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

[DarrinS]

Some things are much more predictable than others.


Yeah I'm sure that's it.


Do you agree that there is less uncertainty with eclipse predictions than global climate predictions? That's why I thought The Atlantic article you posted was retarded.

[Spurminator]

Do you agree that there is less uncertainty with eclipse predictions than global climate predictions? That's why I thought The Atlantic article you posted was retarded.

Sure, but I believe experts in the space would disagree with you about how uncertain it is.

I believe your uncertainty, like most vocal climate change skeptics, is motivated by politically-nurtured ignorance. You have been told to be skeptical of this specific thing that there is scientific consensus on because you have been trained to do so.

Had there been big business motivation to train you to be skeptical of eclipse sunglasses, and conservative media was feeding sunglass skepticism constantly, I believe you would have gone along with them as well. No offense.

Also, what Atlantic article? I posted a NASA.gov link.

[DarrinS]

Sure, but I believe experts in the space would disagree with you about how uncertain it is.

I believe your uncertainty, like most vocal climate change skeptics, is motivated by politically-nurtured ignorance. You have been told to be skeptical of this specific thing that there is scientific consensus on because you have been trained to do so.

Had there been big business motivation to train you to be skeptical of eclipse sunglasses, and conservative media was feeding sunglass skepticism constantly, I believe you would have gone along with them as well. No offense.

Also, what Atlantic article? I posted a NASA.gov link.


My bad. It was very similar to this article.


https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/do-you-believe-the-eclipse-is-going-to-happen/537090/

[Spurminator]

Plus, my post was specifically about the eclipse sunglasses, so frankly I'm not sure what the predictability of an eclipse even has to do with it.

[DarrinS]

Plus, my post was specifically about the eclipse sunglasses, so frankly I'm not sure what the predictability of an eclipse even has to do with it.

We believe the thing about the glasses because it's falsifiable.

[Spurminator]

We believe the thing about the glasses because it's falsifiable.

Not until after permanent damage has been done. Do you apply this level of scrutiny to every scientific consensus?

[DarrinS]

Not until after permanent damage has been done. Do you apply this level of scrutiny to every scientific consensus?

Science doesn't progress by consensus.

[Wild Cobra]

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.

I know what it says. I also have read all those studies. have you?

[Wild Cobra]

Holy shit this is some lazy excuse-making.

You really think NASA's just leaving it to the page editors to editorialize however they want?

With how is in charge... Yes!

[Spurminator]

Science doesn't progress by consensus.

:lol

Where'd you pick up that pithy bullshit?

So scientific fact only exists in areas where scientists disagree on fact.

I guess we'll never evolve eclipse sunglasses either, since there's scientific consensus on their usage.

Scientific consensus = No progress = Incorrect conclusion

[Chris]

He's right. All the greatest scientists were those who went against the grain or consensus if you will.

[Spurminator]

He's right. All the greatest scientists were those who went against the grain or consensus if you will.

And yet very few scientists who have ever gone against the consensus were right or great.

Keep holding out hope that the next Newton will come along and discover a politically convenient new revelation about manmade climate change.

[DarrinS]

:lol

Where'd you pick up that pithy bullshit?

So scientific fact only exists in areas where scientists disagree on fact.

I guess we'll never evolve eclipse sunglasses either, since there's scientific consensus on their usage.

Scientific consensus = No progress = Incorrect conclusion


Contntintal drift was once considered pseudoscience.

[Spurminator]

Contntintal drift was once considered pseudoscience.

Yes, Darrin, sometimes a consensus has been proven wrong. Thank you for once again articulating your point through examples of extreme rarities and confirmation bias.

You set your hopes for a change of consensus only on the consensuses that you find politically inconvenient. It's so predictable at this point it's boring.

[DarrinS]

And this is where you get into your typical confirmation bias / exceptions being the rule, etc.

You set your hopes for a change of consensus only on the consensuses that you find politically inconvenient. Predictably.


Stress causes ulcers

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Science doesn't progress by consensus.

No but in a democracy, political disputes progress through concensus. Your fossil fuel overlords have made this a political issue. While obtuseness fits you, it is not compelling.

This is a complex topic. You supposedly have been trained in modeling and the math behind combining systems yet you are unable to understand the methods or science used as you made clear when I tried discussing Hansen's models with you. The layman has no chance at all.

The most intelligent and best educated are the key and your masters and useful idiots such as yourself have a vested interest in their not being a consensus amongst said experts. That is why you fight it. Nonetheless the lion's share of scientists find the theory of AGW and its impacts to be credible.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know what it says. I also have read all those studies. have you?

We read them when they came out over the past decade, dimwit. Your memory is shit.

[DarrinS]

No but in a democracy, political disputes progress through concensus. Your fossil fuel overlords have made this a political issue. While obtuseness fits you, it is not compelling.

This is a complex topic. You supposedly have been trained in modeling and the math behind combining systems yet you are unable to understand the methods or science used as you made clear when I tried discussing Hansen's models with you. The layman has no chance at all.

The most intelligent and best educated are the key and your masters and useful idiots such as yourself have a vested interest in their not being a consensus amongst said experts. That is why you fight it. Nonetheless the lion's share of scientists find the theory of AGW and its impacts to be credible.


Ok, Dr. Zaius

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He's right. All the greatest scientists were those who went against the grain or consensus if you will.

Some great scientists sure. Watson and Crick were not going against the grain. Curie, Pasteur, Cook, Maxwell, Faraday, Fermi, etc were not. Einstein was from the continent and while he had to convince the Brits of Leibniz over Newton but there was no world consensus.

There is no church holding to Aquinas' doctrine demanding that science adhere to doctrine anymore. Welcome to the modern era. Darwin, Galileo, and Renaissance era scientists had to fight the church. We do not.

The western tradition derives from the 19th century and the pragmatism of Mills and James.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Leyn-oS5ASI

You are the doctor in this scene. You claiming to be an engineer is comparable.

[Wild Cobra]

We read them when they came out over the past decade, dimwit. Your memory is shit.

Just shows you are a moron for not understanding actual implication.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Just shows you are a moron for not understanding actual implication.

It helps to point out what I don't understand. We both know you won't do that because you have been shamed so many times.

I remember those studies coming out and someone like RG or Manny would post them. We can reprise that if you would like. Or you can tell us about IR absorption by the ocean, ocean circulation, linear systems, flywheels, capacitors, solubility charts, solar burps, or the exoneration of CO2.

Or you can call me stupid and hope it sticks. You lack courage and pride. Sad state of things for Wile E Coyote.

[Wild Cobra]

It helps to point out what I don't understand. We both know you won't do that because you have been shamed so many times.

I remember those studies coming out and someone like RG or Manny would post them. We can reprise that if you would like. Or you can tell us about IR absorption by the ocean, ocean circulation, linear systems, flywheels, capacitors, solubility charts, solar burps, or the exoneration of CO2.

Or you can call me stupid and hope it sticks. You lack courage and pride. Sad state of things for Wile E Coyote.

I'm sorry you are so pathetic. I have explained the 97% studies long ago. I guess you IQ is too low to comprehend.

The best the 97% studies give us is that 97% of the climate scientists agree that mankind is responsible for some of the waring. None of them support the claim hat 97% say mankind is responsible for most of the warming. If you disagree, then please show us which study claims 97% and most.

Hint... None of them support that contention!

[RandomGuy]

Science doesn't progress by consensus.

That is the only way science progresses. To claim otherwise is to simply demonstrate an embarrassing ignorance of the scientific process.

Ouch.

[boutons_deux]

Exxon Misled the Public on Climate Change, Study Says

As Exxon Mobil responded to news (https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken) reports (http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/) in 2015 that said that the company had spread doubt about the risks of climate change despite its own extensive research in the field, it urged the public to “read the documents (http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/10/21/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-read-the-documents/)” for themselves.

Now two Harvard researchers have done just that, reviewing nearly 200 documents representing Exxon’s research and its public statements and concluding that the company “misled the public” about climate change even as its own scientists were recognizing greenhouse gas emissions as a risk to the planet.

The Harvard researchers — Naomi Oreskes (https://histsci.fas.harvard.edu/people/naomi-oreskes), a professor of the history of science whose work has focused on the energy and tobacco industries, and Geoffrey Supran (https://histsci.fas.harvard.edu/people/geoffrey-supran), a postdoctoral fellow — published their peer-reviewed paper (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f) in the journal Environmental Research Letters (http://iopscience.iop.org/erl) on Wednesday. They also published their findings in an Opinion article in Wednesday’s New York Times.

They found that Exxon’s climate change studies, published from 1977 to 2014, were in line with the scientific thinking of the time.

Some 80 percent of the company’s research and internal communications acknowledged that

climate change was real and was caused by humans.

But 80 percent of Exxon’s statements to the broader public, which reached a much larger audience, expressed doubt about climate change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[RandomGuy]

I'm sorry you are so pathetic. I have explained the 97% studies long ago. I guess you IQ is too low to comprehend.

The best the 97% studies give us is that 97% of the climate scientists agree that mankind is responsible for some of the waring. None of them support the claim hat 97% say mankind is responsible for most of the warming. If you disagree, then please show us which study claims 97% and most.

Hint... None of them support that contention!

That was... incoherent.

97% incoherent.

The meta-studies that summarize the body of available evidence.




When we published a paper in 2013 finding 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming, what surprised me was how surprised everyone was.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

https://media.dayoftheshirt.com/images/shirts/eWBFY/qwertee_science-it-works_1489183851.full.png

[DarrinS]

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/clip_image002_thumb2.png?w=601&h=454

Yay!

[spurraider21]

Lol heartland

[RandomGuy]

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/clip_image002_thumb2.png?w=601&h=454

Yay!

How many of those skeptics are qualified in the field of climate science?

You could post a graphic about 100 "skeptics" and be referring to turtles for all you have shown.

In contrast, the people mentioned in the study I posted are actual human experts.

I mean this kindly:

You are making some really bad arguments here. They reflect poorly on you, and you would do well to put more thought into them.

[boutons_deux]

climate convo with WC? :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm sorry you are so pathetic. I have explained the 97% studies long ago. I guess you IQ is too low to comprehend.

The best the 97% studies give us is that 97% of the climate scientists agree that mankind is responsible for some of the waring. None of them support the claim hat 97% say mankind is responsible for most of the warming. If you disagree, then please show us which study claims 97% and most.

Hint... None of them support that contention!

That is a distinction without meaning. Given that you used to post crap about "the exoneration of CO2," "the heat is coming from the ocean," and "warming drives CO2" it is laughable. And as RG demonstrated you cannot read for shit.

Now what about the other 6 studies? Shall we reevaluate what the other organizations that I listed have to say?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-2/

[Chris]

STUDY CONFIRMS GLOBAL WARMING IS ALMOST ENTIRELY NATURAL

https://cdn.milo.yiannopoulos.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/n-AL-GORE-628x314.jpg


A study has found even if there had been no Industrial Revolution, current global temperatures would be almost exactly the same as they are now.

James Delingpole from Breitbart News reports a paper by Australian scientists John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy that was published in GeoResJ “uses the latest big data technique to analyse six 2,000 year-long proxy temperature series from different geographic regions.”

“Proxies,” Delingpole explains, are markers which scientists use to assess global temperature trends in the ages before thermometers existed. The evidence suggests the planet was approximately a degree warmer during the Medieval Warming Period than it is today. The study also explains there is nothing unnatural about the “climate change,” of the late 20th century and early 21st century.

Delingpole explains this finding contradicts “the claims of alarmist scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that “man made” global warming is a worrying and dangerous phenomenon.”

Time-series profiles derived from temperature proxies such as tree rings can provide information about past climate. Signal analysis was undertaken of six such datasets, and the resulting component sine waves used as input to an artificial neural network (ANN), a form of machine learning. By optimizing spectral features of the component sine waves, such as periodicity, amplitude and phase, the original temperature profiles were approximately simulated for the late Holocene period to 1830 CE. The ANN models were then used to generate projections of temperatures through the 20th century. The largest deviation between the ANN projections and measured temperatures for six geographically distinct regions was approximately 0.2 °C, and from this an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of approximately 0.6 °C was estimated. This is considerably less than estimates from the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and similar to estimates from spectroscopic methods.

Delingpole also provides a graph which suggests the recent warming of the planet is part of a natural trend.

https://cdn.milo.yiannopoulos.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Climate-change-graph-300x234.png

Jennifer Mahorasy, the co-author of the paper and the person behind the recent exposure of the scandal in which Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology erased record-breaking low temperatures from its records, explains the planets global temperature has increased and decreased naturally for the past 2000 years.

We began by deconstructing the six-proxy series from different geographic regions – series already published in the mainstream climate science literature. One of these, the Northern Hemisphere composite series begins in 50 AD, ends in the year 2000, and is derived from studies of pollen, lake sediments, stalagmites and boreholes.

Typical of most such temperature series, it zigzags up and down while showing two rising trends: the first peaks about 1200 AD and corresponds with a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the second peaks in 1980 and then shows decline. In between, is the Little Ice Age (LIA), which according to the Northern Hemisphere composite bottomed-out in 1650 AD. (Of course, the MWP corresponded with a period of generally good harvests in England – when men dressed in tunics and built grand cathedrals with tall spires. It preceded the LIA when there was famine and the Great Plague of London.)

Delingpole reports, until the 1990’s, this was accepted by the climate change community. However, there was a unified effort led by alarmists, including Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, to remove the Medieval Warming Period from records.

Those scientists that argued against the alarmists were lambasted for their “incorrect” thinking.

The new study, however, proves those alarmists wrong, and the skeptics right.

To be clear, while mainstream climate science is replete with published proxy temperature studies showing that temperatures have cycled up and down over the last 2,000 years – spiking during the Medieval Warm Period and then again recently to about 1980 as shown in Figure 12 – the official IPCC reconstructions (which underpin the Paris Accord) deny such cycles. Through this denial, leaders from within this much-revered community can claim that there is something unusual about current temperatures: that we have catastrophic global warming from industrialisation.

In our new paper in GeoResJ, we not only use the latest techniques in big data to show that there would very likely have been significant warming to at least 1980 in the absence of industrialisation, we also calculate an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of 0.6°C. This is the temperature increase expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. This is an order of magnitude less than estimates from General Circulation Models, but in accordance from values generated from experimental spectroscopic studies, and other approaches reported in the scientific literature [9,10,11,12,13,14].

The science is far from settled. In reality, some of the data is ‘problematic’, the underlying physical mechanisms are complex and poorly understood, the literature voluminous, and new alternative techniques (such as our method using ANNs) can give very different answers to those derived from General Circulation Models and remodelled proxy-temperature series.

https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/08/study-confirms-global-warming-is-almost-entirely-natural/

[hater]

Lol cocksucker milo yanocockis

[pgardn]

STUDY CONFIRMS GLOBAL WARMING IS ALMOST ENTIRELY NATURAL

https://cdn.milo.yiannopoulos.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/n-AL-GORE-628x314.jpg

You are going to cite Milo....

An admitted truthbender.
Excellent.

Then put Al Gore's picture in there just to make sure Republicans like Darrin take the bait.
This is a great thread to look back on and figure out how many Cosmo fruit bats we have on this site. I did not think Darrin was part of the hocus pocus group.

[Wild Cobra]

That was... incoherent.

97% incoherent.

The meta-studies that summarize the body of available evidence.




Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

https://media.dayoftheshirt.com/images/shirts/eWBFY/qwertee_science-it-works_1489183851.full.png

My god, you guys are fucking idiots.

Read the actual papers., Not what someone spins them to be.

[RandomGuy]

My god, you guys are fucking idiots.

Read the actual papers., Not what someone spins them to be.

John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9

The authors, all experts in their fields, read those papers, and quantified them using defined, testable, reproducible, metrics, and published the paper in a peer reviewed journal.

It seems reasonable to accept their conclusion, especially since you can't specify any flaws.

I have provided evidence. You have provided 9-11 truther-grade derisive bullshit.

[RandomGuy]

Here is what conversations with 9-11 truthers looks like.




