Any doubts about Climate Change?

**bsnub** · 30-08-2016, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

pier review

Its peer review you moron and if you cant even spell it you sure dont have a damn clue how the process works. Dr. Spencers works did not hold muster in the peer review process you idiot. Those are scientists in the post I made above who are trashing his models and data as flawed. That is how the peer review process works.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

first to bless a leftist rag when they try to debunk a scientist of the other flavor.

The article is written by a scientist who is quoting other scientists who say Dr. Spencer is wrong it doesn't matter that it was posted by the guardian it is the source material and the scientists that do.

On one side you have a "scientist" who is on the take of big oil and happens to be a libertarian on the other side you have at least ten scientists just in the post I made above saying he is wrong. Once again that is the peer review process exposing bad science.

Went right over your head.

Nothing went over my head you blathering idiot.

pier

Peer

a person who belongs to the same age group or social group as someone else

And you want to be taken seriously in this thread?

**harrybarracuda** · 30-08-2016, 11:35 AM

Do you think he even finished high school? He obviously didn't finish science.

**bsnub** · 30-08-2016, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Do you think he even finished high school?

Highly doubt it and combining old age, a poor education and already low IQ he is a poster child of a science denier. In fact all of them are the same in that regards pulvarien, blue, repeater and somboon/jet are all dumb as a box of rocks.

**pulvarien** · 30-08-2016, 10:12 PM

I will say it again, global warming is all about politics, taxes, taking money from the people, which reduces their independence, makes them more dependant on govt. Their drive for hard core socialist one party power, or 2 or more parties as long as their all hard core socialist which was what Europe was evolving into until this rebellion by the people.

Even china has realized the powers of capitalism for making its people much much richer, something socialists hate to admit. India and all the other Asian countries are screaming to join the bandwagon on capitalism while self flagellistic westerners bemoan their very success.

**MrG** · 30-08-2016, 10:57 PM

^
From Climate Science to Economics, you just don't know what you're talking about, do you.

**harrybarracuda** · 31-08-2016, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by MrG

^
From Climate Science to Economics, you just don't know what you're talking about, do you.

Hasn't since he created the new nick.

**S Landreth** · 02-09-2016, 12:23 AM

The climate denier has posted August’s 2016 satellite information

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August 2016 is +0.44 deg. C, up a little from the July, 2016 value +0.39 deg. C

He’s been pushing hard for the past several months to show what type of cooling it will take to tie 1998’s satellite record. It’s looking more and more like he hasn’t much hope.

To see how we are now progressing toward a record warm year in the satellite data, the following chart shows the average rate of cooling for the rest of 2016 that would be required to tie 1998 as warmest year in the 38-year satellite record:

From the RSS site (full graph with trend line – August not included)

Annual Mean Growth Rate for Mauna Loa, Hawaii

NASA: Earth is warming at a pace 'unprecedented in 1,000 years'

Records of temperature that go back far further than 1800s suggest warming of recent decades is out of step with any period over the past millennium

The planet is warming at a pace not experienced within the past 1,000 years, at least, making it “very unlikely” that the world will stay within a crucial temperature limit agreed by nations just last year, according to Nasa’s top climate scientist.

This year has already seen scorching heat around the world, with the average global temperature peaking at 1.38C above levels experienced in the 19th century, perilously close to the 1.5C limit agreed in the landmark Paris climate accord. July was the warmest month since modern record keeping began in 1880, with each month since October 2015 setting a new high mark for heat.

But Nasa said that records of temperature that go back far further, taken via analysis of ice cores and sediments, suggest that the warming of recent decades is out of step with any period over the past millennium.

“In the last 30 years we’ve really moved into exceptional territory,” Gavin Schmidt, director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said. “It’s unprecedented in 1,000 years. There’s no period that has the trend seen in the 20th century in terms of the inclination (of temperatures).”

Scientists are able to gauge greenhouse gas levels stretching back more than 800,000 years but the certainty around the composition of previous climates is stronger within the past 1,000 years. While it’s still difficult to compare a single year to another prior to the 19th century, a Nasa reconstruction shows that the pace of temperature increase over recent decades outstrips anything that has occurred since the year 500.

Lingering carbon dioxide already emitted from power generation, transport and agriculture is already likely to raise sea levels by around three feet by the end of the century, and potentially by 70 feet in the centuries to come. Increasing temperatures will shrink the polar ice caps, make large areas of the Middle East and North Africa unbearable to live in and accelerate what’s known as Earth’s “sixth mass extinction” of animal species.

