Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3910111213
Results 1,201 to 1,253 of 1253

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #1201
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    ^The story was amazing. Your attempt to make the story fit your anti-global warming agenda pathetic.

  2. #1202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    That was an interesting video. The above was part one of four and about an hour and eight minutes long.
    Thanks, I thought the story was amazing. Just trying to keep things interesting. Nice to read something other than the usual dingbat responses.
    yes we've all grown tired of your responses, dingbat. Your whole premise to this thread is that the entire world is lying, and your opinion (that is not backed by any reputable science) is correct is about as close to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance as I've ever seen.

  3. #1203

    Default The TRUTH. !!!!The antarctic ice is collapsing!!!!!!

    60 years of global warming, ice melt and glacier collapse in the antarctic!!!!!

    The eleventh British antarctic research station Halley is here.......
    Location

    Position: Lat. 75 35′ S, Long. 26 39′ W (2012 Halley VI)
    General location: Brunt Ice Shelf, Caird Coast

    Anybody want to guess what happened to the ten previous research stations?

    "Previous locations

    1956 (IGY) Lat. 75 31′ S, Long. 26 36′ W
    1957 (IGY) Lat. 75 30′ S, Long. 26 36′ W
    1967 (Z II) Lat. 75 31′ S, Long. 26 39′ W
    1973 (Z III) Lat. 75 31′ S, Long. 26 43′ W
    1983 (Z IV) Lat. 75 36′ S, Long. 26 40′ W
    1989 (Z IV) Lat. 75 36′ S, Long. 26 46′ W
    1988 (Z V) Lat. 75 35′ S, Long. 26 14′ W
    1992 (Z V) Lat. 75 35′ S, Long. 26 19′ W
    1998 (Z V) Lat. 75 35′S, Long. 26 30′ W
    2001 (Z V) Lat. 75 35′ S, Long. 26 34′ W"
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  4. #1204

    Default The TRUTH. Snow cover collapse in North America

    In this graph you can see how snow cover is collapsing in North America as global warming continues unabated....................

    The data for this graph from NASA is here.............
    https://climate.rutgers.edu/measures/snowice/




    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  5. #1205
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    ^If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

    Step one: Set up a straw man "Snow cover collapse in North America due to global warming."

    Step two: Draw erroneous conclusions from said straw man.

    Contrary to your claim, most climate scientists have predicted that global warming is likely to not lead to reduced snow cover, and perhaps some increases in the short-term.

    The reasons are explained in the following article published in February 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences:

    While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades, anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and east Asia. Here we demonstrate that the decrease in autumn Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation that have some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic oscillation. However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in midlatitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic oscillation. This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents. Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter and the northeastern and midwestern United States during winter. We conclude that the recent decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3306672/

  6. #1206
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,166

    Default

    How about Arctic sea ice?

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    As 2018 came to a close, Arctic sea ice extent was tracking at its third lowest level in the satellite record, while sea ice in the Antarctic remained at historic lows.




    and this figure in particular


  7. #1207

    Default

    [QUOTE=Channing;917009]How about Arctic sea ice?





    Try posting something without fake data from a software simulation.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  8. #1208
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,166

    Default

    So most of that data is satellite data. What software simulation are you referencing?

  9. #1209

    Default

    oh he's covered this before. He doesn't understand what simulations are, and can't seem to wrap his head around the fact that while they can't 100% accurate predict everything, they can provide a realistic view of potential future outcomes should the trends continue.

  10. #1210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    How about Arctic sea ice?

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    As 2018 came to a close, Arctic sea ice extent was tracking at its third lowest level in the satellite record, while sea ice in the Antarctic remained at historic lows.
    I covered this fraud in an earlier post. Satellite data goes back to the 1970's. Here's a graph from the 1990 IPCC report.............

    You see why they hide the earlier data? Can you see what fraudsters they are?

    Your top two graphs are fraud graphs that hide and change the data.
    Your other graph going back to the 1880's is fake data from software simulations. Notice the observed 1970's dip is completely erased.

    Last edited by MrCombust; 16-01-2019 at 05:00 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  11. #1211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

    Step one: Set up a straw man "Snow cover collapse in North America due to global warming."