I dont need to explain nothing, you always have problems when something contradicts your theories, in this particular case you are saying the fire of the WTC has hotter than lava.

No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC." FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).Aug 1, 2017



1500 F is not enough to melt steel, you are correct.

There was no melted steel in the towers, and the collapse did not require any steel to be melted, merely hot enough to lose structural integrity, and warp/expand, both of which happen when it is heated to those temperatures.


:lmao That you think 1200 fucking degrees below the melting point is anywhere close enough for steel to lose structural integrity. Pseudo science. :lmao



Yes, I do. I not only think it, I know it does.

"As indicated in the figure, if the steel attains a temperature of 550 degrees Centigrade (1,022 degrees Fahrenheit), the remaining strength is approximately half of the value at ambient temperature. "

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-A-6.gif

Maybe you can wow me with all the data you have done for your testing of the structural properties of steel under various temperatures.



This is what happens, bro, when these steel beast catch fire. Stuff collapses, not the steel framework. It takes detonation. You want to give the benefit of doubt to no detonation and quote your pseudo science? :lmao



So... you have smileys.

Got it.

Color me unimpressed.


So, the govt. does a huge commission to find out the truth of 9/11 and just pretends building 7 never happened. They don't even come up with a faux excuse. That's how dead to rights them and your cuck ass are.


I don't see any evidence in this post either.

It's almost like you don't have any.



Yup, no planes in the photographs of the Pentagon bombing.

Yup, physics verifies that the (concrete enforced) steel holds up in these fires.

Yup, the radiation levels on the ground were certainly testible and inconsistent with the govt. stories.




Yup, no evidence for any of your claims.

(slow clap)


I wouldn't even give you credit for "judging" as much as I'd say you simply serving a canned argument; and you've unraveled upon being held to a light.


You have failed to present any evidence here, and have simply, repeatedly, done nothing but repeat your unproven assertions.

Feel free to step up your game at any time, rather than falling back on canned catchphrases.



I wasn't tasked with getting to the bottom of 9/11. The govt. was. Their answer: Pretend building 7 never happened because stooges like you would just accept it. :lmao


Still no evidence.

Almost as if you don't have any.


I give you evidence and you say "no evidence" :lmao


Me: Dude admitted WTC7 detonated.
You: No evidence.

You're a fucking joke at this point.

You have yet to show how steel reacts when heated, in regards to its weight bearing capacity. This evidence is key to your claims about either building 7 or the twins.

Office fire temperatures, such as building 7 burn at a fairly predictable temperature curve.


The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C

References

[1] Fristrom, R. M., Flame Structure and Process, Oxford University Press, New York (1995).
[2] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., Some Stochastic Properties of Fire Plumes, Fire and Materials 6, 127-134 (1982).

[3] Gaydon, A. G., and Wolfhard, H. G., Flames: Their Structure, Radiation and Temperature, 3rd ed., Chapman and Hall, London (1970).

[4] McCaffrey, B. J., Purely Buoyant Diffusion Flames: Some Experimental Results (NBSIR 79*1910). [U.S.] Natl. Bur. Stand., Gaithersburg, MD (1979).

[5] Audoin, L., Kolb., G., Torero, J. L., and Most., J. M., Average Centerline Temperatures of a Buoyant Pool Fire Obtained by Image Processing of Video Recordings, Fire Safety J. 24, 107-130 (1995).

[6] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., A Study of the Deterministic Properties of Unbounded Fire Plumes, Combustion and Flame 39, 191-209 (1980).

[7] Smith, D. A., and Cox, G., Major Chemical Species in Turbulent Diffusion Flames, Combustion and Flame 91, 226-238 (1992).

[8] Yuan, L.-M., and Cox, G., An Experimental Study of Some Line Fires, Fire Safety J. 27, 123-139 (1997).

[9] Ingason, H., Two Dimensional Rack Storage Fires, pp. 1209-1220 in Fire Safety Science-Proc. Fourth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science, (1994).

[10] Ingason, H., and de Ris, J., Flame Heat Transfer in Storage Geometries, Fire Safety J. (1997).

[11] Heskestad, G., Flame Heights of Fuel Arrays with Combustion in Depth, pp. 427-438 in Fire Safety Science--Proc. Fifth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science (1997).

[12] Babrauskas, V., and Williamson, R. B., Post-Flashover Compartment Fires, Fire and Materials 2, 39-53 (1978); and 3, 1*7 (1979).

[13] Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (ASTM E 119). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

[14] Sullivan, A. L., Ellis, P. F., and Knight, I. K., A Review of Radiant Heat Flux Models Used in Bushfire Applications, Intl. J. Wildland Fire 12, 101-110 (2003).

Building 7 collapsed at approximately 5:20pm, it had been on fire for more than 8 hours.

[RandomGuy]

Here is what our resident "skeptic" is arguing. Notice a pattern?



I know what it says. I also have read all those studies. have you?


Just shows you are a moron for not understanding actual implication.



It helps to point out what I don't understand. ...

I remember those studies coming out and someone like RG or Manny would post them. We can reprise that if you would like. Or you can tell us about IR absorption by the ocean, ocean circulation, linear systems, flywheels, capacitors, solubility charts, solar burps, or the exoneration of CO2.

Or you can call me stupid and hope it sticks. ...


I'm sorry you are so pathetic. I have explained the 97% studies long ago. I guess you IQ is too low to comprehend.

The best the 97% studies give us is that 97% of the climate scientists agree that mankind is responsible for some of the waring. None of them support the claim hat 97% say mankind is responsible for most of the warming. If you disagree, then please show us which study claims 97% and most.

Hint... None of them support that contention!


That was... incoherent.

97% incoherent.

The meta-studies that summarize the body of available evidence.



Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta



My god, you guys are fucking idiots.

Read the actual papers., Not what someone spins them to be.


John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9

The authors, all experts in their fields, read those papers, and quantified them using defined, testable, reproducible, metrics, and published the paper in a peer reviewed journal.

It seems reasonable to accept their conclusion, especially since you can't specify any flaws.

I have provided evidence. You have provided 9-11 truther-grade derisive bullshit.

[DarrinS]

Is this statement accurate?





Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.

[DarrinS]

John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky are hacks, btw. Lol, using anonymous internet surveys as "data".

Their paper trying to link skeptics to conspiracy nutters was retracted.

I see RG tried to do the same a few posts back. :lol


Yikes -- the cringe is strong with these two


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW-60pDtmYI

[DarrinS]

Aw, those pranksters


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdlWHpQqu0I

[RandomGuy]

Is this statement accurate?

It would appear so, insomuch as a tweet from someone without a background in science ever is.

Hard to encapsulate a lot of qualifiers in 150 charactors.

[RandomGuy]

John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky are hacks, btw. Lol, using anonymous internet surveys as "data".

Their paper trying to link skeptics to conspiracy nutters was retracted.

I see RG tried to do the same a few posts back. :lol


Yikes -- the cringe is strong with these two


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW-60pDtmYI

That doesn't appear to be scientific evidence. Is it? How exactly does it apply to the scientific question at hand?

[RandomGuy]

Aw, those pranksters


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdlWHpQqu0I

That doesn't appear to be scientific evidence, either. Is it? How exactly does it apply to the scientific question at hand?

[RandomGuy]

Aw, those pranksters


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdlWHpQqu0I

Darrin, the title of the thread is "why I think climate change denial is pseudoscience"
The largest part of that was that the majority people who say they are "skeptical", really are using code word for outright dogmatic denial.


I laid out what I would do, and provided a metric for demonstrating "denial". The biggest part of that was using arguments that were deeply, obviously logically flawed made by people who claimed to be skeptics.

Over the past few years, I have pointed out, dozens of times, how logically flawed your posts are.

You are proving my point for me, every time you post something so obviously bad.

I even try to be kind and tell you that you aren't helping your case, merely making it look worse and worse.

Yet you keep it up, never bothering to learn how to make a logical argument, or learn anything in the science, economics, or risk management topics here.

So it seems like we should try something a bit more constructive, and basic.

Definitions.

What is your understanding of what constitutes a logical fallacy?

[spurraider21]

My god, you guys are fucking idiots.

Read the actual papers., Not what someone spins them to be.
I think you messed up and this wasn't meant to be a response to Chris's posts

[DarrinS]

That doesn't appear to be scientific evidence, either. Is it? How exactly does it apply to the scientific question at hand?


I just think people should see these two psychologists for themselves. I don't give their shoddy "science" any weight.

[DarrinS]

Here's an excellent critique of the Cook paper

http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2015/03/now-almost-two-years-old-john-cooks-97.html

[spurraider21]

Here's an excellent critique of the Cook paper

http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2015/03/now-almost-two-years-old-john-cooks-97.html
You find the conclusion excellent. That's your starting point

[DarrinS]

John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9

The authors, all experts in their fields, read those papers, and quantified them using defined, testable, reproducible, metrics, and published the paper in a peer reviewed journal.

It seems reasonable to accept their conclusion, especially since you can't specify any flaws.




This is laughable, RG.

[Spurminator]

I just think people should see these two psychologists for themselves. I don't give their shoddy "science" any weight.

Okay.

[Chris]

STUDY CONFIRMS GLOBAL WARMING IS ALMOST ENTIRELY NATURAL

https://cdn.milo.yiannopoulos.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/n-AL-GORE-628x314.jpg

[Chris]

c-o-n-f-i-r-m-s

Confirms

[spurraider21]

c-o-n-f-i-r-m-s

Confirms
Did that Monkton faggot ever publish his paper that was going to prove it mathematically impossible? :lol

[Wild Cobra]

John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9

The authors, all experts in their fields, read those papers, and quantified them using defined, testable, reproducible, metrics, and published the paper in a peer reviewed journal.

It seems reasonable to accept their conclusion, especially since you can't specify any flaws.

I have provided evidence. You have provided 9-11 truther-grade derisive bullshit.

You fucking idiot.

They do not make the same clam that the pundits say they do.

Read the god-damn paper!

[boutons_deux]

Convo with WC about global warming? :lol

[DarrinS]

Lol

901095173169532928

901106392211247104

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lol

901095173169532928

901106392211247104

Neither of those two support your position. Tamsin's whole deal is that the confusion she is referencing gives shills such as yourself the ability to confuse the issue for the common man. She finds models useful which is anathema to your dogma.

[Chris]

Tyson got served some cold cuts :lol

[RandomGuy]

You fucking idiot.

They do not make the same clam that the pundits say they do.

Read the god-damn paper!

I see you have me in the crushing grip of reason.

Why should I read the paper? Take a breath, and use your words.

[Wild Cobra]

I see you have me in the crushing grip of reason.

Why should I read the paper? Take a breath, and use your words.

You are going to believe the word of a pundit, who is no better than a political operative, rather than read the actual papers...

Wow...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are going to believe the word of a pundit, who is no better than a political operative, rather than read the actual papers...

Wow...

He's asking you to make an argument about the paper as opposed to asking him to make your argument for him, dim.

Please do. You've been afraid to talk actual science here for years now.

I bet you go back to calling us stupid without explaining that either.

[Wild Cobra]

He's asking you to make an argument about the paper as opposed to asking him to make your argument for him, dim.

Please do. You've been afraid to talk actual science here for years now.

I bet you go back to calling us stupid without explaining that either.

I have read and posted what those papers actually mean vs. what the pundits claim in the past.

Instead of me cherry picking the paper, how about either of you pick one of these several papers. Find one that you like and can be linked for all of us to see, and I will tell you why the 97% isn't as advertised.

I have shot them down before. Why must I do this again?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have read and posted what those papers actually mean vs. what the pundits claim in the past.

Instead of me cherry picking the paper, how about either of you pick one of these several papers. Find one that you like and can be linked for all of us to see, and I will tell you why the 97% isn't as advertised.

I have shot them down before. Why must I do this again?

We've responded to your rebuttals in the past, dim.

You acting like you have won past arguments is laughable in light of your reputation as the village idiot.

What I think is you are too stupid to recall the argument because your memory is shit. Coupled with laziness, you are not going to look up again the arguments that you are too stupid to come up with on your own.

If you want to leave it as it is then fine. We both know what the board sentiment is towards you and your arguments, partschanger.

[Wild Cobra]

We've responded to your rebuttals in the past, dim.

You acting like you have won past arguments is laughable in light of your reputation as the village idiot.

What I think is you are too stupid to recall the argument because your memory is shit. Coupled with laziness, you are not going to look up again the arguments that you are too stupid to come up with on your own.

If you want to leave it as it is then fine. We both know what the board sentiment is towards you and your arguments, partschanger.

You really should stop looking in the mirror when you have a thought to reply.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You really should stop looking in the mirror when you have a thought to reply.

No evidence from the coward. Typical.

Your word is meaningless.

[RandomGuy]

You really should stop looking in the mirror when you have a thought to reply.

"I'm rubber, and you're glue"?

Okaaay.

[RandomGuy]

Climate Myth...
Climate's changed before
Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)


Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. The evidence for that is spread throughout the geological record. This makes it clear that this time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.



Science has a good understanding of past climate changes and their causes, and that evidence makes the human cause of modern climate change all the more clear. Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – have been implicated in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When changes were big and rapid (as they are today), the consequences for life on Earth were often dire – in some cases causing mass extinctions.

Scientists have shown that CO2 and climate moved in lock-step throughout the Pleistocene ice ages. The ice ages were actually many pulses of cold glacial phases interspersed with warmer interglacials. These pulses had a distinct regularity caused by wobbles in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles). When Earth’s orbit reduced the intensity of sunlight in the northern hemisphere, the Earth went into a glacial phase. When the orbital cycle brought increased the intensity of insolation in the northern hemisphere, ice sheets melted and we went into a warm interglacial. Because warmer oceans can dissolve less CO2, the CO2 levels see-sawed extremely closely with Earth’s temperature. It was a slow pace of change, taking tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and yes as the myth states, in the last million years the biggest orbit-induced cycles were every 100,000 years.

But we know these orbital changes are not behind today's global warming. In fact our orbit dictates we should be cooling now, not warming.

The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions.[/quote]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

[RandomGuy]

It's cooling
"In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable." (source: Henrik Svensmark)


Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.


To say we're currently experiencing global cooling overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are only one small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). Global warming is by definition global. The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.

Church et al 2011 extends the analysis of Murphy 2009 which calculated the Earth's total heat content through to 2003. This new research combines measurements of ocean heat, land and atmosphere warming and ice melting to find that our climate system continued to accumulate heat through to 2008.


https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011_med.jpg

Figure 1: Total amount of heat from global warming that has accumulated in Earth's climate system from 1962 to 2008, from Church et al. (2011). Also see this graphic that shows the ocean heating in two layers, 0-700 meters and 700-2000 meters deep.

[RandomGuy]

Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
"January 2008 capped a 12 month period of global temperature drops on all of the major well respected indicators. HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year" (source: Watts Up With That).


A common claim amongst climate skeptics is that the Earth has been cooling recently. 1998 was the first year claimed by skeptics for 'Global Cooling'. Then 1995 followed by 2002. Skeptics have also emphasized the year 2007-2008 and most recently the last half of 2010.

NASA and climate scientists throughout the world have said, however, that the years starting since 1998 have been the hottest in all recorded temperature history. Do these claims sound confusing and contradictory? Has the Earth been cooling, lately?

To find out whether there is actually a 'cooling trend,' it is important to consider all of these claims as a whole, since they follow the same pattern. In making these claims, skeptics cherrypick short periods of time, usually about 20 years or less.

The temperature chart below is based on information acquired from NASA heat sensing satellites. It covers a 30 year period from January 1979 to November 2010. The red curve indicates the average temperature throughout the entire Earth.

The red line represents the average temperature. The top of the curves are warmer years caused by El Niño; a weather phenomenon where the Pacific Ocean gives out heat thus warming the Earth. The bottoms of the curves are usually La Niña years which cool the Earth. Volcanic eruptions, like Mount Pinatubo in 1991 will also cool the Earth over short time frames of 2-3 years.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Nov_10.gif

Figure 1: University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) temperature chart from January 1979 to November 2010. This chart is shown with no trend lines so the viewer may make his own judgment.

