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

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

You approve of such underhanded actions.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me.

[RandomGuy]

If you say so.

You really should read more than just the abstract...

Besides, it was funded with a federal grant and EU grant. Such things often are agenda related, as politics hold the pursestrings.

NSF grant OCE12-20602

ERC-2013-CoG-617313

How liberal are you with risk?

Some of the abstracts you should be reading have to do with how poorly people factor risk, and plan for the long term.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-bugs/201209/temporal-myopia-making-bad-long-term-decisions

Serious question:

If humans are bad at assessing long term risk simply because that is the way our brains are wired (we tremendously underestimate/discount future risk), shouldn't we tend to look a bit longer and harder at such things?

[RandomGuy]

the government picks who gets the public goodies. that's been a constant.

it isn't a novelty.

That is the nature of human society itself.

[RandomGuy]

Plenty.

What spending is good and bad is matter of opinion. Now if skeptics could get the same level of grants that alarmists do, it would be fair. However, only those proposing ideas that support the bureaucracies ideals get funding.

If skeptics had the academic credentials to get the grants, that would be fine.

Do you want to give money to unqualified hacks?

[Wild Cobra]

How liberal are you with risk?

There is no risk.



Some of the abstracts you should be reading have to do with how poorly people factor risk, and plan for the long term.

Do you also have an imaginary friend?



https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-bugs/201209/temporal-myopia-making-bad-long-term-decisions

Serious question:

If humans are bad at assessing long term risk simply because that is the way our brains are wired (we tremendously underestimate/discount future risk), shouldn't we tend to look a bit longer and harder at such things?
Yes.

You advocate paying money now to stop a possible problem. If there was any possibility that the problem would manifest itself as the alarmists claim, I would agree with you. problem is, there is no future problem with CO2 emissions. There are problems with aerosol pollutants, but not CO2.

You are fighting the wrong fight.

Now you aren't arguing a profit point of $100 now vs. $120 later.

You are arguing we put ourselves in deeper debt, that will double every seven years or so, possibly bankrupting our children's future, for a problem that will never happen!

Climate change is following the low end of the lowest assessment estimates. Alarmists use the extreme end, which history since they started these doomsday scenarios, has never seen temperatures come close to those trends.

You are a total idiot for not seeing the reality of fact.

[Wild Cobra]

If skeptics had the academic credentials to get the grants, that would be fine.

Do you want to give money to unqualified hacks?
LOL...

There are plenty of skeptics that are credentialed, and have had papers published. The problem is, 98+ percent of the mony is only funding research in opposition to what they wish to research.

Follow the money! 98%+ of it is politically and alarmist driven do the politicians can hold more control over the people. Less that 1% of the finding is from the Kochs, Exxon, etc.

[RandomGuy]

There is no risk..

Not really what I asked.

I asked how liberal you are with risk generally.

[RandomGuy]

Do you also have an imaginary friend?

I do not. Not sure how this is relevant, nor helpful.

[RandomGuy]

There is no risk.


Do you also have an imaginary friend?


Yes.

You advocate paying money now to stop a possible problem. If there was any possibility that the problem would manifest itself as the alarmists claim, I would agree with you. problem is, there is no future problem with CO2 emissions. There are problems with aerosol pollutants, but not CO2.

You are fighting the wrong fight.

Now you aren't arguing a profit point of $100 now vs. $120 later.

You are arguing we put ourselves in deeper debt, that will double every seven years or so, possibly bankrupting our children's future, for a problem that will never happen!

Climate change is following the low end of the lowest assessment estimates. Alarmists use the extreme end, which history since they started these doomsday scenarios, has never seen temperatures come close to those trends.

You are a total idiot for not seeing the reality of fact.

I shown much of your thinking on the topic here, and elsewhere, to be logically flawed.


If there was any possibility that the problem would manifest itself as the alarmists claim, I would agree with you. problem is, there is no future problem with CO2 emissions.

Your problem is that you have assigned a "zero" to the risk that a complicated system that no one fully understands will be adversely affected by indefinitely increasing concentrations of a greenhouse gas.

You say this despite people with more education and work in the area directly contradicting you, because you think you know better.

Let's set this part of your flawed thinking aside for a moment.

How do you know how much it will cost to mitigate CO2 emissions?

[RandomGuy]

LOL...

There are plenty of skeptics that are credentialed, and have had papers published. The problem is, 98+ percent of the mony is only funding research in opposition to what they wish to research.

Follow the money! 98%+ of it is politically and alarmist driven do the politicians can hold more control over the people. Less that 1% of the finding is from the Kochs, Exxon, etc.

Its a conspiracy against the idea.

From the OP that started this whole thread.


From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").

3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.

4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.


Please prove 98% of the money is only funding research in opposition to the skeptics.

Your claim, your burden of proof. Show me the vast conspiracy to fake the moon land-... er fake climate science.

[Wild Cobra]

Please prove 98% of the money is only funding research in opposition to the skeptics.

Your claim, your burden of proof. Show me the vast conspiracy to fake the moon land-... er fake climate science.

The numbers have been shown in the past. I'm not going to look it up. I don't care if you believe the facts or not. If you care for the truth, you can find the supporting material. I trust if i took the time to find it, you would just rationalize it away anyway.

Just look at how many papers there are on one side vs. the other. It takes funding for a researcher to make a paper to be published.

[Wild Cobra]

You say this despite people with more education and work in the area directly contradicting you, because you think you know better.

Let's set this part of your flawed thinking aside for a moment.

Very few scientists contradict what I say. It's the spin by the pundits, bloggers, etc. that contradict what I say.



How do you know how much it will cost to mitigate CO2 emissions?
I've seen numbers before. It's too costly for the very small mitigation in temperature it brings. We would be wiser to spend the same money making people plant grass on their roofs. And... that's not necessarily very wise...

Land use is one of the largest impacts of AGW. We have covered urban and suburban areas with concrete, asphalt, and building. We have radically changes the transpiration of moisture. We have radically changed how black body radiation works in such areas.

Aerosols change the optical density of the atmosphere, and melts snow and ice faster when it settles there.

CO2 has a very small forcing change with changing CO2 levels. yes, it changes, but not very significantly.

[Wild Cobra]

I do not. Not sure how this is relevant, nor helpful.
Well, an imaginary friend would explain your mindset and explain why you believe what charlatans say.

[Wild Cobra]

Not really what I asked.

I asked how liberal you are with risk generally.
Risk in general?

It depends on the nature of the risk. I don't do anything that could be as dangerous as you perceive lack of action might be in this area. My perception is different.

Again, spend the money addressing land use changes and aerosols. Stop worrying about CO2.

[RandomGuy]

The numbers have been shown in the past. I'm not going to look it up. I don't care if you believe the facts or not. If you care for the truth, you can find the supporting material. I trust if i took the time to find it, you would just rationalize it away anyway.

Just look at how many papers there are on one side vs. the other. It takes funding for a researcher to make a paper to be published.

A dodge?

You are willing to make the claim, but not back it up. Got it.

If you can't back it up, it isn't a fact.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

The exact same things can be said about any quack theory, like essential oils, dangers of vaccines and so forth. "they just won't publish papers supporting it".

How then, am I to tell the difference between your "CO2 is completely harmless and presents no risk" theory, and that of the people trying to tell me that essential oils will balance my electroconductivity and therefore make me healthier?

[RandomGuy]

Very few scientists contradict what I say. It's the spin by the pundits, bloggers, etc. that contradict what I say.


I've seen numbers before. It's too costly for the very small mitigation in temperature it brings. We would be wiser to spend the same money making people plant grass on their roofs. And... that's not necessarily very wise...

Land use is one of the largest impacts of AGW. We have covered urban and suburban areas with concrete, asphalt, and building. We have radically changes the transpiration of moisture. We have radically changed how black body radiation works in such areas.

Aerosols change the optical density of the atmosphere, and melts snow and ice faster when it settles there.

CO2 has a very small forcing change with changing CO2 levels. yes, it changes, but not very significantly.

"I've seen numbers"

What numbers?

Where?

You want to claim there is harm from limiting CO2 emissions. Prove it.

I am not asking for the moon, just to see the evidence that you use to support your position. If it is good enough, I might even agree with you or evaluate my own position.

Unless you have no evidence to support that?

[RandomGuy]

Well, an imaginary friend would explain your mindset and explain why you believe what charlatans say.

Do charlatans insist on someone believing them without good evidence?

"I've seen the numbers on how good this orgone generator is for your health".

[InRareForm]

Alberta sand fields are ridicolous... didn't realize that area is so extensive.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The numbers have been shown in the past. I'm not going to look it up. I don't care if you believe the facts or not. If you care for the truth, you can find the supporting material. I trust if i took the time to find it, you would just rationalize it away anyway.

Just look at how many papers there are on one side vs. the other. It takes funding for a researcher to make a paper to be published.

They have not been shown. You've been asked for proof for years and you come with this. Your dumb ass is easy to discount at this point.

[Wild Cobra]

They have not been shown. You've been asked for proof for years and you come with this. Your dumb ass is easy to discount at this point.

If you say so.

As if anyone believes your sorry ass...

[RandomGuy]

If you say so.

As if anyone believes your sorry ass...



You advocate paying money now to stop a possible problem. If there was any possibility that the problem would manifest itself as the alarmists claim, I would agree with you. problem is, there is no future problem with CO2 emissions.



How do you know how much it will cost to mitigate CO2 emissions?



I've seen numbers before. It's too costly for the very small mitigation in temperature it brings. We would be wiser to spend the same money making people plant grass on their roofs. And... that's not necessarily very wise...


"I've seen numbers"

What numbers?

Where?

You want to claim there is harm from limiting CO2 emissions. Prove it.

I am not asking for the moon, just to see the evidence that you use to support your position. If it is good enough, I might even agree with you or evaluate my own position.

Unless you have no evidence to support that?


[crickets]


um... yeah.

Mr. "I've seen numbers"


:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you say so.

As if anyone believes your sorry ass...

You know that I don't ask people to take what I say on faith. I always back up what I say with facts and logic independently of myself. Nullius en verba.

[RandomGuy]

https://i.scdn.co/image/cc734b5d73bcadabaa891c3d4e02a58b883c8103

[RandomGuy]

Meanwhile... deep in the Cobra Cave:

http://i0.wp.com/buildrealty.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/real_estate_numbers.jpg?fit=846%2C9999

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/67213495.jpg

[RandomGuy]

.

[RandomGuy]

Alberta sand fields are ridicolous... didn't realize that area is so extensive.

... and they will have to dig up every square inch of it... then re-bury the waste...

Then hope whatever they disturb doesn't get into any water supplies.

Stupid, and energy intensive.

[Winehole23]

Wow...

You approve of such underhanded actions.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me.Still have no idea what you're driving at...

[Wild Cobra]

Still have no idea what you're driving at...

Your ignorance.

[RandomGuy]

Here is an interesting example of feedback effects:

Arctic Sea Ice Is at Near Record Lows, NASA Says
http://news.yahoo.com/arctic-sea-ice-near-record-lows-nasa-says-213324068.html

"As you warm [the water] up, you're changing the contrast with the lower latitudes," Meier said. "And that contrast helps set up things like the jet stream and storm tracks and general weather patterns." As the Arctic warms, weather patterns in lower latitudes will also be affected, he noted.

For instance, cold air usually stays in the Arctic because of polar vortex winds, which make a circular, counterclockwise trip around the North Pole. But as sea-ice extent diminishes, the Arctic warms, high pressures build and the polar vortex weakens, allowing cold air to flow southward and cause fiercely cold winters, according to Weather Underground.

[RandomGuy]

Meanwhile GOP deniers lie about the science again.

GOP Congressman Falsely Claims Study ‘Confirms The Halt In Global Warming’ (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lamar-smith-climate-charge_us_56fbe5ede4b0daf53aee18d8?)


his is not the first time Smith, a Republican from Texas, has made false statements about climate science and the so-called “Karl study,” named after Thomas R. Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information and the Science paper’s lead author.

As we’ve written before, Smith claimed in October 2015 that “climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades” and that NOAA scientists “altered the data” to get the results they presented in the Science study.

Motivated to quell what he considers the NOAA and Obama administration’s “extreme climate change agenda,” Smith used the House science committee’s subpoena power on Oct. 13 to obtain internal communications at NOAA regarding the Karl study. NOAA has provided the committee with some documents and emails, though Smith continues to request more information.

In the battle’s latest episode, NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan testified before the House science committee on March 16 on NOAA’s 2017 budget. Again, Smith brought up the Karl study, claiming it was “prematurely published” and used “controversial new methods,” among other things.

This is the consequence of the anti-science attitude of the GOP.

They are conducting a witch hunt to support their conspiracy theory. Sad thing is that they have subpoena power to do so.

[boutons_deux]

Meanwhile GOP deniers lie about the science again.

GOP Congressman Falsely Claims Study ‘Confirms The Halt In Global Warming’ (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lamar-smith-climate-charge_us_56fbe5ede4b0daf53aee18d8?)


This is the consequence of the anti-science attitude of the GOP.

They are conducting a witch hunt to support their conspiracy theory. Sad thing is that they have subpoena power to do so.

... hilariously dishonetst for a life-long believer in "Christ The Scientist".

Old, white, Christian sect, inherited wealth, in a safe district, with no consequences for being an anti-science, pro-business, anti-consumer asshole.

weirdly shaped, just accidentally 84% white :lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_21st_congressional_district

[boutons_deux]

Climate Change Alert: Life Is About To Get Much Worse (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/climate-change-alert-life-is-about-to-get-much-worse.html)

These results are far more pessimistic than anything the IPCC has put out for three reasons. First, the IPCC operates by consensus, meaning that the most conservative estimates are used. Second, IPCC data and models are in “uncharted territory,” so it is not easy to decide if natural systems are going to retard or reinforce man-made trends.

Finally, the law of averages means that hundreds of co-authors will tend to agree on a business as usual, linear path of change, rather than the new normal, exponential path that Hansen et al. predict.

What makes me so worried about Hansen et al.’s dire prediction is a separate paper that I was reading in advance of my upcoming class.

Martin Weitzman has been heavily involved in CC economics for several decades, and his 2011 paper “Fat-Tailed Uncertainty in the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change (http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/weitzman/files/fattaileduncertaintyeconomics.pdf)” [pdf] explains how we (economists) have underestimated risk on 4-5 dimensions, meaning that our models are inaccurate.

As an example, Weitzman explains how an average 10 degree increase in temperatures — a change that would mean “the earth was ice free, while palm trees and alligators lived near the North Pole” — shows up in models as a 0.1 percent drop in long run GDP growth (from 2.0 to 1.9%).

Weitzman points out that such models are incompatible with results where “half of today’s human population would be living in places where, at least once a year, there would be periods when death from heat stress would ensue after about six hours of exposure… i.e., temperatures that would represent an extreme threat to human civilization and global ecology as we now know it.”

