. Do you really like being seen as not credible?

[DarrinS]

Climate change is man-made: environmentalist hysteria
Climate change isn't real and/or natural: solid science.

Get off the stage.

AGW is real. CAGW is science fiction.

[RandomGuy]

That's right, jump to the extreme conclusion. Do you really like being seen as not credible?

Um, you do realize my post was satire on the way Darrin phrased his extemist post.

[Wild Cobra]

Um, you do realize my post was satire on the way Darrin phrased his extemist post.

I thought you were posting based on his satire. Didn't you didn't see his satire?

[MannyIsGod]

AGW is real. CAGW is science fiction.

Is the IPCC account of what will happen science fiction?

[Asshole]

you. A cold front came through Texas just a week ago. . .

I wish periodicity was more intuitive in general and that America's trig teachers were better at teaching intuition regarding cycles specifically.

Ya, freezing cold it was. I wish teachers would teach their cycles more, too.

[xrayzebra]

Is the IPCC account of what will happen science fiction?

Is it? You tell me. They have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar on several occasions and some of their biggest supporters are in it for the big bucks. Many of the so called "research" projects keep many of the "consensus" in cigarette money.

IMO, if they are correct is will be an accident that they are. Climate is going to change, whether mankind is on this earth or not. It has in the past, it has warmed/frozen and on an almost constant basis. One thing you can count on: it will not stay static.

You want the truth of the matter, take the money out of it and politics and then maybe someone will come up with an answer that everyone believes.

[MannyIsGod]

Is it? You tell me. They have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar on several occasions and some of their biggest supporters are in it for the big bucks. Many of the so called "research" projects keep many of the "consensus" in cigarette money.

IMO, if they are correct is will be an accident that they are. Climate is going to change, whether mankind is on this earth or not. It has in the past, it has warmed/frozen and on an almost constant basis. One thing you can count on: it will not stay static.

You want the truth of the matter, take the money out of it and politics and then maybe someone will come up with an answer that everyone believes.

I've learned over time its pointless to argue with you. One of the reasons is that because you make outright lies such as what I bolded.

[DarrinS]

And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

[MannyIsGod]

So why can't you answer a direct question with a direct answer? It wasn't a difficult question. Why do you feel the need to dance around direct questions on the subject all the time?

[xrayzebra]

I've learned over time its pointless to argue with you. One of the reasons is that because you make outright lies such as what I bolded.

You gotta be kidding me. Outright lies, do you read anything except progressive website. Live in ignorance. I have posted plenty of links to these "outright lies".

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You gotta be kidding me. Outright lies, do you read anything except progressive website. Live in ignorance. I have posted plenty of links to these "outright lies".

Actually, you have linked no website at all for your claims. Please stop being a lying piece of like Darrin.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So why can't you answer a direct question with a direct answer? It wasn't a difficult question. Why do you feel the need to dance around direct questions on the subject all the time?

He isn't going to discuss the science. He used to but then we get down into it he ends up looking stupid and by now he knows he isn't going to win arguing that.

If you are shilling and you are trying to encourage people to not support policy to respond to a potential threat then what are you going to do? Do not argue the loser but instead hedge on the significance. If it is insignificant then who cares after right?

I will say that your arguments are never going to convince him but it may well convince someone who is on the fence. After all this time, anyone who has read WC, Darrin, god boy and our responses know what is up. Look to that. Don't look to them. They are dumbasses and want you to quit in exasperation so they can spam their GWPC mailers without pushback..

[DarrinS]

Actually, you have linked no website at all for your claims. Please stop being a lying piece of like Darrin.

Fuzzy with the unoriginal ad hominem bads

[DarrinS]

Is the IPCC account of what will happen science fiction?

They aren't off to a good start.

[DarrinS]

[MannyIsGod]

They aren't off to a good start.

Its amazing how much you dodge a simple question. Fear of the answer I guess.

Its on me though. I know your game by now and I still attempt to engage you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy with the unoriginal ad hominem bads

The truth of a statement is the entire point. At least it is to me. You on the other hand argue for outcomes and don't care about the truth in much anything.

You have been sitting here telling stories about how scientists tell tall tales and not to believe them then he comes in with that hyperbole and you give him a pass? Logical consistency has never been a strong point for you.

[DarrinS]

Its amazing how much you dodge a simple question. Fear of the answer I guess.

Its on me though. I know your game by now and I still attempt to engage you.

I don't think computer modeled predictions about the future are good science if the predictions don't match observations.

So far, their models haven't been good predictors.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think computer modeled predictions about the future are good science if the predictions don't match observations.

So far, their models haven't been good predictors.

Especially when 95% of the computer models agree that the observations must be wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Is the IPCC account of what will happen science fiction?

They took the alarmist view and gave it a range. If their future predictions are correct, I will call them lucky.

They keep using the same flawed foundational studies for CO2 sensitivity. They don't account for indirect solar forcing.

They are a scientific joke!