    Step two: Draw erroneous conclusions from said straw man.

    Contrary to your claim, most climate scientists have predicted that global warming is likely to not lead to reduced snow cover, and perhaps some increases in the short-term.

    The reasons are explained in the following article published in February 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences:

    While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades, anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and east Asia. Here we demonstrate that the decrease in autumn Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation that have some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic oscillation. However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in midlatitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic oscillation. This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents. Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter and the northeastern and midwestern United States during winter. We conclude that the recent decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3306672/
    No. The IPCC predicted less snowfall. When more snowfall came they said that was because of climate change too (as demonstrated by te paper you provided). So less snowfall is because of climate change, and more snowfall is because of climate change. Anybody can google this, and many other predictions. More heat is global warming, record cold is global warming. More drought is because of global warming, as is less drought. More rain, and less rain is also predicted. When something happens they pull one of these papers out of their *** and say it was predicted.

    Science like this is so stupid it boggles the mind.

    Here's one paper of many..................

    "Abstract:
    Sensitivity of the snow energy balance to climatic changes: prediction of snowpack in the Pyrenees in the 21st century
    "Comparison with respect to current conditions indicated a decrease of 50 to 60% in maximum snow.........."

    https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v36/n3/p203-217/

    This paper predicts less snow, and more snow.........


    "Warmer climate: less or more snow?"
    https://link.springer.com/article/10...382-007-0289-y
    Last edited by MrCombust; 16-01-2019 at 06:10 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  12. #1212

    Default

    taking segments of data and ignoring everything else isn't TRUTH

  13. #1213

    Default

    And less or more snow is climate change.

  14. #1214
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    How about Arctic sea ice?

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    As 2018 came to a close, Arctic sea ice extent was tracking at its third lowest level in the satellite record, while sea ice in the Antarctic remained at historic lows.
    I covered this fraud in an earlier post. Satellite data goes back to the 1970's. Here's a graph from the 1990 IPCC report.............

    You see why they hide the earlier data? Can you see what fraudsters they are?

    Your top two graphs are fraud graphs that hide and change the data.
    Your other graph going back to the 1880's is fake data from software simulations. Notice the observed 1970's dip is completely erased.

    SO that graph is -0.2 to 0.2 for a the extremes of data. Whereas the newer graphs drop 2.0 million square kilometres. So you're just proving my point. The drop from 1990 to 2016 is huge compared to the variance in your graph.

  15. #1215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    How about Arctic sea ice?

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    As 2018 came to a close, Arctic sea ice extent was tracking at its third lowest level in the satellite record, while sea ice in the Antarctic remained at historic lows.
    I covered this fraud in an earlier post. Satellite data goes back to the 1970's. Here's a graph from the 1990 IPCC report.............

    You see why they hide the earlier data? Can you see what fraudsters they are?

    Your top two graphs are fraud graphs that hide and change the data.
    Your other graph going back to the 1880's is fake data from software simulations. Notice the observed 1970's dip is completely erased.
    SO that graph is -0.2 to 0.2 for a the extremes of data. Whereas the newer graphs drop 2.0 million square kilometres. So you're just proving my point. The drop from 1990 to 2016 is huge compared to the variance in your graph.
    So they just change the data whenever they feel like it?

    Bow to Zod.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 16-01-2019 at 09:24 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  16. #1216
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,166

    Default

    No the data in the past just didn't vary much, while since 1990 it HAS dropped. A lot.

    I'm not sure you have an ability to interpret data on your own. Do you just copy and paste your posts from someone who does all the thinking for you? So you're unable to actually respond to things off script?

  17. #1217
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,922

    Default

    Yes, that's exactly what he does. I'm sure with a bit of Google-fu it would be possible to figure out which blog he's copy/pasting from.

  18. #1218
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    ^Add to this that highly accurate satellite measurement of sea ice extent only began in 1979. Data collected before 1979 is considered less reliable.