Earth warming fastest in 1,000 years from Michael Mann - it’s

Arctic Sea Ice Extent

**nisakiman** · 02-09-2016, 04:35 AM

BUSTED: Analysis shows Mid-19th Century Warming Likely To Be Natural, Not Human-Induced

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/...human-induced/

Personally I'm fairly agnostic (but tending towards the sceptical side) on this. The climate has been changing for millennia, CO2 levels have been much higher in the past than they are today, and historically, elevated CO2 levels have followed warm periods rather than driven them.

But that aside, what really raises my eyebrows is that the whole circus stinks of a scam. And if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then nine times out of ten you'll find that yes, indeed it is a duck.

The main defining factor of people who believe in AGW is just that. They BELIEVE! They believe with a messianic, evangelical passion. They will brook no argument, and anyone with the temerity to offer an opposing view is showered with ad hominems and sanctimonious distain. Fine and honest scientists are excommunicated if they don't BELIEVE. Highly qualified people are scared to put their heads above the parapet, because they know that if they publicly disagree with the 'consensus' (a thoroughly unscientific concept), their careers are in danger of being destroyed. It's a very unhealthy climate (if you'll excuse the pun).

That to me is the mark of a fanatical zealot who will seize on any figures or statistics, no matter how far fetched, to further his cause. And I am immediately suspicious.

Then when you add in things like the leaked emails from E Anglia university, Michael Mann's "Hide the decline" deception, Al Gore's elevation from millionaire to billionaire on the back of 'carbon trading', the hundreds of thousands of people whose very existence depends on keeping the scaremongering tactics going and who very obviously don't want to get off the gravy train; all this does nor auger well for the concept of AGW being believable.

As Goebbels said: "If you tell a big enough lie, and keep repeating it, eventually the people will come to believe it".

Is the climate changing? Undoubtedly. Will driving us all back to the stone age make any difference at all? Well, that is a very moot point, and more a matter of opinion (or faith) than hard science. Personally, I doubt it.

Who the Gods would destroy, they first make mad.

**pulvarien** · 02-09-2016, 07:52 AM

Uh oh hope u got a thick skin, attacks inc!! You evil denier!! You must be silenced!! You must be shouted down!! You must be thicker then a rock!! Common sense be damned!

You do not have the right to oppose the huge energy taxes we are going to impose on you to pay for the hugeeeee [to quote trump] socialist overspending we have committed. You do not have the right to oppose the new socialist govt enlargement ala Europe we are going to impose on norte America in order to be able to control more and more facets of your life. They want to go as far as Europe and order vegetables to only be sold that fit certain sizes and shapes!

To be honest I applaud obamas ocean sanctuary expansion in the pacific and his attempted sanctuarys in the west hes now trying to create. Just why couldn't he do more of these real things to help the world, ie save endangered species like the elephant and not lie about polar bears which are at near record numbers.

**AntRobertson** · 02-09-2016, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by nisakiman

The main defining factor of people who believe in AGW is just that. They BELIEVE!

Well actually no. Because science, that's why.

Science works on objective and verifiable fact. Belief is the preserve of things like religion or, indeed, seeing a conspiracy in the scientific community despite all objective evidence showing that it's Big Oil actively involved in attempts to obfuscate and cloud the issue. Because billions of dollars of profits, that's why.

And FYI: Al Gore's net-worth as of 2016 is circa. 170 million the majority of which was made by selling his stake in a TV network and positions and stock options at Google at Apple. Now 170 million certainly isn't an amount to be sneezed at but it's well short of being a "billionaire".

**MrG** · 02-09-2016, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by nisakiman

The main defining factor of people who believe in AGW is just that. They BELIEVE! They believe with a messianic, evangelical passion.

Completely backwards.
Those who see Climate Warming for what it is have plenty of science from around the world. Deniers have:

Originally Posted by nisakiman

believe with a messianic, evangelical passion. They will brook no argument, and anyone with the temerity to offer an opposing view is showered with ad hominems and sanctimonious distain

Your article offers no data...nothing. Just opinion and rant. A totally empty suit.

**AntRobertson** · 02-09-2016, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by pulvarien

polar bears which are at near record numbers

You see this is exactly what I mean, that is quite simply not true. Not only is it not true but it's also very, very easily shown to not be true with even the most cursory of checks.

Objective fact cf. belief.

**MrG** · 02-09-2016, 08:05 AM

^
Very Trumpian, though: just make up a number when the true number is very easily verifiable.

But then, as they well know and practice frequently:

Originally Posted by nisakiman

As Goebbels said: "If you tell a big enough lie, and keep repeating it, eventually the people will come to believe it".

They're hoping it works. Faith in Goebbels; it's all they've got.