[RandomGuy]

Below is the same temperature chart, showing how skeptics manipulate the data to give the impression of 'Global Cooling'. First they choose the warmest most recent year they can find. Then, in this case, they exclude 20 years of previous temperature records. Next they draw a line from the warmest year (the high peak) to the lowest La Niña they can find. In doing this they falsely give the impression that an ordinary La Niña is actually a cooling trend.

https://skepticalscience.com/pics/UAH-tempchartB.jpg

[RandomGuy]

What do the past 30 years of temperature data really show? Below is the answer.

https://skepticalscience.com/pics/UAH-C1-screenshot.jpg

Figure 3: Trend lines showing the sudden jump in temperatures in the 1995 La Niña (Green lines) and the 1998 (Pink lines) El Niño events. Brown line indicates overall increase in temperatures.

[RandomGuy]

https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

[RandomGuy]

I have read and posted what those papers actually mean vs. what the pundits claim in the past.

Instead of me cherry picking the paper, how about either of you pick one of these several papers. Find one that you like and can be linked for all of us to see, and I will tell you why the 97% isn't as advertised.

I have shot them down before. Why must I do this again?

https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/studies_consensus_med.jpg


This graphic summarises the studies into scientific consensus on human-caused global warming, that look at expert opinion of either climate scientists who have published peer-reviewed climate research, or peer-reviewed climate papers.

Let's pick one at (HA) random.

Verheggen 2014


Results are presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was unique in its size, broadness and level of detail. Consistent with other research, we found that, as the level of expertise in climate science grew, so too did the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming. The respondents’ quantitative estimate of the GHG contribution appeared to strongly depend on their judgment or knowledge of the cooling effect of aerosols. The phrasing of the IPCC attribution statement in its fourth assessment report (AR4)—providing a lower limit for the isolated GHG contribution—may have led to an underestimation of the GHG influence on recent warming. The phrasing was improved in AR5. We also report on the respondents’ views on other factors contributing to global warming; of these Land Use and Land Cover Change (LULCC) was considered the most important. Respondents who characterized human influence on climate as insignificant, reported having had the most frequent media coverage regarding their views on climate change.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e



Environ. Sci. Technol., 2014, 48 (16), pp 8963–8971
DOI: 10.1021/es501998e
Publication Date (Web): July 22, 2014
Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society

[RandomGuy]

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/es504574v

Comment on “Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming”


José L. Duarte*
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States
Environ. Sci. Technol., 2014, 48 (23), pp 14057–14058
DOI: 10.1021/es504574v
Publication Date (Web): November 18, 2014
Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society

A rebuttal of same.

[spurraider21]

Spam

[Spurminator]

She seems nice.

902373016818126849

[DarrinS]

Copy/paste from https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[spurraider21]

Copy/paste from https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Amazed you found that even after RG linked his source way above

[RandomGuy]

Copy/paste from https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

That was the source.

It systematically picks apart the pseudoscientific bullshit that people like you push.

[DarrinS]

That was the source.

It systematically picks apart the pseudoscientific bullshit that people like you push.

97%

[Wild Cobra]

No evidence from the coward. Typical.

Your word is meaningless.

If I recall, I solidly shot down everything yo said before on the topic.

You are just a blathering idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

That was the source.

It systematically picks apart the pseudoscientific bullshit that people like you push.

Yes, a nice neat write-up by the bloggers that leaves out relevant facts, and projects incorrect conclusion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If I recall, I solidly shot down everything yo said before on the topic.

You are just a blathering idiot.

Called it. Claimed victory and called me stupid.

When I call you stupid it is because you don't understand how the parts you change work, struggle to read with comprehension, lack the critical thinking skills to discern nuance, and struggle to learn simple concepts even after having gone over them repeatedly.

That is not a big deal. People such as yourself are legion but what sets you apart is you think you're not. It's why you are mocked so readily.

You have nothing here. You cannot even reframe the arguments we had before. And never mind the 6 other studies you don't have denial blogs to try and regurgitate their rebuttals.

That is what is actually amusing about you, watching your dumb ass stumble through trying to read what they say and put it into your own words. I understand why you don't do it anymore but in light of that you really should not be calling anyone stupid. Pot, kettle, that whole thing.

[Thread]

Called it. Claimed victory and called me stupid.

When I call you stupid it is because you don't understand how the parts you change work, struggle to read with comprehension, lack the critical thinking skills to discern nuance, and struggle to learn simple concepts even after having gone over them repeatedly.

That is not a big deal. People such as yourself are legion but what sets you apart is you think you're not. It's why you are mocked so readily.

You have nothing here. You cannot even reframe the arguments we had before. And never mind the 6 other studies you don't have denial blogs to try and regurgitate their rebuttals.

That is what is actually amusing about you, watching your dumb ass stumble through trying to read what they say and put it into your own words. I understand why you don't do it anymore but in light of that you really should not be calling anyone stupid. Pot, kettle, that whole thing.

Got caught didn't ya, Lump.

Serves ya right. ha, ha.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, a nice neat write-up by the bloggers that leaves out relevant facts, and projects incorrect conclusion.

Says the guy who doesn't post relevant facts and projects his own conclusion.

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

Relevant facts were not left out, and the conclusion of the experts was correct.

[Chris]

THE BAD AT SCIENCE GUY: Bill Nye Tries to Link Global Warming To Hurricanes, Fails Basic Hurricane Science


Speaking with Dan Rather on Sirius XM, Bill Nye, The Bad-At-Science Guy, argued that the hurricanes the U.S. is experiencing have been strengthened by global warming.

Rather precipitated Nye’s odyssey into absurdity by prompting, “Any doubt in your mind that climate change is contributing to both the increased number of hurricanes and the strength of the hurricanes?”

Nye pontificated:

Well, it’s the strength that is almost certainly associated with global warming. Now, everybody, global warming and climate change are the same thing. As the world gets warmer and there’s more energy in the atmosphere, you expect storms to get stronger. You also expect ocean currents to not flow the way they always have, and that will make some places cooler and some places warmer.

The problem in southeast United States and Mexico is that these hurricanes are very powerful, and as I say all the time, they’re very expensive. We are all gonna pay for Harvey; we are all gonna pay for Irma, one way or the other. And so I want, I would prefer, as a guy born in the U.S., got my engineering degree and my license in the U.S., worked in aerospace for over twenty years in the U.S., I would like the United States to be the world leader in addressing this, rather than the World Sit-On-Its-Handsers. So anyway, the more heat energy in the atmosphere strengthens the storms, Dan.

PhD meteorologist Ryan Maue, fed up, issued a succinct reply to point out a flaw in Nye’s analysis:

http://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/maue_1.jpg
http://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/maue_2.jpg

he widely-propounded idea that global warming is causing either more hurricanes or making existing hurricanes more powerful flies in the face of this fact, as the Washington Examiner reported:

After Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, some climate modelers predicted such storms would be more frequent in a warmer world, while others predicted the opposite, and still others said there was no connection between warming and hurricanes. What ensued was an historically unprecedented 12-year absence of major (category 3 or higher) hurricanes making landfall in the United States, until Harvey, which ties for 14th-most intense hurricane since 1851. The events after 2005 were "consistent with" some projections, but any other events would have been as well.

Nye's remarks below:

905499613494480897

http://www.dailywire.com/news/20769/bad-science-guy-bill-nye-tries-link-global-warming-hank-berrien#

[spurraider21]

Yes bill nye is the voice of climate science

[RandomGuy]

Yes, a nice neat write-up by the bloggers that leaves out relevant facts, and projects incorrect conclusion.


[Irma] generated enough accumulated cyclone energy — the total wind energy generated over a storm's lifetime — to meet the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's definition of an average full Atlantic hurricane season

[Chucho]

Gotta laugh at climate change fanatics when Bill "Cue Card Reader Guy" Nye is the face of the movement. Dude is as much a legit figure as Trump is. Not a denier, but having this toad as the face of the movement is just as whom the POTUS is.

[RandomGuy]

Gotta laugh at climate change fanatics when Bill "Cue Card Reader Guy" Nye is the face of the movement. Dude is as much a legit figure as Trump is. Not a denier, but having this toad as the face of the movement is just as whom the POTUS is.

Nye is vastly more scientifically literate and intelligent than Trump.

I don't think anyone describes him as the "face of the movement", including Nye. He just speaks, as honestly as he can, about scientific issues like this. He is by no means an expert on the subject.

That is simply someone doing a bad ad hominem. (i.e. this guy made a mistake, so the idea he is talking about is false").

[RandomGuy]

Gotta laugh at climate change fanatics .


[Irma] generated enough accumulated cyclone energy — the total wind energy generated over a storm's lifetime — to meet the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's definition of an average full Atlantic hurricane season

[Chucho]

Nye is vastly more scientifically literate and intelligent than Trump.

I don't think anyone describes him as the "face of the movement", including Nye. He just speaks, as honestly as he can, about scientific issues like this. He is by no means an expert on the subject.

That is simply someone doing a bad ad hominem. (i.e. this guy made a mistake, so the idea he is talking about is false").

The guy is all over the place and has said some really, really stupid things.

[Chucho]

He just speaks, as honestly as he can, he is by no means an expert on the subject.




See what I did there?

[spurraider21]

Bill Nye is a leader in the climate change movement like Sean hannity is a conservative leader

ie a mouthpiece

[RandomGuy]

[big text]

I am still getting adjusted to wearing reading glasses. :D

When do we get to say "yeah we are doing it"?

How much evidence do you need?

[Chucho]

I am still getting adjusted to wearing reading glasses. :D

When do we get to say "yeah we are doing it"?

How much evidence do you need?

I said Im not a denier. I said I laugh at the fanatics of the movement because Meterologist Trump is the talking head.

[RandomGuy]

I said Im not a denier. I said I laugh at the fanatics of the movement because Meterologist Trump is the talking head.

ah. Got it.

I have always said that the evidence will pile up either way, and it is looking like we are seeing the effects a bit sooner than I expected.

The thing that bugs me the most is that the people who want to deny anything is happening also claim that addressing the problem will cause some huge economic harm, which is also easy to disprove.

Fixing things not only isn't harmful, it helps. Seems like getting off our asses is a no-brainer, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

And then, just when you thought it safe to start calling people "deniers" again, you have things like this that undermine your position...

Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society

Global warming is the pseudo-science. Not a single forecast of doom by global warming adherents in the last quarter century has come true.

Not one.

More storms, more extremes was predicted. This is happening now.

[Chucho]

ah. Got it.

I have always said that the evidence will pile up either way, and it is looking like we are seeing the effects a bit sooner than I expected.

The thing that bugs me the most is that the people who want to deny anything is happening also claim that addressing the problem will cause some huge economic harm, which is also easy to disprove.

Fixing things not only isn't harmful, it helps. Seems like getting off our asses is a no-brainer, IMO.

Absolutely agree. I dont think its going to cause any economic downfall except for petrol based companies, but they're already working on ways to fuck people with green energy ala Elon Musk. And they will. But at least the world will stay around a little longer for future generations.

[boutons_deux]

Neil deGrasse Tyson
✔@neiltyson (https://twitter.com/neiltyson)

Anyone who thinks scientists like agreeing with one another has never attended a scientific conference.

9:54 AM - Sep 10, 2017 (https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/906893575916445696)Neil deGrasse Tyson

(https://twitter.com/neiltyson):lol

Damn, that smart knitter bitch slapping all you red neck, anti-science white boys :lol

[Wild Cobra]

[Irma] generated enough accumulated cyclone energy — the total wind energy generated over a storm's lifetime — to meet the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's definition of an average full Atlantic hurricane season

Whoop-te-do...

You know, they can only evaluate that metric for the ones seen over the last few decades, with the better satellites.

There have been worse hurricaines in the past.

[Spurtacular]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is 163637

Shouldn't it be Part 2, then?

[spurraider21]

Responding to a 5 year old post? Rent free

[RandomGuy]

Absolutely agree. I dont think its going to cause any economic downfall except for petrol based companies, but they're already working on ways to fuck people with green energy ala Elon Musk. And they will. But at least the world will stay around a little longer for future generations.

"petrol based companies" is an interesting term.

All sorts of industries and companies face change. Change is, ironically, the one constant in any free market.

Companies have to reinvent themselves occassionally, or they go the way of buggy whip manufacturers.

I read the annual statements of these companies and can tell you they are changing right now. That change is how they see themselves.

"Oil and gas" companies are beginning to call themselves "energy companies".

Sounds like just words, but it is a big shift. Rather than seeing themselves as just providing hydrocarbons, they are spending and developing green tech themselves, and they have a LOT of money to throw at renewables. The R & D budgets and spending on acquisitions show this.

They know what the future is, and are moving that direction.

They will quietly stop funding all this denier non-sense, because they will have their profits in different industries.

Suckers like Darrin and Wild Cobra will have been useful idiots, because they helped muddy the waters, just like the people who believed that smoking didn't cause cancer, because they saw someone in a labcoat say so.

[RandomGuy]

Whoop-te-do...

You know, they can only evaluate that metric for the ones seen over the last few decades, with the better satellites.

There have been worse hurricaines in the past.

Implied:

"X happened in the past. Therefore climate change now is not real and we aren't causing it."

Let's see how this works logically.


The earth was a molten ball of rock in the past. Therefore climate change now is not real and we aren't causing it.

Rain happened in the past. Therefore climate change now is not real and we aren't causing it.

Really bad rain happened in the past. Therefore climate change now is not real and we aren't causing it.

A monkey scratched his balls in the past. Therefore climate change now is not real and we aren't causing it.


The subject at hand is that we are seeing more and more extreme events, and those extreme events are getting worse, generally.

No one denies that any given storm or event may have had, at some point, something worse. No one.

That you think this statement is relevant simply says that you lack the critical thinking skills to understand that.

Climate change denial is pseudoscience, and your statement directly supports that thesis.

Thanks for providing more proof supporting my original post. I appreciate it. :tu

[Chris]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/21740537_1786389581388521_6347306244132476386_n.jp g?oh=662b50edda7fcc6f1302ae7e31019151&oe=5A462487

[spurraider21]

Should I draw a chalkboard with "no man-made climate change = more Koch $" going to an elephant?

You can always "follow the money" in politics. The science is pretty clear at this point though. Which is why you discuss everything except the science

[RandomGuy]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/21740537_1786389581388521_6347306244132476386_n.jp g?oh=662b50edda7fcc6f1302ae7e31019151&oe=5A462487

Also fits in rather well with the OP. (see thread title)

Conspiracy theories, by their very nature, are pseudoscientific.

In this case, you have an ad hominem/strawman attack.

"Scientists want more government money for research, and their only motivation for doing what they do is money, so they will make findings that always conclude they get more money."

The actual underlying science, and what scientists actually say, isn't addressed. This kind of conspiracy theory is mentioned specifically in the OP.

Thank you for helping me prove my case. :tu

[RandomGuy]

Should I draw a chalkboard with "no man-made climate change = more Koch $" going to an elephant?

You can always "follow the money" in politics. The science is pretty clear at this point though. Which is why you discuss everything except the science

What has become increasingly clear is how anti-science the right has truly become, as if the truth is some liberal conspiracy.

[Chucho]

"petrol based companies" is an interesting term.

All sorts of industries and companies face change. Change is, ironically, the one constant in any free market.

Companies have to reinvent themselves occassionally, or they go the way of buggy whip manufacturers.

I read the annual statements of these companies and can tell you they are changing right now. That change is how they see themselves.

"Oil and gas" companies are beginning to call themselves "energy companies".

Sounds like just words, but it is a big shift. Rather than seeing themselves as just providing hydrocarbons, they are spending and developing green tech themselves, and they have a LOT of money to throw at renewables. The R & D budgets and spending on acquisitions show this.

They know what the future is, and are moving that direction.

They will quietly stop funding all this denier non-sense, because they will have their profits in different industries.

Suckers like Darrin and Wild Cobra will have been useful idiots, because they helped muddy the waters, just like the people who believed that smoking didn't cause cancer, because they saw someone in a labcoat say so.