    Since 1979, a collection of satellites has provided a continuous, nearly complete record of Earth’s sea ice cover. Valuable data are collected by satellite sensors that observe the microwaves emitted by the ice surface. Unlike visible light, the microwave energy radiated by ice passes through clouds. This means it can be measured year-round, even through the long polar night.The continuous sea ice record began with the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) on the Nimbus-7 satellite (1978-1987) and continued with the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) and the Special Sensor Microwave Imager Sounder (SSMIS) on Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellites (1987 to present). The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer–for EOS (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite also contributed data (2002-2011), a record that was extended with the 2012 launch of the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) on JAXA’s GCOM-W1 satellite.

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/fe...aIce/page2.php

    Looking at the longer-term record, no surprise that Mr.Combust copied a chart from a denier blog which covers a 18-year time period on which a trend line could be drawn showing a slight increase in sea ice.
    Last edited by East McCauley; 17-01-2019 at 12:03 PM.

  19. #1219

    Default

    ^ he sources a lot of stuff from: http://notrickszone.com/ include that same graph we've seen a lot lately. Also uses https://realclimatescience.com/
    Last edited by Medwards; 17-01-2019 at 12:02 PM.

  20. #1220
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,894
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    As entertaining as this thread is, I have to ask if anyone here has changed their position given the information shared?

    We're now on Page 13...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  21. #1221

    Default

    Hey, no one told me that I had to let facts and arguments change my uninformed opinions!

  22. #1222
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,894
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Oops. Sorry.

    The goal here is to let facts and vetted, independently verifiable arguments augment, grow, and potentially change or cement your original anecdotal opinion.



    I know, I know... I'm a party pooper.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  23. #1223

    Default

    Nah I prefer cognitive dissonance

  24. #1224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    As entertaining as this thread is, I have to ask if anyone here has changed their position given the information shared?

    We're now on Page 13...
    Thank you. There is absolutely zero point to this thread and it has no connection with Connect2Edmonton.

    Nor do I find continual rehashing of misinformation in the thread all that interesting.

    Instead it occupies a top spot on new threads everyday like a bunch of other disconnected US political threads usually do.

    This occupying the discussion here results in people who would want to talk about Edmonton related matters just doing that elsewhere.

    Please close the thread. Enough already.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  25. #1225
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    ^Disagree. This thread is in the Off-Topic/General Discussion section where it belongs. What evidence do you have that people are talking about Edmonton related matters elsewhere? Some of us have an interest in discussing matters that are not Edmonton-related.

    Mr.Combust can be a bit unsufferable at times and definitely has a severe case of confirmation bias/cognitive dissonance or call it what you will.

    But I've occasionally agreed with his critiques of some of the more alarmist folks in the global warming fraternity.

    And he's kept me on my toes, for example, and caused me to find new resources I wasn't previously aware of. Having some fun on my lunch break looking through the denier notrickszone.com blog Mr.Combust likes to copy and paste from (thanks Medwards). The content is so one-sided and misleading that it could be a parody blog to con the global warming deniers but there you go.

    One way the C2E moderator could be helpful is to remind Mr.Combust to provide links to the sources of his hilarious charts and graphs.

  26. #1226
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    As entertaining as this thread is, I have to ask if anyone here has changed their position given the information shared?

    We're now on Page 13...
    If we let MrCombust's posts go unchallenged, then people might believe him.

    I'm not worried about changing his mind, I'm worried about those that read the thread without formed opinions.

  27. #1227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    As entertaining as this thread is, I have to ask if anyone here has changed their position given the information shared?

    We're now on Page 13...
    If we let MrCombust's posts go unchallenged, then people might believe him.

    I'm not worried about changing his mind, I'm worried about those that read the thread without formed opinions.
    My lord. You used the same rationale in the heinous Holocaust Denial thread which is one of the few threads in C2E history that were more disquieting and distorted than this one. Quite fortunately that thread finally got the axe, it should never have been allowed to persist here imo.

    But you're doubling down on being wrong on this one.

    Debating lunacy does not erase or negate it. It provides an active forum for idiotic distorted views.

    Basically the cross section of regular posters in both respective threads seem to have this same elemental thought distortion. That idiocy needs to be actively rebuked and that makes it somehow go away.

    The thread and 13pages of this garbage is evidence refuting that. Richard is of course correct. Not one person participating has been dissuaded. This is, as others have mentioned simply another cognitive dissonance experiment.

