Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Still Believe in Global Warming?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by noodle View Post
    Even nutty people can sometimes take well reasoned positions. And both nutty and non-nutty people can act to protect their vested interests and flawed positions.

    I skimmed the link. Several of her positions and the rebuttals both seem reasonable. She says she suspects and the rebuttal provided information that she suspects wrong. Both positions seem fine.

    She posits a point about a change in trend on a single year data Point in the “spiral” comment and the rebuttal addresses it using averages. Both positions seem fine.
    Last edited by KC; 15-11-2019, 09:10 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by KC View Post
      Shades of Trump style open government:


      On the status of scientists’ emails – Climate Etc.

      Our article promptly came under attack by several scientists and by the Union of Concerned Scientists. PLOS then removed our article from its site, though left the comments about it online. Never mind that the article had been peer-reviewed and promoted on social media by PLOS. In removing the article, PLOS explained that it “was not consistent with at least the spirit and intent of our community guidelines.”

      https://judithcurry.com/2016/01/13/o...ntists-emails/
      KC, if you want your self-appointed role as the forum's sober-second-thought senator to have any credibility you will need to avoid giving credence to the irrational ravings of delusional zealots like Curry.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by OffWhyte View Post
        Originally posted by KC View Post
        Shades of Trump style open government:


        On the status of scientists’ emails – Climate Etc.

        Our article promptly came under attack by several scientists and by the Union of Concerned Scientists. PLOS then removed our article from its site, though left the comments about it online. Never mind that the article had been peer-reviewed and promoted on social media by PLOS. In removing the article, PLOS explained that it “was not consistent with at least the spirit and intent of our community guidelines.”

        https://judithcurry.com/2016/01/13/o...ntists-emails/
        KC, if you want your self-appointed role as the forum's sober-second-thought senator to have any credibility you will need to avoid giving credence to the irrational ravings of delusional zealots like Curry.
        I haven’t self appointed myself anything. Seems that that’s your perception and you are trying to put a label on my postings for some reason. What purpose does that serve?

        Plus, why do you assume that I seek credibility? What purpose does that serve? I’m an anonymous poster so should I prove - right - on any particular post, I should not obtain a ticket for a free uncritical ride any subsequent post.
        Last edited by KC; 15-11-2019, 09:24 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by KC View Post
          How did a hacking scandal impact climate science? - BBC News
          Ten years ago, hackers stole thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit. The scandal, known as 'Climategate', rocked the scientific world.
          Now, for the first time, all the key players recount the events and what really happened.
          The hacked emails resulted in a battle between the scientists and their critics over climate science and data transparency, which led to a media storm, a criminal investigation, multiple inquiries and death threats

          https://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_a...ence_headlines
          Correction: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-...climate-change
          Your link says............ "Documentary that reveals the truth"eveals the truth "

          Can you imagine how excited I got when I heard they were going to tell the TRUTH??????

          Then the video started with Michael Mann..........

          Well, here's Michael Mann NOT telling the truth to a Congressional science committee...............
          One minute in duration.



          Last edited by MrCombust; 15-11-2019, 02:31 PM.
          "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

          Comment


          • We're Doomed. Now What?
            by Chris Turner, Walrus Magazine November 2019

            https://thewalrus.ca/were-doomed-now-what/
            www.decl.org

            Comment


            • People in Edmonton like warming. Flights to Mexico every day at the airport.
              Nobody ever seems to die vacationing in Bermuda. We might be allright. Maybe ask the people from the Walrus what we're all going to die of when it's warmer. I'm curious about that but nobody will answer me.
              Last edited by MrCombust; 02-12-2019, 11:59 AM.
              "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GreenSPACE View Post
                We're Doomed. Now What?
                Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                We might be allright. Maybe ask the people from the Walrus what we're all going to die of when it's warmer. I'm curious about that but nobody will answer me.
                I guess doomed is a relative thing.

                You know the old adage that there's three sides to every story? The climate change believers, the climate change deniers, and the TRUTH.

                I still remember being told of the population crisis that would render the world unliveable by the year 2000 unless Canadians brought down their birth rate.  So we did.  Then the government decided thay needed to up immigration because Canadians weren't having enough children.  It seems that other countries didn't get the memo about the population crisis.

                As far as this latest crisis that the pundits are debating. Will the sky fall? I doubt it. We won't be doomed to an early death but our quality of life will be impacted to a large degree. We'll likely see extinctions of some species which is unfair. But us? Extinct? Not in this millennium.

                So the idealists -- or dumbasses, take your pick -- block bridges with pink canoes to school a group of people that are pretty much up to speed on the effects of climate change.  Unless, of course, they voted for Kenney, then they can't trusted to be in possession of a brain.

