Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1 [Archive] - Page 14

spurraider21

05-15-2017, 01:22 AM

Do you agree with Bill Nye that families should be penalized for having multiple children and do you believe each family should not be allowed to have more than one child?
i dont care for bill nye. like at all. and i find it disturbing and unfortunate that he has been labeled as some "spokesperson for science." i dont agree with a one child rule. again, this is a policy decision, not a scientific finding. in this thread, at least, i'm much more concerned with the science behind climate change (which has been pretty clear in the scientific community for a while now), and much less concerned with policy response. that's an important topic, but a separate one from this thread

Do you think climate change is indisputable?
the evidence for it is overwhelming, if that's what you're asking. if a bunch of practicing scientists/researchers starting conducting studies and publishing a bunch of papers that showed its all bunk, the theory would fall apart pretty quickly.

- we know CO2 functions as a greenhouse gas (lets through short wavelength light and traps longer wavelength heat radiation). we've known this since the 1800's
- we know that CO2 levels are increasing due to human activity
- we know that temperatures have risen at unprecedented rates (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png)
- we know that CO2 is among the major long term drivers of climate, and that historical trends support a link between global temperature and CO2 levels

these are the bare basics, of course.

Do you ever wonder why the only ones claiming it is are government funded organizations?
the ones who are providing evidence are scientists from all over the world. if it was a government driven thing, then you would expect countries like china, who are the worst offenders, to not produce any scientists that find evidence for man made climate change. but we dont see that. chinese researchers are getting the same results as everybody else, even if their government doesn't have a particular agenda about it.

do you ever wonder why the GOP is the only major political party among developed countries that actively defies the scientific community in the question of climate change?

Chris

05-15-2017, 06:36 AM

So adorable watching Chris try and science it up. Like bringing a knife to a nuclear war fight

Its a big fucking knife damnit.

Chris

05-15-2017, 06:43 AM

do you ever wonder why the GOP is the only major political party among developed countries that actively defies the scientific community in the question of climate change?

Thank you for replying. I'm not familiar with the GOP's stance on that so I will have to get back to you after I've had some sleep. I've got some information for you if you haven't already watched my video. Yes Crowder is a douchebag just ignore him and listen to the man who has been studying it and debating it for 30 years.

spurraider21

05-15-2017, 11:36 AM

Thank you for replying. I'm not familiar with the GOP's stance on that so I will have to get back to you after I've had some sleep. I've got some information for you if you haven't already watched my video. Yes Crowder is a douchebag just ignore him and listen to the man who has been studying it and debating it for 30 years.
I'll take a look and go through it. A few things before though.

A) we know crowder has a strong agenda regarding the issue to the point where he has posted not just opinions, but outright falsities. He had an article on his site about how scientists now believe co2 pollution causes cooling. Just pure crap. But I hear you, I'll focus in the guest

B) even when it comes to people in the field, I'm usually much less concerned with what they talk about, write about on websites/blogs, or even publish in books. Scientific evidence and findings are published in peer reviewed academic papers that find room in respected academic journals.

Anybody can go on a TV show and say something they believe and purport it to be fact. But you can make shit up in a peer reviewed publication because either it won't make it through the process or it will be rebutted and eventually retracted.

boutons_deux

05-15-2017, 11:47 AM

do you ever wonder why the GOP is the only major political party among developed countries that actively defies the scientific community in the question of climate change?

I don't "wonder" at all.

Follow The Money

Repugs are craven, venal totally corrupt whores, "governing" as they are paid to do by BigCarbon, BigCorp, BigFinance, etc.

eg, AHCA is BLATANTLY a huge tax cut for the wealthy and BigCorp, has NOTHING to do with health care.

Wild Cobra

05-15-2017, 11:52 AM

.. as if AGW is without cost

It's not black and white, you bipolar idiot. There are several considerations between both ends.

boutons_deux

05-15-2017, 11:54 AM

It's not black and white, you bipolar idiot. There are several considerations between both ends.

You Lie

NOTHING "balances" against stabilizing, cooling the planet. The planet should be entering a cooling phase, not a wildly accelerating heating phase.

RandomGuy

05-15-2017, 12:25 PM

First, what level of carbon reduction is needed to meet your goals?

How are you going to get Asia to stop?

To do any good, the level of carbon mitigation is very costly. Not just electricity, but all of transportation.

Investing in new infrastructure is always costly.

The benefits here, i.e. new good paying jobs, offset that.

Asia may actually be literally in the drivers seat, since the worlds largest market for personal vehicles is going to push the development of electrics. Economies of scale, and incremental change will do the rest.

This is basic economics.

My goals are stabilizing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere short-term, and long term getting it to go back to more natural levels, pre-industrial era.

You keep saying it will "be costly". How do you know that?

Wild Cobra

05-15-2017, 04:15 PM

You Lie

NOTHING "balances" against stabilizing, cooling the planet. The planet should be entering a cooling phase, not a wildly accelerating heating phase.
LOL...

Why are you such a raving lunatic?

Wild Cobra

05-15-2017, 04:15 PM

Investing in new infrastructure is always costly.

The benefits here, i.e. new good paying jobs, offset that.

Asia may actually be literally in the drivers seat, since the worlds largest market for personal vehicles is going to push the development of electrics. Economies of scale, and incremental change will do the rest.

This is basic economics.

My goals are stabilizing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere short-term, and long term getting it to go back to more natural levels, pre-industrial era.

You keep saying it will "be costly". How do you know that?
OK, please show me a workable plan to eliminate CO2 emission.

I would expect you to be a little more realistic than most others on such a venture. Are you going to dissapoint me again?

spurraider21

05-15-2017, 06:31 PM

Excellent discussion here. Someone who has been studying this for 35 years...

ZDK1aCqqZkQgoing through it piece by piece...

0:00-9:00 - the first 9 minutes are just introducing the guy, his time at greenpeace, and his philosophical differences he had with the organization. nothing here is related to the science of climate change so far

9:00-11:30 - this is where he presents a summary of his position... which is to say "well the climate has always changed, and we didn't cause that." this isn't a startling scientific claim. everybody and their mother knows we have had ice ages and warm periods, it's not a revelation. but to act like this proves that there is no man-made warming is just being lazy. thats like saying you cant blame people for forest fires, because there have been forest fires in the past before humans.

imo, what's important about all the previous warming/cooling the earth has experienced is to see "what caused those past climate changes?" and are we recreating those circumstances that led to the climate changing? have differing levels of CO2 affected the climate in the past before, when the CO2 was produced naturally? and is that any different than the CO2 that we are releasing?

he even says things like "nobody talks about the fact that 50 million years ago was the hottest temperature we've had on earth, nobody seems to mention this!" My question here is, what is he basing that on? is there a denial in the scientific community about the temperatures from 50 million years ago? i haven't heard of this. in fact, one of the major pieces of evidence for what's going on today is also the fact that in that SAME time period, we have the highest levels of CO2... ever. (https://skepticalscience.com/images/Phanerozoic_CO2.gif).

he also mentions the milankovitch cycle of the wobble of the earth's axis, which scientists know plays a big role in ice ages. again, this isn't a novel discovery, it's well known. but its a 140,000 year cycle... that wouldn't account for drastic temperature changes over a period of 150 years. that's like saying if your 5 year old son suddenly grew by 10 inches overnight, you'd say, oh thats normal because kids always grow as they age

11:30-14:00 - he says we cant be sure that the warming we've had recently isn't just a continuation of the warming we already had. he even says the rate of warming hasn't changed... but his statements go directly against recorded data. again, this isn't me coming up with my own calculations or data... i'm not a scientist (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png)

this is freely available, documented information. and then he claims nasa is manipulating their data (i'd like to see his evidence for that) and that nasa makes shit up to get funding. i'd like to see his evidence of that. again, anybody can come on a podcast, go on tv, or write on a blog and say anything. lets get something documented.

14:00-15:00 - he just says he's not funded by big oil and talks about media narratives. in the context of this thread, we're interested in the science of climate change, not about narratives or politics

15:50 - 17:00 - he says that there is nothing extraordinary about the temperature compared to anything we've seen in million or even in the last 10's of thousands of years. again, that's not a quantitate statement, i haven't seen his statistical analysis of it, just a statement. and i'm again going to refer to this (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png)

17:00 - 21:00 - he says it doest look like there's going to be significant warming. again, where is he basing this from? is he still conducting active research? he's talking without sources. and then he goes into a long rants about doomsday prophets/al gore. again, there has not been a mainstream scientific claim that "the earth will end in 10 years" or anything like that. it's just a strawman. and then he compares CO2/temperature links to ice cream consumption and shark attacks. the problem is, CO2 inherently has warming qualities. it allows light energy through and blocks heat radiation... hence why its called a greenhouse gas. when you combine the properties of CO2 with the strong correlation we have... its completely dishonest to compare it to shark attacks and ice cream

21:00-26:30 now he goes into a discussion about solar activity (which of course, is documented, charted, and is a part of all climate models that i'm aware of). the solar cycle is about 11 years long though. we've gone through several of these complete sunspot cycles during our recent warming, so i dont know how you can pin it on that. he also talks about how we're about to head towards a solar minimum... and while true, despite this, the temperature is still expected to rise. crowder brings up an article about how the due to solar activity we might see a 0.5 degree cooling. but he misquotes the article badly (full article: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-impact-climate-quantified.html). the article differentiates between natural and man-made causes of climate change, and suggests a cooler sun will have a cooling effect. this is where crowder stops. but the article goes on to say that it will only "slow the pace" of global warming because man-made causes are more powerful. and crowder confuses this to mean "the author thinks the earth will cool but is still just being a catastrophist." when in fact, the author says the sun will lead to a cooling effect that will not be able to compensate for our man-made warming effect.

and then the scientist guy goes off topic about how humans are tropical and global cooling would be more catastrophic than global warming. whether or not this is true, it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the earth is warming do to our activity.

26:30 - 27:50: he talks about "deniers of naturally caused climate change." who is he talking about? is he suggesting that scientists deny there are natural causes to the climate? i dont think those exist. artificially emitted CO2 is one of the factors of climate, not the only one. i dont know of any scientist that says otherwise. and then he talks about how global warming will be beneficial to agriculture. ok, fine. where is the research or study that suggests that the global warming we are expecting will have net benefits to agriculture? see, the problem with everything in this video is that he never refers to a source or a study. if he said "according to x paper written by x in the year 20__, research has shown that warming will help agriculture", i'd be infinitely more interested in what he has to say

and then he rants about media coverage and nuclear power for a bit.

i do find it overall funny that they always say "you cant predict global temperatures, its all guessing" but then have no problem predicting cooling :lol

29:00 - 30:55: first, he just blankly says the catastrophic science is all false. ok, where's his evidence? :lol... this is a recurring theme in this video. what's the data he's referencing to support his statement? he just says its wrong... then just says its a big conspiracy because it's publicly funded. but how does that account for the international consensus? he says nasa/noaa have maniuplated their data to show warming where there isn't. where is his statistical analysis demonstrating this, or what is he basing these statements on? then he says there is no good peer reviewed study that shows a consensus... i point to these exhibits

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/testfolder/aa-migration-to-be-deleted/assets-delete-me/documents-delete-me/ssi-delete-me/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

31:30-34:05 - well this is another common talking point... consensus. it's absolutely true that consensus doesn't dictate science, and scientists dont all gather and vote on "what is true" and "what isn't true." the real consensus, so to speak, is in the evidence and research findings. if you look up research on the issue, the evidence is virtually one sided that AGW is happening. the consensus is in the evidence. the evidence is far more important than the opinion of the scientist. comparing it to the flat earth consensus is retarded because the flat earth consensus wasn't a scientific consensus... and it was the scientific method of evidence/observation that led to the rejection of the flat earth. he then talks about how 1 person like einstein/farraday/mendel can override a consensus. that's absolutely right. but those people PROVED their findings. they didn't just choose to disagree and happen to be right. they proved it and their evidence was undeniable.

towards the end he talks about how a warmer world would be wetter/more moist. this is probably true. i'm really not well-studied in this area... but again, that's irrelevant to the question of whether or not we are causing climate change.

the last thing he talks about is a rant about how it went from global warming to climate change... which is a ridiculous notion since "the carbon dioxide theory of climate change" is a paper going back to the 1950's, the IPCC, the intergovernmental panel on CLIMATE CHANGE dates back to the 1980's. it didn't "suddenly change from warming to change." that's such a bullshit narrative, and its demonstrably bullshit.

RandomGuy

05-16-2017, 12:44 PM

OK, please show me a workable plan to eliminate CO2 emission.

I would expect you to be a little more realistic than most others on such a venture. Are you going to dissapoint me again?

Replace coal plants with renewables, build large scale storage to compensate for baseline power losses, integrate infrastructure. Easy to do, as coal plants are OLD. Just don't replace them with new coal plants. This is already happening.

Move to electric vehicles, scale up even more renewables to compensate.

Utility scale, distributed power through individual installations.

PV panels have the added bonus of having useful lives that will outlast the buildings they may be installed on.

Not difficult.

Move away from burning fossil fuels for electricity and transportation.

Some fuel will still be needed for large trucks and planes. We already have bioreactors with algae and so forth that can be scaled up massively to act as a form of solar concentration. Benefit of this is that it uses CO2 to produce the fuels.

Again, not hard.

A bit of push in the right direction from governments but let free markets and private capital do most of the heavy lifting and allocation of sources.

Wild Cobra

05-16-2017, 02:41 PM

Replace coal plants with renewables, build large scale storage to compensate for baseline power losses, integrate infrastructure. Easy to do, as coal plants are OLD. Just don't replace them with new coal plants. This is already happening.

Move to electric vehicles, scale up even more renewables to compensate.

Utility scale, distributed power through individual installations.

PV panels have the added bonus of having useful lives that will outlast the buildings they may be installed on.

Not difficult.

Move away from burning fossil fuels for electricity and transportation.

Some fuel will still be needed for large trucks and planes. We already have bioreactors with algae and so forth that can be scaled up massively to act as a form of solar concentration. Benefit of this is that it uses CO2 to produce the fuels.

Again, not hard.

A bit of push in the right direction from governments but let free markets and private capital do most of the heavy lifting and allocation of sources.
Wow...

And at what cost?

Are you seriously that ignorant?

Just how are you going to integrate that into every nation on the planet?

RandomGuy

05-16-2017, 05:01 PM

Wow...

And at what cost?

Are you seriously that ignorant?

Just how are you going to integrate that into every nation on the planet?

Cost accounting dictates that you weigh the costs versus the alternatives.

Replace coal plant, with another coal plant = $$. Replace coal plant with PV = $$

We have to replace aging coal plants anyways. The average age of US installed coal MW is over 30+ years if memory serves.

Merely replacing those with PV or wind would not cost altogether that much more, and in many cases LESS, due the levelized cost of energy that factors in the costs of fuel over the life the plant.

Germany offers some clues. They take things a step further and wanted their nukes gone, because of fukishima, so you have a lot of added costs as you have to replace relatively new plants with new construction, and that does get expensive.

Further they are waaay more north, limiting their solar potential. Most areas of the US experience almost twice the amount of solar radiation, meaning solar in the US will end up 1/2 as much (i.e. +100% output of a similar system in Germany)
http://solar2u.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Solar-Map-US-1024x682.jpg

RandomGuy

05-16-2017, 05:03 PM

Wow...

And at what cost?

Are you seriously that ignorant?

Just how are you going to integrate that into every nation on the planet?

Further, merely mandating minor electrical efficiency gains is still easy to do.

The big bad government you have been pissing and moaning about phasing out incandescents has meant that utilities have had to build far fewer electrical plants.

RandomGuy

05-16-2017, 05:04 PM

Wow...

And at what cost?

Are you seriously that ignorant?

Just how are you going to integrate that into every nation on the planet?

Developing countries actually will get to leap-frog the developed world. They get to built out their infrastructure using distributed schemes that might not make sense in the US, and probably building up to us in a way that overall ends up being cheaper.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-16-2017, 05:08 PM

I imagine if we took our defense spending and reduced it to 150% of what country number 2 spends we could fund an energy and telecom infrastructure retooling.

Chris

05-16-2017, 06:41 PM

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/global-warming-is-a-hoax-heres-why

Global Warming is a Hoax: Here’s Why!

RTSgsVdKF0Q

spurraider21

05-16-2017, 06:47 PM

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/global-warming-is-a-hoax-heres-why

Global Warming is a Hoax: Here’s Why!

RTSgsVdKF0Qso i sat through and commented thoroughly on a 45 minute shitty crowder video, and instead of responding to any of it you just spam another one

Chris

05-16-2017, 06:55 PM

so i sat through and commented thoroughly on a 45 minute shitty crowder video, and instead of responding to any of it you just spam another one

You are much more well versed in the 'science' and data that I am so I will not pretend to try to educate you about that. I'm looking at it from a different perspective. I do think it's silly that you expect the scientist in the Crowder segment to cite actual pages from books during a casual conversation. :lol That screams of cognitive dissonance especially if a source is given then ridiculed for it's host instead of its content.

spurraider21

05-16-2017, 06:58 PM

You are much more well versed in the 'science' and data that I am so I will not pretend to try to educate you about that. I'm looking at it from a different perspective. I do think it's silly that you expect the scientist in the Crowder segment to cite actual pages from books during a casual conversation. :lol That screams of cognitive dissonance especially if a source is given then ridiculed for it's host instead of its content.no, not really. when i've watched lectures or even watched youtube videos of people discussing the issue, i always expect citations. look at the crowder response videos i posted on page 107 (link here http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&page=107&p=9000258&viewfull=1#post9000258). throughout the video he refers to citations, and the description of the videos are full of citations/links and timestamps

that's not cognitive dissonance, that's just common sense. it's why i'll always prefer a scientific publication, which must rigorously cite to everything they claim over some fucking blog with flashy headlines

this is something i'll take more seriously than some guy just talking out of his ass. but no, i'm sure fucking dick morris knows more than every scientist on the planet combined

spurraider21

05-16-2017, 08:07 PM

Chris ask yourself why he picks specifically 1998 as a starting point... you dont have to be scientifically versed to understand it :lol

https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/418335main_land-ocean-full.jpg

FuzzyLumpkins

05-16-2017, 08:15 PM

They'll be using 2016 as a starting point in a few more years. It was a significant EN event.

Then you have next level ignorance like WC trying to claim that the ocean's circulation acting as a heat sink meant it was not warming.

Chris

05-16-2017, 10:46 PM

Chris ask yourself why he picks specifically 1998 as a starting point... you dont have to be scientifically versed to understand it :lol

He's simply saying that for the last 19 years there has been no significant change in temperatures (ie:Global Warming,Climate Change). He acknowledged 1997 as an anomaly shortly after that. He then red pills everyone about the real reason it's being propagated and where the money's going.

You've been tricked; hoodwinked.

spurraider21

05-16-2017, 11:25 PM

He's simply saying that for the last 19 years there has been no significant change in temperatures (ie:Global Warming,Climate Change). He acknowledged 1997 as an anomaly shortly after that. He then red pills everyone about the real reason it's being propagated and where the money's going.

You've been tricked; hoodwinked.yes, and "the last 19 years" conveniently starts at 1998. looking at the chart i posted, can you use your big boy brain and tell me why he chose 1998 and not, say, 1996? or 2000, or literally any other year around that timespan? its funny because there's been significant change in temperature in the last 18 years. there's been significant change in the last 20 years. but when you cherry pick exactly 19 years, you get a different picture. can you explain why he specifically chooses 1998 as a starting point?

or when he says the arctic ice cap isn't shrinking... where is he getting that data from? :lol

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069666/full

spurraider21

05-16-2017, 11:33 PM

and Chris let me know when you've returned the favor and watch the video's i linked earlier. i did you the courtesy of watching a 45 minute video. the 3 i posted have a total of about 43 minutes, and that's a bit much. how about you just watch one of them and tell me what you think of the citations/studies referenced, and tell me if expecting them is just "cognitive dissonance"

Wild Cobra

05-16-2017, 11:38 PM

Chris

05-16-2017, 11:39 PM

Wild Cobra

05-16-2017, 11:40 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

05-17-2017, 04:25 AM

LOL...

When did I say its not warming?

Go fuck off you idiot.

You said it was the ocean circulation and not CO2 that was causing warming. You also waved your hands at soot in the same manner.

Anything to protect your fossil fuel masters.

Wild Cobra

05-17-2017, 01:16 PM

You said it was the ocean circulation and not CO2 that was causing warming. You also waved your hands at soot in the same manner.

Anything to protect your fossil fuel masters.

LOL...

If you say so.

LOL...

I claim the sun is warming the ocean rather than CO2.

I claim soot is melting the northern ice more than CO2, and that it warms more than the IPCC claims.

Just how bad is your comprehension skills?

LOL...

LOL...

RandomGuy

05-17-2017, 03:55 PM

Random.

have you seen what it is doing to prices in Germany, even with the subsidies?

Then to have zero emission, how are you going to force the rest of the world? At the gunpoint of our military?

There is no way to do so.

As noted before, no small part of their problem is that they are getting rid of their nukes, and that PV is a lot less efficient at that latitude.

Neither of which will happen in the US.

I am very cognizant of German electricity prices, yes.

The rest of the world will simply have to agree, I don't think there is any need to force anybody. Efficiencies of scale and learning curves are bringing down the costs of renewables.

Further coal requires a lot of nasty mining and burning.

The problem with a lot of the developing world is getting fuel for the plants. No money for fuel... no fuel, no power. Trucker strike... no fuel, no power.

Renewables for the developing world, especially those countries nearer the equator is an easy case to make from a free market perspective.

No need to force anybody to do anything. That really is a bizarre assertion, i.e. that it would be necessary.

Wild Cobra

05-17-2017, 11:18 PM

The rest of the world will simply have to agree, I don't think there is any need to force anybody.

Wow.

"Simply have to agree?" LOL... Never happen!

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2017, 12:24 AM

LOL...

If you say so.

LOL...

I claim the sun is warming the ocean rather than CO2.

I claim soot is melting the northern ice more than CO2, and that it warms more than the IPCC claims.

Just how bad is your comprehension skills?

LOL...

LOL...

GHG warm the ocean in addition to direct solar ir, dim.

You claimed soot accounted for all the arctic melt. You also said their models ignored soot's input.

That is your whole schtick: barely understand a concept and then pretend that is the only thing that matters. All or nothing stupidity from the resident idiot.

DarrinS

05-18-2017, 12:11 PM

How to Convince Skeptics that Climate Change is a Problem

Posted March 8th, 2017 @ 1:32pm in #climate science

I don’t know much about science, and even less about climate science. So as a practical matter, I like to side with the majority of scientists until they change their collective minds. They might be wrong, but their guess is probably better than mine.

That said, it is mind-boggling to me that the scientific community can’t make a case for climate science that sounds convincing, even to some of the people on their side, such as me. In other words, I think scientists are right (because I play the odds), but I am puzzled by why they can’t put together a convincing argument, whereas the skeptics can, and easily do. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

As a public service, and to save the planet, obviously, I will tell you what it would take to convince skeptics that climate science is a problem that we must fix. Please avoid the following persuasion mistakes.

1. Stop telling me the “models” (plural) are good. If you told me one specific model was good, that might sound convincing. But if climate scientists have multiple models, and they all point in the same general direction, something sounds fishy. If climate science is relatively “settled,” wouldn’t we all use the same models and assumptions?

And why can’t science tell me which one of the different models is the good one, so we can ignore the less-good ones? What’s up with that? If you can’t tell me which model is better than the others, why would I believe anything about them?

2. Stop telling me the climate models are excellent at hindcasting, meaning they work when you look at history. That is also true of financial models, and we know financial models can NOT predict the future. We also know that investment advisors like to show you their pure-luck past performance to scam you into thinking they can do it in the future. To put it bluntly, climate science is using the most well-known scam method (predicting the past) to gain credibility. That doesn’t mean climate models are scams. It only means scientists picked the least credible way to claim credibility. Were there no options for presenting their case in a credible way?

Just to be clear, hindcasting is a necessary check-off for knowing your models are rational and worthy of testing in the future. But it tells you nothing of their ability to predict the future. If scientists were honest about that point, they would be more credible.

3. Tell me what percentage of warming is caused by humans versus natural causes. If humans are 10% of the cause, I am not so worried. If we are 90%, you have my attention. And if you leave out the percentage caused by humans, I have to assume the omission is intentional. And why would you leave out the most important number if you were being straight with people? Sounds fishy.

There might be a good reason why science doesn’t know the percentage of human-made warming and still has a good reason for being alarmed. I just haven’t seen it, and I’ve been looking for it. Why would climate science ignore the only important fact for persuasion?

Today I saw an article saying humans are responsible for MORE than 100% of warming because the earth would otherwise be in a cooling state. No links provided. Credibility = zero.

4. Stop attacking some of the messengers for believing that our reality holds evidence of Intelligent Design. Climate science alarmists need to update their thinking to the “simulated universe” idea that makes a convincing case that we are a trillion times more likely to be a simulation than we are likely to be the first creatures who can create one. No God is required in that theory, and it is entirely compatible with accepted science. (Even if it is wrong.)

5. Skeptics produce charts of the earth’s temperature going up and down for ages before humans were industrialized. If you can’t explain-away that chart, I can’t hear anything else you say. I believe the climate alarmists are talking about the rate of increase, not the actual temperatures. But why do I never see their chart overlayed on the skeptics’ chart so we can see the difference? That seems like the obvious thing to do. In fact, climate alarmists should throw out everything but that one chart.

6. Stop telling me the arctic ice on one pole is decreasing if you are ignoring the increase on the other pole. Or tell me why the experts observing the ice increase are wrong. When you ignore the claim, it feels fishy.

7. When skeptics point out that the Earth has not warmed as predicted, don’t change the subject to sea levels. That sounds fishy.

8. Don’t let the skeptics talk last. The typical arc I see online is that Climate Scientists point out that temperatures are rising, then skeptics produce a chart saying the temperatures are always fluctuating, and have for as far as we can measure. If the real argument is about rate of change, stop telling me about record high temperatures as if they are proof of something.

9. Stop pointing to record warmth in one place when we’re also having record cold in others. How is one relevant and the other is not?

10. Don’t tell me how well your models predict the past. Tell me how many climate models have ever been created, since we started doing this sort of thing, and tell me how many have now been discarded because they didn’t predict correctly. If the answer is “All of the old ones failed and we were totally surprised because they were good at hindcasting,” then why would I trust the new ones?

11. When you claim the oceans have risen dramatically, you need to explain why insurance companies are ignoring this risk and why my local beaches look exactly the same to me. Also, when I Google this question, why are half of the top search results debunking the rise? How can I tell who is right? They all sound credible to me.

12. If you want me to believe warmer temperatures are bad, you need to produce a chart telling me how humankind thrived during various warmer and colder eras. Was warming usually good or usually bad?

You also need to convince me that economic models are accurate. Sure, we might have warming, but you have to run economic models to figure out how that affects things. And economic models are, as you know, usually worthless.

13. Stop conflating the basic science and the measurements with the models. Each has its own credibility. The basic science and even the measurements are credible. The models are less so. If you don’t make that distinction, I see the message as manipulation, not an honest transfer of knowledge.

14. If skeptics make you retreat to Pascal’s Wager as your main argument for aggressively responding the climate change, please understand that you lost the debate. The world is full of risks that might happen. We don’t treat all of them as real. And we can’t rank any of these risks to know how to allocate our capital to the best path. Should we put a trillion dollars into climate remediation or use that money for a missile defense system to better protect us from North Korea?

Anyway, to me it seems brutally wrong to call skeptics on climate science “anti-science” when all they want is for science to make its case in a way that doesn’t look exactly like a financial scam.* Is that asking a lot?

People ask me why I keep writing on this topic. My interest is the psychology around it, and the persuasion game on both sides. And it seems to me that climate scientists are the Hillary Clinton of scientists. They think facts and reason will persuade the public. Even though science knows that doesn’t generally work.

* Or a Chinese hoax. They look similar.

RandomGuy

05-18-2017, 12:20 PM

11. When you claim the oceans have risen dramatically, you need to explain why insurance companies are ignoring this risk and why my local beaches look exactly the same to me. Also, when I Google this question, why are half of the top search results debunking the rise? How can I tell who is right? They all sound credible to me.

http://fortune.com/2016/08/23/munich-re-disaster-insurance/

https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/cng-featured-image-insurance.png

This Chart Shows Why Insurers Are Climate-Change Believers

This is the kind of mistake you make when you are not an expert.

Just about every company in the property and casualty insurance business carefully tracks climate data these days (the data for the chart below, for example, comes from Swiss Re). But this year's Fortune Change the World list recognizes one insurer that was far ahead of the pack: Germany's Munich Re (#13). The company, which provides both reinsurance and primary coverage, first warned about planetary weather changes in 1973 and founded its Geo Risks Research Department a year later to study the subject. Now it's a leader in insuring clean-fuel projects.

RandomGuy

05-18-2017, 12:23 PM

In the interest of intellectual honesty:

The chart above must be viewed in the context of premium growth.

boutons_deux

05-18-2017, 12:29 PM

In the interest of intellectual honesty:

The chart above must be viewed in the context of premium growth.

Also in the context of greatly increasing (re)construction in weather-vulnerable areas.

US govt insurance is $25B? in the hole because it won't charge premiums (that commercial insurance won't touch) that cover US govt insurance losses.

I'm sure the same people who object to paying for insurance that covers pregnancies don't care about paying for covering rich people, luxury hotels on the beach.

spurraider21

05-18-2017, 12:30 PM

Wild Cobra

05-18-2017, 12:42 PM

GHG warm the ocean in addition to direct solar ir, dim.