    Yours and others Persistence is just allowing one poster here to bang his drum endlessly getting more views and hits for a much longer period of time.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  28. #1228
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    As entertaining as this thread is, I have to ask if anyone here has changed their position given the information shared?

    We're now on Page 13...
    Thank you. There is absolutely zero point to this thread and it has no connection with Connect2Edmonton.

    Nor do I find continual rehashing of misinformation in the thread all that interesting.

    Instead it occupies a top spot on new threads everyday like a bunch of other disconnected US political threads usually do.

    This occupying the discussion here results in people who would want to talk about Edmonton related matters just doing that elsewhere.

    Please close the thread. Enough already.
    The irony is incredibly thick here. You will post the same argument over and over and over again in other threads until everyone's just exhausted and gives up. This has happened in numerous threads, and no doubt you're about to do the same again. Yet you come in here and think you have the right to dictate to others what they post in a single thread? Get off it. If you don't care about the topic, then ignore it. Simple. No board rules are being broken in this thread, and for the most part, it's one guy shouting at clouds with the occasional person chiming in to debunk blatantly false information. Big deal.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 17-01-2019 at 01:56 PM.

  29. #1229

    Default

    MrCombust has been a troll from the first post. And a successful one. Trolls don't care about positions, or education, just attention, whch many C2E members have been quite happy to give.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  30. #1230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    As entertaining as this thread is, I have to ask if anyone here has changed their position given the information shared?

    We're now on Page 13...
    Thank you. There is absolutely zero point to this thread and it has no connection with Connect2Edmonton.

    Nor do I find continual rehashing of misinformation in the thread all that interesting.

    Instead it occupies a top spot on new threads everyday like a bunch of other disconnected US political threads usually do.

    This occupying the discussion here results in people who would want to talk about Edmonton related matters just doing that elsewhere.

    Please close the thread. Enough already.
    The irony is incredibly thick here. You will post the same argument over and over and over again in other threads until everyone's just exhausted and gives up. This has happened in numerous threads, and no doubt you're about to do the same again. Yet you come in here and think you have the right to dictate to others what they post in a single thread? Get off it. If you don't care about the topic, then ignore it. Simple. No board rules are being broken in this thread, and for the most part, it's one guy shouting at clouds with the occasional person chiming in to debunk blatantly false information. Big deal.
    Are your really this obtuse?


    My point is clear. If you can't comprehend it too bad. Nor do I have many posts in this thread and nor do I intend to.

    RichardS raised the same question. What is actually being accomplished in threads like these other than limitless persistence?

    ironically you defend obstinance on display here but call out mine in the same post.
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-01-2019 at 02:24 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  31. #1231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    MrCombust has been a troll from the first post. And a successful one. Trolls don't care about positions, or education, just attention, whch many C2E members have been quite happy to give.
    Precisely.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  32. #1232
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,166

    Default

    Unless MrCombust is given no platform or voice here to spout his nonsense, then he will continue to go on, if I or others ignore him or not. This thread will keep popping up on the active feed, even if we don't respond.

    Close the thread or ban MrCombust, or this just continues.

  33. #1233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Unless MrCombust is given no platform or voice here to spout his nonsense, then he will continue to go on, if I or others ignore him or not. This thread will keep popping up on the active feed, even if we don't respond.

    Close the thread or ban MrCombust, or this just continues.
    Do you have any familiarity with the concept of intermittent reinforcement paradigms? Guess what is the most powerful reinforcement paradigm known, and that is consistently reinforcing the thread spammer

    As mentioned its the responses, replies, that throw fuel on this nonsense. This is what creates the continuance. Without which the spamming either goes away or find another home. Really in all my time online I've never seen somebody just post 50 posts in a row to a thread to themselves on a messageboard. Well, KC comes close, heh, and I'm just jk ing with that. KC provides interesting potential content and topics and links. Although most kind of OT.
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-01-2019 at 02:44 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  34. #1234

    Default

    ^ we kinda saw this when we all seemingly tuned out this thread at the same time... he started drifting into the existing threads about the subject

  35. #1235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    ^ we kinda saw this when we all seemingly tuned out this thread at the same time... he started drifting into the existing threads about the subject
    I had never seen that in any other threads and had not noted any slow down here. heh, but Intermittent reinforcement also makes extinction of behavior more difficult.

    edit;I just did some checking. Almost all of Combusts posts over last year are spontaneously combusted in this thread. A few others are in "Do you still believe in global warming"
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-01-2019 at 03:16 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  36. #1236
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Dear fellow Edmontonians and Albertans,

    I agree with Marcel and this is a key point. No forum rules are being broken in this thread. Despite Mr.Combust's one-dimensional thinking, he doggedly sticks to the topic at hand without engaging in personal attacks and other unpleasantness. He's able to disagree without being disagreeable, an example some of the rest of us could even emulate.

    And to compare global warming denial to Holocaust denial as a poster did above trivializes the latter.

  37. #1237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Dear fellow Edmontonians and Albertans,

    I agree with Marcel and this is a key point. No forum rules are being broken in this thread. Despite Mr.Combust's one-dimensional thinking, he doggedly sticks to the topic at hand without engaging in personal attacks and other unpleasantness. He's able to disagree without being disagreeable, an example some of the rest of us could even emulate.

    And to compare global warming denial to Holocaust denial as a poster did above trivializes the latter.
    I wasn't comparing the topics. I was citing the same rationalizations ( demonstrably false) used by the same poster in both of those threads.


    It was specifically cited that decrying needs to occur in order for a message not to spread or to limit or counter the message. As if that is effective. That missive is a theoretical construct, it isn't factual, and as such threads indicate, responding to inanity does more to perpetuate that ongoing discussion.


    I can't find the link right now but one theorist said that debating intentional misinformation causes harm in allowing that misinformation an apparent equal footing on the same stage. As such, unintended legitimacy is granted. This is a complicated theme, not everybody easily understands that refutation can often be counterproductive if it just continues unabated.


    Question.

    Has refutation in this thread worked? Has it silenced the misinformation campaign?
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-01-2019 at 03:53 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  38. #1238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    As entertaining as this thread is, I have to ask if anyone here has changed their position given the information shared?

    We're now on Page 13...
    Thank you. There is absolutely zero point to this thread and it has no connection with Connect2Edmonton.

    Nor do I find continual rehashing of misinformation in the thread all that interesting.

    Instead it occupies a top spot on new threads everyday like a bunch of other disconnected US political threads usually do.

    This occupying the discussion here results in people who would want to talk about Edmonton related matters just doing that elsewhere.

    Please close the thread. Enough already.
    Yet for several years c2e added ever more pages battling (40 pages and counting) on the life changing impacts of millimetre increases or decreases in screen sizes or device thicknesses. (Millisecond increases in download speed or whatever.) Debating differences in design on incredibly short-lifecycle products is in one sense like endlessly arguing the qualities of toilet paper. Go figure.

    The devices aren’t made here and the only connection to Edmonton is that they are used here - like kitchen faucets, cars, buses, etc

    The All Inclusive Smart Phone War - Page 40

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/showt...one-War/page40


    Sent from my iPhone

    On the other hand, sentiments, biases, science and un-science revealed in threads like this on the global warming debate can provide an insight into the risks we are undertaking as a city or province. Here and in the US following the science has led to the planned closure of billions of dollars of coal plant, electric price impacts, and in the future will lead to positive health impacts, maybe positive health care cost impacts, technology adoption and truly massive new skills/jobs impacts in Alberta, potential importation of billions upon billions in solar and wind products as well as the commensurate export or reduction of an equal amount of Alberta wealth to pay for said products, etc.

    Then, we see how, through watching US politics, we can be competitively disadvantaged almost overnight through their reversal of similarly such planned changes. We can also see how a political party doing what many would say is the most sound, scientifically supported course of actions will very likely get thd party turfed from office for actually doing such things (carbon tax, coal gen closures) without sensitivity to the risk of decisions and so without awareness of the opposing forces and without incorporating escape clauses in decisions.

    In short, this thread is a finger to the wind (read that as you may).
    Last edited by KC; 17-01-2019 at 04:18 PM.

  39. #1239

    Default

    Wow, some of you guys are really upping your game. Some of you are actually abiding by the forum rules, reading my posts, actually staying on point, and actually responding to what I actually posted.

    Impressive.