                Canada could swear off fossil fuel completely and the environment would still be in a downward spiral because of countries with vastly larger populations that are still going full tilt on the fossil fuel.  So we listen to agendas of the likes of Trudeau, or Notley, or Kenney, or Trump, and we fight amongst each other because you think you know better than me, and I think you're an fool because I clearly know better than you; but we are still going to have to suffer the consequences for the decisions made by those foreign nations that have their own agenda and probably dismiss climate change as a First World problem.
                Last edited by BoyleStreetBoy; 02-12-2019, 09:53 PM.
                ˙
                ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                  People in Edmonton like warming. Flights to Mexico every day at the airport.
                  Nobody ever seems to die vacationing in Bermuda. We might be allright. Maybe ask the people from the Walrus what we're all going to die of when it's warmer. I'm curious about that but nobody will answer me.
                  Nobody will answer you because posts like this make it obvious how little you understand about the climate, atmospheric science, science in general, the environment, our ecosystems or even geopolitics. "Other place are warmer so we'll be fine" is a bafflingly simple (ie. stupid) view of a complex issue that has way more to it than just the temperature, and yet you still seem to think that's all it is. And that's when you're actually willing to dip your toes in the idea that temperatures are even changing in the first place.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GreenSPACE View Post
                    We're Doomed. Now What?
                    by Chris Turner, Walrus Magazine November 2019

                    https://thewalrus.ca/were-doomed-now-what/
                    Thanks for finding this. I'm a huge fan of Chris Turner's perspective on energy and environment.

                    The following quote nicely sums up how I feel about the current Madrid gab fest:

                    No one in attendance at the BETD conference questioned the science driving this call to action, but many of us were also intimately familiar with the limits on the pace of change. Those limits are often cast by climate activists as failures of leadership and political will. The crisis, however, is well beyond the reach of any single conference hall full of diligent technocrats. It is a crisis of such scope and complexity that it can’t be fully addressed by elected policy makers beholden to the whims of voters. Yet this continues to be our preferred collective response: we call on politicians to assemble institutional tools as near as they can muster to the planetary scale of the calamity. Since the mid-1990s, the face of this approach has been a series of summits convened by the UN, which have led to two landmark climate agreements—the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 2016 Paris agreement. The late German politician Hermann Scheer, who guided his country’s policy as it became the first major industrial economy to commit to renewable energy as the primary power source of its future, characterized this morass of protocols, bans, targets, and limits as the “burden-sharing bazaar”—a place where the world’s ruling elites and industrial titans meet to decide who should be allowed to do the least to reduce emissions.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by East McCauley View Post

                      Thanks for finding this. I'm a huge fan of Chris Turner's perspective on energy and environment.

                      The following quote nicely sums up how I feel about the current Madrid gab fest:

                      "It is a crisis of such scope and complexity that it can’t be fully addressed by elected policy makers beholden to the whims of voters."
                      I love it when the climate thugs admit what they're actually after. The "whims of voters" is to be disregarded, as are "elected policy makers" that defend the will of the voters. In other words the UN wants a worldwide dictatorship of which they, the unelected, who are not beholden to voters, are the dictators and arbiters of worldwide wealth and policy.

                      And since it's a worldwide dictatorship, the sovereignty of Canada itself shall be second to the authority of the UN. After all "voters" with their "whims" are too stupid to be taken seriously, and must be governed by the unelected leaders of the UN, accordingly.

                      yup, that's what they want. Yup, that's what YOU want.

                      How well has that gone in the past?

                      Hitler and Stalin would be proud.
                      Last edited by MrCombust; 04-12-2019, 04:11 PM.
                      "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                      Comment


                      • ^The mind boggles.

                        How you could have drawn the implications you did from Chris Turner's article or my response leaves me at a complete loss.

                        Your ideological filter is either off the charts, or maybe you are (as some here suspect) in the employ of a Russian troll farm.

                        Comment


                        • Russian Troll Farm/Alberta UCP war room
                          A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                          Comment


                          • People who believe in climate change are both communists and fascists? That's a new one.

                            Comment


                            • Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming

                              The researchers compared annual average surface temperatures across the globe to the surface temperatures predicted in 17 forecasts. Those predictions were drawn from 14 separate computer models released between 1970 and 2001. In some cases, the studies and their computer codes were so old that the team had to extract data published in papers, using special software to gauge the exact numbers represented by points on a printed graph.

                              Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations, the team reports today in Geophysical Research Letters.
                              Seven older models missed the mark by as much as 0.1°C per decade. But the accuracy of five of those forecasts improved enough to match observations when the scientists adjusted a key input to the models: how much climate-changing pollution humans have emitted over the years. That includes greenhouse gases and aerosols, tiny particles that reflect sunlight. Pollution levels hinge on a host of unpredictable factors. Emissions might rise or fall because of regulations, technological advances, or economic booms and busts.

                              Comment


                              • You pick the climate model, you pick the time period, and you pick the temperature data. Match'm up and voila', you "predicted" the past? 2001?

                                Ha Ha. Climate "science" can "predict" the past.

                                This is what makes climate science such a riot.

                                This kinda crap is good for people like you.

                                The real predictions have all failed. Everybody knows it. The "pause" has resulted in the failure of every climate model. That's the real discussion in the climate community right now.
                                "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X