**harrybarracuda** · 02-09-2016, 01:58 PM

The deniers bible:

**blue** · 02-09-2016, 03:43 PM

the Alarmists tactic
brainwash the kids via a politically correct education system

**Neo** · 02-09-2016, 05:48 PM

**blue** · 02-09-2016, 06:10 PM

Those red bits are from 24 / 7 air-con .
no doubt from Alarmists insisting on living in piping hot countries

**nisakiman** · 02-09-2016, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by nisakiman

The main defining factor of people who believe in AGW is just that. They BELIEVE!

Well actually no. Because science, that's why.

Science works on objective and verifiable fact. Belief is the preserve of things like religion or, indeed, seeing a conspiracy in the scientific community despite all objective evidence showing that it's Big Oil actively involved in attempts to obfuscate and cloud the issue. Because billions of dollars of profits, that's why.

All of the “unknowns” in the graphs (which can be accessed by following the link below) are assumed to be carbon. The IPCC does not take solar magnetic effects into account; the models assume cloud-cover doesn’t drive the climate, in their simulations, the climate drives clouds; they can’t predict ENSO events, the same models that produce these graphs predict that the world would have been cooler in medieval times (which it wasn’t). These models also predict the band of air 10km above the tropics will warm much faster than the ground (but it doesn’t, there is no hot spot). In other words, it’s not just that the graphs above are wrong because they make assumptions that are unproven, these graphs are wrong because the evidence shows that they are wrong. The models that produce them are deeply flawed. The assumptions they are based on are wrong, because most of the predictions that follow from these assumptions have been empirically shown to be wrong.

Furthermore models are never evidence, they are theory. “Evidence” means empirical observations from the real world. Models are just a glorified version of a string of calculations that could be done by someone on their high-school calculator (though it may take a few hundred years). You may remember from high school exams, that just because you held a hot Hewlett Packard HP-25C, that didn’t guarantee you always got the right answer.

How to create a crisis graph in 6 simple steps « JoNova

The comments quoting my post merely serve to emphasise what I said - that AGW is an article of faith, a blind belief. There are no hard facts, only theories. Good Lord, they can't even predict what the weather will be like in ten days accurately, and yet people are prepared to pauperise the globe chasing an unproven chimera on the basis of wildly varying predictions from glorified weathermen.

As I said in my original post, I'm quite prepared to accept that there is a possibility that the doomsayers are correct in their predictions (I'm not dogmatic and unbending like others here), but there is no empirical proof for what they are predicting, so they could just as easily be totally wrong. Anyone who declares "the science is settled" on this subject has no understanding of how science works. They said "The science is settled" when they declared that the sun revolved around the earth, because the scientists of the day were united in their belief that that was the case. There was 'consensus', and same as the warmists of today, they crucified anyone who had the temerity to disagree with them. As Galileo found to his detriment.

"He was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", and forced to recant. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest."

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

Because, science, eh?

But they were wrong. And since the whole AGW concept is based computer models and theories, (both fallible) there is a distinct possibility that the current 'scientific consensus' (which is actually nothing of the sort, as there are many climatologists who disagree) is just as wrong.

**AntRobertson** · 02-09-2016, 07:32 PM

There is a consensus. The overwhelming scientific consensus - to the point it isn't even close - supports AGW.

Objective, tested, repeated, verified facts not beliefs. You have things terribly backwards. It's like saying that you don't believe the nine doctors that tell you have cancer because you're choosing to believe the one faith healer who says that you don't and the nine doctors are part of a conspiracy that there is no actual proof of.

And by the way: weather and climate, not the same thing. Confusing the two and denying consensus are the two main pegs of the denialists.

**pulvarien** · 02-09-2016, 08:10 PM

The graphs show the temps going up but whos in control of making the graphs? Whos paying them? What, just what if the hard core greens have been put in charge and are falsifying the info?

Climatedepot.com clearly and succinctly proves all the above. The hard core greens posting here will say its been debunked but then again they are hard core green/leftards, think for yourself. Its the one website that taught me more about whats going on in the world then any other. As I read it over the years I began to see a grand pattern evolving. For ex. once global warming was announced 30 plus years ago it took me years to realize but it was a left wing phenomenon, all left wing news media, politicians, hedge funds, organizations ALL immedietly said it was true and ALL jumped on the bandwagon. It took me years but I finally realized that its all part of a Grand Left Wing Conspiracy. Just look at how europes gone hard core leftard, the right wing is finally waking up there because of the idiocy of leftard policies. And there trying to do the same in Norte America now.

There are a few rightwingers who agree with it but the lefts driven debt sky high and its got to paid off somehow so there just taking what they see as the easy way out. And the chosen target is energy,

The real problems in the world are in Asia, Africa and s America but 90 per of greens efforts are where the problems don't exist any longer. Why is that? Why is 90 per of greens effort going on where they have to split hairs to reduce emmissions and ususally at great cost. Why don't they go after the big polluters which are getting bigger fast, very fast. That alone shows its not about pollution its about politics.

**AntRobertson** · 02-09-2016, 08:34 PM

You don't even bother acknowledging the falsities and factual inaccuracies that you're called on.

You really couldn't be any more one-note and blinkered if you tried. Just a spam-bot.

**Neo** · 03-09-2016, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by pulvarien

What, just what if the hard core greens have been put in charge and are falsifying the info?

**blue** · 03-09-2016, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

And by the way: weather and climate, not the same thing. Confusing the two and denying consensus are the two main pegs of the denialists.

yeah that distinction is true
except when the weather fits your alarmist agenda
then it's admissible, eg
extreme weather

**MrG** · 03-09-2016, 11:38 PM

Hey you deniers out there. Better turn those tin hats upside down; you're going to need something to float to oblivian on sooner than you think.

Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun
The New York Times
By JUSTIN GILLIS

NORFOLK, Va. — Huge vertical rulers are sprouting beside low spots in the streets here, so people can judge if the tidal floods that increasingly inundate their roads are too deep to drive through.

Five hundred miles down the Atlantic Coast, the only road to Tybee Island, Ga., is disappearing beneath the sea several times a year, cutting the town off from the mainland.

And another 500 miles on, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., increased tidal flooding is forcing the city to spend millions fixing battered roads and drains — and, at times, to send out giant vacuum trucks to suck saltwater off the streets.

For decades, as the global warming created by human emissions caused land ice to melt and ocean water to expand, scientists warned that the accelerating rise of the sea would eventually imperil the United States’ coastline.

Now, those warnings are no longer theoretical: The inundation of the coast has begun. The sea has crept up to the point that a high tide and a brisk wind are all it takes to send water pouring into streets and homes.

Federal scientists have documented a sharp jump in this nuisance flooding — often called “sunny-day flooding” — along both the East Coast and the Gulf Coast in recent years. The sea is now so near the brim in many places that they believe the problem is likely to worsen quickly. Shifts in the Pacific Ocean mean that the West Coast, partly spared over the past two decades, may be hit hard, too.

These tidal floods are often just a foot or two deep, but they can stop traffic, swamp basements, damage cars, kill lawns and forests, and poison wells with salt. Moreover, the high seas interfere with the drainage of storm water.

In coastal regions, that compounds the damage from the increasingly heavy rains plaguing the country, like those that recently caused extensive flooding in Louisiana. Scientists say these rains are also a consequence of human greenhouse emissions.

“Once impacts become noticeable, they’re going to be upon you quickly,” said William V. Sweet, a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Silver Spring, Md., who is among the leaders in research on coastal inundation. “It’s not a hundred years off — it’s now.”

Local governments, under pressure from annoyed citizens, are beginning to act. Elections are being won on promises to invest money to protect against flooding. Miami Beach is leading the way, increasing local fees to finance a $400 million plan that includes raising streets, installing pumps and elevating sea walls.

In many of the worst-hit cities, mayors of both parties are sounding an alarm.

“I’m a Republican, but I also realize, by any objective analysis, the sea level is rising,” said Jason Buelterman, the mayor of tiny Tybee Island, one of the first Georgia communities to adopt a detailed climate plan.

But the local leaders say they cannot tackle this problem alone. They are pleading with state and federal governments for guidance and help, including billions to pay for flood walls, pumps and road improvements that would buy them time.

Yet Congress has largely ignored these pleas, and has even tried to block plans by the military to head off future problems at the numerous bases imperiled by a rising sea. A Republican congressman from Colorado, Ken Buck, recently called one military proposal part of a “radical climate change agenda.”

The gridlock in Washington means the United States lacks not only a broad national policy on sea-level rise, it has something close to the opposite: The federal government spends billions of taxpayer dollars in ways that add to the risks, by subsidizing local governments and homeowners who build in imperiled locations along the coast.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/flo...gun/ar-AAirwMe

**blue** · 04-09-2016, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by MrG

Fort Lauderdale

bring it on
fish can live in the ruibed houses
and build their stocks back up, try catching them in there with a 20 mile net

unfortunatle it looks just like another alarmist shriek
as the gif shoes even a foot rise will not encroach much , and so far the sea has only risen a fraction of an inch - if at all

Surely when you global warming starts won't there be more water vapour in the sky and clouds thus lowering sea levels ?
maybe it will fall on desert ares and green them !

Bring it on
if only global warming were real

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions