Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The TRUTH about climate change

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

  • Originally posted by noodle View Post
    Mocking a 16 year old girl for trying to make the world a better place.

    Braaaaaaaaaavooooo.
    OK

    Comment


    • That was in a case that was Business-to-Business, centered around a creepy app & its creepy developers pitching a fit when Facebook closed off the holes in its API that their "find people in swimsuits" app used. It wasn't about user generated content on Facebook itself, it was about what information Facebook provided/published to developers via the API. Big distinction.

      Six4Three is taking its fifth shot at an ever-expanding set of claims and all of its claim turn on one decision, which is absolutely protected: Facebook’s editorial decision to stop publishing certain user-generated content via its Platform to third-party app developers.
      https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...rough-its-apps

      Damn facts/context & their liberal lefty bias!
      Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

      Comment


      • Once again - if Facebook lied about that, what else are they lying about?

        Comment


        • I don't understand why everything gets thrown out the window with climate change.

          Science gets thrown out the window. Skepticism is a basic tenet of science, but with climate science it's profane.
          Child abuse is warranted.
          Personal insults in discussion is advocated.
          Discussion itself is attacked, as evidenced by numerous posts by the advocates here.
          Everything the advocates accuse is what they do.
          Tech giants follow suit, attacking and blocking real scientists and the advocates throw the integrity of freedom of expression under the bus and hurrah the silencing of opposition. Again, a basic tenet of real science.

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

          Comment


          • Show us peer reviewed studies?
            A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

            Comment


            • The TRUTH. Latest IPCC report on the oceans is based on basic math errors.

              In post 1151 I discussed a paper that said the oceans were warming faster than expected. The paper was retracted by the journal because of basic, and obvious, math errors.

              The latest IPCC report on the oceans cites this retracted paper as a source.

              Top climate scientists at work. When climate advocates tell me "look at the science", I look. And I laugh.

              Here's the latest IPCC report citing Resplandy as a source.............

              "The Ocean and Cryospherein a Changing Climate

              This Summary for Policymakers was formally approved at the Second Joint Sessionof Working Groups I and II of the IPCC and accepted by the 51th Session of the IPCC,Principality of Monaco, 24th September 2019"

              https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/download-report/
              https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SRO...FullReport.pdf
              Last edited by MrCombust; 29-09-2019, 08:52 AM.
              "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

              Comment


              • What's suspicious is that the politicians in power have stopped calling it "global warming".

                They call it "climate change", and more recently "climate emergency".

                Why can't they just be honest?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
                  What's suspicious is that the politicians in power have stopped calling it "global warming".

                  They call it "climate change", and more recently "climate emergency".

                  Why can't they just be honest?
                  If they were honest the whole thing would be shut down. Honest people in climate science get fired. "No, we don't need a billion dollars and 20 satellites to study this, warming stopped 20 years ago".
                  How would that play at NASA?
                  "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
                    Nope. It means that Facebook is deciding what they think is true and what they think is false. Just like every publisher does.

                    Facebook, however, lies to us and argues that they are a platform, not a publisher. However, censoring/suppressing/deleting info they dislike makes them a publisher.
                    They are a business. Data miners, advertisers, sellers...

                    They have a broad base of users and so will respond accordingly in order to maximize growth and loyalty (aka inventory turnover, clicks, etc) and improve productivity and profit from their users/customers/etc. Newspapers, grocery stores, political parties, universities, religions, bloggers, anti-climate change advocacy groups, you name it, operate under the same principles. They will also, all, use their muscle to defend their market franchise against threats.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
                      What's suspicious is that the politicians in power have stopped calling it "global warming".

                      They call it "climate change", and more recently "climate emergency".

                      Why can't they just be honest?
                      And call it what?

                      In politics left and right used to mean quite different things than they generally mean today. Here the definition has been allowed to change. That’s dishonest.

                      Changing from global warming to climate change is a change in the definition too. It reflects the advancement of knowledge. Climate change captures other factors beyond just temperature increases. In comparison left and right in politics should have been replaced by new terminology as the views of what they are changed.

                      There’s warm water but there is also boiling water. Warm water doesn’t capture the change of state.
                      Last edited by KC; 27-09-2019, 06:31 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                        I don't understand why everything gets thrown out the window with climate change.

                        Science gets thrown out the window. Skepticism is a basic tenet of science, but with climate science it's profane.
                        Child abuse is warranted.
                        Personal insults in discussion is advocated.
                        Discussion itself is attacked, as evidenced by numerous posts by the advocates here.
                        Everything the advocates accuse is what they do.
                        Tech giants follow suit, attacking and blocking real scientists and the advocates throw the integrity of freedom of expression under the bus and hurrah the silencing of opposition. Again, a basic tenet of real science.

                        Baffling.
                        Yes odd. People get called liars, their blogs get called lying blogs... no effort to truly interact and understand the positions. Old dogma meets new dogma. The old dogma doesn’t do any science it only critiques science it opposes.

                        In the meantime scientists work away building knowledge. Their advocates and critics instead battle away on other fronts well away from the science itself.

                        Comment


                        • The TRUTH. Confessions of a climate scientist.

                          Top climate modeler calls ******** on climate models..........

                          From his book "Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis"

                          "These models completely lack some critically important climate processes and feedbacks, and represent some other critically important climate processes and feedbacks in grossly distorted manners to the extent that makes these models totally useless for any meaningful climate prediction. I myself used to use climate simulation models for scientific studies, not for predictions, and learned about their problems and limitations in the process. Ad hoc representation of clouds may be the greatest source of uncertainty in climate prediction.

                          A profound fact is that only a very small change, so small that it cannot be measured accurately…in the global cloud characteristics can completely offset the warming effect of the doubled atmospheric CO2.

                          Anyone studying real cloud formation and then the treatment in climate models would be flabbergasted by the perfunctory treatment of clouds in the models.

                          The temperature forecasting models trying to deal with the intractable complexities of the climate are no better than “toys” or “Mickey Mouse mockeries” of the real world.

                          the models just become useless pieces of junk or worse "

                          https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doom...lls-the-beans/
                          Last edited by MrCombust; 29-09-2019, 08:42 AM.
                          "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                            Top climate modeler calls ******** on climate models..........

                            From his book "Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis"

                            "These models completely lack some critically important climate processes and feedbacks, and represent some other critically important climate processes and feedbacks in grossly distorted manners to the extent that makes these models totally useless for any meaningful climate prediction. I myself used to use climate simulation models for scientific studies, not for predictions, and learned about their problems and limitations in the process. Ad hoc representation of clouds may be the greatest source of uncertainty in climate prediction.

                            A profound fact is that only a very small change, so small that it cannot be measured accurately…in the global cloud characteristics can completely offset the warming effect of the doubled atmospheric CO2.

                            Anyone studying real cloud formation and then the treatment in climate models would be flabbergasted by the perfunctory treatment of clouds in the models.

                            The temperature forecasting models trying to deal with the intractable complexities of the climate are no better than “toys” or “Mickey Mouse mockeries” of the real world.

                            the models just become useless pieces of junk or worse "

                            https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doom...lls-the-beans/
                            More from your link:

                            The iconoclast is Dr. Mototaka Nakamura. In June he put out a small book in Japanese on “the sorry state of climate science”. It’s titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis, and he is very much qualified to take a stand. From 1990 to 2014 he worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Centre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. He’s published about 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics.[i]
                            So now this seems like a more credible challenge. His involvement since 1990 might mean a greater depth of knowledge and experience.
                            Last edited by KC; 29-09-2019, 01:02 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Related issue and also challenging:

                              Digital Computers Fail to Accurately Model Chaos Because of Fundamental Numbers Limit

                              “They found that, for some values of the parameter, the computer predictions are totally wrong, whilst for other choices the calculations may appear correct, but deviate by up to 15%.

                              The authors say these pathological results would persist even if double-precision floating-point numbers were used, of which there are vastly more to draw on.

                              “We use the generalized Bernoulli map as a mathematical representation for many other systems that change chaotically over time, such as those seen across physics, biology and chemistry,” explained Professor Coveney. “These are being used to predict important scenarios in climate change, in chemical reactions and in nuclear reactors, for example, so it’s imperative that computer-based simulations are now carefully scrutinized.”

                              The team says that their discovery has implications for the field of artificial intelligence, when machine learning is applied to data derived from computer simulations of chaotic dynamical systems, and for those trying to model all kinds of natural processes.

                              More research is needed to examine the extent to which the use of floating-point arithmetic is causing problems in everyday computational science and modeling and, if errors are found, how to correct them.”

                              https://scitechdaily.com/digital-com...numbers-limit/
                              Last edited by KC; 29-09-2019, 06:52 PM.

                              Comment


                              • I support meaningful action to fight global warming. But to pretend that all of the consequences of a warming climate are going to be negative is itself a form of denialism. Especially on the Canadian Prairies where our relatively cold and dry climate has always been a constraint on crop production.

                                Whatever the wisdom of trumpeting these academic research results in a billboard campaign, requiring the resignation of the vice-president responsible is a complete over reaction.

                                https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...ntroversial-ad

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X