You claimed soot accounted for all the arctic melt. You also said their models ignored soot's input.

That is your whole schtick: barely understand a concept and then pretend that is the only thing that matters. All or nothing stupidity from the resident idiot.
Why are you such a fucking idiot?

GHG warming of the oceans is insignificant compared to solar. Most of CO2 radiates back off the surface or simply converts most it's remaining heat content to vaporization.

Saying soot melts the ice "more than" CO2 does not make the claim CO2 doesn't melt any.

You claiming I am an idiot is totally laughable!

Wild Cobra

05-18-2017, 12:46 PM

In the interest of intellectual honesty:

The chart above must be viewed in the context of premium growth.

And number of people buing said insurance.

It's under an 8% annual growth rate as a trend. I see nothing to suggest climate as a factor.

RandomGuy

05-18-2017, 12:51 PM

Oh shame on scientists for thinking facts and reason matter.

That entire post is cringeworthy and I could give a longer response later (though it will just be ignored and then another similar post will be copy pasted)... But it's ridiculous to demand an economic model and then follow that sentence with a statement that economic models are worthless and won't convince you of anything. And lol at squeezing in a religious objection to climate change

Yeah, I saw that. Adams is, though, less about taking a specific stand and more about offering critique of messaging.

What Adams missed, however, is that ID is almost exclusively a fig leaf for Christian religious dogma.

RandomGuy

05-18-2017, 12:53 PM

And number of people buing said insurance.

It's under an 8% annual growth rate as a trend. I see nothing to suggest climate as a factor.

Hard to separate the two. "nothing" though is a bit of a quick absolutist dismissal, and not something a good data wonk would ever say.

Wild Cobra

05-18-2017, 01:01 PM

Actually, I should have said nothing to suggest AGW is a factor.

Climate definitely is as most of those peaks were during times of climate disasters.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2017, 04:08 PM

Why are you such a fucking idiot?

GHG warming of the oceans is insignificant compared to solar. Most of CO2 radiates back off the surface or simply converts most it's remaining heat content to vaporization.

Saying soot melts the ice "more than" CO2 does not make the claim CO2 doesn't melt any.

You claiming I am an idiot is totally laughable!

You were running around telling us that the models did not consider soot. Then MiG showed you that they did and where. You then repeated yourself anyway. When they later revised the soot figures and it changed the forcing values minimally you acted like you had accomplished something.

That was you taking someone somewhere telling you that the soot figures were problematic and you interpreting it into "they don't consider it at all" with your pea brain.

Similarly, you said that the ocean currents could account for the earth's warming completely. You then posted fluid dynamic maps of the currents and waved your hands a lot. I've read your harebrained schemes about IR penetration with the ocean surface over at science.com and we shit on that EZ-bake oven science over there too.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2017, 04:09 PM

Actually, I should have said nothing to suggest AGW is a factor.

Climate definitely is as most of those peaks were during times of climate disasters.

You wrote exactly that, dim.

spurraider21

05-18-2017, 05:43 PM

"If you told me one specific model was good, that might sound convincing. But if climate scientists have multiple models, and they all point in the same general direction, something sounds fishy. If climate science is relatively "settled," would't we all use the same models and assumptions?"

just, lol. no, if you have multiple models and they're scattered all over the place as far as results go, then THAT would be when the science clearly isn't settled and the community hasn't been able to narrow things down. when you have several different models that point to the same conclusion using different methods and analysis, that's precisely when the conclusion becomes convincing. and that's #1 on this list :lol... holy shit

spurraider21

05-18-2017, 05:45 PM

#2 compares the laws of physics to economic forecasting models :lol

spurraider21

05-18-2017, 05:56 PM

#3 asks for a percent attribution, to which there are several peer reviewed papers discussing just that. then mentions "i saw an article today with no links. not credible." oh well good for you!

here's a bunch of studies that go into attribution. the first is probably what the "article" he read was referencing, as it mentions that natural causes would lead to cooling, and therefore the human contribution exceeds 100%

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?2000ESASP.463..201T&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3966.1
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1585-8
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-016-3079-6

this shit is all so easily accessible... if there was an actual, genuine curiosity behind any of the questions raised, you'd have to actively avoid the information. instead the author is tryin to play a gotcha game and fails miserably at it

spurraider21

05-18-2017, 06:06 PM

5. Skeptics produce charts of the earth’s temperature going up and down for ages before humans were industrialized. If you can’t explain-away that chart, I can’t hear anything else you say. I believe the climate alarmists are talking about the rate of increase, not the actual temperatures. But why do I never see their chart overlayed on the skeptics’ chart so we can see the difference? That seems like the obvious thing to do. In fact, climate alarmists should throw out everything but that one chart.

no. skeptics don't produce these charts. scientists produced these charts. and if it wasn't for the past history, scientists wouldn't have a leg to stand on. the temperature has changed in the past. the important question there is "what caused those past changes"... if your answer is, among other things, like solar variability, albedo, earth's wobble... CO2, then by us adding CO2, we are recreating the conditions that had caused previous climate changes.

Wild Cobra

05-18-2017, 06:44 PM

You were running around telling us that the models did not consider soot. Then MiG showed you that they did and where. You then repeated yourself anyway. When they later revised the soot figures and it changed the forcing values minimally you acted like you had accomplished something.

That was you taking someone somewhere telling you that the soot figures were problematic and you interpreting it into "they don't consider it at all" with your pea brain.

Similarly, you said that the ocean currents could account for the earth's warming completely. You then posted fluid dynamic maps of the currents and waved your hands a lot. I've read your harebrained schemes about IR penetration with the ocean surface over at science.com and we shit on that EZ-bake oven science over there too.

They do not "properly" consider soot or solar.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-18-2017, 07:00 PM

They do not "properly" consider soot or solar.

And the "proper way" according to you was soot not CO2. For example:

Everything I have studied about global warming tells me it is primarily driven by various sun activities. The only man-made warming that can be agreed on in the scientific community is China's burning of coal in the quantities and lack of cleanliness that they do it by. Soot is depositing on the northern ice and melting from the extra heat the black absorbs. With less reflective ice and more absorbing ocean water, the earth is keeping more energy from the sun! This is most probably why the ocean is warming!

CO2 has absolutely no effect on adding to troposphere heat. It increases heat at a lower altitude, but all historical satellite temperature measurements of the troposphere remain unchanged. It can attribute to more severe weather in theory.

Never see the alarmists tell us about the troposphere’s temperature, now do we? If CO2 causing global warming was real, we would see it in troposphere temperature readings. But no…. The alarmists like to use thermometers, which are influenced by urban growth.

or

How does that article help when the author lies about cause and effect?

I can buy the three degrees, but not due to CO2. It is from a by-product of producing CO2 during electrical generation called black carbon. The coal burning plants in China are depositing soot on the ice, collecting heat from the sun, and melting the ice. The arctic ocean now warms because the water is absorbing more than 90% of the suns radiation instead of reflecting more than 90% of it.

Also note, warmer sea water can absorb less CO2. It releases it. If the 3 degrees was a global average, that would equate to about an additional 84 ppm of CO2 globally.

I had forgotten about the ocean as a soda stupidity.

Here's you claiming that only you thought of it:

There's a relatively new article in The Deniers series that speaks of the Black Carbon I have mentioned before. This is the first time I have seen anyone else besides me publically announce such a thing. I found the information from NASA, but they play the political game and stay silent about it.

More and I chose the second paragraph for irony.

Be specific. We do have a carbon problem. It's called soot, or black carbon. Asia is causing this soot to fall over the arctic ice cap, increasing the melt rate substantially. CO2 is not a problem for man kind until at least the 3% point (30,000 ppm). It will likely cause problems for more sensitive life like birds before that, but we will never see such levels.

Notice that alarmists will pick a starting period of low temperature to today's relative high. This shows highs to highs, and lows to lows, correlating to under 0.2 C increase over your coveted 100 years. Now here's a kicker... Solar irradiance in now about 0.1% long term average higher now (after 1950) than 1900 and earlier. That 0.1% increase may seem insignificant, but considering how cold the earth would be with no solar radiation, it amounts to over 0.2 C just by the increase in solar irradiation. Matches up pretty good to the 0.18 C trend when all averages are taken into account.

You're full of shit, dim. You should try and explain things like you used to. It was so much more fun. The ocean is like a giant soda!

DarrinS

05-18-2017, 07:04 PM

no. skeptics don't produce these charts. scientists produced these charts.

You make it sound as if there are no scientists who are skeptics.

spurraider21

05-18-2017, 07:13 PM

You make it sound as if there are no scientists who are skeptics.was referring to the scientific community at large, not necessarily every individual scientist. and he sounds as if non-skeptics ignore paleoclimatology

like hey wise guys, ya ever consider past climates? i'll bet ya didnt. it's a dishonest position.

Chris

05-24-2017, 04:12 PM

:lol crowder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEylCS6-hBE&t=6s

Stolen but I agree "Okay, first things first. Crowder isn't trying to argue science in his video. He's arguing against leftist ideology with regards to climate change. The point isn't to debunk climate change. The point is to debunk the constant left-wing talking points that bombard the country on a regular basis.

I don't understand your attempted debunking of myth 1. You have to realize that you're arguing exactly what he is. We know the world isn't flat because of "truth", but how is truth developed? WITH EVIDENCE. You're arguing the same thing.

Point 2 appears valid, factually, but I think you're moving the goalposts just a tad. The argument with climate change is that it is a global phenomenon endangering humanity. How is it a global phenomenon if the southern ice sheet is gaining mass? It appears hemispherical looking at your facts, which undermines quite a bit of the theories normally posed about climate science. Do they not have carbon emissions in the southern hemisphere? Crowder is wrong to only look south, but again, the overall theme is to debunk leftist myths, not science. This last sentence is what you're missing in points 3 and 4 too. He's not here to debunk climate change. He's here to debunk leftists, which includes politicians saying the planet was freezing and environmentalists decrying that Florida will be completely underwater by 2020.

And finally, those points you demand he disprove at the end were not his points, those were yours. And if you listened to him properly, those points in the beginning are how the left defines climate deniers, not the points he would be trying to debunk with the video. You know, there are reasons people build strawmen, they're easy to debate. Anybody can go pick apart and redefine a video to serve his own ends. If you really want to respond, why not reach out to Louder with Crowder. Share your evidence and hear him out. See he'll put you on to debate, because a response video is purposely avoiding that conversation."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrNmq4ouWww

I'm assuming you posted this video to discredit Crowder? I'm not arguing on Crowder's behalf for this conversation and this video is unrelated to my scientist video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeOZSMrwnYw

another old video slamming Crowder. Apparently this guy is making a living off sniffing Crowder's jock :lol He has a nice radio voice with a British accent so he must be telling the truth about everything. :lol

spurraider21

05-24-2017, 04:25 PM

Stolen but I agree "Okay, first things first. Crowder isn't trying to argue science in his video. He's arguing against leftist ideology with regards to climate change. The point isn't to debunk climate change. The point is to debunk the constant left-wing talking points that bombard the country on a regular basis. that's a fair point. like i said, at least in the context of this thread, and for many, the discussion is general, the the argument from some that global warming isn't even happening at all

I don't understand your attempted debunking of myth 1. You have to realize that you're arguing exactly what he is. We know the world isn't flat because of "truth", but how is truth developed? WITH EVIDENCE. You're arguing the same thing.yes that was nitpicky, but he ultimately agreed with crowder that science isn't based on consensus, so there isn't really a controversy here

Point 2 appears valid, factually, but I think you're moving the goalposts just a tad. The argument with climate change is that it is a global phenomenon endangering humanity. How is it a global phenomenon if the southern ice sheet is gaining mass? It appears hemispherical looking at your facts, which undermines quite a bit of the theories normally posed about climate science. Do they not have carbon emissions in the southern hemisphere? Crowder is wrong to only look south, but again, the overall theme is to debunk leftist myths, not science. This last sentence is what you're missing in points 3 and 4 too. He's not here to debunk climate change. He's here to debunk leftists, which includes politicians saying the planet was freezing and environmentalists decrying that Florida will be completely underwater by 2020.it's valid because global warming is just that... global. you have to take into consideration the entire earth as a whole. if some places are getting colder, but most places are getting warmer, that's still indicative of global warming. when there are two ice caps, and one of them is gaining some ice, and the other one is losing way more ice, it's indicative of an overall warming. crowder literally ignores one of the two major ice sheets when he attempts to debunk the "myth that the ice sheets are melting."

And finally, those points you demand he disprove at the end were not his points, those were yours. And if you listened to him properly, those points in the beginning are how the left defines climate deniers, not the points he would be trying to debunk with the video. You know, there are reasons people build strawmen, they're easy to debate. Anybody can go pick apart and redefine a video to serve his own ends. If you really want to respond, why not reach out to Louder with Crowder. Share your evidence and hear him out. See he'll put you on to debate, because a response video is purposely avoiding that conversation."
well first of all, he addresses the scientific claims, not the political ones. so he doesn't argue strawmen when he talks about polar bear numbers, ice sheets, global cooling, etc.

secondly, the maker of the videos HAS reached out to crowder (as shown in the two other videos below that you may or may not have watched)

I'm assuming you posted this video to discredit Crowder? I'm not arguing on Crowder's behalf for this conversation and this video is unrelated to my scientist video...true in part. i use these videos to show that crowder is not credible when it comes to the scientific discussion on climate change. the waters are too deep for him. it's not to say everything crowder ever says is wrong. it shows that he's incredibly uninformed on the issues of climate change

another old video slamming Crowder. Apparently this guy is making a living off sniffing Crowder's jock :lol He has a nice radio voice with a British accent so he must be telling the truth about everything. :lol

these aren't old videos :lol... all three of these have come out in the last year. two of them came out in a 1 week span. his channel has over 130 videos over the course of 10 years, about 40 of which are about climate change. 3 of them, all in the last year, have discussed crowder videos.

and no, i dont think he tells the truth because he has a british accent. i think he tells the truth because every time he makes a claim of fact, he cites to a source such as a scientific paper or journal which he both references in the video and links to in his video descriptions

and in videos where his mistakes have been called out or pointed out, he has gone back after the fact and posted corrections

Chris

05-24-2017, 04:49 PM

and no, i dont think he tells the truth because he has a british accent. i think he tells the truth because every time he makes a claim of fact, he cites to a source such as a scientific paper or journal which he both references in the video and links to in his video descriptions

and in videos where his mistakes have been called out or pointed out, he has gone back after the fact and posted corrections[/SIZE]

I agree he is quite tenacious, and good with his sources. He appears to create a safe space in the comments section sometimes by deleting comments and blocking users. Other than that he does good work, and I appreciate what he has to say. :tu

spurraider21

05-24-2017, 05:04 PM

I agree he is quite tenacious, and good with his sources. He appears to create a safe space in the comments section sometimes by deleting comments and blocking users. Other than that he does good work, and I appreciate what he has to say. :tuwhere do you get the impression he censors comments? just looked through the ones i posted here and see comments bashing his videos...

i know you like saying safe space as a buzzword, but where is that apparent on his channel?

Chris

05-24-2017, 05:31 PM

where do you get the impression he censors comments? just looked through the ones i posted here and see comments bashing his videos...

i know you like saying safe space as a buzzword, but where is that apparent on his channel?

He mentions it saying "hey guys I deleted so and so in the comments". Scrolling through them- the ones that are disagreements are buried at the bottom with a lot of fluff comments at the top that call him everything but Jesus.

spurraider21

05-24-2017, 05:35 PM

He mentions it saying "hey guys I deleted so and so in the comments". Scrolling through them- the ones that are disagreements are buried at the bottom with a lot of fluff comments at the top that call him everything but Jesus.i'm sure any youtube channel with a following will have fluffers. that's not indicative of a safe space or censorship

i only saw him mention one deleted comment where he told the guy to repost his comment without disabling replies. he told the guy to repost his comment so there can be discussion, the exact opposite of censorship

RandomGuy

05-25-2017, 12:41 PM

Actually, I should have said nothing to suggest AGW is a factor.

Climate definitely is as most of those peaks were during times of climate disasters.

You said you saw "nothing". How exactly did you reach that conclusion?

Be as specific as possible about how you reached that conclusion, so I can check for myself to see if that method works.

spurraider21

06-01-2017, 02:26 PM

:lol

870104138943791105

TSA

06-01-2017, 02:50 PM

:lol

870104138943791105

"my advisors and I"

Come on Neil you are better than that.

Wild Cobra

06-01-2017, 02:57 PM

"my advisors and I"

Come on Neil you are better than that.
Is he?

I think not!!!

Adam Lambert

06-01-2017, 02:59 PM

a wild cobra appears

(to throw shade at neil d tyson)

Chris

06-01-2017, 07:02 PM

4hT7i5G0iVQ

Thread

06-01-2017, 07:04 PM

It's a mechanism to separate gullible Americans from their cash. A fresh revenue stream for government.

Motherfuckers.

spurraider21

06-01-2017, 07:11 PM

It's a mechanism to separate gullible Americans from their cash. A fresh revenue stream for government.

Motherfuckers.
I have to admit, it must be easy on the mind to proceed that way. If you don't like something, it's not true. Heck I'd go on pretending 6 never happened

spurraider21

06-01-2017, 07:13 PM

4hT7i5G0iVQ
Breaking news! Non-scientist outsmart entire world scientists in their own field !

Adam Lambert

06-01-2017, 07:33 PM

the bigger and redder the font on a video, the more credible it is

DarrinS

06-01-2017, 07:36 PM

Nearly a third of all CO2 emissions EVER have been emitted since 2000. And global temperature over that period?

Meh

And about 40% has been emitted since 1990.

Adam Lambert

06-01-2017, 07:41 PM

knew it was only a matter of time before the real expert weighed in.

spurraider21

06-01-2017, 07:44 PM

Nearly a third of all CO2 emissions EVER have been emitted since 2000. And global temperature over that period?

Meh

And about 40% has been emitted since 1990.
You should screenshot this post and send it to scientific American. You'll get your Nobel in no time for establishing a new scientific paradigm with information that no credible scientist had ever considered.

Decades of data and research debunked in 3 sentences. Fucking legend.

DarrinS

06-01-2017, 07:53 PM

You should screenshot this post and send it to scientific American. You'll get your Nobel in no time for establishing a new scientific paradigm with information that no credible scientist had ever considered.

Decades of data and research debunked in 3 sentences. Fucking legend.

CO2’s effect diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration.

spurraider21

06-01-2017, 08:16 PM

CO2’s effect diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration.
yes. the evil globalist conspiracy think tank known as the ipcc has acknowledged this, and it factors into all their data and models

the problem is that an exponential increase in co2, which we have will, have a more linear effect on temperature

Chris

06-01-2017, 08:19 PM

QPY7_Zysxnw?t=5m

Follow up video with Lord Monckton: fast forward to 5 minutes. He is going to prove that they screwed up regardless of motive.

spurraider21

06-01-2017, 08:22 PM

QPY7_Zysxnw?t=5m

Follow up video with Lord Monckton: fast forward to 5 minutes. He is going to prove that they screwed up regardless of motive.
well the first video you posted had just about 0 scientific discussion and was all about the globalist dictatorship nazi communist oligarchy conspiracy of europe, so an actual discussion of the science would be greatly appreciated

i'll wait for the paper to be peer reviewed, published, inspected and will reserve judgment until then. he keeps talking about the 4 huge errors and his fancy labs, but hasn't really discussed anything here.

Chris

06-01-2017, 08:25 PM

well the first video you posted had just about 0 scientific discussion and was all about the globalist dictatorship nazi communist oligarchy conspiracy of europe, so an actual discussion of the science would be greatly appreciated

i'll wait for the paper to be peer reviewed, published, inspected and will reserve judgment until then. he keeps talking about the 4 huge errors and his fancy labs, but hasn't really discussed anything here.

This guy didn't come out of left field. He has credibility in the field of science.

spurraider21

06-01-2017, 08:27 PM

This guy didn't come out of left field. He has credibility in the field of science.
:lol

you're correct that monckton didn't come out of left field. he's well known in the field as a hack... beginning with the fact that he has next to no scientific education or accolades (has a degree in journalism). he made a living giving seminars on climate change and lacks credibility with the scientific community (that's where you're wrong on him) because he constantly misstates data, which is why he now does almost all his work on wattsupwiththat blog

he's made claims that greenland's ice sheets aren't melting, that the earth is getting cooler, that there is no systematic ice loss in the arctic, that there's no correlation between co2 and temperature, and a lot of other stuff that's demonstrably false. it even got to a point where he misquoted a paper so bad that the author had to respond to him to stop misquoting her paper :rollin

Chucho

06-01-2017, 08:46 PM

the bigger and redder the font on a video, the more credible it is

Only Fascist vids approved by Fagbert are valid when arguing with the jizz spitoon of the Fagcist brigade. One trick trick.

Th'Pusher

06-01-2017, 09:47 PM

Only Fascist vids approved by Fagbert are valid when arguing with the jizz spitoon of the Fagcist brigade. One trick trick.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Y15XTroTMkg/0.jpg

Thread

06-01-2017, 10:06 PM

I have to admit, it must be easy on the mind to proceed that way. If you don't like something, it's not true. Heck I'd go on pretending 6 never happened

I'm not going to dance with you again on this issue, 21. I'm in a good mood. The forgotten men & women of this country are being forgotten no longer.

Trump President. Not Clinton.

spurraider21

06-01-2017, 10:21 PM

I'm not going to dance with you again on this issue, 21. I'm in a good mood. The forgotten men & women of this country are being forgotten no longer.

Trump President. Not Clinton.
there ya go. the best way for you to address this subject is to not actually address it. talk about hoaxes, conspiracies, plots. make sure you never discuss the merits

spurraider21

06-02-2017, 04:30 AM

Nearly a third of all CO2 emissions EVER have been emitted since 2000. And global temperature over that period?

Meh

And about 40% has been emitted since 1990.
hmm...

https://i.gyazo.com/73c5a0f9fe6f8078c84b33edb8876d21.png

https://i.gyazo.com/5ef3f4ff22844f640c76bf8a3ffd0a5c.png

spurraider21

06-02-2017, 04:33 AM

or we could just do that thing where we take the bottom graph, take that one really high spot in 1998, and draw a line to the present and say "oh look virtually no warming for 19 years! it's a pause!" while ignoring every other data point :tu

spurraider21

06-02-2017, 04:40 AM

oh and of course! those silly climate scientists dont even realize the main driver of climate change is the sun. i cant believe that when measuring climate change, they dont consider the big ball of fire in the sky, silly scientists. the fact that they ignore the sun in their models shows that its just a liberal plot. don't they realize that the sun has it's own cycle of getting hotter and colder!!??? i'm sure if we compare the solar cycle to recent temperatures, it'll explain everything. the temperature graph 2 posts above show that there's been some warming in recent years, so surely that means we're just at a warm part of the suns cycle! climate change debunked!!

oh, wait...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Solar_cycle_24_sunspot_number_progression_and_pred iction.gif

TDMVPDPOY

06-02-2017, 05:46 AM

the money that every country remits to this organization, what do they do with it?

its the same with the big telcos paying for data, the company whose accepting this money, where do they get the data from to feed into the network? unless they are the ones providing all the stored data in their data centers...

RandomGuy

06-02-2017, 11:00 AM

Nearly a third of all CO2 emissions EVER have been emitted since 2000. And global temperature over that period?

Meh

And about 40% has been emitted since 1990.

Translation:

"Despite professing some knowledge about investing, I consistently express total wonderment about the nature of exponential growth, and can't grasp the idea of feedback loops when it comes to this topic.

My understanding of this topic demonstrates the Donning-Kruger effect wherein truly incompetent people are so incompetent, they lack the skills to recognize their own incompetence and differentiate this incompetence from actual competence.

My statement here is something I read somewhere, but don't truly understand. It makes me feel smart and comfortable in my particular beliefs on this topic, and that feeling is more important than taking the time to develop meta-cognitive processes that might improve my critical thinking."

RandomGuy

06-02-2017, 11:01 AM

Splits

06-02-2017, 11:29 AM

870383610955804672

SnakeBoy

06-04-2017, 04:36 PM

:lol

870104138943791105

lol "Science"

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Good-Climate-Hunting-1.jpg
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Good-Climate-Hunting-2.jpg
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Good-Climate-Hunting-3.jpg
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Good-Climate-Hunting-4.jpg
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Good-Climate-Hunting-5-1.jpg
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Good-Climate-Hunting-6.jpg
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Good-Climate-Hunting-7.jpg
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Good-Climate-Hunting-8.jpg
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Good-Climate-Hunting-9.jpg
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Good-Climate-Hunting-10.jpg

spurraider21

06-04-2017, 05:08 PM

wow, memes. even though the lead author of that MIT study has been on record saying that Trump completely misunderstood their paper and that a lack of action could cause the temperature to shoot by over 5 degrees

spurraider21

06-04-2017, 05:10 PM

MIT issued the following statement on Thursday, June 1 2017.

A set of talking points circulated in support of President Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement included this statement:

“The [Paris] deal also accomplishes LITTLE for the climate

“According to researchers at MIT, if all member nations met their obligations, the impact on the climate would be negligible. The impacts have been estimated to be likely to reduce global temperature rise by less than 0.2 degrees Celsius in 2100.”

The researchers in MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change who led the relevant analysis find this statement to be misleading, for two reasons.

First, the 0.2 degree-figure used in the talking point reflects the incremental impact of the Paris Agreement compared with the earlier Copenhagen agreement. If you instead compare the impact of the Paris Agreement to no climate policy, then the temperature reduction is much larger, on the order of 1 degree Celsius — 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — by 2100. This would be a significant reduction in the global temperature rise, though much more is needed if the world is to achieve its goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius or less.

Second, the analysis accounts only for countries’ pledges under the Paris Agreement, assuming no further strengthening of the commitments in years after 2030. The Paris Agreement is a milestone of the ongoing UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is committed to ongoing annual meetings to regularly revisit and ratchet up nations’ climate goals, making them more ambitious over time.

The relevant MIT researchers believe that the Paris Agreement is an unprecedented and vital effort by nearly 200 countries to respond to the urgent threat of global climate change.

spurraider21

06-04-2017, 05:15 PM

His interpretation was a tiny, tiny bit wrong, according to the MIT professors who authored the research he cited.

Their April 2016 study found that global warming would slow by between 0.6°Cand 1.1°Cby 2100 as a result of the accord. The school noted (http://news.mit.edu/2017/mit-issues-statement-research-paris-agreement-0602/) yesterday that the number cited by Trump is “misleading” because it measures the Paris agreement’s incremental impact over a previous Copenhagen agreement, and that it assumes the countries will not strengthen their commitments to fighting climate change after 2030.

If nothing is done, the global temperature could shoot up by 5°C or more, according to John Reilly, the co-director of MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, which produced the research. Reilly told Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-trump-mit-idUSKBN18S6L0) the White House did not contact MIT scientists or offer them a chance to explain their work before Trump used it in his speech at the Rose Garden this week.

Study co-author Erwan Monier, a lead researcher at the joint program, said (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-trump-mit-idUSKBN18S6L0) that the school’s climate researchers “certainly do not support the withdrawal of the US from the Paris agreement.”

spurraider21

06-04-2017, 05:17 PM

MIT's 2016 press release regarding the study

Signed in December by climate negotiators from around the globe, the Paris Agreement (https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf) centers on pledges from 188 countries to reduce their human-made greenhouse gas emissions, with the ultimate goal of capping the rise in global mean surface air temperature (SAT) since preindustrial times at 2 degrees Celsius. Toward that end, these pledges, which cover the years 2020-2030, are expected to be reviewed and strengthened periodically, but do not commit nations to any course of action after 2030. As a result, projections of the long-term climate impact of the Paris Agreement vary widely. A useful way to assess that impact is to simulate the effects of policies that extend the Agreement’s 188 pledges (known as Nationally Determined Contributions (http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php), or NDCs) to the end of the century. In a new study (http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU2016-8016.pdf) that takes this approach, a team of climate scientists and economists from the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change (http://globalchange.mit.edu/) led by research scientist Andrei Sokolov (http://globalchange.mit.edu/about/our-people/personnel/all_id/31) finds that by 2100, the Paris Agreement reduces the SAT considerably, but still exceeds the 2 C goal by about 1 C.

One of the study’s co-authors, Joint Program Principal Research Scientist Erwan Monier (http://globalchange.mit.edu/about/our-people/personnel/all_id/194), discussed the team’s results at the General Assembly of the European Geosciences Union (http://www.egu2016.eu/) on April 21 in a panel/press conference (http://media.egu.eu/press-conferences/#COP21), “Historical Responsibilities and Climate Impacts of the Paris Agreement.”

Using the MIT Integrated Global System Modeling (IGSM (http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/IGSM)) framework, which combines a human activity model with a climate model of intermediate complexity, the researchers project the climate impact of a “no climate policy” case and three scenarios that effectively extend the NDCs to 2100. The scenarios considered range from a pessimistic world where no further action is specified past 2030 to a world where the same level of commitment as in the Paris agreement is extended until the end of the century.

Assuming a climate system response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions that’s of median strength, the three scenarios reduce the SAT in 2100 between 0.6 and 1.1 C relative to the “no climate policy” case. But because the climate system takes many years to respond to emissions reductions, in 2050 the SAT falls by only about 0.1 C in all three cases. Meanwhile, the rise in SAT since preindustrial times exceeds 2 C in 2053, and in 2100, reaches between 2.7 and 3.6 C — far exceeding the 2 C goal.

“The Paris agreement is certainly a step in the right direction, but it is only a step,” said Monier. “It puts us on the right path to keep warming under 3 C, but even under the same level of commitment of the Paris agreement after 2030, our study indicates a 95 percent probability that the world will warm by more than 2 C by 2100.”

The Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change is MIT’s response to the research, analysis and communication challenges of global environmental change. The program combines scientific research with policy analysis to provide an independent, integrative assessment of the impacts of global change and how best to respond.

their entire study operated under the presumption that new goals wouldn't be placed after 2030

no but ur right, dank memes are more accurate

Adam Lambert

06-04-2017, 05:22 PM

^ yah but the memes

spurraider21

06-04-2017, 05:31 PM

https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18882184_10213024103301397_1995319232915520426_n.j pg?oh=be1f59a6d36eed255d2eba5905acf571&oe=59DAE28F

...

In fact, present-day volcanoes emit relatively modest amounts of CO2, about as much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio.

Global estimates of the annual present-day CO2 output of the Earth’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from 0.13 to 0.44 billion metric tons (gigatons) per year [Gerlach, 1991]

Anthropogenic (http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/).Anthropogenic) CO2 emissions—responsible for a projected 35 gigatons of CO2in 2010

:cry but muh memes! :cry

edit: keep trying to link to the study and keeps showing up as broken. just google Gerlach 2011 and it's the 2nd link

https://i.gyazo.com/d2c1d52f8e24f716c5e3a55a4c81accd.png

Thread

06-04-2017, 06:57 PM

It's a crock of pure shit.

spurraider21

06-04-2017, 07:03 PM

It's a crock of pure shit.there ya go. just make sure you stay at the surface level, dont get mired into the details

Thread

06-04-2017, 08:27 PM

there ya go. just make sure you stay at the surface level, dont get mired into the details

Nothing more than a scam to provide a revenue stream into the gov't.

spurraider21

06-04-2017, 08:29 PM

Nothing more than a scam to provide a revenue stream into the gov't.
exactly. keep whispering that to yourself as you try to get some sleep. just make sure you stay in the shallow end where you're safe

Thread

06-04-2017, 08:34 PM

exactly. keep whispering that to yourself as you try to get some sleep. just make sure you stay in the shallow end where you're safe

According to that scammer Gore we shouldn't even be here right now.

spurraider21

06-04-2017, 08:40 PM

According to that scammer Gore we shouldn't even be here right now.
fuck gore. he's not an authority on the matter, just a fat mouthpiece

Thread

06-04-2017, 08:57 PM

fuck gore. he's not an authority on the matter, just a fat mouthpiece

How will I know that you're right & I'm wrong on this issue?

spurraider21

06-04-2017, 09:00 PM

How will I know that you're right & I'm wrong on this issue?
you'd have to make 2 concessions

1) that all the scientists from around the world... from different backgrounds, cultures, states, religions, creeds, are not all in one big conspiracy

2) be willing to take an open-minded, good-faith look at the merits

if you don't care to learn about the science behind it (as it can be tedious), you'd have to stop at step 1 and take it for granted. not the ideal option, but thats why some people are doctors, some people are lawyers, some people are architects. if i'm having my house built i dont tell the architects and contractors that they don't know what they're doing. i trust them to be experts in their fields...

Thread

06-04-2017, 09:05 PM

you'd have to make 2 concessions

1) that all the scientists from around the world... from different backgrounds, cultures, states, religions, creeds, are not all in one big conspiracy

2) be willing to take an open-minded, good-faith look at the merits

if you don't care to learn about the science behind it (as it can be tedious), you'd have to stop at step 1 and take it for granted.

No, not that, 21. What will happen that will make it plain & obvious that disaster is upon (me)?

spurraider21

06-04-2017, 09:29 PM

No, not that, 21. What will happen that will make it plain & obvious that disaster is upon (me)?in arizona? you'll be just fine, honestly. main thing you'd observe are more sustained droughts (though we had a great rain season this year)...

the easiest to ramification to understand i just the sea gradually rising.now we're not talking noah's ark, but enough to screw a bunch of coastal cities, which is why Miami Beach is already investing 500 million to prepare for immediate effects (http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20150406-500-million-5year-plan-to-help-miami-beach-withstand-sealevel-rise)... and also why you've got insurance companies (who believe me, are all about the money) are projecting miami to have 30 billion in expected losses in 2030 alone, when in 2008 it was about 17 billion. (page 7 here http://www.miamidade.gov/planning/library/presentations/2014-02-11-swiss-re-climate-change.pdf)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level%2C_188 0-2013.png

now miami's just one city, and the sea level change is one factor, but it's probably the most concrete example of one area's issues.

DarrinS

06-04-2017, 09:43 PM

spurraider21

06-04-2017, 09:56 PM

Florida was once underwater without any human involvement. The climate has changed (to extremes) without human intervention. We are currently in an interglacial (warm times). If we can stave off another ice age, kudos to humans.
oh shit, the climate has changed before? holy shit, bro, report this to the national academy of sciences and claim your nobel prize. you've cracked the case

spurraider21

06-04-2017, 10:02 PM

yes, the climate has changed before without humans. everybody who is remotely interested in the issue is well aware of this, yet you keep bringing it up as though it were some novel idea or a eureka moment.

if i shoot someone in the face and they die, can i go to court and say "people died of natural causes plenty of times before without human involvement."

if we have good reason to understand that CO2 has played a large role in previous warmings, and we are now adding noticeable amounts of CO2, are we not just recreating the factors that caused those previous warmings? does the atmosphere give a shit if the CO2 is from an industrial source or a biological source? CO2 is CO2.

take a gander, darrin

https://xkcd.com/1732/

yes, i'm sure hunter gatherers were better able to adjust to shifting climates and sea levels, they didnt have to worry about moving cities harboring millions of people or maintaining a stable agricultural system

Adam Lambert

06-04-2017, 10:18 PM

darrins is like those dumb quote of the day calendars you get your mom for mothers day,

except instead of cute little love quotes its various global warming arguments that idiots make even though they dont know anything about science.

cant wait for tomorrows

Adam Lambert

06-04-2017, 10:20 PM

i would bet a thousand dollars darrins has actually said this:

"if evolution is real and we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?"

am i right darrin?

spurraider21

06-04-2017, 10:23 PM

my bet would be "we haven't had significant warming since 1998" or "CO2 always lags temperature"

DMC

06-04-2017, 10:59 PM

DMC

06-04-2017, 11:01 PM

in arizona? you'll be just fine, honestly. main thing you'd observe are more sustained droughts (though we had a great rain season this year)...

the easiest to ramification to understand i just the sea gradually rising.now we're not talking noah's ark, but enough to screw a bunch of coastal cities, which is why Miami Beach is already investing 500 million to prepare for immediate effects (http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20150406-500-million-5year-plan-to-help-miami-beach-withstand-sealevel-rise)... and also why you've got insurance companies (who believe me, are all about the money) are projecting miami to have 30 billion in expected losses in 2030 alone, when in 2008 it was about 17 billion. (page 7 here http://www.miamidade.gov/planning/library/presentations/2014-02-11-swiss-re-climate-change.pdf)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level%2C_188 0-2013.png

now miami's just one city, and the sea level change is one factor, but it's probably the most concrete example of one area's issues.

That chart is a typical symptom of drifting gauge offset. They need to have it calibrated again.

spurraider21

06-04-2017, 11:02 PM

Can you really add CO2? I mean, aren't you just liberating it and it does what it wants to do? How is that wrong?
emit instead of add. there, you win 1 internet point

what do you mean by "wrong"

spurraider21

06-04-2017, 11:02 PM

That chart is a typical symptom of drifting gauge offset. They need to have it calibrated again.
you should let them know about that. also nasa

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

DMC

06-04-2017, 11:08 PM

emit instead of add. there, you win 1 internet point

what do you mean by "wrong"

Is it morally wrong to free CO2? Once freed, does the CO2 have an obligation to remain in the vicinity?

DMC

06-04-2017, 11:09 PM

you should let them know about that. also nasa

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Not surprised, all the rain we've gotten lately.

spurraider21

06-04-2017, 11:11 PM

Is it morally wrong to free CO2? Once freed, does the CO2 have an obligation to remain in the vicinity?
no, i dont think its a moral issue. i think its an economic/utilitarian issue.

theres nothing "evil" about the global temperatures increasing. it's just going to be awfully inconvenient and expensive down the road. if any of it is avoidable, it would be smart to do so. its pretty childish to look at this as a good vs evil question

how much longer do you want me to play along?

spurraider21

06-04-2017, 11:11 PM

Not surprised, all the rain we've gotten lately.
:lol

Th'Pusher

06-04-2017, 11:12 PM

That chart is a typical symptom of drifting gauge offset. They need to have it calibrated again.

It's a pretty decent chart. I've seen worse tbh :lol

DMC

06-04-2017, 11:19 PM

no, i dont think its a moral issue. i think its an economic/utilitarian issue.

theres nothing "evil" about the global temperatures increasing. it's just going to be awfully inconvenient and expensive down the road. if any of it is avoidable, it would be smart to do so. its pretty childish to look at this as a good vs evil question

how much longer do you want me to play along?
Tell me your hourly rate and I'll let you know.

Wild Cobra

06-05-2017, 01:19 AM

870383610955804672

Do you realize other factors are in play for photography? Cameras would see humidity under the right conditions.

Wild Cobra

06-05-2017, 01:20 AM

https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18882184_10213024103301397_1995319232915520426_n.j pg?oh=be1f59a6d36eed255d2eba5905acf571&oe=59DAE28F

...

:cry but muh memes! :cry

edit: keep trying to link to the study and keeps showing up as broken. just google Gerlach 2011 and it's the 2nd link

https://i.gyazo.com/d2c1d52f8e24f716c5e3a55a4c81accd.png

That's not true.

Chris

06-10-2017, 01:30 AM

FOUNDER of The Weather Channel and SCIENTIST believes climate change is bullsh*t spurraider21

Ev-a--yOVGg

spurraider21

06-10-2017, 01:30 AM

where's his research? published paper? anybody can go on TV or radio and say anything, that's not conclusive. i'd like to see the research behind what he's saying

what is he a scientist in? atmospheric physics? glaciology? oceanography? geology?

oh im sorry, he has a degree in journalism and has been a weather broadcaster for 60 years. that makes him a qualified scientist?

:lol cmon Chris (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1656) john coleman is old news

Chris

06-10-2017, 01:33 AM

omg /thread I'm done ^ :lol

spurraider21

06-10-2017, 01:36 AM

omg /thread I'm done ^ :lol
so some guy goes on TV and says "global warming is fake" and you think that's a debunking? i've watched the first 5 minutes of the video and he just keeps saying "its fake, its not real, the scientists are trying to make money" but he's not saying anything of substance. and thats the entire clip of john coleman talking. 5 minutes of him just saying "its not real, i swear"

then the guy talks over the video complaining that they called him a co-founder instead of a founder :lmao... give me something of substance, Chris (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1656) and i'd be glad to look into it and discuss it

some guy talking on youtube saying "its fake, its not real, its not happening" isn't a debunking

Chris

06-10-2017, 01:40 AM

Boiled down...

Unless you believe in climate change you don't get Federal funding. Manipulated numbers with NASA writing the book. You've been duped; hoodwinked...

spurraider21

06-10-2017, 01:43 AM

Boiled down...

Unless you believe in climate change you don't get Federal funding. Manipulated numbers with NASA writing the book. You've been duped; hoodwinked...
:lmao holy shit just finished the video "evolution doesn't make sense" :lmao :lmao :lmao of course

:lmao "did dinosaurs have a 1,000 year lifespan?"

do you just search "climate change fake" and start posting vids here without watching them? :lol SCIENTIST in all caps... (journalist with no scientific background or research).

and then when that falls apart, you go back to the hoax/conspiracy angle as a last resort.

Chris

06-10-2017, 01:49 AM

:lmao holy shit just finished the video "evolution doesn't make sense" :lmao :lmao :lmao of course

:lmao "did dinosaurs have a 1,000 year lifespan?"

do you just search "climate change fake" and start posting vids here without watching them? :lol SCIENTIST in all caps... (journalist with no scientific background or research).

and then when that falls apart, you go back to the hoax/conspiracy angle as a last resort.

So you're shutting him out because he believes in a Creator instead of Darwinism? :rolleyes

spurraider21

06-10-2017, 01:50 AM

So you're shutting him out because he believes in a Creator instead of Darwinism? :rolleyes
no, i'm shutting him out because he said nothing of substance. just repeating "it's fake, its not happening, it makes no sense" isn't worth listening to. if I just posted a video of a guy saying "climate change is real" over and over again, would you think that it's definitive proof?

well, he didnt claim to be a creationist, though he said evolution doesnt make sense. his questions of dinosaurs having 1000 year lifespans, asking why we dont find much more fossils, asking how the earth could naturally form into a sphere like object? just shows he has a limited understanding of science to begin with.

but even if his understanding is shit, if he supported his claims with evidence, i'd take a look.

Chris

06-10-2017, 01:51 AM

do you just search "climate change fake" and start posting vids here without watching them? :lol SCIENTIST in all caps... (journalist with no scientific background or research).

and then when that falls apart, you go back to the hoax/conspiracy angle as a last resort.

You edited your reply so allow me to respond. I'm subscribed to Anthony Brian Logan; I have been since before the elections. Like he says: show me some physical proof or evidence and also can you explain to me why you're in a hurry to pay the Carbon Tax?

spurraider21

06-10-2017, 01:55 AM

You edited your reply so allow me to respond. I'm subscribed to Anthony Brian Logan; I have been since before the elections. Like he says: show me some physical proof or evidence and also can you explain to me why you're in a hurry to pay the Carbon Tax?
i edited it again, my bad :lol

i dont care if you're subscribed to him or not. your subscription doesn't make him less credible or more credible.

any time i make a claim about climate change, i back it up with a source. i dont make shit up and try to pass it off as fact... and any time i read something about climate change, regardless of the perspective, i try to find the source

spurraider21

06-10-2017, 01:57 AM

and if you want to talk about policies aimed at combatting it, like carbon taxes, emission regulations, etc., thats a different discussion that ties in with economics. i'm admittedly much less informed there. for me, i'm able to separate the political discussion with the scientific discussion. the debate isn't between "climate change is real vs carbon tax is bad"... those are different discussions

this thread is focused on the science itself. there's no point talking about solutions if half the people at the table aren't acknowledging there is even a problem, despite mountains of evidence.

spurraider21

06-10-2017, 02:01 AM

even though coleman isn't a scientist, that doesn't really make him less credible to me, as long as he backs what he says with research or sources... so it was wrong of me to imply i dismissed him on those grounds alone. i just felt the need to rub that in because you bolded SCIENTIST in your post :lol

now, if he claims he conducted his own research/experiment and tried to present his original data, THAT's where his not being a scientist would hurt his credibility... because he doesn't have adequate training in that field.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-10-2017, 02:27 PM

Chris seems like Darrin in posting youtubes mindlessly and being unable to articulate much of anything on his own.

baseline bum

06-10-2017, 02:35 PM

Boiled down...

Unless you believe in climate change you don't get Federal funding. Manipulated numbers with NASA writing the book. You've been duped; hoodwinked...

Could you imagine how much funding you could get from Exxon, BP, the Koch Brothers, etc. if you could prove global warming was bullshit?

DarrinS

06-10-2017, 02:43 PM

Chris seems like Darrin in posting youtubes mindlessly and being unable to articulate much of anything on his own.

Maybe I didn't love you
Quite as often as I could have
Maybe I didn't treat you
Quite as good as I should have
If I made you feel second best
Girl I'm sorry I was blind

You were always on my mind
You were always on my mind

:lmao

FuzzyLumpkins

06-10-2017, 02:48 PM

Could you imagine how much funding you could get from Exxon, BP, the Koch Brothers, etc. if you could prove global warming was bullshit?

I figured that after climate skeptic Willie Soon was shown to have omitted his $1.25m in Koch payments on publication submissions that GOP types would stop with this nonsense about how the scientific community was only in it for the money.

If you are in it for the money you are going to have a much easier time lining your pockets taking the negative. You still can get grant money plus you can get direct payments from a leading industry with a vested interest.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-10-2017, 02:51 PM

:lmao

Dumbass. You are posting here. You are Trump's semen-shielder in-chief these past two weeks. It's impossible to read this board and miss you.

It's not like I am bringing you up in another thread when you are not even posting. It's tantamount to you having a loud conversation in a public forum and calling me obsessed when I talk about you.

You really are dimwitted.

DarrinS

06-10-2017, 02:52 PM

http://berkeleyearth.org/funders/

Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000)

:lmao

FuzzyLumpkins

06-10-2017, 02:55 PM

http://berkeleyearth.org/funders/

Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000)

:lmao

So what is your point?

They were investigating the urban heat islands, the thermometers and sensors used, and natural variations. All of those were go to denier arguments at the beginning of the decade when the Kochs donated. They stopped donating when BEST debunked all of them.

Adam Lambert

06-10-2017, 02:59 PM

FOUNDER of The Weather Channel and SCIENTIST believes climate change is bullsh*t spurraider21 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=31905)

Ev-a--yOVGg

this is the boom of all booms

just as rupert murdoch is the worlds foremost expert on news, the founder of the weather channel is surely the worlds foremost expert on climatology

monosylab1k

06-10-2017, 03:04 PM

Chris seems like Darrin in posting youtubes mindlessly and being unable to articulate much of anything on his own.

Best was when someone asked him why exactly he like Neil Gorsuch, and he couldn't do it, so he copypasta'd some bullshit response :lmao

Chris

06-10-2017, 03:06 PM

Best was when someone asked him why exactly he like Neil Gorsuch, and he couldn't do it, so he copypasta'd some bullshit response :lmao

I didn't copypasta shit bro; you just didn't like the answer :lol Keep spinning shit it's all Libtard can do these days besides taking massive L's :lol

monosylab1k

06-10-2017, 03:12 PM

I didn't copypasta shit bro; you just didn't like the answer :lol Keep spinning shit it's all Libtard can do these days besides taking massive L's :lol

Your reply sounded like it came straight from a PR manager. I'd have believed it more if it sounded more like ^this barely literate bullshit :lmao "He'll think I'm smart if I use a semicolon :cry"

Chris

06-10-2017, 03:14 PM

:cry muh grammar :cry :lmao

monosylab1k

06-10-2017, 03:17 PM

:lmao holy shit, his semicolon usage on this page :lmao what a tell :lmao

":cry I'm in over my head intellectually in this conversation, let me whip out some semicolons! There, now I look like the smartestest!"

monosylab1k

06-10-2017, 03:21 PM

Boiled down...

Unless you believe in climate change you don't get Federal funding. Manipulated numbers with NASA writing the book. You've been duped; hoodwinked...

You edited your reply so allow me to respond. I'm subscribed to Anthony Brian Logan; I have been since before the elections. Like he says: show me some physical proof or evidence and also can you explain to me why you're in a hurry to pay the Carbon Tax?

I didn't copypasta shit bro; you just didn't like the answer :lol Keep spinning shit it's all Libtard can do these days besides taking massive L's :lol
:lmao

Adam Lambert

06-10-2017, 03:24 PM

semi-colon is also the type of sex play chris tries with other guys while insisting its not all the way gay

Chris

06-10-2017, 03:27 PM

sem·i·co·lon
ˈsemēˌkōlən,ˈsemīˌkōlən/
noun
a punctuation mark ( ; ) indicating a pause, typically between two main clauses, that is more pronounced than that indicated by a comma.

I'm sorry my semicolons triggered you bro. I will try to speak in layman for you in the future :tu

DarrinS

06-10-2017, 03:29 PM

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

;;;; Why the fuss over semicolons? ;;;;

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

monosylab1k

06-10-2017, 03:32 PM

:lmao ":cry semicolons make me sound smarter! :cry"

monosylab1k

06-10-2017, 03:35 PM

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

;;;; Why the fuss over semicolons? ;;;;

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

:lmao a semen shield made out of semicolons. Quick, someone is about to criticize Trump, get that shield up!

baseline bum

06-10-2017, 03:38 PM

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

;;;; Why the fuss over semicolons? ;;;;

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Commenting out your post. :lol

Pavlov

06-10-2017, 03:42 PM

FOUNDER of The Weather Channel and SCIENTIST believes climate change is bullsh*t spurraider21

Ev-a--yOVGgEager to read science paper from this man. Sure they full of boom.

Where I find, Chris?

DarrinS

06-10-2017, 03:54 PM

Commenting out your post. :lol

:lol

spurraider21

06-10-2017, 04:53 PM

purely for fun, i'm going to play the Chris game

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154

http://www.powerball1.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Giving-Money.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tW590-BH5c

f:wowll:woww the m:wowney

spurraider21

06-13-2017, 04:14 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta2Wvy9F_gA

boutons_deux

06-29-2017, 03:30 PM

Climate change will hit the South and Midwest the hardest
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Texnq2JQ18fmAt0TOfo14lg-MmM=/0x0:1500x794/920x613/filters:focal(630x277:870x517):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/55508717/damages_total_2080_to_2090.0.jpg

https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/29/15892910/climate-change-south-midwest-economic-loss

The red/slave Bible-humpin bubba states will come whimpering, begging to blue and greet states to bail them out. :lol

Chris

07-07-2017, 04:41 PM

Scientists Trace Heat Wave To Massive Star At Center Of Solar System

http://images2.onionstatic.com/onion/1578/0/16x9/800.jpg

PASADENA, CA—Groundbreaking new findings announced Monday suggest the record-setting heat wave plaguing much of the United States may be due to radiation emitted from an enormous star located in the center of the solar system.

Scientists believe the star, which they have named G2V65, may in fact be the same bright yellow orb seen arcing over the sky day after day, and given its extreme heat and proximity to Earth, it is likely not only to have caused the heat wave, but to be responsible for every warm day in human history.

"Our measurements indicate the massive amount of energy this thing gives off is able to travel 93 million miles and reach our planet in as little as eight and a half minutes," said Professor Mitch Kivens, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology. "While we can't see them, we're fairly certain these infrared rays strike Earth's surface, become trapped by the atmosphere, and just heat everything up like a great big oven."

"We originally thought that if this star was producing temperatures of 100-plus in the South and Midwest, it must be at least 100 degrees itself," Kivens added. "But it turns out it's far, far hotter than that, with a surface temperature of nearly 10,900 degrees Fahrenheit."

Kivens and his CalTech colleagues said this intense radiation, which results from constant nuclear reactions converting hydrogen to helium in the star's core, could also account for why the orb in the sky is extremely bright and difficult to stare at directly.

While scientists initially assumed the heat and luminescence of the star must make it the largest in the universe—a theory lent credence by the star appearing much bigger than other objects in the sky—they said the data actually appear to refute such a notion.

"Apparently it's gigantic simply because it's closer to us than any other star," Kivens said. "Which would also account for why we feel this particular star's heat during the day but are not warmed by the tiny blinking stars we see at night."

"It's interesting stuff," he added.

According to Kivens, the discovery has prompted researchers to explore the possibility that a variety of phenomena accompanying the heat wave could also be linked to the star, including taller grass, hot car seats, red skin burns, and sweating "even when one has just been standing there and hasn't been running around or anything."

An additional study is reportedly being conducted to determine if the unexplained shrinking of puddles until they disappear may be caused by star-hotness soaking up all the loose water. Moreover, scientists reportedly believe the heat emitted from the glowing orb could potentially be the reason why it is uncomfortable to walk on asphalt barefoot.

When asked if anything could be done to prevent or counteract the star's heat production, Kivens expressed skepticism.

"No, for the foreseeable future, I think we're locked into orbit with this thing," he said. "Although the star seems to disappear every night, 24-hour reports from around the world seem to indicate the star never leaves Earth entirely."

Residents of heat- and drought-stricken regions welcomed the findings, thankful to finally have an explanation for the high temperatures, if no relief from them.

"That makes sense, because it's usually hotter when that [star] is up in the air," said Stillwater, OK resident Asher Arps, 31, speaking to reporters as temperature rose to 110 degrees over the weekend. "I knew it lit things up, of course, but I didn't realize it could make things hot."

"The big star heats the earth, and the moon cools it—I get it," he added.

As to potential applications of the new discovery, experts acknowledge the possibilities could be limitless.

"This is a watershed moment," renewable energy specialist Dr. Martin Flint said. "Who knows where this could lead? Perhaps we could develop a method of harnessing these big star rays and transforming them into some sort of ecologically friendly power source."

"Wait, what am I saying?" he said, laughing. "I'm getting ahead of myself. We still don't understand how it's possible for that thing to be up in the sky in January when it's freezing outside."
http://www.theonion.com/article/scientists-trace-heat-wave-to-massive-star-at-cent-21088

spurraider21

07-07-2017, 07:06 PM

:lol im a sucker for the onion tbh

they can be hit or miss, but when they hit it's usually damn good

Chris

07-14-2017, 02:51 PM

http://www.dailywire.com/news/18537/left-blames-global-warming-enormous-iceberg-hank-berrien?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand#

Left Blames Global Warming For Enormous Iceberg Breaking. There's Just One Problem.

Talk about burying the lede.

Time issued a tweet with a video alerting readers that a massive iceberg had broken off in Antarctica. As The Daily Wire reported last week:

An iceberg roughly the size of Delaware and 600 feet thick is about to break off from one of the largest floating ice shelves in Antarctica, and the prospect is precipitating fierce debate as to whether global warming is the cause. The iceberg is part of the Larsen C ice shelf in the Weddell Sea, south of the tip of South America. The calving has been expected; a crack in the ice shelf had grown to be over 100 miles long in recent months.

No matter; over video of the iceberg, Time intoned in a caption:

A 1.12-trillion ton iceberg has broken off from Antarctica.

Uh-oh.

Time continued:

Scientists say the vast iceberg, with twice the volume of Lake Erie, broke off between July 10-12.

OMG.

Time, on a roll now, added:

The process, known as calving, occurred when a 2, 240-square-mile section broke off.

AND YOU KNOW WHY THAT IS, DON’T YOU?

Of course, the natural response from climate change zealots would be that global warming was to blame, correct?

Correct. Time’s tweet elicited the usual coterie of climate change warriors to assert that dreaded global warming was melting the ice cap.

But no scientific evidence of global warming huh Mr President.

— David Watkins (@curbie50) July 12, 2017

885216521252999169

But then, before the video ended, but after the climate change zealots had rushed to their computers to tweet their rage, unbeknownst to them, Time finally admitted:

It was a natural event that had been anticipated for months and was not caused by climate change.

Well, heck, everyone knows that.

Gee, Time, thanks for the tip!

spurraider21

07-14-2017, 03:31 PM

@abqralph is the first thing i think of when somebody says "scientific community"

so time magazine prints an article where they cite to actual scientists who say it would be premature to assign this break to climate change. but i thought the scientists were all leftist alarmist shills?

so the purpose of the daily wire article is that... times magazine ran a story about the iceberg breaking off, where they show scientists are being cautious before blaming climate change, but some people on twitter said climate change.

this is newsworthy?

Chris

07-20-2017, 01:13 PM

http://www.dailywire.com/news/18801/bill-nye-old-people-have-die-us-stop-global-ben-shapiro?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand#

Bill Nye: Old People Have To Die For Us To Stop Global Warming

One of the great fantasies of the Left is that if the older generation simply dies off, all their policy goals will be achieved. In 2013, Oprah Winfrey mused – after two elections of President Obama! – that it might require older white Americans to die for America to achieve racial progress. “There are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it – in that prejudice and racism –and they just have to die.”

Now Bill Nye The-Purported-Science-Guy is thinking along the same track.

He told The Los Angeles Times on Wednesday, “Climate change deniers, by way of example, are older. It’s generational…We’re just going to have to wait for those people to ‘age out,’ as they say. ‘Age out’ is a euphemism for ‘die.’ But it’ll happen, I guarantee you – that’ll happen.”

These musings are not only pathetically immoral, they’re anti-democratic – the notion behind a representative republic is that people can be convinced on the issues. If Nye has failed to convince people that global warming is a catastrophic threat requiring massively burdensome government intervention, that’s his own fault – perhaps he’s too busy producing songs about “My Sex Junk” or cartoons with polysexual ice cream scoops.

But the fantasy of the Left that the demographics of the country will move in their direction if they can just get rid of undesirable populations has a pretty dark undertone: hoping your political opponents croak so that you can win legislative battles without having to win the argument smacks of nastiness. While conservatives sometimes joke about Leftists having fewer children and then losing the argument through demographics, we’re not actually rooting for it, nor do we think that lack of children from Leftists would be a necessity for political victory.

But on the left, the hatred for those old white Americans is quite real. And it’s one of the driving factors behind that constituency’s hard turn toward candidates like President Trump.

boutons_deux

07-20-2017, 01:17 PM

Satellite Snafu Masked True Sea Level Rise for Decades

Revised tallies confirm that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating as Earth warms and ice sheets thaw

The numbers didn’t add up.

Even as Earth grew warmer and glaciers and ice sheets thawed (https://www.nature.com/news/climate-science-rising-tide-1.13749), decades of satellite data seemed to show that the rate of sea-level rise was holding steady—or even declining.

Now, after puzzling over this discrepancy for years, scientists have identified its source:

a problem with the calibration of a sensor on the first of several satellites launched to measure the height of the sea surface using radar.

Adjusting the data to remove that error suggests that sea levels are indeed rising at faster rates each year.