Again, I absolutely agree. And, by then, intelligence won't be insulted. It's the way business evolves and they won't hide behind the facade of "environmentalistism" like Elon Musk, who is a stone cold capitalist first and disproves he cares about the environment every time he burns countless thousands of gallons of jet and rocket fuel to travel and profit from sending needless rockets into space, but, hell, he's a "good guy" to the dummies that have to soapbox when they buy an "affordable" $40k Tesla or shit solar tiles that don't work.

Sorry for the Musk rant. Admire and respect his business acumen up to the point where he's a predator feeding on the stupid. But I think I might hate the audience that views him as an environmentalist trying to "save the world" instead of the sharp capitalist he is. Yeah, I do. I do hate them more. Just like I dislike idiots that say they are opposed to "slavery", "wage gaps" and "poverty" while they wear nike sneakers, drink Starbucks coffee and have Apple electronics. That's the hypocrisy I hate. (For the record, those aren't the only companies I don't support...but I'm also not a fanatical, faux soapboxer...) / rant.

[Chris]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/22047697_1802163406477805_4747132473396649677_o.jp g?oh=186a87a11af54b24500bb5d2a73ab4a7&oe=5A3E5936

[RandomGuy]

Whoop-te-do...

You know, they can only evaluate that metric for the ones seen over the last few decades, with the better satellites.

There have been worse hurricaines in the past.

The earth was a molten ball of rock at one point "in the past". Failed troll logic.

But hey, that is fine. Remember the title of the thread is that people like you suck at reasoning, so posts like this are exactly what I am looking for.

Thanks.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The earth was a molten ball of rock at one point "in the past". Failed troll logic.

But hey, that is fine. Remember the title of the thread is that people like you suck at reasoning, so posts like this are exactly what I am looking for.

Thanks.

Nevermind that the "better" satellites as well as the ones that needed fixing all have shown that the upper atmosphere has been warming more than the UAH stooge and company have been claiming for the past 15 years. Notice how he has quieted down significantly?

[RandomGuy]

Nevermind that the "better" satellites as well as the ones that needed fixing all have shown that the upper atmosphere has been warming more than the UAH stooge and company have been claiming for the past 15 years. Notice how he has quieted down significantly?

I think even he realizes that Shit Is Happening.

As I noted numerous times here, the data will be better, and more conclusive as we go along.

If you go waaaay back, it was all "oh, there isn't any warming at all, that is made up", then after almost a decade more warming, its "humans aren't the cause" as if some other process has been adding CO2 to the atmosphere and making it warm.

LOL Wild Cobra's "its the sun, have you thought about the sun, huh, huh?"

[boutons_deux]

Earth May Be Close to 'Threshold of Catastrophe'

The amount of carbon dioxide that humans will have released into the atmosphere by 2100 may be enough to trigger a sixth mass extinction,

The huge spike in CO2 levels over the past century may put the world dangerously close to a "threshold of catastrophe," after which environmental instability and mass die-offs become inevitable,

https://www.livescience.com/60578-sixth-mass-extinction-may-be-inevitable.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20171002-ls

[Chucho]

http://i.imgur.com/IqbgzTb.jpg

[boutons_deux]

As if facts made the slightest difference to you AGW denying assholes

September sets alarming global temperature record and negates a favorite denier talking point

It was also the most active month on record for North Atlantic hurricanes.

September 2017 smashed multiple climate records, alarming scientists and further negating a favorite talking point of climate science deniers.
First and foremost, last month was the hottest September ever recorded in the four decades of satellite data analyzed (http://www.newswise.com/articles/global-temperature-report-september-2017) by the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).

Equally amazing, “of the 20 warmest monthly global average temperatures in the satellite record, only September 2017 was not during an El Niño,” reports Dr. John Christy, director of UAH’s Earth System Science Center — and an infamous climate science misinformer (https://thinkprogress.org/quoting-john-christy-on-climate-change-is-like-quoting-dick-cheney-on-iraq-414c7bc89cac/).

when temperature records are set in the absence of an El Niño, it is another sign that the underlying human-caused global warming trend is stronger than ever.

the last time the record for the hottest September was set in a year without an El Nino was 2013 — and that record was a stunning 0.58°F (0.32°C) lower.

It’s especially remarkable to see these records in the UAH satellite data. Christy, along with his UAH colleague Roy Spencer, famously screwed up the satellite temperature measurements of the troposphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements) for decades (see chart below). Indeed they consistently underestimated global warming:

This more than decade-long series of miscalculations helped create one of the most enduring myths (http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm) among climate science deniers: that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did.

Even now, one of the favorite (false) talking points of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/10/3729732/ted-cruz-and-science-have-a-rocky-relationship/) and his fellow climate science deniers is that “satellites find no warming since 1998,”

which replaced the “there’s been no warming since 1998” talking point after that one fell apart when 2014 became the hottest year on record  —

and again when 2015 blew away (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/20/3740962/2015-hottest-year-record/) the 2014 record.

And then again when 2016 topped 2015.

https://thinkprogress.org/september-climate-records-488cfe1703f9/

[Wild Cobra]

As if facts made the slightest difference to you AGW denying assholes

September sets alarming global temperature record and negates a favorite denier talking point

It was also the most active month on record for North Atlantic hurricanes.

September 2017 smashed multiple climate records, alarming scientists and further negating a favorite talking point of climate science deniers.
First and foremost, last month was the hottest September ever recorded in the four decades of satellite data analyzed (http://www.newswise.com/articles/global-temperature-report-september-2017) by the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).

Equally amazing, “of the 20 warmest monthly global average temperatures in the satellite record, only September 2017 was not during an El Niño,” reports Dr. John Christy, director of UAH’s Earth System Science Center — and an infamous climate science misinformer (https://thinkprogress.org/quoting-john-christy-on-climate-change-is-like-quoting-dick-cheney-on-iraq-414c7bc89cac/).

when temperature records are set in the absence of an El Niño, it is another sign that the underlying human-caused global warming trend is stronger than ever.

the last time the record for the hottest September was set in a year without an El Nino was 2013 — and that record was a stunning 0.58°F (0.32°C) lower.

It’s especially remarkable to see these records in the UAH satellite data. Christy, along with his UAH colleague Roy Spencer, famously screwed up the satellite temperature measurements of the troposphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements) for decades (see chart below). Indeed they consistently underestimated global warming:

This more than decade-long series of miscalculations helped create one of the most enduring myths (http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm) among climate science deniers: that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did.

Even now, one of the favorite (false) talking points of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/10/3729732/ted-cruz-and-science-have-a-rocky-relationship/) and his fellow climate science deniers is that “satellites find no warming since 1998,”

which replaced the “there’s been no warming since 1998” talking point after that one fell apart when 2014 became the hottest year on record  —

and again when 2015 blew away (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/20/3740962/2015-hottest-year-record/) the 2014 record.

And then again when 2016 topped 2015.

https://thinkprogress.org/september-climate-records-488cfe1703f9/





LOL...

The pundits keep spinning and spinning and spinning.

There were worse storm years than these.

B-Shit fooled again...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As weather-related damages increase, these
costs fall on insurers, businesses, and consumers.
The world’s five largest natural catastrophes
ranked by insured losses in 2012 all occurred
in the United States, including Hurricane
Sandy, drought in the West, and various storms
and tornadoes, according to Munich Re. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) recorded 80 U.S. weather/climate
events that each had losses exceeding $1
billion between 2004 and 2013, compared with
only 46 events in the previous decade.
Here is NOAA’s breakdown of weatherrelated
events:
n The western U.S. has experienced hotter and
drier temperatures over the past decade,
which has led to more wildfires and crop
failures. There were 14 drought and wildfire
events where each loss exceeded $1 billion
in 2004-2013, according to NOAA data,
compared with 10 similar events between
1994 and 2003.
n Damage from winter storms and freezes,
which generally hit the eastern half of the
United States, fell over the past decade.
NOAA reported three winter storm and
freeze events where losses exceeded $1 billion
between 2004 and 2013, compared with
seven similar events in 1994-2003.
n Water damage has surged over the past
10 years, in large part caused by increased
hurricane activity. NOAA reported 23 flood
and hurricane events with losses exceeding
$1 billion between 2004 and 2013, compared
with 16 from 1994-2003.
n The biggest increase in damage from
weather events over the past decade came
from severe storms, which NOAA classifies
as tornadoes, hail storms, severe thunderstorms,
derechos, and flash floods. There
were 40 such events with losses exceeding $1
billion from 2004-2013, compared with 13
between 1994 and 2003.5

http://actuariesclimateindex.org/home/

Actuaries continue to make WC look like a fool.

[Wild Cobra]

Can Fuzzy Wuzzy say "cyclical?"

Does Fuzzy Wuzzy understand how a growing population density and inflation makes such things more and more costly per square mile as time progresses?

Does Fuzzy Wuzzy realize this is only the third worse storm season in US history based on barometric pressures and speeds that hit land?

Does Fuzzy Wuzzy realize that the satellite record is too short and inaccurate before 1992?

Does Fuzzy Wuzzy understand storm sewer capacity and how the first several inches of precipitation is no longer absorbed by the ground, due to land use changes?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Can Fuzzy Wuzzy say "cyclical?"

Does Fuzzy Wuzzy understand how a growing population density and inflation makes such things more and more costly per square mile as time progresses?

Does Fuzzy Wuzzy realize this is only the third worse storm season in US history based on barometric pressures and speeds that hit land?

Does Fuzzy Wuzzy realize that the satellite record is too short and inaccurate before 1992?

Does Fuzzy Wuzzy understand storm sewer capacity and how the first several inches of precipitation is no longer absorbed by the ground, due to land use changes?

These are new how about you prove any of it. Your word is shit around here. Once you prove your assertions then I will consider them otherwise they will be discarded.

[Wild Cobra]

These are new how about you prove any of it. Your word is shit around here. Once you prove your assertions then I will consider them otherwise they will be discarded.

How about proving things were not relatively worse in the past, like the 30's?

Notice these claims you post are since the 90's...

What are you such a retard Fuzzy Wuzzy?

[RandomGuy]

Can Fuzzy Wuzzy say "cyclical?"

Does Fuzzy Wuzzy understand how a growing population density and inflation makes such things more and more costly per square mile as time progresses?

Does Fuzzy Wuzzy realize this is only the third worse storm season in US history based on barometric pressures and speeds that hit land?

Does Fuzzy Wuzzy realize that the satellite record is too short and inaccurate before 1992?

Does Fuzzy Wuzzy understand storm sewer capacity and how the first several inches of precipitation is no longer absorbed by the ground, due to land use changes?

"cyclical"

What is driving the current warming cycle? Specifically.

[Yonivore]

"cyclical"

What is driving the current warming cycle? Specifically.
The same thing driving the current warming trend on Mars. The Sun.

Specific enough?

[spurraider21]

The same thing driving the current warming trend on Mars. The Sun.

Specific enough?
Specific enough? Yes.

Accurate enough? :lol not even close

[Yonivore]

Specific enough? Yes.

Accurate enough? :lol not even close
It's certainly more accurate than the models predicting anthropogenic clobal climate change causing the end of the world as we know it.

Heck, even the most die-hard alarmists have had to admit they've missed the mark.

Yep. There's more evidence the Sun is causing our warming than there is man is the culprit.

[spurraider21]

https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/TvsTSI.png

[Yonivore]

https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/TvsTSI.png

Sorry but, with all the temperature records being falsified, left and right, there's no assurance your unattributed picture of squiggly lines is a true representation of anything other than the ability to link an image.

[spurraider21]

"The sun" has been an awful explanation basically since the 60's. We are also at a low point in the current solar/sunspot cycle

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

[spurraider21]

Sorry but, with all the temperature records being falsified, left and right, there's no assurance your unattributed picture of squiggly lines is a true representation of anything other than the ability to link an image.
Well that's awfully convenient :lol

Fine, why don't you produce a more accurate source that tracks solar irradiance over the relevant time period

[RandomGuy]

Sorry but, with all the temperature records being falsified, left and right, there's no assurance your unattributed picture of squiggly lines is a true representation of anything other than the ability to link an image.

None of the temperature records have been falsified to my knowledge.

Feel free to prove that to a reasonable degree any time.

The Sun isn't the cause of the warming trend. Its output, although the cause of warmth of our planet, really hasn't varied much for a long time.

[RandomGuy]

Well that's awfully convenient :lol

Fine, why don't you produce a more accurate source that tracks solar irradiance over the relevant time period

Asking someone who buys into pseudoscience to do their own data is a mugs game. Good luck with that. Cue Wattsupwiththat BS in 3, 2, 1...

[RandomGuy]

1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

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

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

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

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

All those climate scientists are in it for the money, and the trillion dollar fossil fuel industry... isn't. :lol

[spurraider21]

just gonna beat Chris to the punch and put this up before he posts the mentioned article, claims victory, and runs away


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyMaRx7gIGY

[boutons_deux]

the oligarchy hiring whores to prove AGW is a myth, a hoax, an anti-Capitalist conspiracy, and/or natural is one of the fundamental, suicidal insanities dominating American and fucking up the planet

[Chris]

just gonna beat Chris to the punch and put this up before he posts the mentioned article, claims victory, and runs away


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyMaRx7gIGY

It's not about claiming victory. There's the truth, and then there's spin. You often lean towards the latter, so you need correction. You're welcome.

[RandomGuy]

It's certainly more accurate than the models predicting anthropogenic clobal climate change causing the end of the world as we know it.

Heck, even the most die-hard alarmists have had to admit they've missed the mark.

Yep. There's more evidence the Sun is causing our warming than there is man is the culprit.

Generally warmer weather, more extreme weather events, etc.

Seems fairly accurate to me.

Even the most die-hard denier has to admit that rapid change can lead to unintended, and often unpleasant consequences.

[RandomGuy]

LOL...

The pundits keep spinning and spinning and spinning.

There were worse storm years than these.

B-Shit fooled again...

... and you keep LOL-ing

This is called the horse laugh fallacy by the way. The OP says that people like you apply deeply flawed reasoning to this topic. Thanks again.

Your derision does not falsify anything, other than the statement "Wild Cobra has credibility"

[spurraider21]

It's not about claiming victory. There's the truth, and then there's spin. You often lean towards the latter, so you need correction. You're welcome.
You post youtubes of non scientists talking about globalist plots. I post peer-reviewed scientific work or videos that meticulously cite to them

[RandomGuy]

You post youtubes of non scientists talking about globalist plots. I post peer-reviewed scientific work or videos that meticulously cite to them

It's like arguing with anti-vaxxers. Almost a decade later and the OP stands the test of time.

[Wild Cobra]

... and you keep LOL-ing

This is called the horse laugh fallacy by the way. The OP says that people like you apply deeply flawed reasoning to this topic. Thanks again.

Your derision does not falsify anything, other than the statement "Wild Cobra has credibility"

Believe as you wish. I research the truth. You use confirmation bias.

[RandomGuy]

Believe as you wish. I research the truth. You use confirmation bias.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


oops...better stop before I wear that out.

You sound just like every conspiracy theorist I have ever tangled with.

And it feeds into the OP. "everyone else is an idiot, I alone have figured out the TRUTH".

Thanks again for keeping the quality of your posts low enough to be easily fit into my narrative.

[SnakeBoy]

... and you keep LOL-ing

This is called the horse laugh fallacy by the way.




:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Thanks again for keeping the quality of your posts low enough to be easily fit into my narrative.

No sense in wasting my time making better posts here. This site has become a center for losers. If you notice, my posts here are far less than they once were.

Beside. Nobody here is intelligent enough to understand the facts of the sciences involved.

[RandomGuy]

.

Not a horse laugh fallacy.

Sorry. Feel free to do enough reading to understand it. Not that I think you will bother doing any actual work.

[RandomGuy]

Nobody here is intelligent enough to understand the facts of the sciences involved.

:cry "nobody is smart enough to understand my genius"

OP.

Thanks again. You can stop now. Really, you have provided more than enough evidence for my hypothesis.

[boutons_deux]

White House OKs report warning climate change caused by humans

The US government released Friday a major scientific report that says

climate change is "extremely likely" to be caused by human activity and will get worse without major cuts to carbon emissions.

The findings of the federally mandated report were approved by the White House, even though they are starkly at odds with the position of President Donald Trump, who has labeled global warming (https://phys.org/tags/global+warming/) a Chinese hoax and named fossil fuel ally Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Climate Science Special Report spans more than 600 pages and is part of a larger report known as the Fourth National Climate Assessment, which is being issued in draft form for public comment.

Based on "a large body of scientific, peer-reviewed research," global annually averaged surface air temperature has increased by about 1.8 Fahrenheit (1.0 Celsius) over the last 115 years (1901–2016), it says.

"This period is now the warmest in the history of modern civilization,"

said the report, available at science2017.globalchange.gov.

Since the last report of its kind was issued in 2014,

"stronger evidence has emerged for continuing, rapid, human-caused warming of the global atmosphere and ocean," the text said.

"It is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,"

the report added, noting there "is no convincing alternative explanation."

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-white-house-oks-climate-humans.html

what kind of fuckoff argues AGW with WC? :lol

I'm totally surprised this report wasn't suppressed by Trash's Ministry of Truth.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How about proving things were not relatively worse in the past, like the 30's?

Notice these claims you post are since the 90's...

What are you such a retard Fuzzy Wuzzy?

I asked you to prove it. You have no credibility to assert anything anymore. Going down the rabbit hole has repeatedly show a whole heap of stupid.

The BEST analysis' whole thing was to show using spectrum analysis that the cycles had changed. They included all the ocean and solar cycles taht you like to wave your hands at. We already went over that extensively a couple few years ago.

[boutons_deux]

Atmospheric CO2 Reaches Highest Level in Nearly a Million Years
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/42503-atmospheric-co2-reaches-highest-level-in-nearly-a-million-years

[RandomGuy]

I asked you to prove it. You have no credibility to assert anything anymore. Going down the rabbit hole has repeatedly show a whole heap of stupid.

The BEST analysis' whole thing was to show using spectrum analysis that the cycles had changed. They included all the ocean and solar cycles taht you like to wave your hands at. We already went over that extensively a couple few years ago.

That is a good indicator of how people dig in when confronted with new information. "Years".

Geez.

[boutons_deux]

The Ecosystem is Breaking Down (https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/06/the-ecosystem-is-breaking-down/)

Although unannounced by authorities or professional orgs, it is already becoming evident that the ecosystem is breaking down. Alas, it’s our only ecosystem.

The evidence is too prevalent to ignore.

For example, when

(1) abundance of insects plummets by 75%, and

(2) tropical rainforests mysteriously emit CO2, and

(3) Mt Everest’s snow is too toxic to pass EPA drinking water standards, and

(4) squid at 1,000 fathoms carry toxic furniture protection chemicals, and

(5) ocean oxygen production plummets,

then something is wrong, horribly, horribly, horribly wrong. But, nobody has announced it. Global warming gets all of the attention.

All of which begs the question:

What does it take to determine when the ecosystem is losing it?

After all, it surely looks like it is doing exactly that.

For example, the loss of 75% of insect abundance in a landmark study in Germany (referenced in prior articles) released only last month is enough, all by itself, to indicate an extinction event is in the works. That is a monstrous wake up call.

Equally horrifying, recent studies show tropical rainforests emitting more CO2 than automobiles, which is kinda like getting hit repeatedly in the head with a wooden two-by-four, a deadly serious wake up call that says the planet is breaking down.
As for the rainforest research: A 12-year study claims the world’s tropical rainforests have reversed gears. Instead of absorbing CO2, as they have forever and ever and ever, serving as a carbon sink, they are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. It’s not supposed to work that way.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/06/the-ecosystem-is-breaking-down/

Complementing the German study about insect loss, there was another study where a scientist had decades of records of forest sounds. Over the decades, the caucaphony from insects, birds, and other animals was was down.

no worries, mon, the oligarchy must increase its wealth and power to keep increasing its wealth and power.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know about the insects. Probable because we leave less waste type of food for them to consume that the past.

The biosphere is about equal in sinking and sourcing, globally. However, like anything else natural, there is a cyclical pattern.

Mt Everest's snow doesn't only accumulate the the poisonous aerosols from less modern coal plants, but is potentially dangerous from the feces left every year by climbers.

I would like to see some reference to the chemical/squid thing. I would venture a guess that water chemistry a those pressures may be creating the toxins, rather than "furniture polish" actually making it that deep.

Ocean oxygen is also a natural cyclical event. We have not monitored long enough time periods to know how much of the measurements are from such cycles.

[Wild Cobra]

I would like to see the study justifying the claim of the furniture protection chemicals. Shazbot... Do you ever link material that sources their claims?

[spurraider21]

I would like to see the study justifying the claim of the furniture protection chemicals. Shazbot... Do you ever link material that sources their claims?
Responding to boutons is as useless as responding to you. Don't bother.

[RandomGuy]

I would like to see the study justifying the claim of the furniture protection chemicals. Shazbot... Do you ever link material that sources their claims?

jeez. took 2 seconds to google that shit.

I was going to link it here, but you can do your own fucking work.

[boutons_deux]

what the AGW deniers love to say in defense of their bad-faith, whore'd ignorance, is that they adore, must protect "economic growth" at all costs, even at the costs of diseased and dead Americans

European Union Cut Emissions 23% As Economy Grew 53%

Between 1990 and 2016 the European Union has cut greenhouse gas emissions by 23% while at the same time growing its economy by 53%, proving again that environmental action need not negatively affect the financial bottom line.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/11/08/european-union-cuts-emissions-23-economy-grew-53/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

[Wild Cobra]

jeez. took 2 seconds to google that shit.

I was going to link it here, but you can do your own fucking work.

Sorry. You must have a better googlerer than I have I did look.

[AaronY]

Sorry. You must have a better googlerer than I have I did look.
hes a better problem solver. doesn't even have to slow down like a normal person etc

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That is a good indicator of how people dig in when confronted with new information. "Years".

Geez.

It just goes to show that they are disingenuous.

WC's whole thing used to be to bring up some stupid shit about ocean as a soda, the heat coming from ocean cycles, climate scientists being paid off, or harebrained thermodynamics and either let it ride or bring it back out a few months after being shamed.

He cannot do that anymore. We anticipate the stupidity now and he has no room. Even his new shit he doesn't try to explain or defend. Instead he does for this new passive aggressive adolescent routine of calling people's loser and the like as he is doing here.

He knows that he is full of shit; it's been rubbed in his face so many times he cannot but help it. At the same time it is a waste of time trying to figure out if it is cognitive dissonance, shilling, or the underlying stupidity he displays in everything. Having him behave like a scientologist in a room full of skeptics is the best we are going to get.

[RandomGuy]

It just goes to show that they are disingenuous.

WC's whole thing used to be to bring up some stupid shit about ocean as a soda, the heat coming from ocean cycles, climate scientists being paid off, or harebrained thermodynamics and either let it ride or bring it back out a few months after being shamed.

He cannot do that anymore. We anticipate the stupidity now and he has no room. Even his new shit he doesn't try to explain or defend. Instead he does for this new passive aggressive adolescent routine of calling people's loser and the like as he is doing here.

He knows that he is full of shit; it's been rubbed in his face so many times he cannot but help it. At the same time it is a waste of time trying to figure out if it is cognitive dissonance, shilling, or the underlying stupidity he displays in everything. Having him behave like a scientologist in a room full of skeptics is the best we are going to get.

Not, sure if you have, but I haven't kept up with the science. If you want, it may be good to sort of do some reading, and post a few things here that "make the case".

[RandomGuy]

Sorry. You must have a better googlerer than I have I did look.

Ok then.

One key to finding things in searches is thinking through what you are looking for and finding unusual words, especially combination of words. "furniture" while common is not often found in combination with "squid".

That might almost be enough, but you end up with stuff like this:

http://www.kirkmcguire.com/KIRK_MCGUIRE_12696__2_.jpg

While it is fucking cool, it isn't what you need.

The other part of it, is "study".

squid furniture chemical study

Is the character string I came up with. By adding the word "study", it prioritizes academic research.

Shockingly enough, an article entitled:
"Persistent Man-made Chemical Pollutants Found In Deep-sea Octopods And Squids"

pops out of the results.

That provides pretty good evidence that yes, the claim is likely true.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not, sure if you have, but I haven't kept up with the science. If you want, it may be good to sort of do some reading, and post a few things here that "make the case".

The science is mostly about calibrating the various measurement devices and normalizing the record and refining the models. The vast majority of the underpinning science and math has been empirically proven for decades to centuries at this point. Unless someone comes up with a way of modeling non deterministic flow without having to slug through 10^12 samples in a 3 dimensional matrix then its going to be slow going.

[boutons_deux]

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

For those who still don’t believe in global warming, the science has had it right for half a century now.


the first accurate climate model ever: by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald.

50 years after their groundbreaking 1967 paper (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281967%29024%3C0241%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2),

the science can be robustly evaluated, and

they got almost everything exactly right.

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly-3c0854932a4a

[Wild Cobra]

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

For those who still don’t believe in global warming, the science has had it right for half a century now.


the first accurate climate model ever: by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald.

50 years after their groundbreaking 1967 paper (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281967%29024%3C0241%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2),

the science can be robustly evaluated, and

they got almost everything exactly right.

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly-3c0854932a4a

LOL...

Great paper from the few pages I have read. It is 19 pages.

It gives sensitivity of CO2, 2 degrees.

Yes, we have followed what appears to be a sensitivity of around 2 degrees per doubling of CO2. No views of alarmism in this paper. Still, the paper does actually take other factors into account, and not only CO2.

The paper isn't what you think! This two degrees is the ECS, including feedback systems of clouds and H2O.

[Wild Cobra]

Under conclusions, it speaks of a 1.3 C for a CO2 doubling using realistic distribution of H2O feedback on absolute humidity. It speaks of the stratospheric H2O changes of five times increasing surface equilibrium more, at 2C, and in the body of the paper speaks of high stratospheric increase of H2O due to jet flights.

This paper is gold!

It does not give the alarmist community anything to bite their teeth on.

[Wild Cobra]

You really should read the source material, rather than what someone claims it says.

[Wild Cobra]

Right at the end of the abstract, it says "Our model does not have the extreme sensitivity of atmospheric temperature to changes of CO2 content which was adduced by Möller."

That is why the modelling is more accurate than anything the IPCC et. al. introduces. It represents a low sensitivity of CO2.

[spurraider21]

LOL...

Great paper from the few pages I have read. It is 19 pages.

It gives sensitivity of CO2, 2 degrees.

Yes, we have followed what appears to be a sensitivity of around 2 degrees per doubling of CO2. No views of alarmism in this paper. Still, the paper does actually take other factors into account, and not only CO2.

The paper isn't what you think! This two degrees is the ECS, including feedback systems of clouds and H2O.
of course dipshit. The sensitivity has always taken feedback into account. Idiots like monckton never acknowledge feedback as an effect

[Wild Cobra]

of course dipshit. The sensitivity has always taken feedback into account. Idiots like monckton never acknowledge feedback as an effect

But they are claiming ECS becomes much higher numbers.

[RandomGuy]

That is why the modelling is more accurate than anything the IPCC et. al. introduces. It represents a low sensitivity of CO2.

"It's more accurate, because it [shows a data point that I agree with already]".

That isn't how "accuracy" works.

[spurraider21]

But they are claiming ECS becomes much higher numbers.
As a result of said feedback mechanisms

[boutons_deux]

15,000 Scientists From 184 Countries Are Warning Humankind We Are Screwed

Current and future human health and wellbeing are at serious risk from climate change, deforestation, loss of access to freshwater, species extinctions, and human population growth.

The “Second Notice” article updates the original “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity (http://www.ucsusa.org/about/1992-world-scientists.html#.WgcvTLGZMko)” document released in 1992, 25 years ago this month.

“Since 1992, CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions have jumped 62 percent and the global temperature is up 29 percent, while the abundance of vertebrate wildlife has plunged 29 percent,” Ripple told Motherboard.

The data compiled by the researchers revealed that in the past 25 years, there has been:



A 26 percent reduction in the amount of freshwater available per capita
A 75 percent increase in the number of ocean dead zones
A loss of nearly 300 million acres of forestland


https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/59yqj8/world-scientists-warning-to-humanity-second-notice-climate-change-environment?utm_campaign=Motherboard+Premium+Newsl etter+-+1113&utm_content=Motherboard+Premium+Newsletter+-+1113+CID_caaa40c9e7c5f9acdab55395196fa915&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Campaign+Monitor&utm_term=Read+more

[Wild Cobra]

"It's more accurate, because it [shows a data point that I agree with already]".

That isn't how "accuracy" works.

No, its more accurate because it shows what the current state of the planet has become in those 50 years.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Under conclusions, it speaks of a 1.3 C for a CO2 doubling using realistic distribution of H2O feedback on absolute humidity. It speaks of the stratospheric H2O changes of five times increasing surface equilibrium more, at 2C, and in the body of the paper speaks of high stratospheric increase of H2O due to jet flights.

This paper is gold!

It does not give the alarmist community anything to bite their teeth on.

a) you left out the 2.3 degrees concerning relative humidity.
b) that figure did not consider the feedback loops which were mentioned in the next two numbered points.
c) you are a deceptive piece of shit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Right at the end of the abstract, it says "Our model does not have the extreme sensitivity of atmospheric temperature to changes of CO2 content which was adduced by Möller."

That is why the modelling is more accurate than anything the IPCC et. al. introduces. It represents a low sensitivity of CO2.

AS the article points out they nominated the papers taht were most influential and the paper you are acting like they don't consider got near three times the number of votes as second place.

Further that is not what it says. He said it was not as extreme. They did not say it was low.

[RandomGuy]

a) you left out the 2.3 degrees concerning relative humidity.
b) that figure did not consider the feedback loops which were mentioned in the next two numbered points.
c) you are a deceptive piece of shit.

He is fond of those cherries, cause he goes a pickin' 'em often enough.

[Wild Cobra]

It doesn't matter guys.

The papers claims less than what Möller came up with, the warmer pundits are saying this model is correct. The IPCC et. al. uses Möller's numbers.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It doesn't matter guys.

The papers claims less than what Möller came up with, the warmer pundits are saying this model is correct. The IPCC et. al. uses Möller's numbers.

Prove it. Your word is worthless.

[Wild Cobra]

Prove it. Your word is worthless.

My God, you are so fucking stupid.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My God, you are so fucking stupid.

And WC sends the white flag up immediately.

Remember when you told me how you didn't need the troubleshooting checklist because you had memorized it? Good times, partschanger.

[Yonivore]

None of the temperature records have been falsified to my knowledge.

Feel free to prove that to a reasonable degree any time.

The Sun isn't the cause of the warming trend. Its output, although the cause of warmth of our planet, really hasn't varied much for a long time.

Hey, RG, How's it going...

I'm not a scientist, nor do I play one on T.V. (i.e. Bill Nye) but, I do encounter legitimate skepticism of the current leftist, alarmist, anthropogenic global climate change orthodoxy that makes me go hmmm....

For instance, (and this speaks to temperature manipulation, as well):

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/climate-change-alarmism-is-founded-on-dishonesty.php

[boutons_deux]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/climate-change-alarmism-is-founded-on-dishonesty.php (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/climate-change-alarmism-is-founded-on-dishonesty.php)

how ya doin, asshole? Wasn't it a shame how CRA caused the Banksters' Great Depression?

powerlineblog is obviously, like chock full of bullshit, as part of the destructive right wing hate media

15,000 Scientists: Climate Change Is Already Past The Point Of No Return


That was 25 years ago.

To mark the anniversary of its signing, 15,000 scientists have issued what they call the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice (http://scientists.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/sw/files/Ripple_et_al_warning_2017.pdf).”

The 15,000 scientists come from 184 countries. Penned by ecologist William Ripple of Oregon State University, it states, “Humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse.

Soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory.

”Think about what that means for minute. We learned in elementary school that the sun will likely implode, explode, or do some other weird thing in a billion years or so, condemning the earth to wander aimless in a dark and forbidding universe until the end of time.

And we are OK with that because, hey, a billion years is a really, really long time. Nothing to lose sleep over today, is it?

But this message, published November 13 in the journal BioScience (https://www.aibs.org/bioscience/), shreds the illusion that we have all of eternity to think of something to save the world.

Instead, it puts us on notice that people closely related to us — our children, grandchildren, and grandchildren of our grandchildren — will suffer the water and food shortages, the global conflict, and the rising sea levels that will threaten humanity with extinction.

Things Have Gotten Much Worse

Since that first warning in 1992,

global average temperatures have risen by more than half a degree Celsius and annual carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 62 percent.

Access to freshwater is lower,

the forests have been decimated, and

fisheries have dwindled.

There are 2 billion more people inhabiting the earth now than there were just 25 years ago, but there are

almost a third fewer mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish.

There is one bright spot.

“The rapid global decline in ozone depleting substances shows that we can make positive change when we act decisively,” the new letter notes.

Ripple and his colleagues have formed a new organization, the Alliance of World Scientists (http://scientists.forestry.oregonstate.edu/), whose mission, according to the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/13/thousands-of-scientists-issue-bleak-second-notice-to-humanity/?utm_term=.47d793e809b7), is to provide a science-based perspective on issues affecting the well-being of people and the planet.

“Scientists are in the business of analyzing data and looking at the long-term consequences,” Ripple says in a press release about the new letter.

“Those who signed this second warning aren’t just raising a false alarm.

They are acknowledging the obvious signs that we are heading down an unsustainable path.

We are hoping that our paper will ignite a widespread public debate about the global environment and climate.

”The authors offer 13 suggestions for reining in our impact on the planet, including establishing nature reserves, reducing food waste, developing green technologies, and establishing economic incentives to shift patterns of consumption. Now the question is, does anyone care enough to act on those suggestions?

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/11/14/climate-change-already-past-point-no-return-warns-union-concerned-scientists/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

fellow frogs, the water is heading irreversibly towards fatat boiling points.

and pure assholes like Pussy Eater and his oligarchy/BigCarbon LIARS and whore'd scientists are turning up the green house gas

[spurraider21]

Hey, RG, How's it going...

I'm not a scientist, nor do I play one on T.V. (i.e. Bill Nye) but, I do encounter legitimate skepticism of the current leftist, alarmist, anthropogenic global climate change orthodoxy that makes me go hmmm....

For instance, (and this speaks to temperature manipulation, as well):

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/climate-change-alarmism-is-founded-on-dishonesty.php
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/

you can see their history all here. nothing is hidden.

of course, between the 9 models that they've used in their time, you pick out 1987 which is the only one that shows anything near that 0.5 degree change from 1880-1950 and act like they magically changed it now

how come in 1981, they didnt show that significant warming between 1880 and 1950, but then in 1987 they did? how does that fit into your narrative of a conspiracy? if anything, that would be more in line with a conspiracy that in 1987 they were trying to hide recent warming

[Yonivore]

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/

you can see their history all here. nothing is hidden.

of course, between the 9 models that they've used in their time, you pick out 1987 which is the only one that shows anything near that 0.5 degree change from 1880-1950 and act like they magically changed it now

how come in 1981, they didnt show that significant warming between 1880 and 1950, but then in 1987 they did? how does that fit into your narrative of a conspiracy? if anything, that would be more in line with a conspiracy that in 1987 they were trying to hide recent warming

Is the 1987 data a model or is it reporting experiential temperature data?

I believe the blogger picked the data because it shows NASA changed their temperature data between 1987 and 2016.

[spurraider21]

Is the 1987 data a model or is it reporting experiential temperature data?

I believe the blogger picked the data because it shows NASA changed their temperature data between 1987 and 2016.
data set.

why didnt the blogger point out how they changed it from 1981 to 1987? do you think they manipulated it to show more warming from 1880 to 1950 for some nefarious reason?

did you also read in the link i provided how 1987 didn't use ocean data?

it even says so here in the original 1987 paper

https://i.gyazo.com/c7fd58248648db5920c2de5846f2bcdc.png

full paper: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_ha00700d.pdf

[Yonivore]

data set.

why didnt the blogger point out how they changed it from 1981 to 1987? do you think they manipulated it to show more warming from 1880 to 1950 for some nefarious reason?

Is the 1987 temperature data accurate or not? It's a legitimate question.

And, if it is, where'd the .5 degree warming go in 2016?

Your ramblings suggest NASA has no idea how to record the temperature for the first part of the last century; which would also be a problem for AGCC proponents.

[spurraider21]

Is the 1987 temperature data accurate or not? It's a legitimate question.

And, if it is, where'd the .5 degree warming go in 2016?

Your ramblings suggest NASA has no idea how to record the temperature for the first part of the last century; which would also be a problem for AGCC proponents.
my ramblings? i'm demonstrate that you're cherry picking the most favorable data set out of 9 to try to make a point. as mentioned in the paper and in the giss link i originally shared, they didnt use ocean temperatures in that data set.

it's not to say it's inaccurate, but they aren't measuring the same things

its just retarded to say that a "favorable" shift (to your political position) from 1981 to 1987 to show that older warming is completely fine, but something unfavorable is a conspiracy to hide the real data

[boutons_deux]

has there been any (anthropogenic) global warming since 2000?

:lol

Pussy Eater claims 10Ks of scientists around the world are frauds, incompetent, don't know how to measure temperature, but his bloggers, every one an advanced, credible climatologist, do.

[dabom]

5 mins of google makes them "smarty pants". :lol

[Yonivore]

my ramblings? i'm demonstrate that you're cherry picking the most favorable data set out of 9 to try to make a point. as mentioned in the paper and in the giss link i originally shared, they didnt use ocean temperatures in that data set.
I don't see it as cherry picking when it's ostensibly a objective record of temperature data for the time period. My question is, where'd the .5 degree increase go when they recreated the same data record in 2016?


it's not to say it's inaccurate, but they aren't measuring the same things
So, was this data excluded in later data analyses?


its just retarded to say that a "favorable" shift (to your political position) from 1981 to 1987 to show that older warming is completely fine, but something unfavorable is a conspiracy to hide the real data
Huh? I'm not sure the blogger referred to any other temperature data except to say, "The data don’t fit your theory? No problem. Change the data! That is how the global warming alarmists operate."

https://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2017/11/NASA-Global-Surface-Temps-1987-0.5C-1880-1950.jpg?w=580

You'll note the caption on this image from NASA's report makes the definitive, non-qualified, assertion that global surface temperatures rose by 0.6 degrees C from 1880 to 1940 and 0.5 degrees C from 1880 to 1950. There are no references to competing temperature data. So, did, or did not, NASA state, definitively, that temperatures rose by these amounts in 1987? And, if they did, what happened to that assertion in 2016?

These aren't hard questions.

[spurraider21]

I don't see it as cherry picking when it's ostensibly a objective record of temperature data for the time period. My question is, where'd the .5 degree increase go when they recreated the same data record in 2016?


So, was this data excluded in later data analyses?


Huh? I'm not sure the blogger referred to any other temperature data except to say, "The data don’t fit your theory? No problem. Change the data! That is how the global warming alarmists operate."

https://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2017/11/NASA-Global-Surface-Temps-1987-0.5C-1880-1950.jpg?w=580

You'll note the caption on this image from NASA's report makes the definitive, non-qualified, assertion that global surface temperatures rose by 0.6 degrees C from 1880 to 1940 and 0.5 degrees C from 1880 to 1950. There are no references to competing temperature data. So, did, or did not, NASA state, definitively, that temperatures rose by these amounts in 1987? And, if they did, what happened to that assertion in 2016?

These aren't hard questions.
Your blogger is harping on 1 data set out of 9. That is cherry picking. He doesn't seem upset or try to claim that the change between 1981 and 1987 was "manipulation". Why not?

I never said it was inaccurate like. I said they were measuring different things. 1987 didn't include ocean measurements. I sourced you to the original 1987 paper which says so, not a second hand graph produced elsewhere

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's amusing watching Yoni fixate on the normalization of the data and handwaving at one iteration amongst literally thousands. Of course his spoonfed take does not examine the content of the datasets in question.

Waving your hands at a land temperature study and comparing it as an equivalent to surface area temperature studies is a nice touch I think. I demonstrates his ignorance and poor critical thinking skills clearly.

[Yonivore]

Your blogger is harping on 1 data set out of 9. That is cherry picking. He doesn't seem upset or try to claim that the change between 1981 and 1987 was "manipulation". Why not?
There were 8 other data sets in 1987 for global surface temperature?

[
I never said it was inaccurate like. I said they were measuring different things. 1987 didn't include ocean measurements. I sourced you to the original 1987 paper which says so, not a second hand graph produced elsewhere
Says they were measuring global surface temperature.

[spurraider21]

There were 8 other data sets in 1987 for global surface temperature?

[
Says they were measuring global surface temperature.
There are 9 data sets from giss that cover the 1880-1950 period in question. Don't play dumb

All the data sets produced by giss after 1987 included ocean temperatures. Your blogger de jure ignores that and claims they changed the data :lol... Even though the giss website shows all 9 data sets in one graph for comparison. They're not hiding anything. All the original papers are still there for public view. No paywall. I'm not a climate scientist but i at least put in the effort to read the original papers rather than some politically charged bloggers interpretation

[spurraider21]

why doesn't your blogger de jure show any concern for how the 1987 paper showed different results than the 1981 one? Why doesn't he claim the 1987 paper was deceptive manipulation where they changed the data to fit a narrative? It's because he likes the results of the 87 one better. He starts from his conclusion and works backwards.

[RandomGuy]

Hey, RG, How's it going...

I'm not a scientist, nor do I play one on T.V. (i.e. Bill Nye) but, I do encounter legitimate skepticism of the current leftist, alarmist, anthropogenic global climate change orthodoxy that makes me go hmmm....

For instance, (and this speaks to temperature manipulation, as well):

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/climate-change-alarmism-is-founded-on-dishonesty.php

Things are going well. Signed up for Team Rubicon, and went down to Houston to muck out houses with my fellow vets. hard work, comraderie, and helping those who need it. Kids are well, getting good grades, and shaping up to be kind, thoughtful adults. Wife is awesomeness, job is gangbusters. Life is awesome.

How are you doing? Howza kid? (seem to remember you had a newborn)

If this is what you think "legitimate criticism" is, you have a very, very low bar.

One doesn't have to be a scientist to engage in critical thinking when reading this. The linked article provided some out of context charts of a single 30 year old study, and just asserted a bunch of things it never demonstrated.

This is exactly the kind of shit the OP of this thread was for. It is "flat-earther" level of reasoning.
.

[spurraider21]

:lmao diabolically hide the real data... And put it right there on their home page and link to the paper

[RandomGuy]

why doesn't your blogger de jure show any concern for how the 1987 paper showed different results than the 1981 one? Why doesn't he claim the 1987 paper was deceptive manipulation where they changed the data to fit a narrative? It's because he likes the results of the 87 one better. He starts from his conclusion and works backwards.

Pretty much.

And because it was a conclusion Yonivore likes it is automatically "legitimate", despite the fact it is actively misleading.

[RandomGuy]

It's amusing watching Yoni fixate on the normalization of the data and handwaving at one iteration amongst literally thousands. Of course his spoonfed take does not examine the content of the datasets in question.

Waving your hands at a land temperature study and comparing it as an equivalent to surface area temperature studies is a nice touch I think. I demonstrates his ignorance and poor critical thinking skills clearly.

Looks like I wasn't the only one here who had the same thoughts. Shit. (just read through the last page or so)

It was so easy for multiple people here to see the really obvious flaws with this.

Except for Yonivore. Who has gamely tried to defend someone who is either actively being deceitful, or too ignorant of how to support claims with sufficient evidence and logical reasoning.

I am going to walk my kids through this, it is so textbook pseudoscience hackery.

[Yonivore]

Things are going well. Signed up for Team Rubicon, and went down to Houston to muck out houses with my fellow vets. hard work, comraderie, and helping those who need it. Kids are well, getting good grades, and shaping up to be kind, thoughtful adults. Wife is awesomeness, job is gangbusters. Life is awesome.
Good to hear and good on you! Thank you for your service; both to the country and to Houston.


How are you doing? Howza kid? (seem to remember you had a newborn)
Have I been around that long? My last newborn is approaching drinking age.

But, I'm good. Busy. Thought I'd kick around in this swamp a little to see who is still hanging around.


If this is what you think "legitimate criticism" is, you have a very, very low bar.

One doesn't have to be a scientist to engage in critical thinking when reading this. The linked article provided some out of context charts of a single 30 year old study, and just asserted a bunch of things it never demonstrated.

This is exactly the kind of shit the OP of this thread was for. It is "flat-earther" level of reasoning.
.
See, this is the problem for us rubes, RG. The whole conversation seems to be unnecessarily complicated by the myriad of scientific conclusions forwarded and reached over the decades. It makes it appear it is the scientific community that is cherry-picking past data to fit a current narrative.

And, to be fair, if you will, there are scientists that disagree with the alarmists on the nature and cause of any experienced climate change.

I'm content to continue watching the politics of this issue thwart any significant transfer of wealth, in the name of global salvation. We can't keep Al Gore from building the most energy-inefficient mansion with his carbon credit dough but, hopefully, we can stop the rest of the world from impoverishing the United States for what is admittedly negligible benefits.

Then, there's the old adage, I'd rather be warm than cold on this planet.

I found this bit of irony amusing...

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/u-s-outshines-countries-carbon-dioxide-emissions-reductions/

Frackers say you're welcome. If I recall, I was admonished in this very forum, some years back, (by scott - resident oil industry expert cum brew meister, if I'm not mistaken), fracking was a technology that was so far out in the future, and difficult to achieve, that it would never contribute significantly a solution.

I, on the other hand, offered fracking as one of the human innovations that always seems to surface when needed. I have no doubt, humans will similarly rise to the occasion before Miami or New York City are under water.

[boutons_deux]

I am going to walk my kids through this, it is so textbook pseudoscience hackery.

If their attention wanders, hit 'em with a "hockey stick"

and tell them they have less than a "Hail Mary Pass" of a chance of escaping the AGW shitstorm.

[spurraider21]

Good to hear and good on you! Thank you for your service; both to the country and to Houston.


Have I been around that long? My last newborn is approaching drinking age.

But, I'm good. Busy. Thought I'd kick around in this swamp a little to see who is still hanging around.


See, this is the problem for us rubes, RG. The whole conversation seems to be unnecessarily complicated by the myriad of scientific conclusions forwarded and reached over the decades. It makes it appear it is the scientific community that is cherry-picking past data to fit a current narrative.

And, to be fair, if you will, there are scientists that disagree with the alarmists on the nature and cause of any experienced climate change.

I'm content to continue watching the politics of this issue thwart any significant transfer of wealth, in the name of global salvation. We can't keep Al Gore from building the most energy-inefficient mansion with his carbon credit dough but, hopefully, we can stop the rest of the world from impoverishing the United States for what is admittedly negligible benefits.

Then, there's the old adage, I'd rather be warm than cold on this planet.

I found this bit of irony amusing...

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/u-s-outshines-countries-carbon-dioxide-emissions-reductions/

Frackers say you're welcome. If I recall, I was admonished in this very forum, some years back, (by scott - resident oil industry expert cum brew meister, if I'm not mistaken), fracking was a technology that was so far out in the future, and difficult to achieve, that it would never contribute significantly a solution.

I, on the other hand, offered fracking as one of the human innovations that always seems to surface when needed. I have no doubt, humans will similarly rise to the occasion before Miami or New York City are under water.
The inability to separate the scientific discussion from the political ramifications is the biggest part of the problem imo. Climate change theory isn't inherently liberal or conservative, but it's treated that

[Yonivore]

Furthermore, RG; the way I see it, you're no better than Michael Mann and I'm no worse than Judith Curry -- both of whom are distinguished climate scientists (Mann's attack on Curry notwithstanding) on opposites sides of the debate.

We decide who we trust based on our understanding of the reasonableness of their arguments.

I'm not a climate scientist and neither are you (as far as I know). You've been convinced AGCC is of an extent that we should engage in extraordinary measures to address it. I have not. But, we both reach those conclusions based on the work and words of others.

I believe the skeptics are more reasonable.

The "Craziness" of the Climate Science Echo Chamber (https://www.steynonline.com/7661/the-craziness-of-the-climate-science-echo-chamber)

[Yonivore]

The inability to separate the scientific discussion from the political ramifications is the biggest part of the problem imo. Climate change theory isn't inherently liberal or conservative, but it's treated that
Nor is the current scientific orthodoxy on climate change necessarily correct, spurraider21.

In fact, if those advancing the catastrophic view of AGCC weren't so political in their demands that the planet kneel to their "consensus" and spend trillions combating an issue that may not be as bad as they claim, there probably wouldn't be as many skeptics so adamantly opposing the view.

You see, we've lived through these Henny Penny sky-is-falling predictions before; on global cooling, global population, global droughts, etc... Maybe the "scientific" community has cried Wolf one to many times.

[RandomGuy]

Furthermore, RG; the way I see it, you're no better than Michael Mann and I'm no worse than Judith Curry -- both of whom are distinguished climate scientists (Mann's attack on Curry notwithstanding) on opposites sides of the debate.

We decide who we trust based on our understanding of the reasonableness of their arguments.

I'm not a climate scientist and neither are you (as far as I know). You've been convinced AGCC is of an extent that we should engage in extraordinary measures to address it. I have not. But, we both reach those conclusions based on the work and words of others.

I believe the skeptics are more reasonable.

The "Craziness" of the Climate Science Echo Chamber (https://www.steynonline.com/7661/the-craziness-of-the-climate-science-echo-chamber)

That is absolutely wrong.

We don't have to take any kind of hugely radical measures to combat it.

Further, our economy would actively benefit from a lot of the things that would decrease CO2 emissions. Not doing those things hurts the economy in the long run.

A cap and trade scheme is the best free-market solution, or plain old carbon tax would simply add economic incentives to do the things we need to do. Free markets and innovation would take care of the rest.

I have asked economic damage alarmists for years how they know limiting CO2 is bad for the economy, and they have consistently failed to show anything even approaching data.

Risk here has more than one dimension, and you can quibble about the science of cigarettes causing cancer all you want, but you can't show me that smoking causes people to be better off economically.

You just... can't.
.

[spurraider21]

Nor is the current scientific orthodoxy on climate change necessarily correct, spurraider21.

In fact, if those advancing the catastrophic view of AGCC weren't so political in their demands that the planet kneel to their "consensus" and spend trillions combating an issue that may not be as bad as they claim, there probably wouldn't be as many skeptics so adamantly opposing the view.

You see, we've lived through these Henny Penny sky-is-falling predictions before; on global cooling, global population, global droughts, etc... Maybe the "scientific" community has cried Wolf one to many times.
Global cooling was never the scientific consensus. That's just being lazy, yoni.

The disagreement on "where do we go from here" is one thing. It's understandable. The "it's not even really happening" stuff is what is more troublesome.

How did scientists do with the o-zone/cfc stuff? They were spot on.

[boutons_deux]

no wolf crying

the oligarchy has succeeded (eg Exxon suppressing its own scientists' AGW CO2 warning 40 fucking years ago) in hiring enough whore scientists, as has all the BigCorp oligarchy, to protect their profits, no matter the costs to the planet, to people.

extreme weather variation from AGW was a prediction from 35 years ago, came true.

melting land ice/rising sea level from AGW was a prediction, came true

cry wolf ? G F Y

the natural earth should be entering a cooling phase, but the anthropocene/AGW earth is heating up rapidly.

[RandomGuy]

Nor is the current scientific orthodoxy on climate change necessarily correct, spurraider21.

In fact, if those advancing the catastrophic view of AGCC weren't so political in their demands that the planet kneel to their "consensus" and spend trillions combating an issue that may not be as bad as they claim, there probably wouldn't be as many skeptics so adamantly opposing the view.

You see, we've lived through these Henny Penny sky-is-falling predictions before; on global cooling, global population, global droughts, etc... Maybe the "scientific" community has cried Wolf one to many times.

"Science thought the earth was flat before, so I will just keep thinking X".

smh

You do realize this is shitty reasoning, right?

[Yonivore]

That is absolutely wrong.

We don't have to take any kind of hugely radical measures to combat it.
Obviously, our political betters disagree...

Obama's Paris Agreement: All Cost and No Benefit for the U.S. (https://www.atr.org/obamas-paris-agreement-all-cost-and-no-benefit-us)

An Economic Analysis of the Kyoto
Protocol (https://www.iwu.edu/economics/PPE10/alexis.pdf)


Further, our economy would actively benefit from a lot of the things that would decrease CO2 emissions. Not doing those things hurts the economy in the long run.
Then, the economy -- not the government -- should be allowed to adjust to those realities.


A cap and trade scheme is the best free-market solution, or plain old carbon tax would simply add economic incentives to do the things we need to do.

I have asked economic damage alarmists for years how they know limiting CO2 is bad for the economy, and they have consistently failed to show anything even approaching data.
I don't think it's the limiting CO2 that's the issue. It's the way governments want to impose economic retardation to attempt that goal that's at issue.


Risk here has more than one dimension, and you can quibble about the science of cigarettes causing cancer all you want, but you can't show me that smoking causes people to be better off economically.

You just... can't.
.
Not sure I understand the analogy.

[Yonivore]

"Science thought the earth was flat before, so I will just keep thinking X".

smh

You do realize this is shitty reasoning, right?
And, currently, there is scientific disagreement over the cause, extent, and impact of AGCC. Your point? That we blindly follow the current orthodoxy, even in the face of reasonable disagreement?

You see, while it can be definitively proven the Earth is round, the same cannot be said of the causes, extent, or impact of AGCC -- or if man or CO2 even have a significant impact on the manner in which climate changes.

[spurraider21]

And, currently, there is scientific disagreement over the cause, extent, and impact of AGCC. Your point? That we blindly follow the current orthodoxy, even in the face of reasonable disagreement?

You see, while it can be definitively proven the Earth is round, the same cannot be said of the causes, extent, or impact of AGCC -- or if man or CO2 even have a significant impact on the manner in which climate changes.
Sure. It can definitively be proven that the earth has been warming and the recent warming has coincided with increased CO2 emissions. It can be proven that CO2 carries greenhouse gas characteristics. It can be proven that solar luminosity has been dipping during the most recent warming.

Consider each fact a puzzle pieces. I can look at a puzzle piece and know exactly what that piece looks like. The theory is the overarching explanation that is exclusively consistent with all of thr puzzle pieces.. ie a prediction on what the puzzles final image will be. If your pieces are a cat ear, a cat paw, and a cat tail, it's a solid conclusion and theory that the puzzle is a cat, even though it hasn't been "proven"

[Yonivore]

Sure. It can definitively be proven that the earth has been warming and the recent warming has coincided with increased CO2 emissions. It can be proven that CO2 carries greenhouse gas characteristics. It can be proven that solar luminosity has been dipping during the most recent warming.

Consider each fact a puzzle pieces. I can look at a puzzle piece and know exactly what that piece looks like. The theory is the overarching explanation that is exclusively consistent with all of thr puzzle pieces.. ie a prediction on what the puzzles final image will be. If your pieces are a cat ear, a cat paw, and a cat tail, it's a solid conclusion and theory that the puzzle is a cat, even though it hasn't been "proven"
Has warning tracked CO2 levels?

I seem to recall the scientific community struggling to explain a decade-long hiatus in warming, even with increasing levels of CO2. Ill grant you this, it’s a puzzle.

Unlike, of course, the shape of the Earth, which can be explained and demonstrated simply.

[spurraider21]

Has warning tracked CO2 levels?

I seem to recall the scientific community struggling to explain a decade-long hiatus in warming, even with increasing levels of CO2. Ill grant you this, it’s a puzzle.

Unlike, of course, the shape of the Earth, which can be explained and demonstrated simply.
Yes. There are facts and there are theories which act as explanations for those facts and provide us with a means of making useful predictions.

The scientific community doesn't have any issues with the time period between 1998 and 2008 if that's what you're alluding to. 1998 was an extreme el nino event which caused an abberation in the record. Other than that it's a simple matter of cherry picking starting points to fit a narrative

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol Yoni trying to pander the idea that there is a disagreement in the scientific community about AGW.

He just does not want policy changes to hurt his oilco overlords.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes. There are facts and there are theories which act as explanations for those facts and provide us with a means of making useful predictions.

The scientific community doesn't have any issues with the time period between 1998 and 2008 if that's what you're alluding to. 1998 was an extreme el nino event which caused an abberation in the record. Other than that it's a simple matter of cherry picking starting points to fit a narrative

You can bet that they are going to use last years EN to origin graphs in the decade to come. Darrin and Yoni sure liked to post the ones that started from 98 and 02 in peddling their pause.

[DarrinS]

You can bet that they are going to use last years EN to origin graphs in the decade to come. Darrin and Yoni sure liked to post the ones that started from 98 and 02 in peddling their pause.

*rent

[DarrinS]

Lol, “peddling their pause”

[FuzzyLumpkins]

*rent

Your pseudoscience hackery being remarkable is nothing to be proud of, sophist.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lol, “peddling their pause”

You spammed that graph twice a week. Yes peddling your pause, sophist.

[DarrinS]

:cry sophist :cry

I’m hurt

[spurraider21]

yeah... take the peak at 1998 and draw a horizontal line across and say "lol no warming for 10 years"

so clever. :cry alarmists cant explain it :cry

https://i.gyazo.com/5d5fd028c0d7bd52ac8e85373606e0e6.png

[boutons_deux]

Did somebody say "population"?

Scientists: Population Growth “Primary Driver Behind Ecological and Societal Threats” (https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/11/scientists-population-growth-primary-driver-behind-ecological-societal-threats.html)

15,364 scientists from 180 countries have put their names to a BioScience journal article (https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix125/4605229)calling for population growth to be limited, and governments to stop only focusing on economic growth.

the 1992 “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” (see supplemental file S1 (https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/bioscience/PAP/10.1093_biosci_bix125/2/bix125_supp.zip)). These concerned professionals called on humankind to curtail environmental destruction and cautioned that “a great change in our stewardship of the Earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided.” In their manifesto, they showed that humans were on a collision course with the natural world…

The authors of the 1992 declaration feared that humanity was pushing Earth’s ecosystems beyond their capacities to support the web of life.

They described how we are fast approaching many of the limits of what the *biosphere can tolerate without *substantial and irreversible harm. The scientists pleaded that we stabilize the human population, describing how our large numbers—swelled by another 2 billion people since 1992, a 35 percent increase—exert stresses on Earth that can overwhelm other efforts to realize a sustainable future…

Since 1992, with the exception of stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer,

humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse…

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/cc1.png


The federal government’s State of the Environment 2016 report (https://soe.environment.gov.au/) (prepared by a group of independent experts, which I chaired), released today, predicts that

population growth and economic development will be the main drivers of environmental problems such as land-use change, habitat destruction, invasive species, and climate change…

We continue to lose agricultural lands through urban encroachment.

Over the past five years land-clearing rates stabilised in all states and territories except Queensland, where the rate of clearing increased.

Coastal waterways are threatened by pollutants, including microplastics and nanoparticles…

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/11/scientists-population-growth-primary-driver-behind-ecological-societal-threats.html

[boutons_deux]

Educated Republicans Are Less Likely to Believe in Climate Change

When it comes to belief in climate change, political identity—not education—matters most.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOl64KFW0AM8aYH.jpg
https://www.alternet.org/sites/default/files/1283955444_43c7410d68_o.jpg


scientific knowledge may facilitate defending positions motivated by nonscientific concerns."

https://www.alternet.org/environment/educated-republicans-are-less-likely-believe-climate-change (https://www.alternet.org/environment/educated-republicans-are-less-likely-believe-climate-change)

[RandomGuy]

And, currently, there is scientific disagreement over the cause, extent, and impact of AGCC. Your point? That we blindly follow the current orthodoxy, even in the face of reasonable disagreement?

You see, while it can be definitively proven the Earth is round, the same cannot be said of the causes, extent, or impact of AGCC -- or if man or CO2 even have a significant impact on the manner in which climate changes.

Since, you didn't really answer my question, I will have to assume you don't realize that the statement "science has been wrong in the past, so it we need to not believe them at all when it comes to this"...

Is shitty reasoning. It is obviously shitty reasoning. So let's walk through it simply and concentrate on this one thing, we don't even need to play dueling graphs.

Tell me why this statement is shitty reasoning. Think hard.

[boutons_deux]

Scientists Solve 22 Million-Year-Old Climate Puzzle --"Paleoclimate Events Can Predict Earth's Future" (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2017/11/scientists-solve-22-million-year-old-climate-puzzle-paleoclimate-events-can-predict-earths-future.html)

The modern link between high carbon dioxide levels and climate change didn't appear to hold true for a time interval about 22 million years ago;

but now a new study has found the link does indeed exist, settling a prehistoric puzzle, confirming the modern link

"Previous work reported a variety of results and conflicting data about carbon dioxide concentrations at the two intervals of time that we studied," he said.

"But tighter control on the age of our fossils helped us to address whether or not atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration corresponded to warming --

which itself is independently well-documented in geochemical studies of marine fossils in ocean sediments."

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2017/11/scientists-solve-22-million-year-old-climate-puzzle-paleoclimate-events-can-predict-earths-future.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDailyGalaxyNewsFromPlanetE arthBeyond+%28The+Daily+Galaxy+--Great+Discoveries+Channel%3A+Sci%2C+Space%2C+Tech. %29 (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2017/11/scientists-solve-22-million-year-old-climate-puzzle-paleoclimate-events-can-predict-earths-future.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDailyGalaxyNewsFromPlanetE arthBeyond+%28The+Daily+Galaxy+--Great+Discoveries+Channel%3A+Sci%2C+Space%2C+Tech. %29)

[Yonivore]

Since, you didn't really answer my question, I will have to assume you don't realize that the statement "science has been wrong in the past, so it we need to not believe them at all when it comes to this"...

Is shitty reasoning. It is obviously shitty reasoning. So let's walk through it simply and concentrate on this one thing, we don't even need to play dueling graphs.

Tell me why this statement is shitty reasoning. Think hard.
Help me out. I think the reasoning is sound.

That there is significant scientific disagreement over the cause, extent, and impact of AGCC, it is reasonable to believe the position with which you agree is wrong.

And, on spurraider21's puzzle analogy; he added a fifth piece to his four piece puzzle by whipping out the El Nino element to explain the "pause." My point being, there isn't a simple answer to what drives climate. In fact, there are scientists, much smarter than you or I, that have concluded all the factors involved in making up our global climate are currently beyond the capability of science to model or predict with any degree of accuracy. And, if I'm not mistaken, many of the model have, in fact, been wrong and the IPCC has had to adjust their predictions for the century.

Bottom line, the science isn't settled.

For instance; we've been led to believe Antarctic melting and the calving of huge ice sheets is due to AGCC. Well, today we have an article, from NASA, that forwards an alternative explanation for all the melting.

Hot News from the Antarctic Underground (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/hot-news-from-the-antarctic-underground)

In fact, there are all sorts of things that have been blamed on AGCC only to be refuted by science later; from the snows leaving Kilimanjaro to the decline in polar bears.

The skepticism is warranted. And, only more so that some governments are trying to criminalize such dissent.

[spurraider21]

Help me out. I think the reasoning is sound.

That there is significant scientific disagreement over the cause, extent, and impact of AGCC, it is reasonable to believe the position with which you agree is wrong.

And, on spurraider21's puzzle analogy; he added a fifth piece to his four piece puzzle by whipping out the El Nino element to explain the "pause." My point being, there isn't a simple answer to what drives climate. In fact, there are scientists, much smarter than you or I, that have concluded all the factors involved in making up our global climate are currently beyond the capability of science to model or predict with any degree of accuracy. And, if I'm not mistaken, many of the model have, in fact, been wrong and the IPCC has had to adjust their predictions for the century.

Bottom line, the science isn't settled.

For instance; we've been led to believe Antarctic melting and the calving of huge ice sheets is due to AGCC. Well, today we have an article, from NASA, that forwards an alternative explanation for all the melting.

Hot News from the Antarctic Underground (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/hot-news-from-the-antarctic-underground)

In fact, there are all sorts of things that have been blamed on AGCC only to be refuted by science later; from the snows leaving Kilimanjaro to the decline in polar bears.

The skepticism is warranted. And, only more so that some governments are trying to criminalize such dissent.
so how do you pick and choose when you decide a nasa article is credible?

[Yonivore]

so how do you pick and choose when you decide a nasa article is credible?
How do you? Are you suggesting this one isn't?

Is this article legitimate and does it tend to counter the earlier statements the melting was as a result of AGCC?

Just asking.

[spurraider21]

How do you? Are you suggesting this one isn't?

Is this article legitimate and does it tend to counter the earlier statements the melting was as a result of AGCC?

Just asking.
1) i don't pick and choose. If an article has been retracted or shown to be inaccurate/outdated by a future study, that would be it.
2) this article is legitimate. I don't think it counters it. The article states it contributed to earlier melting and could help explain the resulting instability we now observe. It doesn't rule out agw as a cause or trigger

[Yonivore]

1) i don't pick and choose. If an article has been retracted or shown to be inaccurate/outdated by a future study, that would be it.
2) this article is legitimate. I don't think it counters it. The article states it contributed to earlier melting and could help explain the resulting instability we now observe. It doesn't rule out agw as a cause or trigger
It doesn't rule it in either. As I said, it's an alternative explanation - - as in, alternative to AGCC causing the Antarctic to melt.

Will you at least admit your four piece puzzle analogy was an over-simplification of the issue. It's not as simple as determining the shape of the planet and there are a multitude of factors that affect global climate -- not all of which can be accurately measured or judged.

[RandomGuy]

Since, you didn't really answer my question, I will have to assume you don't realize that the statement "science has been wrong in the past, so it we need to not believe them at all when it comes to this"...

Is shitty reasoning. It is obviously shitty reasoning. So let's walk through it simply and concentrate on this one thing, we don't even need to play dueling graphs.

Tell me why this statement is shitty reasoning. Think hard.


Help me out. I think the reasoning is sound.

[links, climate change bla bla bla, no answer to this request question].

Evasiveness, when asked a direct question makes you look dishonest.

Do you understand that?

Once more, is the statement:

"science has been wrong in the past, so it we need to not believe them at all when it comes to this"

a logical one? Why or why not?

[Yonivore]

Evasiveness, when asked a direct question makes you look dishonest.

Do you understand that?
I don't remember the direct question.

Is this to what you're referring?


"You do realize this is shitty reasoning, right?"
I thought that was rhetorical.


Once more, is the statement:

"science has been wrong in the past, so it we need to not believe them at all when it comes to this"

a logical one? Why or why not?
Oh, this one.

You weren't quoting me and I've never held that position.

And, no, it's not a logical statement.

What I said was reasonable... When you have significant scientific disagreement over something, it is reasonable to believe either side could be wrong.

I currently find the position of AGCC Skeptics more reasonable that those of AGCC Proponents.

[spurraider21]

It doesn't rule it in either. As I said, it's an alternative explanation - - as in, alternative to AGCC causing the Antarctic to melt.

Will you at least admit your four piece puzzle analogy was an over-simplification of the issue. It's not as simple as determining the shape of the planet and there are a multitude of factors that affect global climate -- not all of which can be accurately measured or judged.
I don't see why you make the assumption it's either/or. They don't seem to.

The puzzle piece analogy was meant to demonstrate the separate importance of a fact/evidence from a theory/explanation with predictive capabilities. So if I form a theory that the puzzle image is a cat, i can probably predict that one of the remaining pieces will contain whiskers. That predictive capability had more value than a random collection of facts

[Yonivore]

I don't see why you make the assumption it's either/or. They don't seem to.
I'm not suggesting it's "either/or" just that there may be more complexity to global climate than can be encapsulated by one theory. In fact, there's is a reasonable argument made that it is, at best, unclear whether or not man has any significant impact on climate or that a warmer planet is necessarily a bad thing.


The puzzle piece analogy was meant to demonstrate the separate importance of a fact/evidence from a theory/explanation with predictive capabilities. So if I form a theory that the puzzle image is a cat, i can probably predict that one of the remaining pieces will contain whiskers. That predictive capability had more value than a random collection of facts
Except your four pieces are only four of a million-piece puzzle. Therefore, it would be impossible to predict what the finished puzzle would look like.

[RandomGuy]

I don't remember the direct question.

Is this to what you're referring?


I thought that was rhetorical.


Oh, this one.

You weren't quoting me and I've never held that position.

And, no, it's not a logical statement.

What I said was reasonable... When you have significant scientific disagreement over something, it is reasonable to believe either side could be wrong.

I currently find the position of AGCC Skeptics more reasonable that those of AGCC Proponents.


we've lived through these Henny Penny sky-is-falling predictions before; on global cooling, global population, global droughts, etc... Maybe the "scientific" community has cried Wolf one to many times.

"they were wrong before, so they are wrong now", is the implication, a standard tack for denialism, and quackery of all sorts.

[RandomGuy]

What I said was reasonable... When you have significant scientific disagreement over something, it is reasonable to believe either side could be wrong.

I currently find the position of AGCC Skeptics more reasonable that those of AGCC Proponents.

More failed reasoning.

If your assertion were valid, it should hold no matter what the "something" is.

When you have significant scientific disagreement over [the earth being flat or spherical], it is reasonable to believe either side could be wrong.

When you have significant scientific disagreement over [evolution or creationism], it is reasonable to believe either side could be wrong.

When you have significant scientific disagreement over [cigarette smoking being beneficial or causing cancer], it is reasonable to believe either side could be wrong.

Your failure here, is in proving there is "significant scientific disagreement" over this, because it seems like you are attempting to paint a false equivalence here.

Muddy the waters. Lather, spin, repeat.

"A tiny minority of people who study topic X are more credible than the vast majority of experts in the field" would seem to require a pretty high bar of evidence.

When your "skeptics" are shown to pretty consistently cherry pick data in a dishonest way, that should cause anyone some pause.

Why do you post blogs from people who so obviously cherry-pick the data, over comprehensive analysis?

[RandomGuy]

The puzzle piece analogy was meant to demonstrate the separate importance of a fact/evidence from a theory/explanation with predictive capabilities. So if I form a theory that the puzzle image is a cat, i can probably predict that one of the remaining pieces will contain whiskers. That predictive capability had more value than a random collection of facts
Except your four pieces are only four of a million-piece puzzle. Therefore, it would be impossible to predict what the finished puzzle would look like.




Except your four pieces are only four of a million-piece puzzle. Therefore, it would be impossible to predict what the finished puzzle would look like.

Ho-lee shit, Batman, that was some sophistic fuckery right there.

Are you trying to say we have 0.0004% of the climate puzzle? Our knowledge is that limited after decades of research, tens of thousands of climate papers, and the accumulation of all of that into a coherent body of work from multiple lines of evidence from a variety of fields and disciplines all pointing to a general conclusion?

I might not know what the ultimate percentage is, but us only having .00004% of the climate puzzle, is stupid. That isn't how science works.

[Yonivore]

"they were wrong before, so they are wrong now", is the implication, a standard tack for denialism, and quackery of all sorts.
Nope, never inferred it and you putting it in quote is disingenuous. My assertion is is reasonable to believe they are wrong about AGCC was not predicated on being wrong in the past but on the contemporaneous beliefs of scientists who say they're wrong now.

If you're referring to my invoking previous errors, (i.e. global cooling, population-induced starvation, etc...), your premise only holds if it is the same scientists making the predictions of catastrophic AGCC that made those predictions. I believe some are the same but, because I don't know, I can't make that assertion.

[Yonivore]

More failed reasoning.

If your assertion were valid, it should hold no matter what the "something" is.

When you have significant scientific disagreement over [the earth being flat or spherical], it is reasonable to believe either side could be wrong.
Is there significant scientific disagreement over the shape of the planet?


When you have significant scientific disagreement over [evolution or creationism], it is reasonable to believe either side could be wrong.
Is there significant scientific disagreement over the evolution vs. creationism?


When you have significant scientific disagreement over [cigarette smoking being beneficial or causing cancer], it is reasonable to believe either side could be wrong.
Is there significant scientific disagreement over the benefits of smoking cigarettes?


Your failure here, is in proving there is "significant scientific disagreement" over this, because it seems like you are attempting to paint a false equivalence here.

Muddy the waters. Lather, spin, repeat.

"A tiny minority of people who study topic X are more credible than the vast majority of experts in the field" would seem to require a pretty high bar of evidence.

When your "skeptics" are shown to pretty consistently cherry pick data in a dishonest way, that should cause anyone some pause.

Why do you post blogs from people who so obviously cherry-pick the data, over comprehensive analysis?
Except the "vast majority of experts in the field" (that's how you quote someone), don't agree on AGCC.

The 97% consensus farce has been exposed as just that.

Truth be told, there are as many expert opinions on global climate science, its influences, its causes, and its components, as there are scientific disciplines; varying from man has little to no impact on climate to man is the main driver of climate.

[Yonivore]

Ho-lee shit, Batman, that was some sophistic fuckery right there.

Are you trying to say we have 0.0004% of the climate puzzle? Our knowledge is that limited after decades of research, tens of thousands of climate papers, and the accumulation of all of that into a coherent body of work from multiple lines of evidence from a variety of fields and disciplines all pointing to a general conclusion?
If was an exaggerated point, RG. But, yes, I believe it's been asserted by scientists that not enough is known about the climate to be able to accurately predict the future.


I might not know what the ultimate percentage is, but us only having .00004% of the climate puzzle, is stupid. That isn't how science works.
Hey, it wasn't my analogy.

[spurraider21]

I'm not suggesting it's "either/or" just that there may be more complexity to global climate than can be encapsulated by one theory. In fact, there's is a reasonable argument made that it is, at best, unclear whether or not man has any significant impact on climate or that a warmer planet is necessarily a bad thing.


Except your four pieces are only four of a million-piece puzzle. Therefore, it would be impossible to predict what the finished puzzle would look like.
I don't think the theory has ever been that agw is the only thing affecting our climate.

We've been collecting puzzle pieces for a long time. When you have enough you go from a hypothesis to a theory. A vast majority of scientists on the subject seem to have a good idea of what the final picture is, and the every subsequent puzzle piece we've found has been able to fit into that picture

[RandomGuy]

If was an exaggerated point, RG. But, yes, I believe it's been asserted by scientists that not enough is known about the climate to be able to accurately predict the future.
Hey, it wasn't my analogy.

Science works by an accumulation of information. The uncertainty, as time progresses, tends to dissolve, as less likely things fall away, and we are left with the most likely hypothesis. A collapsing field of potentiality.

We know the planet is warming.

Alternate causes as to why are few and none of them have, to date, adequately explained the trend, Wild Cobra's amateurish hand-waving aside.

Why do you put so much stock in "skeptics" who consistently show themselves to be dishonest?

[spurraider21]

Science works by an accumulation of information. The uncertainty, as time progresses, tends to dissolve, as less likely things fall away, and we are left with the most likely hypothesis. A collapsing field of potentiality.

We know the planet is warming.

Alternate causes as to why are few and none of them have, to date, adequately explained the trend, Wild Cobra's amateurish hand-waving aside.

Why do you put so much stock in "skeptics" who consistently show themselves to be dishonest?
Because liberals are on the other side

[RandomGuy]

Is there significant scientific disagreement over the shape of the planet?


Is there significant scientific disagreement over the evolution vs. creationism?


Is there significant scientific disagreement over the benefits of smoking cigarettes?


Except the "vast majority of experts in the field" (that's how you quote someone), don't agree on AGCC.

The 97% consensus farce has been exposed as just that.

Truth be told, there are as many expert opinions on global climate science, its influences, its causes, and its components, as there are scientific disciplines; varying from man has little to no impact on climate to man is the main driver of climate.

You tell me. They are your weasel words. Your claim, your burden of proof, including defining terms.

Define "significant scientific disagreement"

[Yonivore]

You tell me. They are your weasel words. Your claim, your burden of proof, including defining terms.
Okay, I'll tell you.

There is no significant scientific disagreement over the shop of the planet.
There is no significant scientific disagreement over evolution vs. creationism.
There is no significant scientific disagreement over the benefits of smoking cigarettes.


Define "significant scientific disagreement"
Judith Curry and any other scientist of her caliber that disagrees with the current orthodoxy on global climate is "significant scientific disagreement."

[RandomGuy]

Because liberals are on the other side

That's what boggles my mind, is how delusions like this can be maintained.

Y: here is an article by a skeptic making a good point
Everybody else: that article uses flawed reasoning, and dishonestly presents data.
Y: but all the other skeptics use such good reasoning they are more credible than the scientists saying humans are driving climate change
Everybody else: okaaay, such as?
Y: here is an article by a skeptic making a good point
Everybody else: that article uses flawed reasoning, and dishonestly presents data.
Y: but all the other skeptics use such good reasoning they are more credible than the scientists saying humans are driving climate change
Everybody else: okaaay, such as?
Y: here is an article by a skeptic making a good point
Everybody else: that article uses flawed reasoning, and dishonestly presents data.
Y: but all the other skeptics use such good reasoning they are more credible than the scientists saying humans are driving climate change

:bang

[Yonivore]

That's what boggles my mind, is how delusions like this can be maintained.

Y: here is an article by a skeptic making a good point
Somebody in the Spurstalk Political Forum: that article uses flawed reasoning, and dishonestly presents data.
Y: but all the other skeptics use such good reasoning they are more credible than the scientists saying humans are driving climate change
Somebody in the Spurstalk Political Forum: okaaay, such as?
Y: here is an article by a skeptic making a good point
Somebody in the Spurstalk Political Forum: that article uses flawed reasoning, and dishonestly presents data.
Y: but all the other skeptics use such good reasoning they are more credible than the scientists saying humans are driving climate change
Somebody in the Spurstalk Political Forum: okaaay, such as?
Y: here is an article by a skeptic making a good point
Somebody in the Spurstalk Political Forum: that article uses flawed reasoning, and dishonestly presents data.
Y: but all the other skeptics use such good reasoning they are more credible than the scientists saying humans are driving climate change

:bang
There, fixed.

So, about this "vast majority of experts in the field," and the so-call "consensus" on global climate science.

A Reply to Cook and Oreskes on Climate Science Consensus Messaging (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2017.1392109?journalCode=renc20&)


[T]he debate over the hiatus/pause in global temperature increase was not invented by fossil fuel interests, but is a subject of genuine scientific disagreement (Medhaug, Stople, Fischer, & Knutti, 2017). Second, there is increasing expert debate regarding how much carbon dioxide can be emitted while keeping global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees C (Millar, et al., 2017a, 2017b; Peters, 2017; Rathi 2017). For climate scientists, there is no obvious consensus about questions such as these. On the other hand, Cook, Oreskes and others persists in messaging the minimalist fact that human influence on a changing climate is uncontroversial amongst scientists.

You've fallen just short of calling me a denier (and, frankly, I'm surprised you haven't) when all I've asserted is skepticism is reasonable.

[RandomGuy]

Okay, I'll tell you.

There is no significant scientific disagreement over the shop of the planet.
There is no significant scientific disagreement over evolution vs. creationism.
There is no significant scientific disagreement over the benefits of smoking cigarettes.

Judith Curry and any other scientist of her caliber that disagrees with the current orthodoxy on global climate is "significant scientific disagreement."

Not really a working definition of "significant scientific disagreement".

She doesn't really disagree that humans are driving warming. You do understand that right?