The upshot is that economic cost-benefit models may be radically understating the cost of climate change (in exactly the same way as they failed to predict the financial crisis), which means that most discussions are far too conservative about the need to act quickly to reduce GHG emissions.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/climate-change-alert-life-is-about-to-get-much-worse.html

[DarrinS]

lol, nakedcapitalism

[Wild Cobra]

Meanwhile GOP deniers lie about the science again.

GOP Congressman Falsely Claims Study ‘Confirms The Halt In Global Warming’ (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lamar-smith-climate-charge_us_56fbe5ede4b0daf53aee18d8?)


This is the consequence of the anti-science attitude of the GOP.

They are conducting a witch hunt to support their conspiracy theory. Sad thing is that they have subpoena power to do so.

It's all in the interpretation of the article. The actual temperature records used show less of a warming trend than the error margins. The only value that shows clear warming is the CMIP5.

Here is the study:

Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html)

[Wild Cobra]

The paper also references an earlier paper:

Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html)

This paper shows how far off the modelling is compared to the measurements:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/images/nclimate1972-f1.jpg

The grey bars of what their CMIP5 model says it should be. The red area are the measurements. As you can see, the model for 1993 to 2013 says it should have been a 0.14/decade trend. The 1998 to 2013 trend is only about a 0.03/decade trend.

Now in the paper Lamar refers to, it says this:


A point of agreement we have with Lewandowsky et al. concerns the unfortunate way in which the recent changes have been framed in terms of GMST having “'stalled', 'stopped', 'paused', or entered a 'hiatus'”. Just exactly how such changes should be referred to is open to debate. Possible choices include 'reduced rate of warming', 'decadal fluctuation' or 'temporary slowdown' — all try to convey the primary mechanism involved, which in the recent example is likely to be internal decadal variability.

What ever you wish to call it, calling it a "hiatus" is not out of line, because is is almost a zero trend, and zero is within it's error band. At least it was with HadCRUT3. When they corrected the data again, HadCRUT4 has the error band outside of zero.

I wish they would stop "correcting' the data...

[RandomGuy]

One Fact About Climate Change That’s Worth Repeating

he overwhelming majority of climate scientists — over 97 percent — understand that humans are the primary cause of climate change. This is one of the central facts about human-caused climate change that any climate communicator needs to keep repeating, for several reasons.
First, it’s true, as Politifact detailed on Monday. The scientific literature is clear on this.
Second, the ongoing disinformation campaign funded by the fossil fuel industry (together with false balance by the media) has left the public with the impression that there is considerable scientific debate on a subject where there isn’t.

http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/05125843/Consensus_Gap.jpg

When people are informed about the reality of the overwhelming consensus they naturally are more inclined to want to take action, as social science research has shown.
Let’s briefly explore the various ways to express the consensus, since some are more accurate than others. On March 24, U.S. Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) wrote on his website, “Over 97 percent of the scientific community … believe that humans are contributing to climate change.”
PolitifactMostlyTruePolitifact Virginia rated this “Mostly True” on Monday. Politifact correctly notes that “The studies Beyer and others cite do not reflect the scientific community at large.” So they conclude “Beyer’s statement is credible but needs elaboration. We rate it Mostly True.”

http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/05131158/PolitifactMostlyTrue.jpg

It’s true that when you cite this statistic it is best to use “climate scientists” and not “scientists.” You can also use “peer-reviewed climate research” or “climate experts.”
As an aside, if you or child has a serious pancreas problem, I don’t think you’re going to be terribly interested what your cardiologist thinks, let alone your dentist. Similarly, it’s what climate scientists understand and what they can demonstrate in the peer-reviewed literature that we should care about.

Skeptical Science reviews the literature here. As environmental scientist Dana Nuccitelli explained in 2014, “Three distinct studies using four different methods have independently shown that the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is 97 ± 1%. The result is the same whether we ask the experts’ opinions, look at their public reports and statements, or examine their peer-reviewed science.”

Both Beyer and Politifact get a little sidetracked by looking at the out-of-date statement on NASA’s website: “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”
The NASA statement is based on the 2007 (!) assessment of the scientific literature by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, where, as NASA notes, the IPCC defines “very likely” as meaning “greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.”

The thing is, by 2013, the IPCC’s summary of the science — which are notoriously conservative in part because they require line-by-line approval by every major country in the world — concluded. “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as 95 to 100 percent certainty. That is comparable to the confidence the medical and public health community have that cigarettes are dangerous to your health.
It’s worth noting that the IPCC immediately states:

The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

That is, the best estimate by scientists is that humans are responsible for all of the warming we have suffered since 1950. Again, every major government in the world signed off on this finding — and yet the public, as well as media and opinion makers, are equally uninformed about this fact.
And so the second half of Beyer’s statement — the 97 percent “believe that humans are contributing to climate change” — is just way too weak, a point Politifact entirely glosses over. Indeed, it would be difficult to find any legitimate scientist — let alone one that had published on some aspect of climate change — who believed humans are not “contributing” to climate change.

The scientific literature — and the assessment of the literature unanimously embraced by the world’s governments — make clear that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists — over 97 percent — understand that humans are the primary cause of climate change.
If you want to be more specific, you can say “… understand that humans are the primary cause of global warming since 1950.” To keep it short but still accurate, you could say “over 97 percent of climate scientists understand that humans are causing climate change.”
I think “understand” is much better than “believe” since we are talking about a scientific fact here. Another good phrase is “have concluded.” The world’s largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, put it this way in their blunt, must-read “What We Know” report: “Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now. Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening.”

Finally, how confident are climate scientists of this conclusion?

“The science linking human activities to climate change is analogous to the science linking smoking to lung and cardiovascular diseases,” explains the AAAS. “Physicians, cardiovascular scientists, public health experts and others all agree smoking causes cancer. And this consensus among the health community has convinced most Americans that the health risks from smoking are real. A similar consensus now exists among climate scientists, a consensus that maintains climate change is happening, and human activity is the cause.”

We are as certain that humans are responsible for recent climate change as we are that cigarettes are dangerous to your health.

[DarrinS]

How's this for you, RG?

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/clip_image0022.png



It's not really what the skeptic argument is about.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How's this for you, RG?

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/clip_image0022.png



It's not really what the skeptic argument is about.

And of course as shill for oilco funded think tanks like Heartland you get to tell us what the 'skeptics' argument is.

Here is the journal Nature on your source


Does the following sound familiar? “They distort science, ignore reality and will not tolerate opinions or facts that conflict with their beliefs.” “Cynical manipulators or simple pawns, their purpose is only to keep funds flowing to a corrupt few who profit from the status quo.” Those are the kinds of words scientists use, often correctly, to describe the sceptics, many of whom would have the financial interests of today continue their dominance tomorrow. Yet this is also how sceptics characterize climate scientists, whose careers and reputations they claim are intertwined with protecting the science of anthropogenic global warming.

To address this conflict might be seen as lending respectability to the spurious claims made by sceptics against respected scientists and robust science. So, let's be clear: Nature is not endorsing the Heartland Institute as a serious voice on climate science. Instead, the News Feature is intended to offer researchers outside climate science a window into the motives and tactics of those who have set themselves up as such a voice. (Those inside climate science, of course, are all too aware of these already.)

Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations. A 2009 report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which the institute supports, is well sourced and based on scientific papers. Yet it makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading, and do not highlight the uncertainties. Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. As the News Feature points out, although the sceptics feel that they have already won the political battle in the United States, their attacks on science will continue.

Scientists can only carry on with their work, addressing legitimate questions as they arise and challenging misinformation. Many climate scientists have already tried to engage with their critics, as they did at the Heartland event. The difference, of course, is motive. Scientists work to fill the gaps in human knowledge and to build a theory that can explain observations of the world. Climate sceptics revel in such gaps, sometimes long after they have been filled.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/475423b.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110728

They go on:


After attending the University of Chicago, he co-founded the Heartland Institute in 1984 at the age of 26. Heartland's annual report says that corporations provided 34% of its US$6.1-million budget in 2010, with the rest coming from individuals and conservative foundations — some of which have industry ties of their own.

In the past, Heartland has often been criticized for collecting money from tobacco and energy companies, but Bast says Heartland is advocating its own ideology, which generally opposes regulation. He is among the last public defenders of smoking and has argued that concerns about second-hand smoke are as bogus as those surrounding greenhouse gases.

Bast's assault on climate research takes two forms: challenging the credibility of the science, and disputing the claim that there is a scientific consensus on climate change. He does not necessarily deny that humans are having an influence on the climate, but he does question the forecasts of catastrophic impacts and the rationale for curbing carbon emissions.

Heartland plans to spend $1.8 million on its climate programme this year. Of that, $413,000 will go to supporting the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a small group of sceptics who have set themselves up as a counterweight to the IPCC. Made up of Bast and a few dozen colleagues, the NIPCC mines the scientific literature for nuggets of contrary evidence and doubt — often the kind of uncertainties that scientists readily acknowledge in their publications. The NIPCC also ignores mountains of evidence about the adverse effects of global warming and instead strings together a confident story that makes rising carbon dioxide concentrations seem entirely beneficial.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110727/full/475440a.html

[spurraider21]

appeal to authority














somebody will get triggered

[Wild Cobra]

How's this for you, RG?

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/clip_image0022.png



It's not really what the skeptic argument is about.

No kidding.

RG, the problem is that yes. 97% agree man kind causes a significant amount of warming, but you used that with "over 97 percent — understand that humans are the primary cause of climate change." That is a lie. The 97% consensus is "significant," not "primary."

Please stop lying.

[boutons_deux]

Greenland ice sheet is melting freakishly early

Greenland's massive ice sheet this week started melting freakishly early thanks to a weather system that brought unseasonably warm temperatures and rain, scientists say.

While this record early melt is mostly from natural weather on top of overall global warming, scientists say they are concerned about what it means when the melt season kicks in this summer. This however could be temporary.

On Monday and Tuesday, about 12 percent of the ice sheet (http://phys.org/tags/ice+sheet/) surface area—656,000 square miles or 1.7 million square kilometers—showed signs of melting (http://phys.org/tags/melting/) ice, according to Peter Langen, a climate scientist at the Danish Meteorological Institute. It smashed record for early melting by more than three weeks.

That's normal for late May not mid-April, Langen said.

Normally, no ice should be melting in Greenland at this time of year. Before now, the earliest Greenland had more than 10 percent surface area melting was on May 5, back in 1990. Even in 2012, when 97 percent of Greenland experienced melt, it didn't have such an early and extensive melt.

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-scientists-greenland-ice-sheet-freakishly.html

[Wild Cobra]

Greenland ice sheet is melting freakishly early

Greenland's massive ice sheet this week started melting freakishly early thanks to a weather system that brought unseasonably warm temperatures and rain, scientists say.

While this record early melt is mostly from natural weather on top of overall global warming, scientists say they are concerned about what it means when the melt season kicks in this summer. This however could be temporary.

On Monday and Tuesday, about 12 percent of the ice sheet (http://phys.org/tags/ice+sheet/) surface area—656,000 square miles or 1.7 million square kilometers—showed signs of melting (http://phys.org/tags/melting/) ice, according to Peter Langen, a climate scientist at the Danish Meteorological Institute. It smashed record for early melting by more than three weeks.

That's normal for late May not mid-April, Langen said.

Normally, no ice should be melting in Greenland at this time of year. Before now, the earliest Greenland had more than 10 percent surface area melting was on May 5, back in 1990. Even in 2012, when 97 percent of Greenland experienced melt, it didn't have such an early and extensive melt.

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-scientists-greenland-ice-sheet-freakishly.html

Will, you please keep Chicken Little out of science?

[boutons_deux]

50 Years Ago Big Oil Bragged About Being Able To Melt Glaciers, While They Knew About Climate Change


“From 1957 onward, there is no doubt that Humble Oil, which is now Exxon, was clearly on notice” about rising CO2 in the atmosphere and the prospect that it was likely to cause global warming, he said.


The first thing that quote made me think of is a story I wrote years ago (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/11/19/204985/oil-ad-lifemelt-glaciers/) about a ridiculously ironic ad that Humble oil published in a 1962 edition of Life Magazine found on Google Books (https://books.google.com/books?id=k00EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA86-IA3&dq=glacier%20humble&pg=PA86-IA2#v=onepage&q=glacier%20humble&f=false) (for larger version, click here (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/19195428/humble-oil.jpg)). The headline:

“EACH DAY HUMBLE SUPPLIES ENOUGH ENERGY TO MELT 7 MILLION TONS OF GLACIER!”:


“This giant glacier has remained unmelted for centuries,” the ad begins without a trace of irony. “Yet, the petroleum energy Humble supplies — if converted into heat — could melt it at the rate of 80 tons each second! To meet the nation’s growing needs for energy, Humble has supplied science to nature’s resources to become America’s Leading Energy Company….”

At the time, I noted the scientific reality that “More than 2 trillion tons (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28249708#.Vw-9yTYrJko) of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica, and Alaska have melted since 2003, according to new NASA satellite data that show the latest signs of what scientists say is global warming.”

But what we now know is that by 1962, the phrase “Humble has supplied science to nature’s resources” also included supplying some of the early science on global warming and its impacts.

CIEL documents that back in 1946, the leading oil companies created a “Smoke and Fumes Committee” to back scientific research into air pollution issues and use their findings to shape the public debate about the environment.

CIEL explains, “The express goal of their collaboration was to use science and public skepticism to prevent environmental regulations they deemed hasty, costly, and unnecessary.” The Committee, which perhaps should have been named “Smoke and Mirrors,” was later folded into the American Petroleum Institute (API).

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/04/14/3769380/exxon-ad-melt-glaciers/

You AGW deniers are duped, are silly fools.

[Wild Cobra]

And of course as shill for oilco funded think tanks like Heartland you get to tell us what the 'skeptics' argument is.

Here is the journal Nature on your source



http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/475423b.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110728

They go on:



http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110727/full/475440a.html
So...

You pick two editorials rather than peer reviewed papers.

Bravo!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So...

You pick two editorials rather than peer reviewed papers.

Bravo!

This is stupid even for you. You have nothing to contradict.

[Wild Cobra]

This is stupid even for you. You have nothing to contradict.

Why bother countering opinion? It's not like it was peer reviewed.

[boutons_deux]

"Why bother countering opinion?"

... :lol sez the opinionated, cretinous AGW denier.

[Wild Cobra]

"Why bother countering opinion?"

... :lol sez the opinionated, cretinous AGW denier.



I just like razzing nincompoops.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why bother countering opinion? It's not like it was peer reviewed.

You dissemble into nonsense here rather than address facts. The founding of Heartland, its management, work, etc is not a question of science nor peer review nor is it opinion. It's not quite the smoking gun William Soon being paid over $1m by Exxon and misrepresenting his peer reviewed work is but it's telling the same story.

[Wild Cobra]

This is spot on:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

[Wild Cobra]

You dissemble into nonsense here rather than address facts. The founding of Heartland, its management, work, etc is not a question of science nor peer review nor is it opinion. It's not quite the smoking gun William Soon being paid over $1m by Exxon and misrepresenting his peer reviewed work is but it's telling the same story.

Logical fallacy: Poisoning the well.

Do you have anything pertinent?

Please stop talking out your ass. Please address reality.

[DarrinS]

This is spot on:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

:tu

[boutons_deux]

Richard Lindzen is a whore paid by BigCorp, BigCarbon, etc.

IPCCs report is vastly more credible than this whore.

[DarrinS]

Richard Lindzen is a whore paid by BigCorp, BigCarbon, etc.

IPCCs report is vastly more credible than this whore.

He worked on 1995 and 2001 IPCC reports. :lol.

Dumbass

[Wild Cobra]

Strawman alert... Poisoning the well:


Richard Lindzen is a whore paid by BigCorp, BigCarbon, etc.

IPCCs report is vastly more credible than this whore.

[Wild Cobra]

He worked on 1995 and 2001 IPCC reports. :lol.

Dumbass

has anyone ever thought Boutons was anything but a dumbass?

[boutons_deux]

He worked on 1995 and 2001 IPCC reports. :lol.

Dumbass

15 years ago?? :lol

He's an AGW denying whore, dumbass

Check his recent affiliations. Financings

[RandomGuy]

No kidding.

RG, the problem is that yes. 97% agree man kind causes a significant amount of warming, but you used that with "over 97 percent — understand that humans are the primary cause of climate change." That is a lie. The 97% consensus is "significant," not "primary."

Please stop lying.

Explain the difference between "significant" and "primary", and then explain why the usage constitutes lying.

Can you make any argument without being a sophist?

9UCdFbyL8y0

[RandomGuy]

Strawman alert... Poisoning the well:

Meh. You have little room, and likely little accuracy, when talking about logical fallacies, with as many as you seem to apply to this topic, i.e. "the scientists are all in on a giant conspiracy". It's like you have to drink another cup of stupid before posting sometimes.

Here is a bit that pokes some holes in your "its all due to soot" hypothesis:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/13/greenland_is_melting_much_faster_than_scientists_e xpected.html

Weather patterns, of the kind that represent feedback loops, are causing a lot more warming in cold places.

You know feedback loops? The kinds of things that we have been trying to drill into your thick skull might be dangerous, that is a prime example.

me: "let's not monkey with the climate much, because things might happen that we don't know about yet"
You: "CO2 is doesn't have enough of an effect to worry about"

I have been telling you we should quit poking the bear, and fucktards like yourself have been copying/pasting the "no harm" bullshit propaganda for so long... the chickens are coming home to roost.

A conservative, risk-averse approach to CO2 emissions would have limited the damage.

Your super-liberal polyannish approach is fucking us royally.

[RandomGuy]

How's this for you, RG?

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/clip_image0022.png



It's not really what the skeptic argument is about.

Do tell.

LOL "heartland".

What is the appropriate level of skepticism one should apply to their statements?

A good critical thinker would take that "some" and quantify it.

Define what "skeptics" would generally agree as the meaning of "some".

[Wild Cobra]

Explain the difference between "significant" and "primary", and then explain why the usage constitutes lying.

Can you make any argument without being a sophist?

9UCdFbyL8y0

Here is a pretty good use of significant, in the manner the poll was conducted in:



Statistical significance is a result that is not likely to occur randomly, but rather is likely to be attributable to a specific cause. Statistical significance can be strong or weak, and is important to research in many math- and science-related fields, including medicine, sociology, psychology and biology. Statistical significance does not always indicate practical significance. In addition, it can be misinterpreted when researchers do not use language carefully in reporting their results.

Read more: Statistical Significance Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/statistical-significance.asp#ixzz47nZfAv9j
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/statistical-significance.asp

[RandomGuy]

Here is a pretty good use of significant, in the manner the poll was conducted in:


http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/statistical-significance.asp

That does not explain the difference, nor does it explain why usage of the word might constitute lying.

Not that I expect you to man up and try to do either. I gave up expecting you to be intellectually honest and unlazy a long time ago.

[Wild Cobra]

As a matter of good scientific practice, a significance level is chosen before data collection and is often set to 0.05 (5%). Other significance levels (e.g., 0.01) may be used, depending on the field of study.


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

[Wild Cobra]

For example, suppose we give 1,000 people an IQ test, and we ask if there is a significant difference between male and female scores. The mean score for males is 98 and the mean score for females is 100. We use an independent groups t-test and find that the difference is significant at the .001 level. The big question is, "So what?". The difference between 98 and 100 on an IQ test is a very small difference...so small, in fact, that it's not even important.

Then why did the t-statistic come out significant? Because there was a large sample size. When you have a large sample size, very small differences will be detected as significant. This means that you are very sure that the difference is real (i.e., it didn't happen by fluke). It doesn't mean that the difference is large or important. If we had only given the IQ test to 25 people instead of 1,000, the two-point difference between males and females would not have been significant.


http://www.statpac.com/surveys/statistical-significance.htm




Simple Definition of significant

: large enough to be noticed or have an effect



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/significant

How many times must I prove "significant" does not automatically mean "most".

[Wild Cobra]

That does not explain the difference, nor does it explain why usage of the word might constitute lying.

Not that I expect you to man up and try to do either. I gave up expecting you to be intellectually honest and unlazy a long time ago.

Just how fucking daft are you?

The poll used asking scientists used the word "significant." In the 200+ page full published results of the survey, I have pointed out quotes where the scientists taking the polls said these same types of things. Then the Pundits, like NASA Climate, and other places, take the liberty to say this poll agrees that 97% say "most."

The question was: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

The pundits then say scientists say agree it is "most."

Seriously, how just how daft are you to deny such simple truths?

[Wild Cobra]

Sample comments from scientists being polled:

“climatic changes are driven by numerous factors. Human activity has a role, but your use of 'significant' needs to be defined more specifically“

“First of all, 'Significant' is undefined, and to achieve the statistical parameters of sigificance is much of what the debates are about. More importantly, there have been many substantial global temperature changes in times well before humans that we cannot account for. The bigger question is, 'How much [warming] does human activity add?'”

I assume you mean 'substantial' rather than statistically 'significant.' I'm not sure how I would answer this if you meant statistically significant. Warmer global temperatures occurred during the hypsothermal when human populations and their influence on the environmental per capital were likely smaller Consequently, I am uncertain about how much of the change in the last 100-200 years are a result of human activity. It is possible that we have provided 5-10% of the change, but I am not sure if that is what you would define as 'substantial.'

“I believe human activity is a contributing factor, it's the term 'significant' I'm unsure about.”

“I do not know what you mean my significant. I believe humans are affecting the climate, I am not sure how and to what level.”

“I don' know how to distinguish the effect of human activity from other controls, and I don't know how you define 'significant'.”

“I think human activity is a significant component, but I do not know if it is 10%, 25%, 50% or more.“

“I have no doubt that it is a factor, and part of my answer relates to the vagueness of the word 'significantly'. Certainly natural variability is significant. I don't think we are yet able to ease out the fraction of warming that is anthropogenic from the fraction that is natural. If the anthropogenic factor is not yet 'significant', however one chooses to define that word, I have little doubt that we are moving toward a time when it will become significant.“

“I think it is a factor, but the question is HOW significant a factor? I find much disagreement among knowledgeable people on this question and it is obvious that anthropocentric blame for warming has become a mantra. I know that climate is a very complex, multivariate proposition, so am cautious about assessing the magnitude of 'our' contribution. That said, however, I have long argued that pumping various pollutants into the atmosphere is a bad thing and we should clean up our 'act' regardless of how much we contribute to warming; we know we contribute to general polluting of the atmosphere with various gases and particulates.”

“It depends on your definition of 'significant. Is human activity a factor? Yes.”

“Personally I have no doubt that human activity is a contributing factor to increased average MGT, but I cannot evaluate unquantified, qualitative statements like 'major,' 'important,' or 'significant' and disapprove of their use in scientific discussions/conclusions.”

“Significant is a loaded term. Human activity has contributed to the increase in temperature, but how much has this activity impacted the global mean temperature? Additionally, how can one differentiate between human induced warming and the natural rise in temperature following the last glacial maximum? Ultimately, global mean temperatures have risen, with human activity being a likely contributor, but how much of the recorded increase is a direct result of anthropogenic CO2 is unknown.”

“'Significant' is a relative term. To me, significant means that most of the changing temperature would be attributable to human activity. I'm not sure that can be demonstrated. 'Significant' is a word that is open to multiple interpretations.”

“Significant is the key word. it has made a difference, but I am not sure if it is a significant difference or just adding to a natural change in temperatures.”

“That the humans are a contributing factor is clear, as to 'significant' is debatable. I base that decision on the variable quality of our dataset and the relatively limited time coverage (e.g. relatively good data in the last 50 years, marginal or 'corrected' prior).“

“The atmosphere is a complex system and I am not sure we are accounting for all of the necessary feedbacks that would kick in from human activity. I believe human activity is likely doing something, but I hesitate to say it is 'significant'.”

“The key word here is 'Significant'. It seems to be well established that human activity has contributed to CO2 increase (and by implication global warming). What seems to be less well known is the effect of solar variability on the overall heat input to the earth, the CO2 uptake potential of the oceans and what a 'Normal' climate change perturbation is. (The younger Dryas for example) Without a doubt, if we keep moving in the direction we have been, we very well may prove out that we are a significant factor in global mean temperature. To say it is a certainty now implies a level of confidence in our understanding of earth and atmospheric processes that I am not sure we truly have. I would clarify, however, that I am answering this from a purely scientific standpoint. i.e. how confident am I in the state of our understanding as to the significance of the human input. From a sociological standpoint, I think we should all we can to try and reduce our footprint from pollution and population st”

“The key word is significant. There have been cyclic warm and cold periods since man has been on earth. The last 10 years the mean temperature has been rather flat, and we have a downward spike this winter. I'm not sure of all the factors going on. I mainly focus on short and medium range forecasting. I am eager to learn more about climate change.”

“The term significant is somewhat ambiguous particularly in comparison to climate changes ithroughout geologic history.“

“The use of the word significant makes me unsure. I know that climate fluctuations are normal, and I'm not convinced that humans are making current temperature changes significantly different.”

“The way that you phrased the question implies that human activity has to be a significant contributor. I think that the data indicates we are contributors but I'm not sure that we understand the background cycles/changes well enough to know how small or how huge our impacts are.“

“There are many natural causes of global climate change, and while humans may impact MEASURED temperatures through actions such as burning fossil fuels and urbanization, it is not clear that these play a SIGNIFICANT role in the climate change that we currently see.”

“Does 'significant' mean perceptible or outside the 'normal range' of observations. If you choose the latter, then compared to natural processes, peturbations to natural systems that can be attributed to mankind are probably too short term to be geologically significant.”

“What defines significant? If 1-2 degrees F is considered significant then I would agree that human input is significant“

“what do you mean by significant? Statistically? A player in the total rise? sure we are! How much? I am not sure.“

“What is meant by significant? A major contribution, yes, but what is human activity compared with increased solar activity. So far, it is lost in the statistical models.“

“Your use of the word 'significant'. It seems clear that human activity has caused an increase in CO2 levels. That, in theory, might have caused an increase in global temperature. However, did it? If so, was it the only cause? If it was a cause, was it a significant cause?”

“Tried, but could not use the provided selection of answers to the 2nd question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperature?" The answer is "probably" or "Very Probable". That's neither "yes", "no", nor "I'm not sure". I am sure that human impact is very probable. Anyone who is "sure" of either "yes" or "no" is either ignorant or fibbing. "I'm not sure" is equivalent if I know nothing whatsoever or if I know a lot.”

Once again, I find this imprecise and impossible to answer. For example, what level of significance do you mean? If something is unstable or metastable, it may take only a small push (and thus a small contribution) to push the process one direction or another. It this process tips, the contributing factor may seem to be relatively small but may have a large resulting impact. I found it impossible to complete your questionnaire due to these problems.

I responded to your survey. However without defining what is meant by significant, you may get a wide range of responses that agree. I personally believe that humans are influencing climate, that they augment change, and that climate will continue to change irregardless of what humans do. I study glaciers. Earth has had hundreds of continental scale glacier events during its history. Glaciers will continue to experience cycles where they expand and then contract, and then expand again, as they have done many times before, prior to humans evolving. They will also continue to do so long after our species is extinct.

Q2 then asks if I think that humans are "a significant" contributor to warming temperatures, but I can only answer yes or no. I happen to think that we are one among many contributing factors, so I answered yes, but I couldn't explain this. The third question then asks me why I think humans are a major contributor, but is phrased in such a way that it's implicit that I'm now listing them as THE significant factor. They are not the primary cause, but I had to stop the survey at this point because it was forcing me to answer queries about why I think they are. As constructed, your responders will be unable to indicate that there are multiple causes to climate change, that climate change is the norm on Earth and has been going on throughout geologic time, and that there is strong evidence to indicate that climate change not only occurred before humans existed, but also was probably more extreme than the event we are living in today.

“I have answered some questions from your survey and some I have not answered because they are vague.”

Your first question is ill-posed in that it does not define the periods for temperature that need to be compared. Pre-1800's leaves 4 billion years to consider. I answered anyway.

Just filled out your survey and I have a suggestion. You need a question that asks to what degree we think human activity has influenced climate. I am pretty sure our activities have had a significant effect but not convinced that all of the warming we see is directly attributable to anthropogenic activity. To me that is a somewhat different answer than what you will get by just looking at my answers to your questions.



I have a link someplace to the 200 + pages of the full text submitted by Doran and Zimmerman, and have posted it several times in the past, and pounted specifics out before.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

the other studies and polls have similar problems where the pundits lie about the results.

The scientists doing these aren't lying. The pundits just misword what they say.

I challenge you to take any of these studies, find and link the full text, and quote me what counts.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Anyone know what WC's point is? He really arguing the semantics of significant?

[RandomGuy]

Just how fucking daft are you?

The poll used asking scientists used the word "significant." In the 200+ page full published results of the survey, I have pointed out quotes where the scientists taking the polls said these same types of things. Then the Pundits, like NASA Climate, and other places, take the liberty to say this poll agrees that 97% say "most."

The question was: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

The pundits then say scientists say agree it is "most."

Seriously, how just how daft are you to deny such simple truths?

A mere repeat of your earlier claim.

So, you aren't going to explain the difference, and why it is lying. Sokay. I expect such failures of critical thinking from you, and am rarely disappointed.

*why* seems to be your intellectual Achilles heel.

[RandomGuy]

Anyone know what WC's point is? He really arguing the semantics of significant?

That is his MO.

He is a very literal sort for whom the semantics *are* the point. My first encounter with him, over this very subject, had him trying to hang his hat that some reporter was lying or stupid for putting an "s" at the end of "oxide", or something similar.

[RandomGuy]

I have a link someplace to the 200 + pages of the full text submitted by Doran and Zimmerman, and have posted it several times in the past, and pounted specifics out before.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

the other studies and polls have similar problems where the pundits lie about the results.

The scientists doing these aren't lying. The pundits just misword what they say.

I challenge you to take any of these studies, find and link the full text, and quote me what counts.

... and if I haven't seen it, then I will ask for it just once. Geez, your whining puts my 9 year old to shame.

Good to see the comments. That is what one might expect from actual scientists. Thanks.

Once again, though, YOU have yet to really say why the difference is important, and "lying".

"the pundits". Who and what exactly do you mean.

Is it possible for a survey to be not optimally worded, but still yield useful data?

[Wild Cobra]

... and if I haven't seen it, then I will ask for it just once. Geez, your whining puts my 9 year old to shame.

So part of your real denial is not reading my past posts on the issue when i posted the full study, and directly quoted from it, even giving page numbers.

Stop bothering me if you are going to ignore facts.

Your denial of facts is noted.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So part of your real denial is not reading my past posts on the issue when i posted the full study, and directly quoted from it, even giving page numbers.

Stop bothering me if you are going to ignore facts.

Your denial of facts is noted.

How can he ignore something when you have not presented it? Your word is not sufficient.

[spurraider21]

A mere repeat of your earlier claim.

So, you aren't going to explain the difference, and why it is lying. Sokay. I expect such failures of critical thinking from you, and am rarely disappointed.

*why* seems to be your intellectual Achilles heel.
i mean... there can only be one "primary" cause but there can be several significant causes

you just brush it off as "lol semantics" when its convenient but i recall an earlier discussion where you were getting all rustled over the dictionary definition of activist

[boutons_deux]

AGW deniers, nothing but objects of late-night ridicule

Right-wing dipsh*ts attack Jimmy Kimmel for Sarah Palin — and man, they are dumb

Monday night, Jimmy Kimmel absolutely destroyed of Sarah Palin’s rambling stupidity (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/jimmy-kimmel-destroys-sarah-palins-climate-babbling-scientists-arent-just-fcking-with-you/) on climate science. Kimmel gathered a group of scientists who stood in front of the camera and tried to explain to the world that their business is not about generating a massive hoax.But, the right-wing internet trolls predictably and collectively lost their minds. So, Kimmel does what he does best, and read them aloud for the world to shame them in disgust. “It might seem I only picked comments from people whose grammar is bad, but the truth is, the vast majority of the comments came from people whose grammar is bad, so…” Kimmel prefaced before showing the tweets. This vitriol consisted of things like:

Jim Jacob: “Mr Kimble if you are so smart many you should get a real job like climate scientists I give up you!.”

Erik Simmy: Sarah Palin might not be a scientist what she is saying doesn’t need to be science to be understood the very scientists who claim to be telling the truth about global warming they know they’re lying to teeth to help the government control our lives in the name of global warming.

Thomas Slavin (Whose avatar is a Ted Cruz logo): “Hey Jackass Scientists also thought the world was flat Do us all a big favor reduce man made gases and shut your yap!!!”

From YouTube someone wrote in the comments “This character is as dopey as that moronic looking beard apparently! Although I think the beard IS smarter than he is.”

Another YouTuber: “Global warming? Ha, give me a break. Look at the north and south poles. Seems pretty cold to me.”

There are more you’ve got to see in the video. They’re hilarious:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/right-wing-dipshts-attack-jimmy-kimmel-for-sarah-palin-and-man-they-are-dumb/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[DarrinS]

^lol, an article about YouTube comments

[Winehole23]

not so different from posting and commenting about Twitter threads, but whatever

[boutons_deux]

^lol, an article about YouTube comments

^lol, Darrin

You accept lies and propaganda from your "official" bullshitters, so why not accept verbatim comments from you fellow AGW-denying assholes?

[RandomGuy]

So part of your real denial is not reading my past posts on the issue when i posted the full study, and directly quoted from it, even giving page numbers.

Stop bothering me if you are going to ignore facts.

Your denial of facts is noted.

What exactly have I "denied"? Sorry if I don't hang on your every post, and (gasp) occasionally take a break from posting here. I read it this time, it was relevant and fairly decent commentary. Still doesn't say what you hope it does though. Your insistence that it does, without answering my question about meaningfulness and usefulness is telling.

Remember the thread is only tangentially about climate change.

The real point is that people like you fail miserably in the critical thinking department. Your spluttering in lieu of organized thought simply proves out the OP, yet again.

By all means, keep avoiding good critical thinking questions.

So, let's try again. Is it possible for even a flawed poll to produce meaningful or useful results? If not, why not, if so, why?

[Wild Cobra]

What exactly have I "denied"?


If I remember correctly, you blew it off. Wouldn't even look at my link, because the only internet copy of the complete study available was hosted by a "denier" site.

Even though it was the actual original work.

Not by fault you and others deny works not hosted by sites blessed by your dogma.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wild Republican likes peer reviewed pieces as long as they are endorsed by AGW denier sites. The rest of course is to be discounted and lots of handwaving to ensue.

All this whining and he still hasn't presented what he claims.

[Wild Cobra]

Wild Republican likes peer reviewed pieces as long as they are endorsed by AGW denier sites. The rest of course is to be discounted and lots of handwaving to ensue.

All this whining and he still hasn't presented what he claims.

Who here is a wild republic?

[RandomGuy]

If I remember correctly, you blew it off. Wouldn't even look at my link, because the only internet copy of the complete study available was hosted by a "denier" site.

Even though it was the actual original work.

Not by fault you and others deny works not hosted by sites blessed by your dogma.

So, you aren't really going to answer my question.

[RandomGuy]

Since I can't get an honest answer to my fair question:

Yes, even a flawed poll can tell us more than we knew before, and can yield useful data.

But, better than a poll, is what scientists themselves say, without a filter of a poll. Let's see what a group of scientists say in their own words.


Global warming is already having significant and harmful effects on our communities, our health, and our climate. Sea level rise is accelerating. The number of large wildfires is growing. Dangerous heat waves are becoming more common. Extreme storm events are increasing in many areas. More severe droughts are occurring in others.

We must take immediate action to address global warming or these consequences will continue to intensify, grow ever more costly, and increasingly affect the entire planet—including you, your community, and your family.

The good news is that we have the practical solutions at hand to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions, slow the pace of global warming, and pass on a healthier, safer world to future generations.

With your help, we can accomplish it.

Together, we can tackle global warming.

Global warming is happening now. The planet's temperature is rising. The trend is clear and unmistakable.

Every one of the past 38 years has been warmer than the 20th century average. The 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998. The hottest year ever recorded for the contiguous United States occurred in 2012.

Globally, the average surface temperature has increased more than one degree Fahrenheit since the late 1800s. Most of that increase has occurred over just the past three decades.



We are the cause. We are overloading our atmosphere with carbon dioxide, which traps heat and steadily drives up the planet’s temperature. Where does all this carbon come from? The fossil fuels we burn for energy—coal, natural gas, and oil—plus the loss of forests due to deforestation, especially in the tropics.

The scientific evidence is clear. Within the scientific community, there is no debate. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that human activity is the primary cause.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming

Seems pretty unambiguous.

[boutons_deux]

Sea Level Rise Swallows 5 Whole Pacific Islands

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-rise-swallows-5-whole-pacific-islands/

Map Shows Where Sea Level Rise Will Drown American Cities

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/map-shows-sea-level-rise-will-drown-american-cities/

[SnakeBoy]

Since I can't get an honest answer to my fair question:

Yes, even a flawed poll can tell us more than we knew before, and can yield useful data.

But, better than a poll, is what scientists themselves say, without a filter of a poll. Let's see what a group of scientists say in their own words.



http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming

Seems pretty unambiguous.

lol that list of "experts".

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol that list of "experts".

Pick any of the Science Academies across the world and it is the same thing. You know I've rubbed your face in the NAS's stance. Willful ignorance is fun I guess.

[Wild Cobra]

So, you aren't really going to answer my question.

You deny anything brought up that doesn't agree with your faith.

Period.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You deny anything brought up that doesn't agree with your faith.

Period.

Your intellectual cowardice is showing. Let's review some of the more harebrained idiocies you've claimed.

The ocean is like a big soda.
Noah's Flood could be explained by a 'solar burp.'
Trying to use the dynamics of CO2 feedback on solar irradiance of the ocean.
Sampling at the period length to make a straight line and thinking you had discovered something.
Trying to explain ocean behavior by a water solubility chart.
Making numerous graphs without any sense of normalization.
Trying to make statistical claims between different datasets without normalizing the data.
Trying to merge linear and nonlinear systems.
Not understanding the function of capacitors and flywheels despite claiming to repair them as a profession.


And that is just your stupidity regarding climate science that I can come up with off the top of my head. You've been equally peabrained on countless other topics. You have no leg to stand on and your word is absolutely worthless.

If you cannot name what you claim then there is no reason whatsoever to buy your horseshit.

[boutons_deux]

Scientists see corals dissolving much faster than they projected.

IPCC, AGW projections are conservative, with shit happening much faster than their conservative predictions.

How much of your taxes are your AGW deniers willing to pay to save or liquidate Miami, New Orleans, other US coastal cities?

[Wild Cobra]

Your intellectual cowardice is showing.

I guess from the perspective of a fool like yourself, you have to rationalize.



Let's review some of the more harebrained idiocies you've claimed.

The ocean is like a big soda.

Liar. I never said that.



Noah's Flood could be explained by a 'solar burp.'

Misinterpreting my words again.

I only posed possibilities.

But then, everyone here knows the truth about the pitiful fuzzy troll.


Trying to use the dynamics of CO2 feedback on solar irradiance of the ocean.

You are too stupid to understand what I was doing. that was not feedback, but indirect forcing from accumulated energy that takes time to move.

If your stupidity wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny.



Sampling at the period length to make a straight line and thinking you had discovered something.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Must be your lack of understanding that words have meaning.



Trying to explain ocean behavior by a water solubility chart.

You mean showing the facts of ove variable... Idiot, that's not the "ocean" behavior.

Your stupidity is non-stop. Man, I pity you.



Making numerous graphs without any sense of normalization.

More generalities that are meaningless without context...



Trying to make statistical claims between different datasets without normalizing the data.

Your perception of normalization is flawed.



Trying to merge linear and nonlinear systems.

Not that I recall... But then again, you are too stupid to elaborate a cogent point.



Not understanding the function of capacitors and flywheels despite claiming to repair them as a profession.

Not my fault that you are too stupid to understand what someone says.



And that is just your stupidity regarding climate science that I can come up with off the top of my head. You've been equally peabrained on countless other topics. You have no leg to stand on and your word is absolutely worthless.

If you cannot name what you claim then there is no reason whatsoever to buy your horseshit.

Why should I try to explain to a moron like you? No matter how many times I have corrected you, you remember it all wrong.

You are pathetic!
[QUOTE=FuzzyLumpkins;8576218]

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I guess from the perspective of a fool like yourself, you have to rationalize.


Liar. I never said that.


Misinterpreting my words again.

I only posed possibilities.

But then, everyone here knows the truth about the pitiful fuzzy troll.


You are too stupid to understand what I was doing. that was not feedback, but indirect forcing from accumulated energy that takes time to move.

If your stupidity wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny.


I'm not sure what you are referring to. Must be your lack of understanding that words have meaning.


You mean showing the facts of ove variable... Idiot, that's not the "ocean" behavior.

Your stupidity is non-stop. Man, I pity you.


More generalities that are meaningless without context...


Your perception of normalization is flawed.


Not that I recall... But then again, you are too stupid to elaborate a cogent point.


Not my fault that you are too stupid to understand what someone says.


Why should I try to explain to a moron like you? No matter how many times I have corrected you, you remember it all wrong.

You are pathetic!


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=59&p=5458330&viewfull=1#post5458330


The ocean is like a soda, going flat.

I suggest you do some real studying on the effects of temperature for a solutions ability to absorb gas, and the related equilibrium.

I will maintain my contention that temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/CO2inSeaWater.jpg

Here is your solubility chart

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Solar burp stupidity:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=69&p=5667710&viewfull=1#post5667710

I had completely forgot how you didn't understand that the reaction to make water out of hydrogen was combustion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162742&page=12&p=4666035&viewfull=1#post4666035

Here is my summation of your capacitor stupidity which is when you became partschanger.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/not-just-alberta-warming-fueled-fires-increasing-185458878.html?nhp=1

It's not just Alberta: Warming-fueled fires are increasing


"The Alberta wildfires are an excellent example of what we're seeing more and more of: warming means snow melts earlier, soils and vegetation dries out earlier, and the fire season starts earlier. It's a train wreck," University of Arizona climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck wrote in an email.

Worldwide, the length of Earth's fire season increased nearly 19 percent from 1979 to 2013, according to a study by Mark Cochrane, a professor of fire ecology at South Dakota State University.

Fires had steadily been increasing, but then in the late 1990s and early 2000s, "we've suddenly been hit with lots of these large fires we can't control," Cochrane said.

[RandomGuy]

You deny anything brought up that doesn't agree with your faith.

Period.

I think at this point, even you are beginning to realize the data are increasingly stacked against your denial that humans are causing the changes we are seeing in climate patterns.

That would explain the temper tantrums.

[RandomGuy]

lol that list of "experts".

PhD's in climate science, and other applicable fields. I can copy paste if you want.

[RandomGuy]

lol that list of "experts".



Within the scientific community, there is no debate. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that human activity is the primary cause.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=59&p=5458330&viewfull=1#post5458330

Leaving out the context of "going flat" entirely changes the perception, hence, intentionally misleading, which is a lie.

The previous times you used that, you included "fizzing." I guess you are capable of learning. Regardless, it shows your stupidity to think the reference I used is stupid.

I would have never guessed that you could have learned to stop using "fizzing."

Going flat is a direct reference to losing absorbed gasses. When a soda is cold, it retains CO2. When it warms, it outgasses. So does the ocean. It absorbs CO2 in the polar areas, and outgasses in the equatorial regions. The balance of these two actions determines if the ocean is a net sink or net source. It is a net source as the oceans warm, and a net sink as they cool.

If you are to illiterate in basic chemistry to understand such simple ideas, then I can see you you think it's silly. Just like the neanderthals thought fire was magic.

[Wild Cobra]

Solar burp stupidity:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=69&p=5667710&viewfull=1#post5667710

I had completely forgot how you didn't understand that the reaction to make water out of hydrogen was combustion.

Whats wrong when clearly speaking hypothetically? My response was: "Misinterpreting my words again. I only posed possibilities."

I can't believe how you are capable of twisting a persons meaning. You have a rare gift of self delusions if you really believe the perceptions you relay.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162742&page=12&p=4666035&viewfull=1#post4666035

Here is my summation of your capacitor stupidity which is when you became partschanger.

Again, your self delusion of responding to what you think a person meant, instead of what they actually said. maybe it would help if you understood the field of study, for context.

[Wild Cobra]

I think at this point, even you are beginning to realize the data are increasingly stacked against your denial that humans are causing the changes we are seeing in climate patterns.

You are delusional. Is Fuzzy wearing off on you? I acknowledge AGW is real. Why do you deny what I have repeatedly said over the years?

Can you show me anyplace, I have said AGW is not real?

I disagree with the degree of warming associated with greenhouse gas emissions. I say they are not as much as claimed. Plesase note, I am also on record as saying land use changes and soot cause more AGW than they are given credit for.

You and Fuzzy should get a room.



That would explain the temper tantrums.

I will agree to getting very, very pissed at repeated idiotic notions people present.

[Wild Cobra]

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/CO2inSeaWater.jpg

Here is your solubility chart


Solar burp stupidity:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=69&p=5667710&viewfull=1#post5667710

I had completely forgot how you didn't understand that the reaction to make water out of hydrogen was combustion.


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162742&page=12&p=4666035&viewfull=1#post4666035

Here is my summation of your capacitor stupidity which is when you became partschanger.

What a basement dwelling loser, pinning on the wall references of years past for later use...

I really do wonder how pathetic your life is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What a basement dwelling loser, pinning on the wall references of years past for later use...

I really do wonder how pathetic your life is.

:lol I used the search function and it took me about 5 minutes and now you've been exposed for the full of shit individual that you are. Flail away if it makes you feel better, partschanging burp-catcher.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

BTW, if you are going to claim that I misinterpreted then yure supposed to demonstrate the proper interpretation. When you don't --and you never do-- you look like an even bigger idiot.

Your simpleton attempts are never hard to decipher.

[Wild Cobra]

BTW, if you are going to claim that I misinterpreted then yure supposed to demonstrate the proper interpretation. When you don't --and you never do-- you look like an even bigger idiot.

Your simpleton attempts are never hard to decipher.

I thought the past times I set you straight were good enough.

You must really get your jollies by trying to waste other people's time. I pity that you don't have better things to do than be a flaimebaiting troll.

You are pathetic!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I thought the past times I set you straight were good enough.

You must really get your jollies by trying to waste other people's time. I pity that you don't have better things to do than be a flaimebaiting troll.

You are pathetic!

Actions speak louder than words, dimwit. You don't even argue the science anymore. Instead you do this cowardly dissembling.

You remind me of Scientologists when you start questioning them on some of their more inane beliefs. They try this "I Know something but I just won't tell you" megalomania like you are doing here.

It's all you have left.

[Wild Cobra]

Actions speak louder than words, dimwit. You don't even argue the science anymore. Instead you do this cowardly dissembling.

You remind me of Scientologists when you start questioning them on some of their more inane beliefs. They try this "I Know something but I just won't tell you" megalomania like you are doing here.

It's all you have left.

I'm just tired of repeating myself to someone who is too stupid to remember my position.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm just tired of repeating myself to someone who is too stupid to remember my position.

Does anyone here at this forum believe Wild Dimwit? I mean after all he's only been quoted verbatim.

[Winehole23]

Every month from October 2015-April 2016 has now had a departure of 1 degree Celsius or greater above the 1951-1980 average used by NASA. The departure from average in a single month had never exceeded 1 degree Celsius prior to October dating back to 1880.



Top Seven NASA Global Month Temperature Departure From Average (Degrees Celsius) Since 1880

February 2016
+1.33
˚ Celsius


March 2016
+1.29
˚ Celsius


January 2016
+1.11
˚ Celsius


April 2016
+1.11
˚ Celsius


December 2015
+1.10
˚ Celsius


October 2015
+1.07
˚ Celsius


November 2015
+1.01
˚ Celsius





April 2016 also continues a string of 369 consecutive months at or warmer than average. The last colder-than-average month in NASA's database was July 1985

https://weather.com/news/climate/news/record-warmest-april-earth-2016

[Wild Cobra]

https://weather.com/news/climate/news/record-warmest-april-earth-2016

Who cares. We know there is warming. Can you tell us how much is from natural sources? Of the AGW causes, can you tell us how much is from solar changes, atmospheric transparency changes, greenhouse gasses, and land use changes?

These are the important questions. The breakdown of the components.

[Winehole23]

Who cares.is global-warming consequence free?

[Winehole23]

Can you tell us how much is from natural sources? Of the AGW causes, can you tell us how much is from solar changes, atmospheric transparency changes, greenhouse gasses, and land use changes?nope. can you?

if not, who do you trust to explain global warning and why?

[Wild Cobra]

is global-warming consequence free?

Prove the variables individually. There is very little we can do, because greenhouse gasses are not the devil the pundits say they are.

Look at soot, land use changes, and the way to cool would be to add non soot type aerosols into the atmosphere.

[Wild Cobra]

nope. can you?

if not, who do you trust to explain global warning and why?

As many times as I have explained the different variable, you deny a word of it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Prove the variables individually. There is very little we can do, because greenhouse gasses are not the devil the pundits say they are.

Look at soot, land use changes, and the way to cool would be to add non soot type aerosols into the atmosphere.

So why do you think a solar burp exploding in the upper atmosphere could cause rain for over a month and not cook the Earth with the energy released by said explosion. Please be specifics with some maths.

[RandomGuy]

What a basement dwelling loser, pinning on the wall references of years past for later use...

I really do wonder how pathetic your life is.

https://c8.staticflickr.com/3/2006/2207803151_363d3ac1fe_m.jpg

[RandomGuy]

You are delusional. Is Fuzzy wearing off on you? I acknowledge AGW is real. Why do you deny what I have repeatedly said over the years?

Can you show me anyplace, I have said AGW is not real?

I disagree with the degree of warming associated with greenhouse gas emissions. I say they are not as much as claimed. Plesase note, I am also on record as saying land use changes and soot cause more AGW than they are given credit for.

You and Fuzzy should get a room.


I will agree to getting very, very pissed at repeated idiotic notions people present.

So then how do you explain the accelerating temperature variances?

The only thing really accelerating is CO2 concentration.

https://assets.show.earth/widget-co2/kc-monthly-0600.png

At some point even you will be unable to deny that

1) Yes there is a warming trend and
2) this is due to humans burning fossil fuels

[RandomGuy]

Since I can't get an honest answer to my fair question:

Yes, even a flawed poll can tell us more than we knew before, and can yield useful data.

But, better than a poll, is what scientists themselves say, without a filter of a poll. Let's see what a group of scientists say in their own words.


Global warming is already having significant and harmful effects on our communities, our health, and our climate. Sea level rise is accelerating. The number of large wildfires is growing. Dangerous heat waves are becoming more common. Extreme storm events are increasing in many areas. More severe droughts are occurring in others.

We must take immediate action to address global warming or these consequences will continue to intensify, grow ever more costly, and increasingly affect the entire planet—including you, your community, and your family.

The good news is that we have the practical solutions at hand to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions, slow the pace of global warming, and pass on a healthier, safer world to future generations.

With your help, we can accomplish it.

Together, we can tackle global warming.

Global warming is happening now. The planet's temperature is rising. The trend is clear and unmistakable.

Every one of the past 38 years has been warmer than the 20th century average. The 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998. The hottest year ever recorded for the contiguous United States occurred in 2012.

Globally, the average surface temperature has increased more than one degree Fahrenheit since the late 1800s. Most of that increase has occurred over just the past three decades.



We are the cause. We are overloading our atmosphere with carbon dioxide, which traps heat and steadily drives up the planet’s temperature. Where does all this carbon come from? The fossil fuels we burn for energy—coal, natural gas, and oil—plus the loss of forests due to deforestation, especially in the tropics.

The scientific evidence is clear. Within the scientific community, there is no debate. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that human activity is the primary cause.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming

Seems pretty unambiguous.

They are better qualified thank Wild Cobra will ever be.

I am, as always left with the rather unified voice of people who are experts in their field.

[RandomGuy]

9UCdFbyL8y0

[RandomGuy]

"Today’s rate of increase [in CO2 concentration] is more than 100 times faster than the increase that occurred when the last ice age ended."

~ NOAA Media Release (2013)
~ Scripps (SIO UCSD) News Release (2013)



Atmospheric CO2 is rising at an unprecedented rates. Consequences are profound for earth's temperatures, climates, ecosystems and species, both on land and in the oceans. To see whether the speeding rise of atmospheric CO2 is slowing or speeding up, take a look at the bend in the iconic Keeling Curve. Or, is the rate of change speeding up or slowing down? The answer can be seen in the direction of the bend in the Keeling Curve. And it can be seen in the data that produces the Keeling Curve.

https://www.co2.earth/co2-acceleration


This is the only variable that is steadily, inexorably climbing, hand in hand with the increases in temperature, and changes in weather patterns.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are delusional. Is Fuzzy wearing off on you? I acknowledge AGW is real. Why do you deny what I have repeatedly said over the years?

Can you show me anyplace, I have said AGW is not real?


I will maintain my contention that temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

As for the warming since 1850, and flattening out, look at the solar trending:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=59&p=5458330&viewfull=1#post5458330

[RandomGuy]

"flattening out"

I can see why Wile E. Cobra is reduced to spluttering.

[Wild Cobra]

So then how do you explain the accelerating temperature variances?

The only thing really accelerating is CO2 concentration.

https://assets.show.earth/widget-co2/kc-monthly-0600.png

At some point even you will be unable to deny that

1) Yes there is a warming trend and
2) this is due to humans burning fossil fuels

Yes, there is a warming trend.

Only part of it is due to burning fossil fuels. There is still no solid quantification with it.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, there is a warming trend.

Only part of it is due to burning fossil fuels. There is still no solid quantification with it.


Global warming is already having significant and harmful effects on our communities, our health, and our climate. Sea level rise is accelerating. The number of large wildfires is growing. Dangerous heat waves are becoming more common. Extreme storm events are increasing in many areas. More severe droughts are occurring in others.

We must take immediate action to address global warming or these consequences will continue to intensify, grow ever more costly, and increasingly affect the entire planet—including you, your community, and your family.

The good news is that we have the practical solutions at hand to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions, slow the pace of global warming, and pass on a healthier, safer world to future generations.

With your help, we can accomplish it.

Together, we can tackle global warming.

Global warming is happening now. The planet's temperature is rising. The trend is clear and unmistakable.

Every one of the past 38 years has been warmer than the 20th century average. The 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998. The hottest year ever recorded for the contiguous United States occurred in 2012.

Globally, the average surface temperature has increased more than one degree Fahrenheit since the late 1800s. Most of that increase has occurred over just the past three decades.



We are the cause. We are overloading our atmosphere with carbon dioxide, which traps heat and steadily drives up the planet’s temperature. Where does all this carbon come from? The fossil fuels we burn for energy—coal, natural gas, and oil—plus the loss of forests due to deforestation, especially in the tropics.

The scientific evidence is clear. Within the scientific community, there is no debate. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that human activity is the primary cause.

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)

[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 shit 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.

http://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iFodqyYd6loc/v1/-1x-1.jpg

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 (https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/731599988141248512) that this year will be the hottest on record, according to Gavin Schmidt, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute 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/features/2016-05-18/earth-s-relentless-warming-just-hit-a-terrible-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/2016/05/12/17/05/carbon-and-climate-change-levels-to-hit-critical-point-at-tasmania-research-station

[Wild Cobra]

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

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/05/12/17/05/carbon-and-climate-change-levels-to-hit-critical-point-at-tasmania-research-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 fuckall 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/undergrad/ba-esp/ab-co-requisites-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 fuckall 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/Donation2?df_id=1420&1420.donation=form1&s_src=footer&_ga=1.76607125.1865560961.1463692507

:lol

[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 shit 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 shit 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 shit in the denial of their denials thread. Gimme a sec. I'll search for it again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Darrin on his crusade that the 'hiatus' disproved AGW. He links a half dozen articles to support his point and quips sarcastically that the 'heat is hiding in the oceans. In light of the recent El Nino he particularly looks ignorant.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&page=54&p=7577805&viewfull=1#post7577805


Somone's political affiliation has nothing to do with their position on the global warming debate.


By the way, the trend since 2000 is almost a flat line.

That's why the IPCC keeps revising their worst case scenarios to be less and less catastrophic.


Global Warming is a religion, but nobody seems to question it -- call it FAITH.


What's worse -- having irrational religious beliefs or irration "scientific" beliefs?


Weren't the abolitionists motivated by their religious convictions? Crazy religious freaks! How dare they have a moral compass!


Global warming "deniers" -- LOL


Yes, indeed, the climate is changing. Interestingly enough, it will do this with or without the existence of human beings.


No one "poo poos" the data, just some people's interpretation of the data.

We haven't has any warming in the last 10 years. Have CO2 emmisions declined in that time period?

There was a decline in global temperatures form the mid 1940's to the early 1970's. Was that a time period when CO2 emmissions were on the rise or fall?


YES, I think that humans influence the climate -- they have since they first discovered fire. Do I think Florida will be underwater any time soon? NO. So, you can believe in "climate change" (always has -- always will) without being a Gore catastrophist.


Meanwhile, artic sea ice growing at fastest pace on record.

http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article13385.htm

The above was particularly ignorant.


By the way, this is a must read for anyone who believes in "consensus" science.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean/mclean_IPCC_review_final_9-5-07.pdf


Low temperature records set in Denver and Montana

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif


Very simple question:

What is the temperature trend for the years 2006-2008?

That's a 3-year period of time, not a single event.


Since there is such a STRONG correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, I would expect the temperature to continue rising.


How about the trend over the last 10 years? It's pretty flat. Have humans reduced emmisions in the last 10 years?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

People skeptical of AGW don't have to prove anything. AGW is not some great "truth" that so-called "deniers" have the burden to disprove. If it were, there would be no need for this thread, right?


Today, we are no more in a position to predict the climate of 2030 than people of 1975 were in a position to predict our current climate.

/thread


Actually, I'm not trying to completely dismiss AGW theory. I just have issue with it being considered a scientific reality like continental drift. I just don't agree that we know enough (right now) to say one way or the other.


Furthermore, whether there is AGW or not, I'm certainly not convinced that is constitutes a "crisis".



Good article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3312921/The-deceit-behind-global-warming.html



What is the trend of the last 10 years?

http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/04/28/rss_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998-2008.png



Well, CO2 was rising between 1940 and 1970, so why did the average temperature decline during that period?



By the way, the hottest year in history was 1934, not 1998 (after the "hockey stick" was thoroughly debunked and NASA corrected their data). You'll probably remember the hockey stick graph because it has been featured so prominantly in IPCC reports as well as the giant graph in Al Gore's science fiction thriller.


Showing the map was a joke.


A bigger joke is telling people that a trace gas that makes up less than 4 one-hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere will push us past some ficticious "tipping points" that will flood our costal cities.

Oh, and by the way, humans only contribute about 3 percent to that 0.04 percent in our atmosphere.

If we'd signed Kyoto, at a mere cost of 300 billion PER YEAR, maybe we could save humanity. :rolleyes


To believe in AGW, you have to believe the following are true:


1. The global temperature of the 1990's to present is remarkable and unprecedented.

2. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are at unprecedented levels in history and are largely because of human activity.

3. There is a direct causal relationship between CO2 and temperature, i.e. increased CO2 results in an increased temperature.


If any of these are not true, then one would have to be skeptical of AGW. If ALL are untrue, then you'd have to be VERY skeptical of AGW.



How about the last 10 years of data?

http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/04/28/uah_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998-2008.png

http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/04/28/rss_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998-2008.png


I used to be on the AGW bus, but I've changed my mind based on years of researching this topic on my own.

The above is your slimy pandering.


The global temperature record of the last decade is not subjective, would you agree?


When you see continued rising of CO2 and a declining average temperature, you have to stop and think about it.


No. According to theory, when CO2 rises, temperature is supposed to rise. Current trends are just the opposite.


BTW, what are the "norm" climate variations?

[DarrinS]

Great work, detective Fuzzy

From 2011

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=50&p=5414665&viewfull=1#post5414665






No one denies it has warmed in the past century.
No one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
No one deines that humans emit CO2.

The REAL questions are:

Is CO2 the main driver of the warming?
Is the recent warming significant compared to historical patterns?
Will effects of the warming be catastrophic?
Will drastic cuts in CO2 emissions make much difference?

This is where reasonable people can agree to disagree. Calling people that you disagree with retarded doesn't add much to the debate.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Great work, detective Fuzzy

From 2011

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=50&p=5414665&viewfull=1#post5414665

You lied in 2011 too. You clearly indicate that you are skeptical that it had warmed since the 1930s etc in the quotes above.

That your sophistry goes as the wind blows and is centered around your prefered political outcome of inaction is not lost, shill. You're arguing for a conclusion and it's obvious. It's why I call you a sophist piece of shit.

[DarrinS]

You lied in 2011 too. You clearly indicate that you are skeptical that it had warmed since the 1930s etc in the quotes above.

That your sophistry goes as the wind blows and is centered around your prefered political outcome of inaction is not lost, shill. You're arguing for a conclusion and it's obvious. It's why I call you a sophist piece of shit.



Oh noes -- not the "sophist piece of shit" insult. :lol


I don't "believe" (because you can't "deny" unknown future events) that major American cities will be underwater because of plant food. If that makes me a SPOS, so be it.


At least you were exposed as being a liar.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh noes -- not the "sophist piece of shit" insult. :lol


I don't "believe" (because you can't "deny" unknown future events) that major American cities will be underwater because of plant food. If that makes me a SPOS, so be it.


At least you were exposed as being a liar.

I get that your not bothered by what you are. It is both and observation and an insult. I say it for the sake of our audience.

You denied AGW repeatedly from multiple angles; your latest dissemble notwithstanding. That isn't a lie.

You try to dissemble to another page I'll just repost it btw. that tactic won't work either, shill.

[DarrinS]

I get that your not bothered by what you are. It is both and observation and an insult. I say it for the sake of our audience.

You denied AGW repeatedly from multiple angles; your latest dissemble notwithstanding. That isn't a lie.

You try to dissemble to another page I'll just repost it btw. that tactic won't work either, shill.


Bless your little heart. You tried.

I don't refute greenhouse effect or that it warmed in the 20rh century, if that's what you mean by AGW.

I will continue to "deny", i.e. be unconcerned, about global warming, climate change, or whatever they call it next.


Keep up the good fight and don't get so stoned that you forget to feed your cat. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

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

You don't get it. By default, these other organizations do believe other organization. They are agreeing without really understanding the debate.

[Wild Cobra]

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.

That fuzzy turd is too stupid to understand what you just said.

[RandomGuy]

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/Donation2?df_id=1420&1420.donation=form1&s_src=footer&_ga=1.76607125.1865560961.1463692507

:lol

So fucking what?

What does it take to post on blogs denying humans are causing climate change by burning fossil fuels?

[RandomGuy]

You don't get it. By default, these other organizations do believe other organization. They are agreeing without really understanding the debate.

I get it alright.

I get that the scientists who understand this best, understand it best.

And you, and the rest of the anti-science movement... don't.

Pretty simple.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Bless your little heart. You tried.

I don't refute greenhouse effect or that it warmed in the 20rh century, if that's what you mean by AGW.

I will continue to "deny", i.e. be unconcerned, about global warming, climate change, or whatever they call it next.


Keep up the good fight and don't get so stoned that you forget to feed your cat. :lol

You may not anymore because you realize how untenable your previous position but you are easily demonstrated as a sophist of the first order. Your deflection attempts with ad hominem flails underscore this well.

You did say that it hadn't warmed explicitly. You did say that the warming of CO2 was in question. Multiple times already quoted.

You can continue to be a sophist piece of shit if it suits you.

[Wild Cobra]

I get it alright.

I get that the scientists who understand this best, understand it best.

And you, and the rest of the anti-science movement... don't.

Pretty simple.
The anti-science movement are those denying discussion that disagrees with the IPCC et al.

Science does not turn a blind eye to alternate hypothesis like they do in the settled religion of climatology.

[boutons_deux]

O'Reilly's hit man Jesse Watters :lol tells kids to doubt climate science because there were ‘no humans with cars’ after ice age

Fox News producer and occasional host Jesse Watters suggested on Monday that man-made climate change was likely a hoax because there were no “humans with cars” to generate greenhouse gasses at the end of the last ice age.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/fox-host-tells-kids-to-doubt-climate-science-because-there-were-no-humans-with-cars-after-ice-age/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[RandomGuy]

The anti-science movement are those denying discussion that disagrees with the IPCC et al.

Science does not turn a blind eye to alternate hypothesis like they do in the settled religion of climatology.

Translation:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b3/4c/2e/b34c2e8ef6ee5063f2f90e8b9eed34ce.jpg

Thanks, Pee-Wee. :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

The anti-science movement are those denying discussion that disagrees with the IPCC et al.

Science does not turn a blind eye to alternate hypothesis like they do in the settled religion of climatology.

The problem with your bad arguements, and Darrins dumb links is that they prove the OP.

Since I am here to make the case that there is a whole lot of stupid pseudoscience out there, let's start with a little gem from the GOP's members on (chokes back vomit) the House Science Committee saying something so stupid that it took a late night comedian to point it out:

lPgZfhnCAdI




FWIW, feel free to expand on your assertion that someone is "denying discussion that disagrees with the IPCC".

Define your terms then provide some evidence. That is how we get to the truth, both in public policy and science.

Otherwise you are pulling something out of the creationist handbook. "teach the controversy" when there isn't one. Dishonest in the extreme.

[RandomGuy]

Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

UPDATE:
This exchange is, in my opinion, probably *the* most clear example of the kinds of arguments made against the actual science that supports the theory that mankind is affecting our overall climate. Thank you DarrinS

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4915557&postcount=877


From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner


1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").

3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.

4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.

5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]

In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.

While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.

Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.

I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.

What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.

Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.

----------------------------------------------------------------
#Questions asked without direct intellectually honest answers:

Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.

Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.

DarrinS:
twelve logical fallacies
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion
Cherry-picking data

Wild Cobra:
Five logical fallacies
Four unproven assertions
Putting forth a scientific sounding but untestable hypothesis
Three instances of confirmation bias
First direct comparison of climate scientists to Nazis in the thread

Tyson Chandler:
One logical fallacy

PopTech:
One case of refusing to answer a fair question.
Failure to provide evidence when asked.
Strawman logical fallacy


(edit)
Here is a good bit on the differences between honest skepticism and irrational denial of human caused climate change.

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/evolution-climate-deniers-the-redux-edition/

Here is a link to the skeptics society, a group dedicated to fighting pseudo-science of all kinds, and what honest skeptics think of deniers:
http://www.skeptic.com/tag/global-warming/


A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.

This is to be contrasted with a "Denier"


Skepticism, after all, is a rational, intellectual process that involves critical analysis of the facts and reasoned doubt applied to all evidence and hypotheses.

“The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity.” skeptic.com


In contrast, Climate change Deniers:

ignore the facts and evidence;
do not critically examine any evidence or hypotheses;
unquestionably embrace any counter proposal, no matter how transparently absurd or false.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/that-denier-vs-septic-thing-again/#more-2959

[DarrinS]

Projections from computer models are not facts or evidence.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Projections from computer models are not facts or evidence.

Comments like this are why I have doubts about you being an engineer. You can argue that they are not accurately modeling reality but to pretend like they don't try or that the models aren't improving with their topological arrangements and thermodynamic nad other factual functions is gratuitous nonsense that one can expect from a shill.

This is also another reason why I call you a sophist piece of shit. This conversation has been going on for years. Remember when your shilliness said you appreciated BEST and you were talking about models before?

Shall I link BEST's program weighing the models for accuracy and precision again? It's all a quite scientific search for the truth as opposed to your regurgitation of the old canned PT-style rebuttal.

[RandomGuy]

https://shewonk.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/301797_10150786318971939_609856938_9665859_1698375 444_n.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

https://shewonk.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/301797_10150786318971939_609856938_9665859_1698375 444_n.jpg
Alert alert...

Strawmant alert...

Alert alert...

Logical fallacy alert.

Alert alert...

[DarrinS]

Alert alert...

Strawmant alert...

Alert alert...

Logical fallacy alert.

Alert alert...


:lol

[RandomGuy]

Alert alert...

Strawmant alert...

Alert alert...

Logical fallacy alert.

Alert alert...

You want me to find statements where you claim a "massive conspiracy" among climate scientists?

[RandomGuy]

Alert alert...

Strawmant alert...

Alert alert...

Logical fallacy alert.

Alert alert...


I understand why the margin of error is like it is. I just don't trust scientific peer reviewed papers done in a closer peer review process, especially with such a politically motivated topic. Wouldn't these results be believable if the more skeptical members of the science community reviewed them as well?


Yes, I understand.

You aren't willing to go there. If scientists not trained in the church of AGW were to point out fallacies, the papers would never make it through the peer review process. that's why it's a closed process. Only those who already believe the dogma are allowed to participate.



A one sided review without testing the funding the alarmists give.

Sounds like the results were determined before the study started.


"the peer review process is controlled by alarmist scientists to limit skeptical articles".

Also known as a conspiracy.

By all means, clarify. Do you now think there is no concerted effort to keep out "skeptical" arguments from peer-reviewed papers, i.e. there is no conspiracy?

Did I get that wrong?

Do tell.

[RandomGuy]

Whoop-t-do.

How many billions have funded researches to support the AGW scare.

Billions?

ROFL.

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

Look at the pie chart.

That is for the US, one of the worlds richest countries.

Your conspiracy theory is fucktarded pseudoscience, if you are going with "they are in it for the money".

[RandomGuy]

I found yesterday, maybe the day before, His work is also published in Nature Climate change. He did a fine job, but did so with blinders on. To be a true study, he should have looked at the influence of the money going to the warmers as as well, but he didn't.

The verdict was planned.

Plus, which came first? the chicken or the egg? There was no attempt to find out if donations drove the research, or if the research drove the donations.

You liberal pansies are so easily duped.

"Verdict was planned'

AKA "a conspiracy to rig the outcome"

[RandomGuy]

Well, I think it's been pointed out several times that his title doesn't make sense. He hasn't found anyone in the "denial" camp here. We are skeptics. Skeptical of the values the AGW community keeps coming up with. I would say if anything, that the current teaching of climate change is a pseudo science. They use correlation to imply causation, they hide their data and methods, they use closed peer review processes, etc. etc.

"closed peer review process"

More conspiracy posting.

Seems like you are claiming a conspiracy as far as I can tell.

[baseline bum]

Billions?

ROFL.

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

Look at the pie chart.

That is for the US, one of the worlds richest countries.

Your conspiracy theory is fucktarded pseudoscience, if you are going with "they are in it for the money".

:lmao As if the Koch brothers wouldn't be putting tons of money into funding climate science if it could establish the results they want. Wild Cobra's conspiracy theory here is as retarded as the shit Cosmored constantly posts on here about 9/11 and the moon landing being hoaxes.

[RandomGuy]

Strawman alert... Poisoning the well:

Meh. You have little room, and likely little accuracy, when talking about logical fallacies, with as many as you seem to apply to this topic, i.e. "the scientists are all in on a giant conspiracy". It's like you have to drink another cup of stupid before posting sometimes.

Here is a bit that pokes some holes in your "its all due to soot" hypothesis:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/13/greenland_is_melting_much_faster_than_scientists_e xpected.html

Weather patterns, of the kind that represent feedback loops, are causing a lot more warming in cold places.

You know feedback loops? The kinds of things that we have been trying to drill into your thick skull might be dangerous, that is a prime example.

me: "let's not monkey with the climate much, because things might happen that we don't know about yet"
You: "CO2 is doesn't have enough of an effect to worry about"

I have been telling you we should quit poking the bear, and fucktards like yourself have been copying/pasting the "no harm" bullshit propaganda for so long... the chickens are coming home to roost.

A conservative, risk-averse approach to CO2 emissions would have limited the damage.

Your super-liberal polyannish approach is fucking us royally.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao As if the Koch brothers wouldn't be putting tons of money into funding climate science if it could establish the results they want. Wild Cobra's conspiracy theory here is as retarded as the shit Cosmored constantly posts on here about 9/11 and the moon landing being hoaxes.

Yeah. Pretty much.

As I keep saying, I am willing to give some provisional trust that the experts saying CO2 is causing warming and climate change are right.

It is merely prudent to limit risk.

The funny thing about this is that limiting CO2 by putting investment into new greener infrastructure such as solar, wind, and other forms of green energy can be reasonably argued to provide long term economic growth that would offset any increased costs elsewhere. A bit like squeezing a balloon at one end. Efficient markets are like that.

The claims of doom and gloom economic impacts of limits on carbon emissions don't really meet any standard of evidence. You ever want a big round of nothing, ask for THAT.

A: "you guys are being alarmist about temperature, there is no evidence about that, lets not take any steps to limit CO2 because it could have harmful economic impacts"
B: "you are being alarmist about the economic impact, do you have any evidence about that?"
A: "um, peer review bad!"

Okaaaay.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The anti-science movement are those denying discussion that disagrees with the IPCC et al.

Science does not turn a blind eye to alternate hypothesis like they do in the settled religion of climatology.

You still going to say they ignore soot? How about your solar burp hypothesis or trying to take the CO2 feedback dynamic and trying to apply it ad hoc to the oceans irradiance? The BEST project was solely created to address alternate hypothesis like the urban heat island effect or concerns about instrumentation.

You are so completely demonstrably full of shit, dimwit.

[Wild Cobra]

I pity you Random. Having nothing better to do than waste so much time on me.

[Wild Cobra]

And we all pity the little boys that you stalk so you can touch them to get even for being the only player on the team your pedo coaches didn't touch because you're such a repulsive piece of shit.

what the fuck kind of mongoloid denies science? Oh yeah, the ones that need to have their thinking done for them and their opinions given to them. That way they escape the responsibility of having to actually think and act for themselves.

Bitter angry little ineffectual fucks smack dab in homosexual panics, and in this piece of shits case, pedophilloic scares that try to project a false sense of manhood to overcompensate for how scared they are of the big bad world around them.

Wow.

What a strange mind you have for going where you did. What pathetic fantasies you have.

[boutons_deux]

House Republicans subpoena documents from N.Y., Mass. in Exxon climate change probe

House Republicans led by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas issued subpoenas Wednesday to New York and Massachusetts attorneys general over the ongoing probe into whether Exxon Mobil lied to the public and its shareholders about climate change.

“The AGs have appointed themselves to determine what is valid and what is invalid about climate change. :lol

It’s at the expense of scientists’ right to free speech,” :lol

said the San Antonio Congressman.

“These investigations amount to a form of extortion.” :lol

Schneiderman and Healey have refused, citing the 10th Amendment’s protection of state’s rights. A spokeswoman for Healey said Wednesday their office was still considering next steps. Schneiderman’s office indicated it would fight the subpoena.

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/07/13/house-republicans-subpoena-documents-from-n-y-mass-in-exxon-climate-change-probe/

[RandomGuy]

I pity you Random. Having nothing better to do than waste so much time on me.

If you accuse me of lying, you better expect that I might spend a bit of time on it.

To be honest, it took very little time to show how stupid your comment was. Most of your bullshit is just as easy to pick apart.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I pity you Random. Having nothing better to do than waste so much time on me.

If you really think that then what does that make you?

[Wild Cobra]

If you accuse me of lying, you better expect that I might spend a bit of time on it.

To be honest, it took very little time to show how stupid your comment was. Most of your bullshit is just as easy to pick apart.


If you really think that then what does that make you?

You two are often one in the same in reasoniong. Random is far more intelligent than you Fuzzy, but you both let your preconceived notions go untested, and fail in not trying to understand the facts.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You two are often one in the same in reasoniong. Random is far more intelligent than you Fuzzy, but you both let your preconceived notions go untested, and fail in not trying to understand the facts.

:lol what 'facts,' dimwit?

[Wild Cobra]

:lol what 'facts,' dimwit?

Oh yes please.

Please show us your facts!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh yes please.

Please show us your facts!

https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/climate/

Your turn, dimwit.

[Wild Cobra]

https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/climate/

Your turn, dimwit.

What's wrong?

Aren't you smart enough to find the relevant material?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What's wrong?

Aren't you smart enough to find the relevant material?

It's all relevant and been shown to you before. Regardless, you are the one that said facts were being ignored, chickenshit.

[Wild Cobra]

It's all relevant and been shown to you before. Regardless, you are the one that said facts were being ignored, chickenshit.

Yet you think its funny to link a whole site section. Not a specific page in the site.

Do you realize how pathetic you are for such actions?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yet you think its funny to link a whole site section. Not a specific page in the site.

Do you realize how pathetic you are for such actions?

Not nearly as much as accusing others of ignoring facts and then trying this ploy, chickenshit.

[Wild Cobra]

Not nearly as much as accusing others of ignoring facts and then trying this ploy, chickenshit.

Funny thing is, you never care if what I say is true or not. You aromatically label it as false.

That says volumes about your integrity, intelligence, and ethics!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Funny thing is, you never care if what I say is true or not. You aromatically label it as false.

That says volumes about your integrity, intelligence, and ethics!

:sleep

You have anything substantive to say or you just going to try these mindless universals? I think you are an idiot with poor critical thinking skills. That doesn't mean a blind squirrel cannot sometimes find a nut, dimwit.

[Wild Cobra]

:sleep

You have anything substantive to say or you just going to try these mindless universals? I think you are an idiot with poor critical thinking skills. That doesn't mean a blind squirrel cannot sometimes find a nut, dimwit.

Please...

It's rude to talk into the mirror.

[boutons_deux]

Here Are 7 Terrifying Charts That Show Exactly What We’re Doing to the Planet

The world is careening towards an environment never experienced before by humans, with the temperature of the air and oceans breaking records, sea levels reaching historic highs and carbon dioxide surpassing a key milestone, a major international report has found.

The "state of the climate" report (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/2015-state-climate-highlights#wows1_3), led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with input from hundreds of scientists from 62 countries, confirmed there was a "toppling of several symbolic mileposts" in heat, sea level rise and extreme weather in 2015.

"The impacts of climate change are no longer subtle," Michael Mann, a leading climatologist at Penn State, told the Guardian. "They are playing out before us, in real time. The 2015 numbers drive that home."

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/08/noaa-state-climate

[boutons_deux]

Meanwhile, VRWC/ALEC/BigCarbon whore/red/slave states:

EPA’s Efforts To Curb Methane Emissions Suffers A Setback As 13 States Sue

Thirteen states have sued the Obama administration (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290159-thirteen-states-sue-over-epa-methane-rule) over the EPA’s new rules for methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.

The lawsuit, filed by West Virginia and backed by twelve other states, argues that the new rules are unnecessary and would add burdensome costs for oil and gas producers.

“This is yet another example of unlawful federal overreach jeopardizing West Virginia jobs and working families,” Morrisey said in a statement. “The rules are a solution in search of a problem and ignore the industry’s success in voluntarily reducing methane emissions from these sources to a 30-year low.”

The rule, finalized in May, would limit methane emissions from new oil and gas infrastructure, and would require operators to submit to semi-annual or quarterly monitoring. Under the new rule, the EPA estimates that emissions from existing oil and gas operations would drop by 11 million tons of CO2 equivalent annually by 2025 — the equivalent of taking more than 2 million cars off the road.

The thirteen-state lawsuit -- which includes

Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin, as well as state departments in Kentucky and North Carolina --

is not the first time the methane rules have been challenged in court. North Dakota, which saw huge financial benefits during its oil boom (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/built-up-by-oil-boom-north-dakota-now-has-an-emptier-feeling.html?_r=0) a few years ago, filed its own lawsuit in July.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/08/03/3804612/methane-rule-epa-states-lawsuit/

[boutons_deux]

U.S. States Signed Pact to Keep Exxon Climate Probe Confidential

The oil company was investigated over allegedly misleading the public about climate change


A pact that 15 U.S. states signed to jointly investigate Exxon Mobil Corp for allegedly misleading the public about climate change sought to keep prosecutors' deliberations confidential and was broadly written so they could probe other fossil fuel companies.

The "Climate Change Coalition Common Interest Agreement" was signed by state attorneys general in May, two months after they held a press conference to say they would go after Exxon, the world's largest publicly-traded oil and gas company, and possibly other companies.

The signed agreement has not been made public until now, and Reuters reviewed a copy of it on Thursday.

It provides considerably more detail about the prosecutors' legal strategy than the general outline provided at their announcement in March, which was headlined by former Vice President Al Gore.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-states-signed-pact-to-keep-exxon-climate-probe-confidential/

[boutons_deux]

...

[DarrinS]

^boots now dropping turds in random threads

[Wild Cobra]

^boots now dropping turds in random threads

Worse yet, I don't think he realizes this is contrary to his normal ideals.

[boutons_deux]

When will Antarctica’s fourth-largest ice shelf break apart? Soon.



A Delaware-sized chunk of ice could dislodge from the Larson C ice shelf within the next few years

A crack is spreading rapidly across Antarctica’s fourth-largest ice shelf, hastening the loss of a massive chunk of ice, say scientists.

Researchers from the British Antarctic Survey's Project MIDAS found that the crack has extended 14 miles (http://www.projectmidas.org/blog/a-growing-rift-in-larsen-c/) since the last time a satellite imaged it, in March 2015.

Soon, the team thinks, about 12 percent of the shelf – known as Larsen C – will break away, following the pattern seen in neighboring ice sheets Larsen A and Larsen B in 1995 and 2002, respectively.

The scientists were stunned by the crack's dramatic increase in speed, as it previously took four years to grow 18 miles. It is also widening quickly. Last year, it was 650 feet wide, and now it is more than 1100 feet wide – nearly a quarter mile.

The collapse of Larsen C, they predicted, would tack on another 50 centimeters (20 inches) to the global rise in sea levels by 2100, adding to problems for coastal cities.

"If this vast ice shelf – which is over two and a half times the size of Wales and 10 times bigger than Larsen B – was to collapse, it would allow the tributary glaciers behind it to flow faster into the sea. This would then contribute to sea-level rise,”

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0823/When-will-Antarctica-s-fourth-largest-ice-shelf-break-apart-Soon

[RandomGuy]

^boots now dropping turds in random threads

My ears are burning... whut?

[RandomGuy]

Hottest Year Ever? 2016 Burns Through Heat Records, NASA Says

This year may be only half over, but 2016 is already on track to be the hottest year ever on record, with each of the first six months, from January to June, setting new temperature records, NASA officials announced this week.

For the first time, NASA shared a midyear climate analysis, doing so because temperature averages this year have been so in excess of previous data, agency officials said. NASA's data showed that each month in 2016 was the warmest respective month globally in the modern temperature record, which dates to 1880. This trend suggests 2016 will surpass 2015 as the hottest year on record, NASA said.

"2016 has really blown that out of the water," said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. [Record-Breaking Temperatures Again in First Half of 2016 | Video]
http://www.livescience.com/55469-2016-could-be-hottest-year-on-record.html

[RandomGuy]

So the evidence continues to pile up and up.

I guess we can keep this thread going another 10 years... heh

I doubt DarrinS or Wild Cobra will be convinced until one of the ice caps vanishes?

[Wild Cobra]

So the evidence continues to pile up and up.

I guess we can keep this thread going another 10 years... heh

I doubt DarrinS or Wild Cobra will be convinced until one of the ice caps vanishes?

There is no solid evidence, everything has alternate explanation that you, deny, because you deny science.

I expect the norther polar ice may vanish. It wouldn't be outside of unusual.

Now the Antarctic ice and Greenland ice will not, at least not unless something very significant happens. Not by greenhouse gasses though.

[RandomGuy]

There is no solid evidence, everything has alternate explanation that you, deny, because you deny science.

I expect the norther polar ice may vanish. It wouldn't be outside of unusual.

Now the Antarctic ice and Greenland ice will not, at least not unless something very significant happens. Not by greenhouse gasses though.


Using satellite radar interferometry observations of Greenland, we detected widespread glacier acceleration below 66° north between 1996 and 2000, which rapidly expanded to 70° north in 2005. Accelerated ice discharge in the west and particularly in the east doubled the ice sheet mass deficit in the last decade from 90 to 220 cubic kilometers per year. As more glaciers accelerate farther north, the contribution of Greenland to sea-level rise will continue to increase.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/311/5763/986



Using time-variable gravity measurements from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite mission, we estimate ice mass changes over Greenland during the period April 2002 to November 2005. After correcting for the effects of spatial filtering and limited resolution of GRACE data, the estimated total ice melting rate over Greenland is –239 ± 23 cubic kilometers per year, mostly from East Greenland. This estimate agrees remarkably well with a recent assessment of –224 ± 41 cubic kilometers per year, based on satellite radar interferometry data. GRACE estimates in southeast Greenland suggest accelerated melting since the summer of 2004, consistent with the latest remote sensing measurements.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5795/1958

Two different methods, both pointing to a rapidly thinning Greenland ice sheet.

Looks like evidence to me.

As for northern polar ice vanishing, that isn't "usual" by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps you can tell me what the cause of this event is, if it is "usual" there should be some evidence showing how often that happens, right?

or did you pull "usual" out of your ass?

[DarrinS]

http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/news13/greenland-ice-cores-reveal-warm-climate-of-the-past/

[Fabbs]

:lol Niels Bohr Institute.

[Wild Cobra]

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/311/5763/986



http://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5795/1958

Two different methods, both pointing to a rapidly thinning Greenland ice sheet.

Looks like evidence to me.

As for northern polar ice vanishing, that isn't "usual" by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps you can tell me what the cause of this event is, if it is "usual" there should be some evidence showing how often that happens, right?

or did you pull "usual" out of your ass?

So...

What is the "solid evidence" that greenhouse gasses are causing these changes?

You're an IDIOT.

Yes, a crapital IDIOT!

I never said warming and melting wasn't occurring you moron.

You guys are following the alarmists like lemmings, believing greenhouse gasses are causing all this.

Again,m there is no solid evidence greenhouse gasses are causing it.

[DarrinS]

:lol Niels Bohr Institute.

Your point?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/news13/greenland-ice-cores-reveal-warm-climate-of-the-past/

(facepalm)

Not only does that not really say what you think it does, it points to how unusual Greenlands melting is. For that I say thanks.



Meltwater from the surface had penetrated down into the underlying snow, where it once again froze into ice.

Such surface melting has occurred very rarely in the last 5,000 years, but the team observed such a melting during the summer of 2012 when they were in Greenland.


“The good news from this study is that the Greenland ice sheet is not as sensitive to temperature increases and to ice melting and running out to sea in warm climate periods like the Eemian,as we thought” explains Dorthe Dahl-Jensen and adds that the bad news is that if Greenland’s ice did not disappear during the Eemian then Antarctica must be responsible for a significant portion of the 4-8 meter rise in sea levels that we know occurred during the Eemian.

[Wild Cobra]

Your point?

Maybe he's confusing him with Neal Boortz?

[boutons_deux]

Human-Driven Warming Started Nearly 200 Years Ago,

a group of researchers has knitted together such natural records — found, for example, in coral reefs, ice sheets and caves. They used those records to trace the thread of human-driven warming back to what they say is its beginning, nearly 200 years ago, when the coal-burning that took off with the Industrial Revolution was still revving up.

Though the impact then on temperatures was small, it is measurable in certain regions, the researchers say.

Some climate scientists not involved in the research quibble with just how much of that early signal can actually be attributed to greenhouse gases. However, there is broad agreement that the study reinforces the importance of the starting point that is used when evaluating how much the Earth has already warmed and how close we are to breaching international climate goals.

http://www.livescience.com/55878-human-driven-warming-began-200-years-ago.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Livesciencecom+%28LiveScience .com+Science+Headline+Feed%29

article includes a hockey stick graph, so beloved of your AGW deniers with hockey pucks for brains.

[Wild Cobra]

Human-Driven Warming Started Nearly 200 Years Ago,


That would be shortly after than maunder minima ended, and the oceans started warming again.

How is that human caused?

Once again the idiot Shazbot...

The article is from the agenda site Climate Central, and Andrea Thompson does not link the Nature story she is lying about.

OK...



In a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature, a group of researchers has knitted together such natural records


I believe this is the article she used:

Nature link: Early onset of industrial-era warming across the oceans and continents (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/full/nature19082.html)

It only says "suggests" which is the opinion of the writers, and means there is no evidence meriting a scientific conjecture.

Deeper in the article is this:



However, our findings of a mid-nineteenth-century onset of industrial-era warming suggest that, in some regions, the entire instrumental period contains a signature of climate warming, rendering it unsuitable for determining climate emergence.

[DarrinS]

(facepalm)

Not only does that not really say what you think it does, it points to how unusual Greenlands melting is. For that I say thanks.


It was warmer in the past. That's all I was pointing out.

[boutons_deux]

Anthropocene: Planet Earth has entered new epoch, experts say
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/anthropocene-epoch-new-planet-earth-man-made-what-is-it-a7215116.html

Hockey stick already sucks and its going to get much worse, unavoidably.

And still BigCarbon's multi-millionaire whores in Congress block all attempts to address the catastrophe.

[boutons_deux]

The Toughest Question in Climate Change: Who Gets Saved?

Last fall, two towns at opposite ends of the country entered a new kind of contest (http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=NDRCFactSheetFINAL.pdf) run by the federal government. At stake was their survival: Each is being consumed by the rising ocean, and winning money from Washington would mean the chance to move to higher ground.

On the western edge of Alaska, the remote town of Newtok was losing50 (https://thinkprogress.org/this-community-in-alaska-is-relocating-because-of-climate-change-86d401273eb#.mme2exjgk) to 100 feet (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/alaska-village-climate-change/402604/) of coastline each year to sea-level rise and melting permafrost. It was about to lose its drinking water, its school and maybe even its airport. Its 350 or so residents had been trying to move to safety for 20 years (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/alaska-village-climate-change/402604/); in 2003, they obtained new land (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/alaska-village-climate-change/402604/), about 10 miles to the south.

Four thousand miles away on the Louisiana coast, another town, Isle de Jean Charles, was also starting to drown. It was home to just 25 families, some of whomremained ambivalent (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-03-20/the-first-u-s-climate-refugees) about relocating. It wasn’t losing land at the rate of Newtok. Its residents didn’t face the same risk of losing access to key facilities. And they had yet to select a new site, let alone secure the rights to it.

In January, the government announced its decision (http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2016/HUDNo_16-006): Isle de Jean Charles would get full funding for a move. Newtok would get nothing (http://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/i4lawxbaRZzA/v0/460x260.png).

The contest, called the National Disaster Resilience Competition (https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/cdbg-dr/resilient-recovery/), was the first large-scale federal effort to highlight and support local solutions for coping with climate change.

It wound up demonstrating something decidedly less upbeat:

The federal government is still struggling to figure out which communities should be moved, and when, and how to pay for it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-29/the-toughest-question-in-climate-change-who-gets-saved

How much will BigOil pay for Isle de Jean Charles?

or will taxpayers alone pay?

We know the answer.

[RandomGuy]

It was warmer in the past. That's all I was pointing out.

So what? Please explain exactly why they is relevant.

[RandomGuy]

So...

What is the "solid evidence" that greenhouse gasses are causing these changes?

You're an IDIOT.

Yes, a crapital IDIOT!

I never said warming and melting wasn't occurring you moron.

You guys are following the alarmists like lemmings, believing greenhouse gasses are causing all this.

Again,m there is no solid evidence greenhouse gasses are causing it.

So you can't define "usual".

[RandomGuy]

So...

Again, there is no solid evidence greenhouse gasses are causing [warming]

Pretty sweeping statement.

Define "solid evidence". What would you consider solid? what is your bar that needs to be cleared?

[Wild Cobra]

Pretty sweeping statement.

Define "solid evidence". What would you consider solid? what is your bar that needs to be cleared?

Idiot.

Changing what I say for your response.

Greenhouse gasses do cause some warming. I said there was no solid evidence they were causing what the article spoke of, that other factors are also in play.

Keep up the stupidity, and I will keep calling you an idiot!

[Joseph Kony]

are there really still fucktards out there who don't believe in man-accelerated climate change? :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

are there really still fucktards out there who don't believe in man-accelerated climate change? :lmao

There are some. I'm not one of them. I just disagree with extent claimed for CO2, and the alarmism involved.

[Joseph Kony]

im just surprised this thread is still going strong 4 years later

[RandomGuy]

Idiot.

Changing what I say for your response.

Greenhouse gasses do cause some warming. I said there was no solid evidence they were causing what the article spoke of, that other factors are also in play.

Keep up the stupidity, and I will keep calling you an idiot!

Dang dude. Fuzzy has gotten under your skin.

The omission was my best guess as to what you meant by "it".

Feel free to insert whatever you actually meant and supply the definition of "solid evidence", and level of proof you require.

If you can't define "solid evidence" in a coherent manner, then let me know, and we can move on.

[RandomGuy]

im just surprised this thread is still going strong 4 years later

Conspiracy theorists are hard to dissuade. Think: Cosmored's moon landing hoax thread.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Dang dude. Fuzzy has gotten under your skin.

The omission was my best guess as to what you meant by "it".

Feel free to insert whatever you actually meant and supply the definition of "solid evidence", and level of proof you require.

If you can't define "solid evidence" in a coherent manner, then let me know, and we can move on.

You didn't even change the words he used. He said solid evidence and you asked him to define it. He's just using the same tactic he now tries against me to dissemble.

He knows he is full of shit. Notice how he never argues on merit anymore and just goes for these blanket dismissals? I know you remember him talking about soot, solar burps, and the like. He's been shown to be hilariously wrong so many times he won't even try anymore. Darrin too. They are just pigheaded and believe that they want to believe anyway.

[RandomGuy]

You didn't even change the words he used. He said solid evidence and you asked him to define it. He's just using the same tactic he now tries against me to dissemble.

He knows he is full of shit. Notice how he never argues on merit anymore and just goes for these blanket dismissals? I know you remember him talking about soot, solar burps, and the like. He's been shown to be hilariously wrong so many times he won't even try anymore. Darrin too. They are just pigheaded and believe that they want to believe anyway.

People who have pseudoscientific beliefs do occasionally "wake up", as the number of de-converted twoofers can attest.

the best one can do, is to point out good principles of critical thinking, and hope for the best.

[DarrinS]

People who have pseudoscientific beliefs do occasionally "wake up", as the number of de-converted twoofers can attest.

the best one can do, is to point out good principles of critical thinking, and hope for the best.

I guess calling people conspiracy nutters is easier than talking to them. There are plenty of non-alarmist researchers in the climate science community. These people would be labeled "deniers" or skeptics, even though they fully accept that warming has occurred and that humans contributed to that warming. These "deniers" include professors of earth and atmospheric sciences at major universities, or work for NASA, NOAA, etc., or were contributors to BEST and IPCC reports.

[RandomGuy]

I guess calling people conspiracy nutters is easier than talking to them. There are plenty of non-alarmist researchers in the climate science community. These people would be labeled "deniers" or skeptics, even though they fully accept that warming has occurred and that humans contributed to that warming. These "deniers" include professors of earth and atmospheric sciences at major universities, or work for NASA, NOAA, etc., or were contributors to BEST and IPCC reports.

I am more than willing to talk. By all means.

But when you assert a large global conspiracy of scientists... that makes you a conspiracy theorist.

Yes or no?

[RandomGuy]

Alert alert...

Strawmant alert...

Alert alert...

Logical fallacy alert.

Alert alert...


I understand why the margin of error is like it is. I just don't trust scientific peer reviewed papers done in a closer peer review process, especially with such a politically motivated topic. Wouldn't these results be believable if the more skeptical members of the science community reviewed them as well?


Yes, I understand.

You aren't willing to go there. If scientists not trained in the church of AGW were to point out fallacies, the papers would never make it through the peer review process. that's why it's a closed process. Only those who already believe the dogma are allowed to participate.



A one sided review without testing the funding the alarmists give.

Sounds like the results were determined before the study started.


"the peer review process is controlled by alarmist scientists to limit skeptical articles".

Also known as a conspiracy.

By all means, clarify. Do you now think there is no concerted effort to keep out "skeptical" arguments from peer-reviewed papers, i.e. there is no conspiracy?

Did I get that wrong?

Do tell.

[DarrinS]

I am more than willing to talk. By all means.

But when you assert a large global conspiracy of scientists... that makes you a conspiracy theorist.

Yes or no?


There's been unscrupulous behavior by some climate scientists, but I wouldn't call it a global conspiracy.

By the way, what is #ExxonKnew?

[Wild Cobra]

I am more than willing to talk. By all means.

But when you assert a large global conspiracy of scientists... that makes you a conspiracy theorist.

Yes or no?

It is you, who is using the strawman or a conspiracy angle. Trying to ignore the debate by dismissing it as a CT.

Asa long as you continue along those lines, you have no intent of listening to others.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol Wild Dumbass ignores the multiple examples of his conspiracy nonsense and goes back to finger pointing.

[boutons_deux]

There's been unscrupulous behavior by some climate scientists, but I wouldn't call it a global conspiracy.

By the way, what is #ExxonKnew?

Exxon's scientists told Exxon mgmt 30 years or more ago that CO2, GHG would cause global warming. Which was good news for Exxon because it would mean melting of the Arctic ice cap opening more ocean for oil extraction.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There's been unscrupulous behavior by some climate scientists, but I wouldn't call it a global conspiracy.

By the way, what is #ExxonKnew?

Talking of unscrupulous behavior.


Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public.
Experts, however, aren’t terribly surprised. “It’s never been remotely plausible that they did not understand the science,” says Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University. But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research.
In their eight-month-long investigation, reporters at InsideClimate News interviewed former Exxon employees, scientists and federal officials and analyzed hundreds of pages of internal documents. They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today. He continued to warn that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." In other words, Exxon needed to act.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/


He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html

[boutons_deux]

https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14224827_1271133029575226_7368473220626363955_n.jp g?oh=948f1a21d095e6222deab4c5ff3b8ca4&oe=583BBBC5

[boutons_deux]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png

[Winehole23]

August 2016 was Earth's warmest August since record keeping began in 1880, said NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2016/5) on Tuesday. In the NOAA database, August 2016 came in 0.92°C (1.66°F) warmer than the 20th-century average for August, beating the previous record for August, set in 2015, by 0.05°C. NASA also reported the warmest August in its database (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt), as well as a tie with July 2016 for the warmest absolute temperature recorded in any month. Because most of the world’s land area is in the Northern Hemisphere, absolute global temperatures are warmest in northern summer--about 3-4°C (5-7°F) higher than in northern winter. This is why monthly global anomalies (departures from the monthly average) are commonly used to assess the relative warmth or coolness of a given month.

https://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2016/giss-aug16.jpghttps://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/august-extends-an-exceptional-string-of-recordwarm-global-months

[Winehole23]

August 2016 marked the 16th consecutive month that NOAA’s global monthly temperature record was broken, which is the longest such streak since global temperature records began in 1880. Ocean-only temperatures were 0.02°C (0.04°F) cooler than the record warmth of August 2015, while land-only temperatures were a substantial 0.19°C (0.34°F) above the previous land-only record from August 2015. For the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere, global satellite-measured temperatures in August 2016 were the second warmest (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2016-0-44-deg-c/) for any August in the 38-year record, behind only 1998 (http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt), according to the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) (http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/).

[Winehole23]

https://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2016/global-anoms-jan-aug16.jpg
Figure 3. Departure from the 20th-century average for the global January-through-August temperature for the years 1880 - 2016. This year has seen by far the warmest temperatures on record for the year-to-date period. Image credit: NOAA/National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201608).

[RandomGuy]

It is you, who is using the strawman or a conspiracy angle. Trying to ignore the debate by dismissing it as a CT.

Asa long as you continue along those lines, you have no intent of listening to others.

I have asked you repeatedly to clarify.

You can't say I am distorting your views, then refuse to provide them when asked, if your intention is an honest, balanced discussion, based on evidence and reason.

If you intend on being deceptive and irrational, then by all means, don't clarify.

Exactly how are my charactorizations of your position a strawman?

I gave three examples of your claims of conspiracy among scientists to hide or distort evidence. Seems pretty clear.

[RandomGuy]

It is you, who is using the strawman or a conspiracy angle. Trying to ignore the debate by dismissing it as a CT.

Asa long as you continue along those lines, you have no intent of listening to others.

Not all conspiracy theories are wrong.

Your theory is not wrong, simply because other conspiracy theories are completely fucktarded.

The fact that many conspiracy theories are fucktarded though, should lead someone rational to be deeply skeptical of theories based on large groups of people being able to be completely silent about a chosen course of action.

Your theory may indeed be true, but that same rational, appropriately skeptical approach would demand a bit more evidence than has, so far come to light.

One easy to prove aspect of your theory about a conspiracy of scientists, is that the evidence available is physical, and therefore reproducible.

If such a conspiracy of scientists to lie about the evidence exists, that would be obvious and eventually exposed, i.e. it would collapse under its own weight. Real scientists would know this. This would seem to make such a conspiracy unlikely, given that most people are not dishonest, and it would take a lot of dishonest people to keep this up.

You cannot argue the evidence that something other than human made CO2 emissions is responsible for the obvious warming, can you? Hundreds of pages later, I really have yet to see anything approaching an alternative working theory.

In this, the "it is NOT humans, but something else" theory is a lot like the "moon landings are faked" theory to me. When I ask for solid evidence pointing to some other explanation for the available evidence there, it always fails too.

[Wild Cobra]

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/august-extends-an-exceptional-string-of-recordwarm-global-months

Who cares if it was the warmest?

I wonder how misleading the blog is you linked?

Finny how it cites NOAA for temperatures, but then used modeled MEERT2 data...

But... I guess it doesn't matter to parrots who don't know what they are debating.

[RandomGuy]

Who cares if it was the warmest?

I wonder how misleading the blog is you linked?

Finny how it cites NOAA for temperatures, but then used modeled MEERT2 data...

But... I guess it doesn't matter to parrots who don't know what they are debating.

Wow. What does that mean?

[Wild Cobra]

I have asked you repeatedly to clarify.

You can't say I am distorting your views, then refuse to provide them when asked, if your intention is an honest, balanced discussion, based on evidence and reason.

If you intend on being deceptive and irrational, then by all means, don't clarify.

Exactly how are my charactorizations of your position a strawman?

I gave three examples of your claims of conspiracy among scientists to hide or distort evidence. Seems pretty clear.

Just hoiw daft are yolu?

I say there is no evidence that greenhouse gasses are causing "these changes" and you change it to "warming." By "these changes" I was referring to the norther ice meant, not temperature changes. Ice can melt without an increasing its surrounding temperature...

I have specified the changing ice albedo due to aerosols, and specifically soot.

I guess you have no concept what a change of a 0.9 albedo to a 0.7 albedo does to ice... par for the course...

How can you not understand such a simple concept?

[Wild Cobra]

Wow. What does that mean?

That you are referring to a blog. Letting them tell you what to believe.

It's like talking about an apple, but showing a picture of an orange.

Now the jist of the blog may be correct, but it is stupid to rely on what a blogger says, then repeat it, link it, without verifying it factually.

That is... unless you like being a dumb parrot... repeating what someone says without understanding it...