    It's still comical when yooos pretend everybody in the world agrees with you, and then tell me I have a confirmation bias though. That's always good for a laugh.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  40. #1240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Wow, some of you guys are really upping your game. Some of you are actually abiding by the forum rules, reading my posts, actually staying on point, and actually responding to what I actually posted.

    Impressive.

    It's still comical when yooos pretend everybody in the world agrees with you, and then tell me I have a confirmation bias though. That's always good for a laugh.
    Oh, be quiet. We’re trying to defend your right to free speech no matter how wrong or tiresome it may be.


    On confirmation bias - everyone has it - including you.

  41. #1241

    Default

    Admin - Thread Ignore Pleeeeease!
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  42. #1242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Dear fellow Edmontonians and Albertans,

    I agree with Marcel and this is a key point. No forum rules are being broken in this thread. Despite Mr.Combust's one-dimensional thinking, he doggedly sticks to the topic at hand without engaging in personal attacks and other unpleasantness. He's able to disagree without being disagreeable, an example some of the rest of us could even emulate.

    And to compare global warming denial to Holocaust denial as a poster did above trivializes the latter.
    I wasn't comparing the topics. I was citing the same rationalizations ( demonstrably false) used by the same poster in both of those threads.


    It was specifically cited that decrying needs to occur in order for a message not to spread or to limit or counter the message. As if that is effective. That missive is a theoretical construct, it isn't factual, and as such threads indicate, responding to inanity does more to perpetuate that ongoing discussion.


    I can't find the link right now but one theorist said that debating intentional misinformation causes harm in allowing that misinformation an apparent equal footing on the same stage. As such, unintended legitimacy is granted. This is a complicated theme, not everybody easily understands that refutation can often be counterproductive if it just continues unabated.


    Question.

    Has refutation in this thread worked? Has it silenced the misinformation campaign?
    “debating intentional misinformation causes harm”

    Sounds like an article I posted but don’t agree with. I have faith that - give time and over time - people can rationally evaluate information or find agreement with others that have rationally evaluated information. The double-sided sword of censorship, or for that matter authoritarianism, just takes an expedient shortcut to prevent debate.

  43. #1243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Admin - Thread Ignore Pleeeeease!

    Maybe off topic general discussion threads could be eliminated from the what’s new aggregator. ???


    That way the new downtown tower discussions debating which shades of window glass colour are best could be given prominence.
    Last edited by KC; 17-01-2019 at 04:37 PM.

  44. #1244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Unless MrCombust is given no platform or voice here to spout his nonsense, then he will continue to go on, if I or others ignore him or not. This thread will keep popping up on the active feed, even if we don't respond.

    Close the thread or ban MrCombust, or this just continues.
    Do you have any familiarity with the concept of intermittent reinforcement paradigms? Guess what is the most powerful reinforcement paradigm known, and that is consistently reinforcing the thread spammer

    As mentioned its the responses, replies, that throw fuel on this nonsense. This is what creates the continuance. Without which the spamming either goes away or find another home. Really in all my time online I've never seen somebody just post 50 posts in a row to a thread to themselves on a messageboard. Well, KC comes close, heh, and I'm just jk ing with that. KC provides interesting potential content and topics and links. Although most kind of OT.
    They begged me to do it
    i.e. the KC - misc thread


    “intermittent reinforcement paradigms” - that’s a new one to me. Though I’ve heard of random reinforcement.


    The word spam is much like the word offensive. Mostly used by people that don’t like what someone is saying, whereas they find no offence with other similarly offensive comments. Such as people spamming that the new RAM is ugly. . Moreover, when society decided that the emperor’s clothes were just fine, why didn’t they tape over the mouth of that nuisance kid spamming the already widely accepted viewpoint?
    Last edited by KC; 17-01-2019 at 04:53 PM.

  45. #1245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    They begged me to do it
    i.e. the KC - misc thread


    “intermittent reinforcement paradigms” - that’s a new one to me. Though I’ve heard of random reinforcement.


    The word spam is much like the word offensive. Mostly used by people that don’t like what someone is saying, whereas they find no offence with other similarly offensive comments. Such as people spamming that the new RAM is ugly. . Moreover, when society decided that the emperor’s clothes were just fine, why didn’t they tape over the mouth of that nuisance kid spamming the already widely accepted viewpoint?
    Here it is



    http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/sked.htm
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  46. #1246

    Default The TRUTH. Wild camels in Edmonton, A visit to the Royal Alberta Museum in Edmonton...........

    Well Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta. There's been some complaints this thread doesn't pertain to Edmonton, or Alberta. As usual, the advocates are nuts.

    That aside, lets add some Edmonton content with a visit to the Royal Alberta Museum.

    In the natural history geologic area the museum has historical pictures of the Athabasca glacier that show it's receding. They attribute this to "climate change'. The climate has changed, so they're right about that. Another chart describes climate of the past. The chart describes a time, circa 10,000 years ago when Edmonton was hotter and dryer.

    So the Royal Alberta Museum describes a time in the recent past, before CO2 rose, as hotter and dryer.

    You can find this display across from the display of Yesterday's camel. A camel that roamed the area of Edmonton during that hot, dry period, not long ago.

    Mexico to the Yukon.........., we got camels in the Yukon, but the climate thugs tell you 2018 is the "hottest year on record".

    They even ask me........., "What would it take for you to believe in climate change?" My new response......... "Camels in the Yukon".

    Thanks Royal Alberta Museum, thanks.


    "Yesterday's Camel (sometimes called Western Camel or American Camel) roamed western North America from Mexico to the Yukon, from about 1 million years ago to 10,000 years ago"




    Last edited by MrCombust; 18-01-2019 at 09:17 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  47. #1247
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,166

    Default

    To fight climate misinformation, point to the man behind the curtain


    Point not just to the lies, but who's behind them, researchers suggest.

    How can the misinformation campaign driving this divide be fought? Just reporting and reiterating the facts of anthropogenic climate change doesn’t seem to work. A paper in Nature Climate Change this week argues that attempts to counter misinformation need to draw on the research that is illuminating the bad actors behind climate denialism, the money funding them, and how their coordinated campaigns are disrupting the political process.
    Rebutting the misinformation is part of the strategy, they write—but we “must also confront the institutional and political architectures that make the spread of misinformation possible in the first place.”

  48. #1248
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Well Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta. There's been some complaints this thread doesn't pertain to Edmonton, or Alberta. As usual, the advocates are nuts.

    That aside, lets add some Edmonton content with a visit the Royal Alberta Museum.

    In the natural history geologic area the museum has historical pictures of the Athabasca glacier that show it's receding. They attribute this to "climate change'. The climate has changed, so they're right about that. Another chart describes climate of the past. The chart describes a time, circa 10,000 years ago when Edmonton has hotter and dryer.

    So the Royal Alberta Museum describes a time in the recent past, before CO2 rose, as hotter and dryer.

    You can find this display across from the display of Yesterday's camel. A camel that roamed the area of Edmonton during the hot, dry period, not long ago.
    It's almost like Earth's orbit and rotation change in predictable, well studied ways that explain past ice ages and intermediate warm periods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milank...ycles#Problems

  49. #1249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Well Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta. There's been some complaints this thread doesn't pertain to Edmonton, or Alberta. As usual, the advocates are nuts.

    That aside, lets add some Edmonton content with a visit the Royal Alberta Museum.

    In the natural history geologic area the museum has historical pictures of the Athabasca glacier that show it's receding. They attribute this to "climate change'. The climate has changed, so they're right about that. Another chart describes climate of the past. The chart describes a time, circa 10,000 years ago when Edmonton has hotter and dryer.

    So the Royal Alberta Museum describes a time in the recent past, before CO2 rose, as hotter and dryer.

    You can find this display across from the display of Yesterday's camel. A camel that roamed the area of Edmonton during the hot, dry period, not long ago.
    It's almost like Earth's orbit and rotation change in predictable, well studied ways that explain past ice ages and intermediate warm periods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milank...ycles#Problems
    Yes, here we see the Milankovitch cycles at work. Fractions of a degree over thousands of years.

    Natural variation in temperature greater than 4 degrees for 10,000 years. Now CO2 controls the temperature. So silly.