“The rate of sea-level rise is increasing, and that increase is basically what we expected,”

says Steven Nerem, a remote-sensing expert at the University of Colorado Boulder who is leading the reanalysis.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/satellite-snafu-masked-true-sea-level-rise-for-decades/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/satellite-snafu-masked-true-sea-level-rise-for-decades/)

RandomGuy

07-20-2017, 04:31 PM

CO2 concentration Today: 408.84ppm

10-10-2010 --thread start date, CO2 concentration: 384.38ppm

CO2 on my ST join date: 382.63
CO2 when my first son was born: 376.36
CO2 when I was married: 363.67
CO2 four years after I was born : 333.34

spurraider21

07-20-2017, 04:38 PM

But there were no SUVs millions of years ago when co2 was higher

boutons_deux

07-20-2017, 04:41 PM

But there were no SUVs millions of years ago when co2 was higher

no Bs of humans and civilization, either.

RandomGuy

07-20-2017, 04:50 PM

But there were no SUVs millions of years ago when co2 was higher

Nope. You are correct.

Surprising Scientists, 2017 Could Be among Hottest on Record
Global temperatures this year have been 1.64 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th-century average

Each of the last three years have broken global high temperatures records. But temperatures since January have caught some researchers off guard, because they expected that the tapering off of an El Niño period, which typically raises temperatures, would hold down global heat levels. Instead, this year is on pace to top every record except the one set in 2016, researchers found. At this point in the year, 2015 was the third-hottest on record. It ended up breaking every heat record — until being topped by 2016.
There is a greater than 57 percent chance that 2017 will turn out to be the second-hottest year on record, according to Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. There are greater odds that 2017 will be one of the top three hottest years ever recorded.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/surprising-scientists-2017-could-be-among-hottest-on-record/?sf99476180=1

Wild Cobra

07-20-2017, 05:19 PM

spurraider21

07-20-2017, 05:40 PM

they're the same thing... verbatim

spurraider21

07-20-2017, 05:41 PM

Once again, corrections, right or wrong, are made to get the desired results.

Shazbot... Are you too lazy to find the actual source article? I wonder if yours varies from the original?

http://www.nature.com/news/satellite-snafu-masked-true-sea-level-rise-for-decades-1.22312
corrections are also made to correct what was incorrect

boutons_deux

07-20-2017, 06:04 PM

corrections are also made to correct what was incorrect

... not in WC's ideology

Wild Cobra

07-20-2017, 09:09 PM

corrections are also made to correct what was incorrect
Like I said, right or wrong.

Besides, there is no argument when it comes to if the sea level rises or not. Just like the AGW argument, it isn't if it is happening or not, but by how much is really man's doing and how much is natural.

I laugh every time someone cites an argument that has no bearing of the real issues involved.

spurraider21

07-20-2017, 09:10 PM

Like I said, right or wrong.

Besides, there is no argument when it comes to if the sea level rises or not. Just like the AGW argument, it isn't if it is happening or not, but by how much is really man's doing and how much is natural.

I laugh every time someone cites an argument that has no bearing of the real issues involved.
you mean like your last post about the merits of corrections, generally? :lol

Wild Cobra

07-20-2017, 09:15 PM

you mean like your last post about the merits of corrections, generally? :lol

There are too many variables to correctly "correct" temperatures of the past A thermometer does not need corrections, and they often "correct" a reading when they use other locations than were a monitoring site is physically located. This simly does not work for any accuracy, especially if the evapotranspiration rates of the two different locations vary.

Satellites are more accurately "corrected," but I still place little faith in their results. Especially when they are attempting to resolve millimeter levels, and satellites are lucky to accurately resolve to 1 meter.

RandomGuy

07-21-2017, 11:21 AM

satellites are lucky to accurately resolve to 1 meter.

How do you know that?

Link to source?

https://i.imgflip.com/gnas1.jpg

boutons_deux

07-21-2017, 11:47 AM

"Jason-1, launched in late 2001 as the successor to T/P, continues this record by providing an estimate of global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm. Although Jason-1 was designed to replace TOPEX/Poseidon, scientists took advantage of TOPEX/Poseidon’s unexpected longevity by placing the satellites in a tandem orbit.

The Jason 2 satellite seen below, orbits at an Altitude of 1,336 km Launch into the same orbit as Jason 1 and maintains the same measurement accuracy of Jason (3.3 cm) with a goal of achieving 2.5 cm. It also maintains the stability of the global mean sea level measurement with a drift less than 1 mm/year over the life of the mission."

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/measuring-sea-level.html

Wild Cobra

07-21-2017, 03:10 PM

How do you know that?

Link to source?

I understand the electronics of how they very work. Variances are similar to line of sight microwave communications, of which was a past career of mine. Atmospheric changes would change the envelope delay very significantly for just a 10 mile link, and unless they can monitor exactly what their path through the atmosphere is doing, they have a serious unknown variable. If the atmosphere was constant, then measurements could be resolved to the levels they claim. However, the atmosphere is a changing variable that slightly alters the microwave signals enough to create a large error range. If you read how they claim a refined sea level height, it is by multiple passes and using statistics to resolve to a finer number. They also use given landmarks, but the atmospheric density and humidity changes widely as you move away from these few scattered points of reference. Tidal interference from the moon makes the calculations even more complex.

This is nothing like GPS which can resolve locations and height to a rather fine degree, because they are using one satellite instead of several.

They can make all the claims they want. It works in a controlled environment, but not in practice.

Wild Cobra

07-21-2017, 03:12 PM

RandomGuy

07-21-2017, 03:32 PM

I understand the electronics of how they very work. Variances are similar to line of sight microwave communications, of which was a past career of mine. Atmospheric changes would change the envelope delay very significantly for just a 10 mile link, and unless they can monitor exactly what their path through the atmosphere is doing, they have a serious unknown variable. If the atmosphere was constant, then measurements could be resolved to the levels they claim. However, the atmosphere is a changing variable that slightly alters the microwave signals enough to create a large error range. If you read how they claim a refined sea level height, it is by multiple passes and using statistics to resolve to a finer number. They also use given landmarks, but the atmospheric density and humidity changes widely as you move away from these few scattered points of reference. Tidal interference from the moon makes the calculations even more complex.

This is nothing like GPS which can resolve locations and height to a rather fine degree, because they are using one satellite instead of several.

They can make all the claims they want. It works in a controlled environment, but not in practice.

Your claim was very specific. You said they were lucky to be accurate to within a meter.

Do I understand you correctly then:

You have never tested the accuracy of these satellites with some sort of measurement or data. Because nowhere in that word salad do I see anything that resembles data.

RandomGuy

07-21-2017, 03:33 PM

Specs do not always pan out, and they assume a maximum of a 1mm annual drift, but again. the field often does not resemble the modeled expectations.

No data here either.

That smell is getting stronger.

RandomGuy

07-21-2017, 03:34 PM

They can make all the claims they want. It works in a controlled environment, but not in practice.

How do you know that?

Do you build satellites?

RandomGuy

07-21-2017, 03:44 PM

I understand the electronics of how they very work. Variances are similar to line of sight microwave communications, of which was a past career of mine. Atmospheric changes would change the envelope delay very significantly for just a 10 mile link, and unless they can monitor exactly what their path through the atmosphere is doing, they have a serious unknown variable.

The Poseidon-3 radar altimeter, provided by Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES), is the mission's main instrument. It accurately measures the distance between the satellite and the mean sea surface. Derived from the Poseidon-2 altimeter on Jason-1, it emits pulses at two frequencies (13.6 and 5.3 gigahertz) to the ocean surface and analyzes very precisely the time it takes for the signals to return.

The Advanced Microwave Radiometer (AMR), provided by NASA, is an advanced version of the microwave radiometer that flew on Jason-1. It measures radiation from Earth's surface at three frequencies (18, 21 and 37 gigahertz) to determine the amount of water vapor present in the atmosphere. This water vapor affects the accuracy of altimeter measurements by delaying the time it takes for the altimeter's signals to make their round trip to the ocean surface and back.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ostm/spacecraft/index.html

One is a radar, and the other measures that exact thing you say creates an "unknown variable".

Looks like they seem to know a thing or two about microwaves too.

Wild Cobra

07-21-2017, 07:18 PM

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ostm/spacecraft/index.html

One is a radar, and the other measures that exact thing you say creates an "unknown variable".

Looks like they seem to know a thing or two about microwaves too.

The atmospheric density to those frequencies changes in ways that cannot be accurately accounted for.

I've used this type of equipment before:

link: http://www.highfrequencyelectronics.com/Apr11/HFE0411_Stevens.pdf

RandomGuy

08-01-2017, 12:26 PM

The atmospheric density to those frequencies changes in ways that cannot be accurately accounted for.

I've used this type of equipment before:

link: http://www.highfrequencyelectronics.com/Apr11/HFE0411_Stevens.pdf

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The atmospheric density can be accurately accounted for.

NASA has two satellites, with instruments that appear to correct for the thing you say is impossible.

Your handwaving is insufficient to make your case.

I do, however, find it useful in illustrating to my children the quality of arguments used in climate change denial.

DarrinS

08-01-2017, 04:02 PM

I prefer the term climate crisis skeptic

spurraider21

08-01-2017, 04:38 PM

I prefer the term climate crisis skeptic
whatever title you assign to make yourself feel better is irrelevant. it's for the birds.

Chris

08-01-2017, 08:43 PM

Global Warming Hoax Exposed: Australia Weather Bureau Tampered With Climate Numbers
Wouldn't "honest mistakes" result in an equal number of false warming and cooling readings? And yet, these "honest mistakes" always seem to show the planet is warming. Odd that.

http://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2016/11/gettyimages-467909084.jpg?itok=oos15bX6

The Daily Caller reports that for the second time in a just a few years the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) in Australia has been caught red-handed tampering with climate temperatures as a means to make a "slight cooling trend to one of 'dramatic warming' over the past century."

Back in August of 2014 the Australian BOM claimed that there was no bad faith behind the decision to "modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.” Nevertheless, the effect, according to Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, who holds a PhD in biology, was a “dramatic change in temperature trend towards warming after homogenisation.”

"Homogenization" is the process that allows climate scientists to correct for anomalies in raw temperature data. How there can be anomalies in raw data is beyond me.

This latest scandal is even more serious, one in which the BOM has been forced to admit that incorrect temperatures were logged. Naturally, the agency is blaming faulty equipment but Marhosasy is pushing back. According to the Daily Caller she told reporters that the BOM's claims of faulty equipment "are nearly impossible to believe given that there are screen shots that show the very low temperatures before being 'quality assured' out."

One meteorologist reported watching the BOM data change in real time. Colder temperatures, or temperatures inconvenient to the theory that our planet is warming, either disappeared entirely or were "homogenized" into a warmer temperature.

Apparently "faulty equipment" turned a temperature recorded elsewhere at 5.54 degrees into 13 degrees.

There is simply no question anymore that Global Warming or Climate Change — or whatever these luddites are calling it today — is a massive fraud.

Why do the people and institutions like CNN, those who tell us the flooding of Manhattan is imminent, remain in Manhattan, or in CNN's case, invest billions of dollars just blocks away from the "endangered coast"?

Why do these supposedly innocent temperature adjustments always, Always, ALWAYS show the planet is warming. If these were legitimately honest mistakes as opposed to outright tampering, every once in a while wouldn't that mistake result in a mistaken temperature reading that was, you know, lower?

https://media.giphy.com/media/14ceV8wMLIGO6Q/giphy.gif

FuzzyLumpkins

08-01-2017, 09:45 PM

Only retards and simpletons constantly seek for 'booms' oversimplifications as Chris's wont to do.

Normalization is common when you have literally tens of thousands of instruments recording data. The author even admits their ignorance but it doesn't take scientists to understand that not all thermometers are going to read exactly the same in all instances.

It's funny because these dumbasses are the exact same people that were arguing the heat island effect recently. One thing I've learned on this topic is that some people are just too stupid to discuss it with.

Chris

08-01-2017, 09:56 PM

Once again, corrections, right or wrong, are made to get the desired results.

Article I posted above confirms WC's theory. Climate change is a hoax. Fear mongering sprinkled with an unnecessary carbon tax. Your little personal jabs you like to incorporate into your posts doesn't change the facts.

FuzzyLumpkins

08-01-2017, 10:00 PM

We've discussed normalization before WILD CHODE was too stupid to get it then I'm not surprised you can't either. Not all thermometers and not all measuring locations are created equal and you have to adjust them if you can't get that that's your own problem.

DarrinS

08-01-2017, 11:29 PM

I prefer the term climate crisis skeptic

Al Gore has a climate "crisis" town hall on CNN tonight. :lol

RandomGuy

08-02-2017, 09:20 AM

I prefer the term climate crisis skeptic

I'm sure you do.

There is a difference, though, between genuine skepticism, and dogmatic denial of evidence, i.e. denial.

Genuine skeptics generally set some level of evidence for a claim, define terms, and evaluate available evidence. They seek out multiple sources, evaluate those sources, and weigh evidence.

Especially important are sources that challenge your own conclusions.

How often do you read sources that challenge your starting assumptions and conclusions?

DarrinS

08-02-2017, 09:44 AM

Al Gore has a climate "crisis" town hall on CNN tonight. :lol

Lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUfARQaVWsI

Wild Cobra

08-02-2017, 09:45 AM

Wild Cobra

08-02-2017, 09:48 AM

Lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUfARQaVWsI

LOL...

If observations disagrees with the consensus, the observations must be wrong...

RandomGuy

08-02-2017, 10:02 AM

LOL...

If observations disagrees with the consensus, the observations must be wrong...

It is actually quite valid to discard outliers when sampling data.

That is what real scientists do, although they do try to understand what caused the anomaly.

You did know that, right?

spurraider21

08-02-2017, 10:37 AM

And yet, these "honest mistakes" always seem to show the planet is warming. Odd that.
link?

FuzzyLumpkins

08-02-2017, 04:09 PM

Adjusting a thermometer reading is like lying about your dick size.

I guess it's a common practice for you.

You're so cowed you won't discuss the science anymore. Your left with petty deflections.

If you put accurate mercury, ir, chemical, etc thermometers in the same place they will give slightly different readings.

A reading from the floor is different than on the wall is different than suspended in the air is different than etc.

That is the raw data. The environmental circumstance is key. The trick is to choose an ideal say a ir thermometer suspended in the air oriented at 10 degrees below vertical for example and normalize the data so it is all in those terms.

That means you are comparing apples to apples. You've had this rubbed in your face a dozen times by this point. Your getting dumber with age. Good job.

Wild Cobra

08-03-2017, 02:16 AM

You're so cowed you won't discuss the science anymore. Your left with petty deflections.

If you put accurate mercury, ir, chemical, etc thermometers in the same place they will give slightly different readings.

A reading from the floor is different than on the wall is different than suspended in the air is different than etc.

That is the raw data. The environmental circumstance is key. The trick is to choose an ideal say a ir thermometer suspended in the air oriented at 10 degrees below vertical for example and normalize the data so it is all in those terms.

That means you are comparing apples to apples. You've had this rubbed in your face a dozen times by this point. Your getting dumber with age. Good job.

The IR thermometer is probably the least accurate.

Give me a good 'ol mercury thermometer any day.

Oh...

Meteorological thermometers are not mounted on walls...

One thing that gets me about the electronic ones they use, is the use a temperature to voltage transducer. The more accurate means would be a temperature to current transducer.

FuzzyLumpkins

08-03-2017, 05:40 AM

The IR thermometer is probably the least accurate.

Give me a good 'ol mercury thermometer any day.

Oh...

Meteorological thermometers are not mounted on walls...

One thing that gets me about the electronic ones they use, is the use a temperature to voltage transducer. The more accurate means would be a temperature to current transducer.

I never said they were the most accurate, dim. I was making a point about normalizing a dataset.

You of course cannot Google that so readily so you went for the red herring like the cowardly dimwit everyone knows you to be.

Wild Cobra

08-03-2017, 07:37 AM

I never said they were the most accurate, dim. I was making a point about normalizing a dataset.

You of course cannot Google that so readily so you went for the red herring like the cowardly dimwit everyone knows you to be.

So, you are saying they do change the raw data.

That is bad...

pgardn

08-03-2017, 07:47 AM

I prefer the term climate crisis skeptic

But you have graduated from warming denying.

How about big changes in climate occurring quickly need our attention?
We must assess if there is anything we can do to stabilize our farming, etc... infrastructure for rapid changes?
And, can the process be slowed, stopped, reversed?

The military is already planning for an open Arctic in dealing the Russians. Is this wasted time and money?

pgardn

08-03-2017, 07:51 AM

So, you are saying they do change the raw data.

That is bad...

You...

Are not an expert in this stuff, you are not even close.
Are you capable of changing your opinion and what does it take?

I can easily state what type of evidence would have to arise to change my belief in biological evolution.
Imo, this is about where you are standing now; evolution is a myth created by liberals who don't like the bible.

RandomGuy

08-03-2017, 11:07 AM

The IR thermometer is probably the least accurate.

Please provide a scientific study(-ies) on the reliability of IR thermometers compared to other methods, with an appropriate data set(s) that supports this statement.

I too, wish to know how accurate the measurements are.

Wild Cobra

08-03-2017, 03:59 PM

You...

Are not an expert in this stuff, you are not even close.
Are you capable of changing your opinion and what does it take?

I can easily state what type of evidence would have to arise to change my belief in biological evolution.
Imo, this is about where you are standing now; evolution is a myth created by liberals who don't like the bible.

Are you really that stupid to think you have a handle on my thoughts?

Wild Cobra

08-03-2017, 04:01 PM

Please provide a scientific study(-ies) on the reliability of IR thermometers compared to other methods, with an appropriate data set(s) that supports this statement.

I too, wish to know how accurate the measurements are.

LOL...

I don't need to. I know how they work. They give close, but not anywhere near the accuracy required. They are more complicated than a thermister.

Do your own homework.

spurraider21

08-03-2017, 04:04 PM

LOL...

I don't need to. I know how they work. They give close, but not anywhere near the accuracy required. They are more complicated than a thermister.

Do your own homework.
interesting standard

i happen to know that IR thermometers are actually the most accurate by far. i dont need a study, i know how they work. trust me.

Wild Cobra

08-03-2017, 05:24 PM

interesting standard

i happen to know that IR thermometers are actually the most accurate by far. i dont need a study, i know how they work. trust me.

Whatever.

pgardn

08-03-2017, 11:09 PM

Are you really that stupid to think you have a handle on my thoughts?

Based on your posting, yes. The evolution example is obviously just that, an example.
+ you have an exalted sense of expertise. It's pretty obvious.
I guess your triumphs in triangulation of a prospective female acquaintance have led to pseudo intellect.
Internet is full of your type. Other than the creepy sleuthing stuff.

FuzzyLumpkins

08-03-2017, 11:57 PM

So, you are saying they do change the raw data.

That is bad...

You're just too stupid to understand.

AaronY

08-04-2017, 12:01 AM

excellent debate

SnakeBoy

08-04-2017, 12:08 AM

pgardn

08-04-2017, 06:21 AM

pgardn

08-04-2017, 06:29 AM

And while your at it, fck science.

Its a mantis shrimp, so what the hell... Who spends government money on this type of research?

https://phys.org/news/2016-05-mantis-shrimp-ultra-strong-materials.html

oh what a crock... a little shrimp, we can make fun of it without knowing what the shit we are talking about

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/06/21/533840751/episode-779-shrimp-fight-club

boutons_deux

08-06-2017, 08:44 PM

excellent graphic representation of water boiling for all of us frogs

http://e360.yale.edu/digest/new-video-visualizes-a-century-of-global-warming-in-just-35-seconds

Chris

08-06-2017, 09:11 PM

You've been duped; hoodwinked.

RandomGuy

08-08-2017, 10:10 AM

excellent debate

Most of the "excellent debate" happened years ago. This thread is old.

It takes some hard core jackassery to keep ignoring the data.

Government Report Finds Drastic Impact of Climate Change on U.S.

WASHINGTON — The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration.

The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.

“Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans,” a draft of the report states. A copy of it was obtained by The New York Times.

The authors note that thousands of studies, conducted by tens of thousands of scientists, have documented climate changes on land and in the air. “Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change,” they wrote.

The report was completed this year and is a special science section of the National Climate Assessment, which is congressionally mandated every four years. The National Academy of Sciences has signed off on the draft report, and the authors are awaiting permission from the Trump administration to release it.

--------------------------------------------
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html

Of course science is now politically incorrect. Can't let actual science by real scientists get in the way of political hacks.

boutons_deux

08-08-2017, 10:25 AM

Pruitt, etc will block the draft from being officially published as a govt document

I expect Sessions to prosecute the leakers

RandomGuy

08-08-2017, 10:26 AM

How your pet is contributing to global warming

Turns out that chow you’re feeding Fido and Felix produces a pretty big carbon pawprint.

In a study released Wednesday, a geography professor at UCLA calculated that the meat-based food Americans’ dogs and cats eat – and the waste those pets produce – generate the equivalent of about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.

That’s as much as about 13.6 million cars driving for a year, says professor Gregory Okin in a paper published in the journal PLOS One.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article164990657.html#storylink=cpy

Read the study.

Fairly rigorous.

The author got close.

He even addressed my primary concern:

It could be argued that dogs and cats eat meat that humans cannot consume and which is simply a byproduct of production for human use, and therefore should not be counted as consumption beyond that of humans. To some extent, this is certainly true; humans, for instance, do not generally consume bone meal, a common ingredient. But other ingredients in pet food that are byproducts of human meat production are certainly edible after processing. The argument that dogs' and cats' environmental and energetic impacts are obviated by the fact that they eat byproducts from the human food system, and that otherwise the material would go to waste, relies on the assumption that these same byproducts could not be made to be suitable for human consumption after suitable processing. And much pet food probably is already edible and serves as a potential source of protein as a food of last resort; there are reports, both official and unofficial, of impoverished Americans eating pet food as a necessary supplement to their diet [55–57, 58, 59]. At any rate, the trend toward premium pet food with more animal products that Americans would recognize as edible indicates that pets are eating animal products that could also be eaten by humans and that there is direct competition with the human food system for ingredients in some of these products [10].

The proprietary nature of and incredible variety in pet food recipes makes a detailed calculation impossible, but for the sake of argument, if just one-quarter of the estimated 33% animal-derived energy in pet food was consumable by humans, it alone would support the animal-derived energy consumption of 26 million Americans (with 19% of their energy in derived from animal products). This same energy is equal to the entire energy requirement of almost 5 million Americans, or approximately the population of Colorado [48]. If animal-derived energy was converted to its plant equivalent, one-quarter of the animal-derived energy in US dogs' and cats' food would support ~35 million humans. If even only 5% of the animal-derived energy in pet food could be eaten by humans, this would be equivalent to the animal-product consumption of more than 5 million Americans, and the total energy consumption of 1 million Americans, or about the population of Montana [25, 26, 48].

Additional research is needed to evaluate the animal content and human-edibility of ingredients in dog and cat food after processing, but the calculations presented here indicate that these pets comprise a significant proportion of US energy and animal-derived product consumption, with the consequent environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emission and feces production. Inasmuch as increasing animal production is a threat to the sustainability of the global food system [1, 2], the non-negligible contribution of dogs and cats compounds the problem and exacerbates the threat to sustainability posed by our dietary choices. This is particularly true given increasing pet ownership in some developing countries, and trends in "humanization" of pet food [22, 23] which competes directly with the human food system [10]. Reducing the rate of dog and cat ownership, perhaps in favor of other, less energy-intensive, pets that offer similar health, social, and emotional benefits, would considerably reduce America's overall livestock-related environmental impacts. Both small (e.g., birds, hamsters) and large (e.g., horses) have been shown to be associated with important benefits, including friendship, verbal interaction, companionship [60, 61], promoting self-care [62, 63], and increased empathy [64]. For children, both small and large pets provide friendship, love, and fun as well as opportunities to learn responsibility and deal with pet mortality and mourning [65, 66]. For children with illnesses, small pets have been shown to improve their attitude and help them keep their minds off their disease [67].

RandomGuy

08-08-2017, 10:28 AM

Pruitt, etc will block the draft from being officially published as a govt document

I expect Sessions to prosecute the leakers

The political appointees will certainly attempt to do so.

For years asshats on the right who think this is a hoax have been saying its all politics, and are now making that way, if it wasn't before. It wasn't before.

AaronY

08-08-2017, 11:23 AM

You've been duped; hoodwinked.
Listen to this guy he knows what hes talking just like with his vaccine truther and 9/11 truther takes...keen mind over here. Aint pulling no wool over his eyes. Also, he's got a netflix boycott going becuase its too liberal. Ask him about it and you could learn some stuff

Chris

08-08-2017, 03:55 PM

Listen to this guy he knows what hes talking just like with his vaccine truther and 9/11 truther takes...keen mind over here. Aint pulling no wool over his eyes. Also, he's got a netflix boycott going becuase its too liberal. Ask him about it and you could learn some stuff

Let us proceed...

Spurminator

08-21-2017, 01:39 PM

DarrinS

08-21-2017, 01:46 PM

Just an observation that basically everyone, regardless of any personal differences, believed NASA when they told us to only wear special glasses during the eclipse. All media, mainstream and otherwise, amplified the message of public safety that you are only supposed to look at the sun through specific types of sunglasses. It was accepted truth. No one argued. There were no politics involved.

So why isn't that the case when it comes to climate change?

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Some things are much more predictable than others.

Spurminator

08-21-2017, 01:50 PM

Some things are much more predictable than others.

Yeah I'm sure that's it.

spurraider21

08-21-2017, 02:11 PM

Just an observation that basically everyone, regardless of any personal differences, believed NASA when they told us to only wear special glasses during the eclipse. All media, mainstream and otherwise, amplified the message of public safety that you are only supposed to look at the sun through specific types of sunglasses. It was accepted truth. No one argued. There were no politics involved.

So why isn't that the case when it comes to climate change?

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Logical conclusion is that everyone is in the pockets of BigSpecialSunglasses

Spurminator

08-21-2017, 02:39 PM

Logical conclusion is that everyone is in the pockets of BigSpecialSunglasses

Yep. That's why I looked at it through a microscope. #DrainTheSwamp

Wild Cobra

08-22-2017, 02:27 AM

FuzzyLumpkins

08-22-2017, 03:23 AM

Because the climate section is a space given to three bloggers who run it, and have no science credentials.

Ever look up the three names at the bottom... What their credentials are?

They lie about what those six or seven consensus papers actually say.

This is just ignorant.

The site editor edits everything on the site not just that page. His bio says so explicitly. He has a masters in journalism. He is not a "blogger," dimwit.

The editor is their social media liason as per her bio and she has a masters in public administration ie PR. Not a blogger.

The science editor teaches climate and has their masters in marine science.

Regardless

This website is produced by the Earth Science Communications Team at
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory | California Institute of Technology

They are all employed by Cal Tech. You barely passed high school. Below are the actual contributors to the site:

https://climate.nasa.gov/about-us/

Dr. Carmen Boening has a Ph.D. in Physical Oceanography from the University of Bremen, Germany. She is involved in JPL's Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) and its follow-on mission, GRACE FO, to be launched in 2017. Her research interests include the complex processes behind sea level rise, involving interactions between the ocean, atmosphere, land hydrology and land ice.

Dr. Erik Conway is the historian at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, holding a Ph.D. in History of Science and Technology from the University of Minnesota. He writes on the history of Earth, planetary and space sciences in the 20th century, his most recent work entitled Exploration and Engineering: The Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Quest for Mars.

With a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Bristol University, Dr. Michael Gunson is a Global Change and Energy program manager and an Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) project scientist. His research interests lie in atmospheric remote sensing, atmospheric composition and chemistry, and climate change. Prior to his present JPL roles, Dr. Gunson worked as a lead scientist for building the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument aboard NASA’s AQUA satellite and the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) aboard the AURA satellite.

Joe Witte started his career as a glaciologist for the USGS, working on the ice of South Cascade Glacier, Wash. He has worked for network affiliate news stations in New York City, Seattle, Milwaukee and Philadelphia, and was NBC’s morning weatherman for 20 years. He currently advises NASA communications teams about how to adapt NASA science content for use by TV meteorologists.

Dr. Charles Miller received his Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from the University of California, Berkeley. As a research scientist at JPL, his interests include atmospheric chemistry and carbon cycle science. He is the principal investigator of NASA's Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE), which looks at atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane in the Arctic. He is also the JPL lead for the Keck Institute for Space Studies (KISS)’s Monitoring Megacity CO2 Emissions from Space project, and a member of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) science team.

NASA scientist Dr. William “Bill” Patzert has a Ph.D. in Oceanography from the University of Hawaii. His research interests center on understanding and forecasting global, as well as local, climate change. He is an expert in science communication and often appears in the print and social media and on local and national television and radio. He lectures widely and works with students from around the world.

Dr. Duane Waliser has a Ph.D. in Physical Oceanography from the University of California, San Diego. In addition to being JPL’s Earth Science and Technology Directorate's chief scientist, he is an adjunct professor in the University of California, Los Angeles's Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and a visiting associate in Caltech's Geological and Planetary Sciences Division. His research includes focus on climate dynamics and variability, ocean-atmosphere interactions, water cycle and weather/climate predictability.

A project scientist for NASA’s Jason-3 satellite and principal investigator of the Oceans Melting Greenland campaign, Dr. Josh Willis received his Ph.D. in Oceanography from the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Willis’s research interests lie in estimating both regional and global sea level rise and ocean circulation using NASA satellite data, among others. Because these are connected to global climate change, he also participates in public outreach efforts to communicate their significance.

You can wave your hands at the people that put together the website itself if it makes you feel better. You will always remain an ignorant fool.

Wild Cobra

08-22-2017, 04:01 AM

But it's just the three writing the material, and their consensus page is a lie.

FuzzyLumpkins

08-22-2017, 08:07 AM

But it's just the three writing the material, and their consensus page is a lie.

Bullshit. You are ignorant of even what an editor does.

The concensus page cites

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America
International academies: Joint statement
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.