    Last edited by MrCombust; 18-01-2019 at 05:44 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  50. #1250
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    ^The graph posted above is just the latest example of your severe case of confirmation bias. You posted the graph because it confirms your bias that the present warming (to the extent it exists) is no big deal. Ice core samples going back 10,000 years - while somewhat useful as proxies for climate change - are full of unknowns and high degrees of uncertainty. Yet, because this particular graph confirms your bias, it is The Truth.

    Yet when information is presented that contradicts your bias, you claim it's because the data is fraudulent (as you did in post #1210 in replying to Arctic Sea Ice charts posted by Channing in #1206). Instead you post your own chart showing a trend of a very small increase in Arctic Sea Ice between 1972 and 1990. When I contradicted this in post #1218 with a chart showing a clear longer-term trend in Arctic Sea Ice decline since 1953, you failed to response to this evidence because it contradicts your own bias.

  51. #1251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^The graph posted above is just the latest example of your severe case of confirmation bias. You posted the graph because it confirms your bias that the present warming (to the extent it exists) is no big deal. Ice core samples going back 10,000 years - while somewhat useful as proxies for climate change - are full of unknowns and high degrees of uncertainty. Yet, because this particular graph confirms your bias, it is The Truth.

    Yet when information is presented that contradicts your bias, you claim it's because the data is fraudulent (as you did in post #1210 in replying to Arctic Sea Ice charts posted by Channing in #1206). Instead you post your own chart showing a trend of a very small increase in Arctic Sea Ice between 1972 and 1990. When I contradicted this in post #1218 with a chart showing a clear longer-term trend in Arctic Sea Ice decline since 1953, you failed to response to this evidence because it contradicts your own bias.
    Ice core data is corroborated by a mountain of data and has been reproduced in different locations by different teams but you say it has "high degrees of uncertainty"?????? Hysterical. Support your claim.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 19-01-2019 at 05:24 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  52. #1252
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    If you are seriously interested in the uncertainties of ice core data, there is a good overview at this link:

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal.../ice-cores.pdf

    Proxy data like ice cores and tree rings are always going to be less reliable than actual measurement. Among other limitations, they usually are only available for a handful of geographic locations rather than the entire globe. But since the earliest thermometers only came into widespread use in the mid-1800s, and measurement of sea ice extent only began in the mid-1900s, ice cores do provide some useful clues about what past climates might have been.

    The further you go back in time the greater the uncertainties are going to be. This is even true of the global surface temperature record. Until about 50 years ago, land based sites in the mid-latitudes of Europe and the United States tended to be over-represented in the temperature record. Which is the reason that some of these weather stations were eliminated by the various organizations measuring global temperatures, and a more representative sample of land and ocean stations located at all latitudes and longitudes added.

  53. #1253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    If you are seriously interested in the uncertainties of ice core data, there is a good overview at this link:

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal.../ice-cores.pdf

    Proxy data like ice cores and tree rings are always going to be less reliable than actual measurement. Among other limitations, they usually are only available for a handful of geographic locations rather than the entire globe. But since the earliest thermometers only came into widespread use in the mid-1800s, and measurement of sea ice extent only began in the mid-1900s, ice cores do provide some useful clues about what past climates might have been.

    The further you go back in time the greater the uncertainties are going to be. This is even true of the global surface temperature record. Until about 50 years ago, land based sites in the mid-latitudes of Europe and the United States tended to be over-represented in the temperature record. Which is the reason that some of these weather stations were eliminated by the various organizations measuring global temperatures, and a more representative sample of land and ocean stations located at all latitudes and longitudes added.
    Your link doesn't support your claim. A paper discussing uncertainties in a measurement proxy isn't a statement the proxy has "a high degree of uncertainty". Don't lecture me with crap you make up, and then post links that actually refute what you say.

    +- 2 year accuracy in a proxy going back 100,000 years?

    From your own link I guess you didn't read, or don't understand......

    "A handful of quantitative high-resolution reconstructions, notably of surface massbalance and temperature on the Antarctic (Monaghan et al., 2007; Schneider et al., 2006)and Greenland ice sheets (McConnell et al., 2000,Vinther et al., in review), has recentlybeen obtained from spatial networks of ice cores."

    ", they showed that while the absolute accuracy of thedating was 2 years, the relative accuracy among several cores was <0.5 year"
    Last edited by MrCombust; 19-01-2019 at 11:19 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3910111213

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •