-
Climate Denial
-
What has never happened before for hundreds of thousands of years is the level of CO2.
[attachment=0]
-
Why are the papers on papers trying to explain away the DATA
Do you know what DATA is?
I’m the one who doesn’t know what science is?????????
You resort to uploaded graphics on ad hominem
You’re pathetic-
Yes, you are the one who doesn’t know what science is. Your arguments prove that since you have provided no facts or links to facts to back up your political opinion.
-
Even the Pope knows science & is going to announce it in an encyclical, no less. The oil industry behind the deniers’ funding is worried.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/world/europe/pope-francis-steps-up-campaign-on-climate-change-to-conservatives-alarm.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…nservatives-alarm.html[/link]
But now, as Francis prepares to deliver what is likely to be a highly influential encyclical this summer on environmental degradation and the effects of human-caused [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier]climate change[/link] on the poor, he is alarming some conservatives in the United States who are loath to see the Catholic Church reposition itself as a mighty voice in a cause they do not believe in.
As part of the effort for the encyclical, top [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church/index.html?inline=nyt-org]Vatican[/link] officials will hold a summit meeting Tuesday to build momentum for a campaign by Francis to urge world leaders to enact a sweeping United Nations [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier]climate change[/link]accord in Paris in December.
But climate policy advocates see a scheduled address by the pope to Congress in September as a potent moment about 30 percent of members of Congress are Catholics, more than belong to any other religion, according to [link=http://www.pewforum.org/2015/01/05/faith-on-the-hill/]a study published this year by the Pew Research Center[/link].
Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, invited the pope to speak to Congress, but some Catholics say that Mr. Boehner should prepare for some uncomfortable moments. Mr. Boehner, who is Catholic, has often criticized the Obama administration for what he calls its job killing environmental agenda.
Francis policy moves on climate change, particularly his use of the encyclical, go far beyond what has come before. Catholics point to other papal encyclicals that have had public policy impacts: Pope Leo XIIIs 1891 encyclical on labor and workers rights is believed to have spurred the workers rights movement and led to the creation of labor unions.
I think this moves the needle, said Charles J. Reid Jr., a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. Benedict was an ivory-tower academic. He wrote books and hoped they would persuade by reason. But Pope Francis knows how to sell his ideas. He is engaged in the marketplace.
-
You still have no idea what DATA is.
You are a data denier and claim to be a scientist.
Only politically oriented snake oil salesmen don’t accept 3 satellites readings of DATA since 1998, all of which show the same thing. No warming.
Kary Mullis saw it years ago, so did I, so did many other people who … just pay attention and are honest.-
Quote from Cigar
You still have no idea what DATA is.
You are a data denier and claim to be a scientist.
Only politically oriented snake oil salesmen don’t accept 3 satellites readings of DATA since 1998, all of which show the same thing. No warming.
Kary Mullis saw it years ago, so did I, so did many other people who … just pay attention and are honest.
KARY MULLIS????
He’s a nutjob! If you are basing your standards on him, you are lost! You’ve spoken about him before, no?
He believes that AIDS is NOT caused by HIV! That scientists who say so are involved in a world-wide conspiracy to steal $$$ by creating false premises (HIV causes AIDS) for fake research in order to obtain grants!
He believes in astrology!
He believes he was visited by a green extra-terrestial raccoon (probably named Rocket).
In 1992, Mullis founded a business with the intent to sell pieces of jewelry containing the amplified DNA of deceased famous people like [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley]Elvis Presley[/link] and [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Monroe]Marilyn Monroe[/link].
In his 1998 autobiography, Mullis expressed disagreement with the scientific evidence supporting [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change]climate change[/link] and [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion]ozone depletion[/link], the evidence that [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism]HIV causes AIDS[/link], and asserted his belief in [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology]astrology[/link]. Mullis claims climate change and the HIV/AIDS connection are due to a [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory]conspiracy[/link] of environmentalists, government agencies and scientists attempting to preserve their careers and earn money, rather than scientific evidence.[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#cite_note-Naked-7][7][/link][/sup] Mullis has drawn controversy for his association with prominent AIDS denialist [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg]Peter Duesberg[/link],[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#cite_note-Find-8][8][/link][/sup] claiming that AIDS is an arbitrary diagnosis only used when HIV antibodies are found in a patient’s blood.[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#cite_note-Informer-9][9][/link][/sup] The medical and scientific consensus is that Duesberg’s hypothesis is [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience]pseudoscience[/link], HIV having been conclusively proven to be the cause of AIDS[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#cite_note-iomreport-26][26][/link][/sup][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#cite_note-niaid-27][27][/link][/sup] and that global warming is occurring because of human activities.[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#cite_note-Beyond-28][28][/link][/sup][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#cite_note-National-29][29][/link][/sup][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#cite_note-30][30][/link][/sup] Seth Kalichman, AIDS researcher and author of [i]Denying AIDS[/i], “[admits] that it seems odd to include a Nobel Laureate among the who’s who of AIDS pseudoscientists”.[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#cite_note-Kalichman-10][10][/link][/sup] Mullis also wrote the foreword to the book [i]What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong?[/i] by [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Maggiore]Christine Maggiore[/link],[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#cite_note-Wrong-11][11][/link][/sup] an HIV-positive AIDS denialist who, along with her daughter, died of an AIDS-related illness.[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#cite_note-LATdeath-31][31][/link][/sup] A [i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times]New York Times[/link][/i]article listed Mullis as one of several scientists who, after success in their area of research, go on to make unfounded, sometimes bizarre statements in other areas.[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#cite_note-NYT-6][6][/link][/sup] An article in the [i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Inquirer]Skeptical Inquirer[/link][/i] described Mullis as an “…AIDS denialist with scientific credentials [who] has never done any scientific research on HIV or AIDS”.[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#cite_note-SI-12][12][/link][/sup]
Mullis reported an encounter with a glowing green raccoon at his cabin in the woods of northern California around midnight one night in 1985. He denies the involvement of LSD in this encounter.[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#cite_note-35][35][/link][/sup]
This is your standard by which to judge? Good luck to you. -
Now I recall him again, The Urantia Book, published in 1955 by aliens, as in from outer space aliens, as in extraterrestrials.
WOW. Impressive.
[link=http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/03/971-kary-mullis.html]http://americanloons.blog…3/971-kary-mullis.html[/link]
[blockquote][i]Quote from [b] [/b][/i]
– [link=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/HIV_denial]AIDS Denialism[/link]; Mullis is [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/weekinreview/28johnson.html?_r=0]fan and friend[/link] of AIDS denialist [link=http://www.americanloons.blogspot.com/2010/11/115-peter-duesberg.html]Peter Duesberg[/link], and shares the belief that AIDS is a conspiracy involving the government, scientists, and environmentalists (the role of the latter is described in his book [i]Dancing Naked in the Mind Field[/i]).[/blockquote]-
Again, distraction. What’s that got to do with data?
If you wanted to be fair (you don’t) you could have said he invented PCR. But all you do is unfair, unbalanced analysis. It’s not surprising.
If he’s a nutjob, it has no relevance on the Satellite data. Obviously, you have to obfuscate more and more precisely because you still don’t like the data, like all the other career warmers who try to explain it away, to no avail.-
Yeah, he was correct on HIV not causing AIDS, wasn’t he. And about the worldwide conspiracy of lies claiming HIV caused AIDS. Exactly the same scenario he claims about global climate change, a worldwide conspiracy based on lies in order to claim grant $$ under false and faked pretenses.
Why wouldn’t anyone not believe him.-
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/06/04/federal-scientists-say-there-never-was-any-global-warming-slowdown/]http://www.washingtonpost…obal-warming-slowdown/[/link]
[b]
[h1]Federal scientists say there never was any global warming pause[/b][/h1]
Its probably the biggest debate in the climate science arena of the last half decade.
Starting in at least early 2013, a number of scientific and public commentators have suggested that the rate of recent global warming has slowed or even stopped. The phenomena has been variably termed a pause, a slowdown, and a hiatus. Pointing to it is a favorite technique of climate change doubters recently employed by none other than presidential candidate Ted Cruz but it certainly doesnt stop with them.
[…]
But as a team of federal scientists report today in the prestigious journal Science, there may not have been any pause at all. The researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) adjusted their data on land and ocean temperatures to address residual data biases that affect a variety of measurements, such as those taken by ships over the oceans. And they found that newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAAs NCEI do not support the notion of a global warming hiatus.
In other words, maybe it wasnt about natural wobbles in the climate system at all but rather, simply about flaws in the data.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[url=http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/a-deep-dive-into-what-exxon-knew-about-global-warming-and-when-1978-it-knew-it/]What did Exxon Know and When Did It Know It?[/url]
[b]A deep dive into Exxon’s research on Global Warming as far back as the 1970s[/b]
InsideClimate News, showing the value of focused and sustained investigative reporting, has published the first piece in an illuminating review of what Exxon Mobil Corp. (and its earlier incarnations) learned through its own research from the 1970s onward about the potential climate impacts of rising emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use. The article is built around documents from various archives and interviews with former employees. A companion video report by the Frontline television team tells the story in the voices of former company scientists.
The probe by this team takes the timeline on Exxons focus on climate change several years earlier than a previous investigation of oil industry assessments of global warming by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The article and posted documents show how carefully Exxons corporate and legal side, more than manufacturing doubt, exploited the real uncertainty in the science to frame an argument against moving to stronger instruments than the non-binding 1992 climate treaty…
Wow.
-
Sounds identical to the tobacco industry’s reactions that smoking causes cancer, “Needs more study,” or “other factors actually cause the cancer blamed on smoking.”
Like breathing in cigarette smoke.
-
-
Quote from Frumious
Sounds identical to the tobacco industry’s reactions that smoking causes cancer, “Needs more study,” or “other factors actually cause the cancer blamed on smoking.”
Like breathing in cigarette smoke.
Yep. And you’re not the only one who sees the similarities.
[url=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/123137/democrats-request-doj-investigation-exxonmobil]Democrats Request a DOJ Investigation Into ExxonMobil, Alleging Climate Science Coverup[/url]California Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee requested a Department of Justice investigation into ExxonMobil on Wednesday, writing that the company’s behavior “is similar to cigarette companies that repeatedly denied harm from tobacco and spread uncertainty and misleading information to the public.” There have always been pronounced parallels between the tobacco and oil industryboth working to undermine regulatory action that could hamper profitbut a federal investigation may mean they share the same fate, as well.
In 1999, the DOJ investigated and eventually sued big tobacco for spreading misleading evidence about the connection between cigarettes and cancer. The companies violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, and faced repercussions for lying to the public about science. Now, Congressmen Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier of California say it could be Exxon’s turn.
“We ask that the DOJ similarly investigate ExxonMobil for organizing a sustained deception campaign disputing climate science and failing to disclose truthful information to investors and the public,” they wrote, according to a letter provided to the New Republic. “We request the DOJ investigate whether ExxonMobil violated RICO, consumer protection, truth in advertising, public health, shareholder protection, or other laws. The apparent tactics employed by Exxon are reminiscent of the actions employed by big tobacco companies to deceive the American people about the known risks of tobacco, the letter says.
-
2015 on track to the hottest year ever measured. A “return” of warming.
-
Freeman Dyson, colleague of Einstein and top scientist must also be a “denier” — but only because he actually knows science.
A true scientist who knows it’s all alarmism.-
Cigar
Are you a republican?
Serious? I thought you said before you were not-
Definitely not a republican, not sure what that has to do with this issue.
-
I thought I remembered you saying you were not but lately you have been pretty much sounding like a tea party type
I guess you are just a criticizer of everything and everyone with no ideas to stand on
basically a devils advocate-
I’ve clearly described my points. That global warming is a hoax is non-partisan. That’s why Freeman Dyson (a classic Democrat, yes that does make him different) sees that it’s a fraud; he knows science and is applying it here.
I don’t see much difference between establishment Republicans and Democrats, at all. I have points (many) why I believe this. I’ve discussed them. It’s not devils advocate, it’s supporting assertions with facts, that’s all.-
You just like to argue without offering no solutions
Classic doom and gloom devils advocate conservative.
You like no one and everyone is out to get you.
You are a republican-
On which issue do I argue but don’t give a solution?
This particular issue doesn’t require a “solution” because it’s a false choice and a hoax. Now that that’s settled (please use reason), name any issue I haven’t given a “solution” for.
I’ll now sit back and either answer or everyone realize that you just level charges that have nothing behind them, and try to make others look bad. Seems to me [i][b]YOU [/b][/i]just like to argue and stir the pot.
-
-
And HIV has not been proven to cause AIDS and smoking has not been proven to cause cancer. Anyone who says so is spreading a hoax and hysteria.
Seems we’ve heard these types of arguments many times before.
The warming is not global but local, making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. Far from expecting any drastic harmful consequences from these increased temperatures, he says the carbon may well be salubrious a sign that the climate is actually improving rather than getting worse, because carbon acts as an ideal fertilizer promoting forest growth and crop yields.
Local? Not global? Yes, depending where you are standing with the thermometer at any given moment. As for the world “improving” due to warming, where is [i]HIS[/i] data considering all the observations about migrating flora and fauna, changing dates of seasons, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, weather in general.
But wait, is he saying he agrees that warming is taking place or not? He seems to have a foot in both claims, warming is a fraud but warming is always good. Which is it, it can’t be both. Schroedinger’s Cat analogy only goes so far & can’t be easily applied outside of atomic references.
And in the event carbon is dangerously warming the climate GLOBALLY, not locally, his solution is:
I consider it likely that we shall have genetically engineered carbon-eating trees within twenty years, and almost certainly within fifty years.
Carbon-eating trees could convert most of the carbon that they absorb from the atmosphere into some chemically stable form and bury it underground. Or they could convert the carbon into liquid fuels and other useful chemicals.
Biotechnology is enormously powerful, capable of burying or transforming any molecule of carbon dioxide that comes into its grasp. [b]If one quarter of the worlds forests were replanted with carbon-eating varieties of the same species[/b], the forests would be preserved as ecological resources and as habitats for wildlife, and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be reduced by half in about fifty years.
Dyson made his mark in quantum physics, a science that is not friendly to easy experiments confirming theory. Yet he dismisses science with real data and modeling. And coal is the future of developing countries and denying them coal would keep them poor and destitute. Is that science?
All this may explain why the same man could write we live on a shrinking and vulnerable planet which our lack of foresight is rapidly turning into a slum and yet gently chide the sort of Americans who march against coal in Washington. Dyson has great affection for coal and for one big reason: It is so inexpensive that most of the world can afford it. Theres a lot of truth to the statement Greens are people who never had to worry about their grocery bills, he says. (Many of these people are my friends, he will also tell you.) To Dyson, the move of the populations of China and India from poverty to middle-class prosperity should be the great historic achievement of the century. Without coal it cannot happen. That said, Dyson sees coal as the interim kindling of progress.
A least Dyson doesn’t believe in talking raccoons from outer space like another hero of yours, cigar.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cigar seems to take advice from crackpots only…meanwhile I thought there was global warming until it cooled down last night. How come global warming only occurs during the day?
-
And summer. Winter proves it’s a hoax.
winter is coming…
Speaking of winter, I also read that Dyson thinks warming is keeping a new Ice Age at bay. That makes no sense if he believes warming is a hoax or even exaggerated. But then that’s the argument typical of deniers, first it’s all a hoax, no truth at all, then it is true but all due to “natural” causes like a warming sun or sunspots (cool spots on the sun’s surface, how does that work?), or some “natural” mechanism that we don’t understand, that is cyclical. Like the sun comes up every morning & goes to sleep at night. Mysterious.
-
I think he is an individual that stands for nothing but is against nearly everything
-
Frumious, you said, “Yet he dismisses science with real data and modeling. And coal is the future of developing countries and denying them coal would keep them poor and destitute. Is that science?”
Current “global warming” conclusions rely on MODELS, not science or DATA, which is science. MODELS are created by scientists and do not have to do with measurable data, they are guesses, wishes if you will, that are not observations but rather predictions. They are NOT testable.
Insomuch as they have been tested, these models have been proven time and time again for over a decade (actually 2)[i][b] to be dead wrong.[/b][/i]-
DATA is about past and present. MODELING is about future predictions. Like modeling the path of a hurricane or just tomorrow’s weather, sunny, cloudy, rain.
The same is true for quantum physics. A model is created to predict what happens in a quantum experiment. Hence the other day’s news story about the universe seems “spooky,” based on a model and subsequent experiment that seems to prove the model.
The other week we had 2 models about the path of hurricane Patricia, the American model and the European model. The European model correctly predicted the path, same as it did for Hurricane Sandy.
It’s all about modeling.
Duh.-
French mathematicians call BS on AGW global warming.
[link=http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/french-mathematicians-blast-uns-absurd-crusade-against-global]http://cnsnews.com/news/a…crusade-against-global[/link]
It is going to take the French to save us from the tyranny of the “elite”. Lol! … I guess they have experience with that. Hence the lyrics of the Marsaillese.
Finally we are getting some rational people pushing back on the nonsense. Vive La France!
-
Where is their math. Their claims are quite specious.
Human impact on the climate is tiny, quite negligible in comparison with natural causes, they point out. Human beings can do nothing about solar activity, the state of the oceans, the temperature of the Earths magna, or the composition of the atmosphere.
How exactly did they conclude that?
As regarding climate changing since the beginning, true but can they show warming and melting of glaciers at such a rapid pace in the past? And factors such as varying output of the sun have already been discounted by data & measurements.
This paper is nothing but denier’s opinion.No facts, just opinion.
-
The mathematicians need to explain sudden global melting & sudden rise in global temperatures. It is not the sun getting warmer; we have not moved closer to the sun in our orbit.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/27/world/greenland-is-melting-away.html]http://www.nytimes.com/in…d-is-melting-away.html[/link]
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/insider/a-drones-vantage-point-of-a-melting-greenland.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…melting-greenland.html[/link]
And while they’re at explaining their conclusions, they can also explain their conclusion that higher CO2 is a good thing, especially in light of warming North Atlantic waters. Or are they also denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
That’s not scientific.
[link=http://www.techtimes.com/articles/101190/20151030/climate-change-blamed-for-collapse-of-iconic-new-england-cod-populations.htm]http://www.techtimes.com/…nd-cod-populations.htm[/link]
Populations of cod, long a mainstay for New England fisheries and an iconic inhabitant of the ecosystem of the Gulf of Maine, are near collapse, and scientists are pointing the finger of blame at climate change.
Despite conservation efforts, including strict fishing quotas, cod stocks have fallen to between three and four percent of possible sustainable levels because climate change has warmed gulf waters much faster than is seen in the rest of the Atlantic Ocean, researchers say.
The Gulf of Maine has warmed an average of 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit every year, a rate faster than seen in 99.9 percent of the rest of the Atlantic, they note.
Decreased reproduction and increased mortality among the once abundant Atlantic cod has been the result of those rising temperatures coming on top of decades of overfishing, they [link=http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/10/28/science.aac9819]report[/link] in the journal [i]Science[/i].
The warming has been associated with fluctuations in the path of the Gulf Stream and oscillations in climate in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, they explain.
-
And I heard this on CBC radio this weekend…
[link=http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/08/north-sea-cod-stocks-bounce-back-analysis-shows]http://www.theguardian.co…ce-back-analysis-shows[/link]
“North Sea cod stocks are improving rapidly and could be certified as sustainable within five years, according to fresh analysis.”-
There seems to be ping-pong news articles in the news of declining cod populations that won’t bounce back & then another article declaring cod populations bouncing back for years now. So what’s the truth? I think the population hasn’t bounced back to old normal levels.
Seems to be where fish are measured and there are various reasons for the decline/recovery.
Yours from April 5, 2015 in The Guardian.
Mine from Tech Times of Oct 30, 2015.
July 2, 2012 [link=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/cod-making-a-comeback-in-newfoundland-research-shows/article4385506/]http://www.theglobeandmai…-shows/article4385506/[/link]
[link=https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/08/01/cod-population-falling-sharply-gulf-maine-new-study-shows/XiYBFSMFLUKd60ux23rESI/story.html]https://www.bostonglobe.c…d60ux23rESI/story.html[/link]
[link=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130326-fish-stocks-rebound-fisheries-management/]http://news.nationalgeogr…-fisheries-management/[/link]
[link=http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-cod-fishing-20140831-story.html]http://www.latimes.com/na…ng-20140831-story.html[/link]
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/02/opinion/where-have-all-the-cod-gone.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…-all-the-cod-gone.html[/link]
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/opinion/the-shocking-news-about-cod.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…ng-news-about-cod.html[/link]
[link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/cod_fish/index.html]http://topics.nytimes.com…/c/cod_fish/index.html[/link]
From 2002: [link=http://fisherycrisis.com/nscod.htm]http://fisherycrisis.com/nscod.htm[/link]
Oct 1, 2015 [link=http://wwlp.com/2015/10/01/dwindling-cod-populations-means-higher-seafood-prices/]http://wwlp.com/2015/10/0…higher-seafood-prices/[/link]
A Wiki entry on cod populations:
[link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery]https://en.wikipedia.org/…_northwest_cod_fishery[/link]
Populations had declined so bad that fishing was severely restricted.
[link=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cod-could-recover-in-warming-waters/]http://www.scientificamer…ver-in-warming-waters/[/link]
The first clue came in 2008, recalled George Rose, a marine biologist at Memorial University of Newfoundland, when he saw the cod aggregating in large numbers offshore during the spawning season. It was a sight he had sorely missed in 15 years. In the early 1990s, cod fisheries suffered such a dramatic collapse that they emerged as an aquatic poster child for fisheries mismanagement, according to Rose.
In a paper published yesterday in the [i]Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences[/i], Rose and his colleague, Sherrylynn Rowe, document the comeback of the Atlantic cod off Newfoundland and Labrador over the past decade. The fact that they have shown that the cod stock there is on the way to recovery is good news, Rose said, as it shows that it is not all gloom and doom.
Their study attributed the recovery to improved environmental conditions, better fish management and the availability of an important food source, capelin, whose populations also fell drastically in the early 1990s and have recently bounced back, too. The rebound of Atlantic cod in this region contrasts with their rapidly declining populations off the northeastern coast of the United States, where until last year the stocks remained significantly below sustainable levels. [b][u]Previous research has associated this persistent population slump with the pressures of overfishing and also warming waters.[/u] The warming temperatures, however, seem to be favoring a cod fishery revival in Newfoundland and Labrador, or at least not hampering its recovery.[/b]
But Rose maintains that the stock in Newfoundland and Labrador is no longer imperiled, though he agreed that the favorable conditions are localized and may not exist for other cod stocks.
In the western Atlantic, the range of the cod stretches from the waters of Cape Hatteras, N.C., northward to both coasts of Greenland and the Labrador Sea off Canadas east coast. The depletion of cod fisheries in New England, a coastal tract in the northeastern United States, is well documented and is also believed to have been precipitated by overfishing. According to recent reports, the current populations of the stock here are only 3 to 4 percent of sustainable levels.
-
Thanks Frumi. Food for thought.
I did like the name of the researcher…Dr. Tom Pickerell.
I’ve fished chain pickerel. They’ve been introduced to some lakes here on the east coast. Good sport, but they clean out all the other species in the lake.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Thor
Cigar seems to take advice from crackpots only…meanwhile I thought there was global warming until it cooled down last night. How come global warming only occurs during the day?
Notice that the last posts have been on topics that have nothing to do with the thread subject. That’s what you get from people who don’t know that science is based on observable and testable data, not projected models …. which have turned out wrong in any event! Amazing that you guys act like you know what science is.
Do you know what the scientific method is? Or just character assassination? The latter is a proof you don’t. Thanks for that admission.-
Oh my poor you
Typical millennial
Why is everyone attacking you
-
-
-
New issue of National Geographic is about climate change.
[link=http://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/special-issue/]http://www.nationalgeogra…-change/special-issue/[/link]-
There is a new pesky little data problem for the AGW climatista crowd (besides the “Great Pause” in warming of the last 21 years):
NASA data shows the Antarctic ice mass is actually growing. The science is settled… Heh!
[link=http://www.aol.com/article/2015/11/02/nasa-says-antarctic-ice-may-be-growing-after-all/21257391/]http://www.aol.com/articl…ng-after-all/21257391/[/link]
-
Quote from aldadoc
There is a new pesky little data problem for the AGW climatista crowd (besides the “Great Pause” in warming of the last 21 years):
NASA data shows the Antarctic ice mass is actually growing. The science is settled… Heh!
[link=http://www.aol.com/article/2015/11/02/nasa-says-antarctic-ice-may-be-growing-after-all/21257391/]http://www.aol.com/articl…ng-after-all/21257391/[/link]
There was no Great Pause. It is a figment of imagination. During this so-called pause, glaciers continued to melt and temperatures continued to break global records, something of an oxymoron. As temperatures of the oceans have shown, water temperatures have been increasing during this period.
Dergon & I both posted articles saying that the Pause was no pause at all. & you disagreed at those times without showing why.
-
Speaking of climate denial. I wonder what the dinks at VW brand were thinking. Even more of their motors are cheaters. Now we’re out Porsche also with the Cayenne TDI. Multi Audis and Muti VWs.
[link=http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-vw-action-20151102-story.html]http://www.latimes.com/bu…on-20151102-story.html[/link]
Can I get a side of acid rain with my clean diesel.-
Funny, they seemed to have stopped talking about acid rain once global warming became fashionable.
What I want to know is this: how can it be that the solutions to the now out of fashion theory of global cooling, and the current fashion of global warming, the same? -
Diesel pollution is about NO2 pollution, a health hazard, nothing to do with climate change. Same with acid rain caused by H2SO4 from burning coal.
-
Quote from Frumious
Diesel pollution is about NO2 pollution, a health hazard, nothing to do with climate change. Same with acid rain caused by H2SO4 from burning coal.
I’d argue it’s the same. I consider the climate to be more than the weather and more about the environment we live in. If you’re polluting the environment with NO2/Health hazard than your changing it for the worse. The acid rain thing was more in jest but I believe the H2SO4 is Acid Rain not what causes acid rain. Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxides (NO2) mixed in the atmosphere become acid rain*.
*****I think I got a C in chemistry-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Quote from Frumious
Diesel pollution is about NO2 pollution, a health hazard, nothing to do with climate change. Same with acid rain caused by H2SO4 from burning coal.
I’d argue it’s the same. I consider the climate to be more than the weather and more about the environment we live in. If you’re polluting the environment with NO2/Health hazard than your changing it for the worse. The acid rain thing was more in jest but I believe the H2SO4 is Acid Rain not what causes acid rain. Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxides (NO2) mixed in the atmosphere become acid rain*.
*****I think I got a C in chemistry
But I don’t think the number of diesels emitting NO2 are significant enough to cause significant pollution like acid rain, unlike the amounts caused by coal plants.
-
Frumious lacks so much science knowledge that he has this idea that “future” data exists.
Science is observation. Not models. DUH
That’s the most basic idea in science. Models are hypotheses, they are to be TESTED. Not followed religiously.
You literally know nothing about science, and these points prove it.-
Quote from Cigar
Frumious lacks so much science knowledge that he has this idea that “future” data exists.
Science is observation. Not models. DUH
That’s the most basic idea in science. Models are hypotheses, they are to be TESTED. Not followed religiously.
You literally know nothing about science, and these points prove it.
Data without models are nothing.
In the 1980’s MRIs were producing a lot of data and images but people looked at the images and asked what does this data show? It was the models of this data linked to these results/conditions & showing models “predicting” based on data observation that led to the medical science of MRI today.
You can all the empty data you like but it means nothing with out analysis which includes prediction such as “if I see this I probably have that…” and “If you have that it possibly can be treated by this…” or “Let’s see what happens to that when we do this…” and finally, “If you have that we can do this to treat that…”
Medicine is a prediction model.
DUH
-
-
Quote from Frumious
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Quote from Frumious
Diesel pollution is about NO2 pollution, a health hazard, nothing to do with climate change. Same with acid rain caused by H2SO4 from burning coal.
I’d argue it’s the same. I consider the climate to be more than the weather and more about the environment we live in. If you’re polluting the environment with NO2/Health hazard than your changing it for the worse. The acid rain thing was more in jest but I believe the H2SO4 is Acid Rain not what causes acid rain. Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxides (NO2) mixed in the atmosphere become acid rain*.
*****I think I got a C in chemistry
But I don’t think the number of diesels emitting NO2 are significant enough to cause significant pollution like acid rain, unlike the amounts caused by coal plants.
keep in mind one diesel might as well well be 10 diesels right now in VWs case. Agree about coal plats. That’s one of the issues with Lake Erie. Coal plant emission, especially things like Mercury are in the water and get in the ecosystem. So you end up with warning like don’t eat to many perch or walleye.
-
“The Great Pause” is real.
[link=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/08/theres-life-in-the-old-pause-yet/]http://wattsupwiththat.co…-in-the-old-pause-yet/[/link]
[i]”…no global warming for 18 years 8 months since February 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause.”[/i]
[link=http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/08/06/a-new-record-pause-length-no-global-warming-for-18-years-7-months-temperature-standstill-extends-to-233-months/]http://www.climatedepot.c…extends-to-233-months/[/link]
Frumi’s and Dergon’s articles stating that there is no “great pause” are based on surface temperatures, not satellite data. It is well known that satellite temperature data is more accurate than surface temperature data. The climate alarmists chose to ignore the satellite data (without acknowledging what they were doing) and publish the surface temperature data. This is the height of deceptiveness and an affront to the scientific method. Shame on you!
.-
French weatherman fired for writing a book denying global warming.
[link=http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/02/top-french-weatherman-fired-for-denying-global-warming/]http://dailycaller.com/20…enying-global-warming/[/link]
The Bolsheviks live.
-
No the sea buoys showed the increasing temperatures of the ocean. How do you expect to just heat land surfaces while the ocean remains cold? The ocean is not part of the Earth?
[link=http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469]http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469[/link]Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming hiatus. Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a slowdown in the increase of global surface temperature.
Previous analyses of global temperature trends during the first decade of the 21st century seemed to indicate that warming had stalled. This allowed critics of the idea of global warming to claim that concern about climate change was misplaced. Karl [i]et al.[/i] now show that temperatures did not plateau as thought and that the supposed warming hiatus is just an artifact of earlier analyses. Warming has continued at a pace similar to that of the last half of the 20th century, and the slowdown was just an illusion. -
Quote from aldadoc
“The Great Pause” is real.
[link=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/08/theres-life-in-the-old-pause-yet/]http://wattsupwiththat.co…-in-the-old-pause-yet/[/link]
[i]”…no global warming for 18 years 8 months since February 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause.”[/i]
[link=http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/08/06/a-new-record-pause-length-no-global-warming-for-18-years-7-months-temperature-standstill-extends-to-233-months/]http://www.climatedepot.c…extends-to-233-months/[/link]
Frumi’s and Dergon’s articles stating that there is no “great pause” are based on surface temperatures, not satellite data. It is well known that satellite temperature data is more accurate than surface temperature data. The climate alarmists chose to ignore the satellite data (without acknowledging what they were doing) and publish the surface temperature data. This is the height of deceptiveness and an affront to the scientific method. Shame on you!
.
Which is exactly my point about consensus not being science, and “science” being political.
True science is weighing all of the data, not selecting data to confirm your hypothesis. The latter is called fraud.
You could also call it a hoax, since it’s not science. By the way, do you think Barack Obama understands science or climate theory?
Give.Me.A.Break
He’s not even honest about what he was “trained” in (the Constitution). But he knows about science now, too?
You guys are a joke. -
Did you really take a science class in medical school & are you just pretending that you went?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from xrayer31
Funny, they seemed to have stopped talking about acid rain once global warming became fashionable.
What I want to know is this: how can it be that the solutions to the now out of fashion theory of global cooling, and the current fashion of global warming, the same?Another imaginative hoax invented by environmentalists & scientists?
Well, you are wrong. Several NE States have sued the EPA for not doing enough about acid rain. Acid rain has become less of a problem since the 1970’s-1980’s due, funnily enough, by the exchange of pollution credits, a Republicans idea that Democrats & environmentalists both thought a bit nuts. But it worked. It is the identical model for carbon credits that Republicans oppose today as a nutty “environmentalist” idea.
The Gods do have a sense of humor & it is we who are the butt of the joke.
Also the global downturn in the use of coal has contributed to acid rain not being a huge issue anymore.
[link=http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/2014/apr/acid-rain]http://www.environmentalh…nce/2014/apr/acid-rain[/link]
Lakes in the U.S. Northeast are recovering from acid rain faster now than in the past, according to a new study.
In many parts of the world, lakes turned more acidic beginning in the 1970s due to sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emitted by power plants, factories and vehicles. In upstate New York and New England, some lakes have been recovering very slowly or not at all, even though acid rain has declined.
Acid rain can kill fish and other aquatic life, deplete forest soils of nutrients and increase toxic metals, such as aluminum and mercury, in lakes and streams.
For the new study, researchers analyzed 43 sites in New Yorks Adirondack Mountains and 31 sites in New England. Sulfate concentrations, which are a measure of acidity, declined at a rate nearly three times faster between 2002 and 2010 than during the 1980s and 1990s. Nitrates, which also acidify, showed a decline for the first time after 2000.
[link=http://poststar.com/news/local/officials-say-acid-rain-is-on-the-decline-in-adirondack/article_f41e32b2-1db0-11e3-ac52-0019bb2963f4.html]http://poststar.com/news/…ac52-0019bb2963f4.html[/link]
Until a few years ago, Silver Lake was too acidified to support a trout population.
Environmentalists say the recovery of Silver Lake, and other lakes and ponds, is evidence that victory is in sight in the battle against acid rain in the Adirondacks, once feared by some to be an unwinnable fight.
Were getting very close to the point where we can say, Acid rain is no longer a problem in the Adirondacks, said John Sheehan, a spokesman for The Adirondack Council, an environmental organization.
In 1998, more than 500 lakes and ponds out of 2,800 in the Adirondack Park were too acidic to support the plants and fish that once existed there, according to an Adirondack Council report at the time.
Rain that contains sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides is known as acid rain.
Coal-burning electricity-generating plants in the Midwest have been the main source of the pollutants, which were spewed out of smokestacks and carried by prevailing winds over the Adirondacks.
Melting snow in the spring months brought heavy concentrations of the pollutants all at once into waterbodies, causing an effect environmentalists called acid shock.
Early in the fight, the Canadian government claimed the United States was not doing enough to stop acid rain.
It is the worst environmental hazard to ever face my country, said Canadian Environmental Minister John Fraser, speaking at a conference at Silver Bay Association in Hague in September 1983, according to an Associated Press report in The Post-Star archives.
But officials and organizations from Quebec, New York and other northeastern states worked together on advocacy.
[b]In 1990, President H.W. Bush, a Republican, negotiated with a Democratic Congress to enact an amendment to the federal Clean Air Act that established a trading system to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, said Bauer, executive director of Protect the Adirondacks.[/b]
[b]The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency annually issues sulfur dioxide pollution allowances that get sold in a trading system similar to a stock exchange.[/b]
[b]Each allowance entitles the owner to release one ton of sulfur dioxide pollution into the air, with the number of allowances available reduced over time.[/b]
Some allowances have been bought by power companies, and some by people who retire the allowance instead of using it.
Nitrogen oxide emissions were added to the allowance system in 2000, Bauer said.
The strategy was a way of balancing environment and economy, said U.S. Rep. Bill Owens, D-Plattsburgh.
It worked, he said.
Its a market-based solution and its proven to work, Tonko said. Weve seen significant national environmental change where ecosystems have now stabilized and are recovering.
Advocates were successful, in part, by making the case acid rain was hurting tourism, Owens said.
Very difficult to do in many cases, he said. In this particular case, very clear because acid rain was killing one of our major industries which is tourism.
-
Is ignoring real data, the best data, good science? Or is it pseudo-science? You must answer this before we proceed.
But you won’t, because you guys never answer simple questions that expose your agenda, which is politically driven pseudo-science, and I’ve exposed you.
You can’t disregard the top data (Satellite) and act like others will, or should, take you seriously.-
You never say what data is being “ignored.” You never say what is “good science.” You do deal in pseudo-science as a rule, however.
Models are not pseudo-science, they are science. Our field uses models as a rule. Some models are more accurate than others & testing is what proves the models’ accuracy. Blindly condemning modeling is anti-science.Freeman Dyson doesn’t condemn modeling, his opinion is that the models are inaccurate, that the message is too strident, not that modeling is pseudo-science.
Again, have you ever taken an advanced science course & what don’t you understand about science?
-
Here cigar & Alda,
Bill Nye & Arnold Schwarzenegger did a thing about climate change & denial on National Geographic. But then Geographic and AAS & all the rest are in on the conspiracy or delusion. They have a long history of pseudo-science delusion and conspiracies.
[link=http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/now-its-bill-nye-with-climate-change-denial-and-arnold-schwarzenegger-to-the-rescue/]http://dotearth.blogs.nyt…enegger-to-the-rescue/[/link]-
Look how Frumious can’t and won’t answer basic questions.
Thanks for confirming it. You posted twice and wasted everyone’s time again.
You seem to not understand, over and over, that the scientific method is putting forth a hypothesis, with collection of data subsequently used to confirm or deny the hypothesis.
Not ignored data (Satellite, which nullify hypotheses in your cohort). Not futuristic models based on things that ARE NOT IN DATA (as all the models in your pseudo world are). Your models don’t use the data that is available. They are UNSCIENTIFIC.
You are a witch doctor and call others names. It’s just plain silly.-
The fastest warming rate lasting 15 years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
Read more: [link=http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/08/06/a-new-record-pause-length-no-global-warming-for-18-years-7-months-temperature-standstill-extends-to-233-months/#ixzz3qTICYdF4]http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/08/06/a-new-record-pause-length-no-global-warming-for-18-years-7-months-temperature-standstill-extends-to-233-months/#ixzz3qTICYdF4[/link]
Essentially you cherry pick data and pick the period of time you care about. Moreover there is a bias that a 1-2 C rise is non-significant. In fact your link confirms that global warming is occurring, just dismisses the its significance based on the number, not the effects of that warming
-
Interestingly, you hypocrite, you cherry picked everything post 1950, when extreme “warming” occurred 1910-50, and also had occurred 1860-1880, the latter two showing greater percentage increases in warming.
Your models should exponentially predict greater warming. But, they don’t, because you cherry pick absolutes and have no evidence it’s from us in the first place. Your hypothesis is flat out wrong.-
I would think that given 4+ billion years of history, what happens in 100-150 years that we have measured is statistically insignificant.
-
I cherry picked nothing…I simply quoted your link which says global temps are rising 1-2 C per century. Also noted that the so-called “pause” involves arbitrarily choosing two dates rather than longer trends. Past warming events in no way contradict the idea that current warming trends are the result of human activity. Guessing you don’t own any beach front property
-
Quote from xrayer31
I would think that given 4+ billion years of history, what happens in 100-150 years that we have measured is statistically insignificant.
Seriously???
A temp rise of 1.5 degrees C is insignificant? Melting of glaciers is insignificant?
Can you show a similar insignificant rise and melting within all of recorded history? How far back do you have to go to find such rapid melting even into prehistoric eras? Not likely you can find anything that happened so quickly unless it was a meteor. Looking into the past & finding warmer those climes, what was the reason for the warmer climes? Do we have them today? What was the cause then? maybe continental drift was part of the change? Not likely we are suffering from sudden continental drift today, no?
Where do you get your information & how do you arrive at “insignificant?” Please explain, I am truly curious. Especially since you are comparing climate change within 4 BILLION years to today’s 150 years. Quite a comparison. What is that?
150:4,000,000,000?
At what point in the past has the Earth’s GLOBAL temperatures changed so rapidly? I’d like to know. Where did you get your information? As cigar likes to say, “DATA.” When did it happen?
Question, you KNOW that the Earth’s temperature was higher in the past? How do you know if scientists lie? How do you know they are not also lying about the past’s hotter climates?
-
-
[link=http://www.skepticalscience.com/2015-very-bad-year-for-gwpf.html]http://www.skepticalscien…bad-year-for-gwpf.html[/link]
Desperate to hold on to the pause that never happened in global warming, David Whitehose has penned a piece for the [link=http://www.thegwpf.com/2015-a-very-good-year-for-warm-weather/]Global Warming Policy Foundation[/link](GWPF). What he really shows is that its a very bad year indeed for the GWPF.
He objects to this graph:
[attachment=0]
It shows global temperature year-to-date (using data from NOAA) for 2015 (thats the one way at the top) compared to the same for the next six hottest years on record. David Whitehouse doesnt like that because it shows, in graphic terms, how much hotter this year has been than its predecessor, and just how likely it is that 2015 will be the new #1 hottest. A fact which even David Whitehouse admits.
Surprising? Of course not. Because the globe is warming. Because of us. As for the pause that David Whitehouse and the GWPF so desperately cling to it never happened.
-
-
-
-
-
-
The point is that the slope is ever upward. There is only a plateau is you make small lines at a time, say from 1998 to 2010, totally ignoring the full slope. Also know as playing with the numbers.
An excellent visualization of the impact of El Nino (and La Nina) on the underlying global warming trend is the SkS animated gif that shows the temperature trend for separate Nino/neutral/Nina years.
[attachment=0]
-
“A temp rise of 1.5 degrees C is insignificant? Melting of glaciers is insignificant?”
Glaciers have melted. And reformed. And melted again. And reformed. And so on. all prior to the industrial ages… What has happened during the course of human existence against the backdrop of the entire history of the earth is not yet statistically significant.-
Quote from xrayer31
“A temp rise of 1.5 degrees C is insignificant? Melting of glaciers is insignificant?”
Glaciers have melted. And reformed. And melted again. And reformed. And so on. all prior to the industrial ages… What has happened during the course of human existence against the backdrop of the entire history of the earth is not yet statistically significant.
When and over how long a period?. When is the last time the glaciers melted & how long did it take? Or to make it simpler, when was the last Ice Age and how long did it take for the warming to occur to the present coastline contours & climate from that cold climate? It wasn’t 150 years, it was significantly more.
How about thousands of years more. Here is a graph from ice cores over 400,000 years. But then scientists are also lying about that too, no?
[attachment=0]
And, BTW, we are at or very close to 400 ppm of CO2 now, all within the past 150 years.
-
More. Always in a minimum of 10’s of thousands of years melting and reforming.
[link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age[/link]
The [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation]current ice age[/link], the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, started about 2.58 million years ago during the late [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene]Pliocene[/link], when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period]glacial periods[/link], glacials or glacial advances, and [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial]interglacial[/link] periods, interglacials or glacial retreats. The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. All that remains of the continental [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_sheet]ice sheets[/link] are the [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet]Greenland[/link] and [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet]Antarctic ice sheets[/link] and smaller glaciers such as on [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baffin_Island]Baffin Island[/link].
Ice ages can be further divided by location and time; for example, the names [i]Riss[/i] (180,000130,000 years [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present]bp[/link]) and [i][link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BCrm_glaciation]Würm[/link][/i] (70,00010,000 years bp) refer specifically to glaciation in the [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alps]Alpine region[/link]. The maximum extent of the ice is not maintained for the full interval. The scouring action of each glaciation tends to remove most of the evidence of prior ice sheets almost completely, except in regions where the later sheet does not achieve full coverage.
Here are glaciations over your 4.6 BILLION years.[attachment=0]
-
This is what’s so stupid about these idiot gov’t control freaks. Even if we are wrong, which we aren’t, [b]it doesn’t matter.[/b]
They tell people to stop having kids and love people who hate everything about them and their culture … just asking for those that they consider to be culturally irrelevant equals to turn the society that their forefathers gave them into a 3rd world.
The insanity of the left knows no bounds.
99% of the world doesn’t give a sht about you and your self important crap, EVEN if you are right!
I don’t understand why they can’t get this point through their thick skulls. If you’re right, it doesn’t matter, and if you’re wrong, it is absolute suicide.
The lefty brain is insane.-
You should be GRATEFUL for global warming!!!
[link=http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616937/GLOBAL-COOLING-Decade-long-ice-age-predicted-as-sun-hibernates]http://www.express.co.uk/…cted-as-sun-hibernates[/link]-
Quote from DoctorDalai
You should be GRATEFUL for global warming!!!
[link=http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616937/GLOBAL-COOLING-Decade-long-ice-age-predicted-as-sun-hibernates]http://www.express.co.uk/…cted-as-sun-hibernates[/link]
Ah, a fraudulent story passed as real to those who don’t like science, who get their “scientific” facts from Facebook. Looks like all the right-wingnut anti-science sites picked it up as fact.
Thank you for the comedy interlude, Dalai. It helps break the hostile tension from those who hate science.
BTW, Dalai, again thanks for the comedy interluds as the article you posted shows a Martian “”peering out of a cave” in the NASA Red Planet picture.” Shows the paper is really up on its science.
[link=http://www.snopes.com/2015/07/16/solar-glower/]http://www.snopes.com/2015/07/16/solar-glower/[/link]
The article referenced above (originating with a site many Facebook users visit to obtain science news) and a number of similar other pieces caused interest in the term “[link=https://www.facebook.com/topic/Little-Ice-Age/111908185493086?source=stm]Little Ice Age[/link]” to spike on social media sites. But just as the topic trended, it also became the focus of critical assessment (with, unfortunately, much of that assessment coming after interest in a “mini ice age” peaked).
Though University of Northumbria mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova, who led the sunspot research, did find that the magnetic waves that produce sunspots (which are associated with high levels of solar activity) are expected to counteract one another in an unusual way in the coming years, the press release about her research mentions nothing about how that will affect the Earths climate. [b]Zharkova never even used the phrase mini ice age.[/b] Meanwhile, several other recent studies of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
The [i]Washington Post[/i] added another important bit of context to the story, noting that “Zharkova’s findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so her conclusions havent been vetted and refined.” On 14 July 2015, [i]IFLS[/i] followed up with an [link=http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming]article[/link] titled “There Probably Won’t Be a Mini Ice Age In 15 Years,” which backpeddled claims made in the original:
On 15 July 2015 [i]IFLS[/i] published another [link=http://www.iflscience.com/environment/no-we-aren-t-heading-mini-ice-age]article[/link] (this time titled “No, We Arent Heading Into a Mini Ice Age'”) which blamed science (and not media inaccuracy) for the widespread misreporting:
If you don’t know science, any BS you are fed sounds correct.
-
And,
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/]https://www.washingtonpos…ding-but-its-not-true/[/link]
Besides, that Little Ice Age that occurred during the Maunder minimum, it wasnt so much a global ice age as a [link=http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/littleiceage.pdf]cold spell in Europe[/link], and it may have been caused more by clouds of [link=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/volcanoes-may-have-sparked/]ash from volcanic eruptions[/link] than by fluctuations in solar activity.
(Its also worth mentioning that Zharkovas findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so her conclusions havent been vetted and refined.)
But those nuances were totally lost as stories about Zharkovas research made the rounds on social media and in the press.
This isnt the first time that a story about sunspots has turned into a story about climate change skepticism. John Casey, president of the Orlando-based [link=http://spaceandscience.net/]Space and Science Research Corporation[/link], which denies that global temperatures are rising, has written two books on the threat of impending solar hibernation. In 2011, when a series of studies concluded that the sun was heading into a cycle of unusually low activity, [link=http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/06/14/global-warming-be-damned-we-might-be-headed-mini-ice-age#ixzz1PL7TcrhG]one headline[/link]cheered Global Warming Be Damned, We Might Be Headed for a Mini Ice Age.
Aren’t there ANY science courses in medical school? Isn’t Pre-Med “science?”Guess not.
-
-
Quote from Cigar
This is what’s so stupid about these idiot gov’t control freaks. Even if we are wrong, which we aren’t, [b]it doesn’t matter.[/b]
The insanity of the left knows no bounds.
99% of the world doesn’t give a sht about you and your self important crap, EVEN if you are right!
The lefty brain is insane.
Says it all about the Right and science. Oil and water.
Hate what you don’t understand.
-
-
-
Quote from xrayer31
“A temp rise of 1.5 degrees C is insignificant? Melting of glaciers is insignificant?”
BTW, one small thing about an “insignificant” rise in temperature, assuming you believe the scientists when they talk about the weather in the prehistoric past vs not believing them about today’s, look at the graph I posted regarding temperature rise over the past to the present. The assumption is that the prehistoric creatures (ie, dinosaurs) lived in a much warmer climate. You will see the graph showing an “insignificant” rise of “only” 2-3 degrees Celsius. We are at 1.5-2 degrees Celsius in only 150 years.
What is insignificant about that?
Unless you believe science is a fraud for the prehistoric past also.
-
-
-
OK, OK. Here’s the usual exercise we go through on this “Sky is falling!!!” thread…
Let us HYPOTHESIZE that Frumious and the doom-sayers are correct. HYPOTHETICALLY. Whatcha gonna do about it? Maybe buy some ocean-front property in Tennessee?-
Quote from DoctorDalai
OK, OK. Here’s the usual exercise we go through on this “Sky is falling!!!” thread…
Let us HYPOTHESIZE that Frumious and the doom-sayers are correct. HYPOTHETICALLY. Whatcha gonna do about it? Maybe buy some ocean-front property in Tennessee?
Other than you, who said the sky is falling? Who is predicting doom and gloom other than you?
Transference? You believe a nutty idea & blame others for your beliefs?
Miami will be long under water before my house is. I live at higher elevations already.
As to what to do, like any 10 step program, first you have to admit you have a problem before you can think of solutions. Reduce burning fossil fuels, encourage renewable development.
-
I think the 1st problem, Dalai, is stop getting your science from National Enquirer equivalent sources. “Inquiring minds want to know,” but don’t inquire from the National Enquirer or their ilk except for trash entertainment. It is not science.
-
I just love it when you set your phaser to “Snark”. Really makes me want to believe you and listen to what you have to say. But then I’m also guilty.
You are the one constantly pushing the graphs and such and trying to make us all believers. OK, I will pretend I’m a believer. So AGAIN, whatcha gonna do about it?-
He still can’t answer the simple objection that the 3rd worlders render anything he does to destroy his own economy and give up his own freedom MOOT
They can’t even understand a basic, practical argument.
It just makes it totally maniacal (cherry on top) that what he “believes” in is also a fraud! Unreal … -
Quote from DoctorDalai
I just love it when you set your phaser to “Snark”. Really makes me want to believe you and listen to what you have to say. But then I’m also guilty.
You are the one constantly pushing the graphs and such and trying to make us all believers. OK, I will pretend I’m a believer. So AGAIN, whatcha gonna do about it?
That post about a coming Ice Age is nothing but snark. The pot calling the kettle snarky? And if you admit to snark yourself…???
I apologize but when you post a snarky link about climate & the newspaper on that same page also talks about seeing Martians from a NASA camera, what am I supposed to say? Seriously? Am I also supposed to answer that NASA is claiming that there is a photo of a Martian?
Again I apologize for my snark & I will do my best to avoid being snarky to you and other posters, but may I ask you to also try to honor the “No Snark” pledge, please. If you can’t do it yourself you can’t ask others to do it.
As for graphs, I don’t care so much if you don’t believe but accusing scientists of a conspiracy to invent data & conclusions? That another matter. And I do present data showing why I believe. Something most deniers don’t do. Cigar for example is nothing but empty ” NO,NO,NO!” but no data.
99% the denier’s claim is that the Earth was warmer before. OK, what proof? Scientists are telling the truth about prior climate are telling the truth but science claiming warming is happening today are lying?
Sounds like a specious complaint.
-
I admitted I was guilty too, so mea culpa’s all around.
Now for the THIRD TIME….
Let us [b][i]hypothesize[/i][/b] that I believe as you do in the climate thing.
WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO ABOUT IT?-
Quote from DoctorDalai
I admitted I was guilty too, so mea culpa’s all around.
Now for the THIRD TIME….
Let us [b][i]hypothesize[/i][/b] that I believe as you do in the climate thing.
WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO ABOUT IT?
“Deja Vu all over again.”
Stop believing in conspiracies by scientists. If the model is wrong, it will be corrected. The models have been corrected umpteen times and will continue to be. There are many multiple data points and the algorithm is an estimate, there is no such thing as precise, especially precisely predicting the future.
Encourage and subsidize renewables first. Including home power generation & heating.
Reduce or eliminate subsidies to the fossil fuel companies.
Don’t support through government subsidies or seizing property in the name of eminent domain for dirty projects like Keystone.
Keep encouraging better efficiency. IE, cars.
Encourage public transportation and efficient personal vehicles.
USA should be a leader & others will follow. We just made an agreement with China for instance. Not an ideal but better than critics were saying was possible only a short time ago.
That’s a start.
-
Those are good ideals, but honestly, a drop in the bucket compared to what’s going on in China, India, and other areas in the 3rd world. We have made progress with polluting less, and that is important. We can argue about CO2 here and there, but I’m all onboard about less toxic waste, better efficiency etc..
But…
Who are we to tell China, they can’t have their industrial revolution? Do you really think they will comply with international “environmental concerns” at the expense of their own economy? I do not. India? No….
So that’s a couple + billion people right there. How much of the muslim world is invested in less toxic waste or non fossil fuel efficiencies? That’s another billion or so people. So many countries barely have a working infrastructure that I think caring for the environment is pretty low on their priority lists. While we are at it, Russia is a pretty good example of how socialism/Marxism and the environment fare. Not so well…During the cold war they were able to hide some of their catastrophes, but now… awful awful stuff I have seen. They answer only to themselves.
So while I do think that being more efficient, less wasteful and less polluting are good ideas, and we should work towards less pollution, I do not believe that hamstringing ourselves, and weakening our economy for very little overall improvement on the global scale, is going to help anyone.
I would be more on board with some of the environmentalism if I didn’t see it as merely a facade for increased governmental control. Sometimes well intentioned, but often based on emotion rather than logic.
For example: [link=https://reason.com/archives/2015/09/01/plastic-bags-are-good-for-you ]https://reason.com/archiv…are-good-for-you [/link]
-
So you live your life that unless your neighbor acts like a good citizen first, you won’t? And China and India and 3rd World countries are pointing out that they have no obligation & won’t comply until first we do. Sounds like a comedy routine for an excuse not to lead.
China just signed an agreement with us about climate. China is also burning less oil and coal than they were due to an economic downturn. India will also improve as will other countries. Right now there are more disincentives as everyone is subsidizing oil and coal and the technology is geared for oil and coal. New technologies have to be invested in.
As for environmentalism, the attitude of Cheney as an empty “feel-good” gesture has to be discouraged.
BTW, I just heard & haven’t yet confirmed, that Alberta’s tar sands mining is the largest global producer of CO2, bar none, greater even than China and USA totals summed. If true that’s a good place to start, not investing in Keystone & Alberta tar sands.
-
Quote from Frumious
So you live your life that unless your neighbor acts like a good citizen first, you won’t? And China and India and 3rd World countries are pointing out that they have no obligation & won’t comply until first we do. Sounds like a comedy routine for an excuse not to lead.
China just signed an agreement with us about climate. China is also burning less oil and coal than they were due to an economic downturn. India will also improve as will other countries. Right now there are more disincentives as everyone is subsidizing oil and coal and the technology is geared for oil and coal. New technologies have to be invested in.
As for environmentalism, the attitude of Cheney as an empty “feel-good” gesture has to be discouraged.
BTW, I just heard & haven’t yet confirmed, that Alberta’s tar sands mining is the largest global producer of CO2, bar none, greater even than China and USA totals summed. If true that’s a good place to start, not investing in Keystone & Alberta tar sands.
I get your point, but it’s a false analogy, that’s why it’s another trick and pretty ignorant, to boot. I can KNOW that a neighbor is a “bad” neighbor with 100% certainty.
Global warming has changing definitions and is the furthest from certain of any “scientific” question I can think of. I’m not sure what’s so hard to get about this point; at least realize that you are so dogmatic about this it’s unhealthy, something you’d think a liberal would ironically be very careful about. Alas, you’re just the same as those you purport to hate, or call stupid or evil.-
Well cigar, if you KNOW there is no global warming then what does India or China have to do with anything? It’s all an invention, a hoax so China & India & “bad neighbors” are irrelevant.
-
Quote from Frumious
Well cigar, if you KNOW there is no global warming then what does India or China have to do with anything? It’s all an invention, a hoax so China & India & “bad neighbors” are irrelevant.
Frumi, this is what is most annoying about having a dialogue. You don’t read what other people say, and you state their positions incorrectly, thereby rendering irrelevant your points — because they are based on what YOU SAY other people are stating, and you quote and conclude incorrectly nearly every time.
Seriously, go back and read what I wrote. I never said I know there is no global warming. I said YOU DON’T. This is a HUGE difference, because the onus is on you (who wants to drastically change our freedoms and policies) to prove that there is.
Your point makes no sense even if you were right. Why do you want to force other people into your beliefs? You complain on this topic on every other issue yet you show your hypocrisy over and over again.
Why not for once YOU be the change, YOU live accordingly, YOU take the first step before forcing others to run the race that you don’t even have a horse in. Quit holding others to a standard you don’t live by. -
Here, a symposium recently sponsored by AAAS about anthropogenic global warming. It states a recommendation in 1965 to President Lyndon Johnson about anthropogenic warming, a full decade before some anti-science people claim science was predicting a new Ice Age.
[link]http://www.aaas.org/climate50#live[/link]On 5 November, 1965, the group now known as the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) cautioned President Lyndon B. Johnson that continued accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulting from fossil-fuel burning would almost certainly cause significant changes and could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings.
Fifty years later, the reality of human-caused climate change has been reaffirmed by virtually every leading scientific organization as well as the vast majority of individual climate scientists worldwide.
-
-
-
-
Quote from Frumious
Quote from DoctorDalai
I admitted I was guilty too, so mea culpa’s all around.
Now for the THIRD TIME….
Let us [b][i]hypothesize[/i][/b] that I believe as you do in the climate thing.
WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO ABOUT IT?
“Deja Vu all over again.”
Stop believing in conspiracies by scientists. If the model is wrong, it will be corrected. The models have been corrected umpteen times and will continue to be. There are many multiple data points and the algorithm is an estimate, there is no such thing as precise, especially precisely predicting the future.
Encourage and subsidize renewables first. Including home power generation & heating.
Reduce or eliminate subsidies to the fossil fuel companies.
Don’t support through government subsidies or seizing property in the name of eminent domain for dirty projects like Keystone.
Keep encouraging better efficiency. IE, cars.
Encourage public transportation and efficient personal vehicles.
USA should be a leader & others will follow. We just made an agreement with China for instance. Not an ideal but better than critics were saying was possible only a short time ago.That’s a start.
OK, NOW we’re getting somewhere. This is a basis for discussing the situation. But…Why did I have to ask THREE TIMES for your opinion about what needs to be done to solve the “problem”? THIS is where we all get in trouble. There is a religious fervor associated with this topic among those who believe in it wholeheartedly. Dissent is not accepted, and those who don’t agree totally are “stupid” or “Neanderthals” or “religious wingnuts” or other derogatory terms.
This science is not proven. The models are often off the mark, but those who BELIEVE refuse to allow any questioning.
That being said, I don’t think it is wise to pollute simply because we can, and I do think we all have to do a better job with the stewardship of the planet, at least until we find a better one. Of the measures you suggest, Frumious, which do you think are actually possible to implement? Keep in mind, the up and coming industrial nations are not going to give up their new-found creature comforts any more than I will over this.-
Whose “religion” is worse, Dalai, mine or yours?
As for what to be done, you have asked me in the past several times Dalai & I responded to you in that past each time. And I responded again, very much consistent each time in my answers. So you will ask me again in the future & be upset that within a short period of time you will again claim you had to ask me x numbe of times before I answered you likely the same way I answered today. But you won’t remember today & accuse me of avoiding your question.
It gets tiring.
There is questioning all the time about the data and models. But it is difficult to answer when you are accused of lying, opf participating in a lying conspiracy to hoodwink the public in order to do what I don’t know. Make $$$ from fake studies? As I’ve said before, if $$$ was the goal scientists would be working for all the denier organizations and corporations. Like those “scientists” who worked for tobacco finding tobacco “harmless.” But the anti-smoking people had their religion too, no doubt.
If you disagree, disagree with data. CO2 for example is NOT a harmless benevolent gas when concentrations increase. CO2 is definitely a greenhouse gas as is methane. Is that in dispute?
Back to the start, first question is not whether warming is anthropogenic, it is whether warming exists. That seems to be the 1st disagreement with the deniers over those who believe warming exists. Alda for example has a foot in both camps, there is no warming, and if there is, well it’s natural as were 2 degrees Celsius warmer tens of thousands of years ago.
Where does one start with that? Is there warming or isn’t there warming? -
Speaking of lies, EXXON is being investigated regarding their corporate actions on the evidence of climate change. Did EXXON act like the tobacco companies who denied tobacco was dangerous to health?
Very perhaps IPCC’s errors are small change compared to EXXON’s “conspiracy.”
What if – the massive conspiracy were on the part of the deniers, not the science showing anthropogenic climate warming? Ironic.
[link=http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/05/454917914/new-york-attorney-general-investigating-exxonmobil-on-climate-change]http://www.npr.org/sectio…obil-on-climate-change[/link]
New York’s attorney general would like to know: Did Exxon Mobil lie to you about the risks of climate change and to investors about how those risks might reduce profits?
Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman’s office confirms that a [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html]New York Times story[/link]is correct in reporting that an investigation has been launched into Exxon Mobil. That story said Schneiderman issued a subpoena on Wednesday, seeking financial records, emails and other documents.
The goal is to examine whether back in the 1970s, Exxon Mobil funded groups to undermine scientific studies involving climate change. Also, the attorney general is investigating whether the oil giant properly informed its investors of the profit risks that might arise as countries cut back on fossil fuels.
But while it knew of the potential problems, it funded groups from the 1990s to the mid-2000s to deny climate risks, the story goes. Many environmentalists argue that Exxon Mobil’s activities were similar to the tobacco companies that knew smoking posed grave health but denied their own research.
[link=http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken]http://insideclimatenews….xon-The-Road-Not-Taken[/link]At a meeting in Exxon Corporation’s headquarters, a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world’s use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…limate-statements.html[/link]
Mr. Schneidermans decision to scrutinize the fossil fuel companies may well open a new legal front in the battle over climate change. To date, lawsuits trying to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for the damage they are causing to the climate have been failing in the courts, but most of those have been pursued by private plaintiffs.
Attorneys general for other states could join in Mr. Schneidermans efforts, bringing far greater investigative and legal resources to bear on the issue. Some experts see the potential for a legal assault on fossil fuel companies similar to the lawsuits against the tobacco companies in recent decades, which cost them tens of billions of dollars in penalties.
This could open up years of litigation and settlements in the same way that tobacco litigation did, also spearheaded by attorneys general, said Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia law school. In some ways, the theory is similar that the public was misled about something dangerous to health. Whether the same smoking guns will emerge, we dont know yet.
In the 1950s and 1960s, tobacco companies financed internal research showing tobacco to be harmful and addictive, but mounted a public campaign that said otherwise, and helped finance scientific research later shown to be dubious. In 2006, the companies were [link=http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/doj-final-opinion.pdf]found guilty[/link] of a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Here’s a nice essay on the matter:
[link=http://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2015/11/climate-wars.pdf]http://www.thegwpf.com/co…15/11/climate-wars.pdf[/link]
“At the heart of the debate about climate change is a simple scientific question: can a doubling of the concentration of a normally harmless, indeed moderately beneficial, gas, from 0.03% of the atmosphere to 0.06% of the atmosphere over the course of a century change the global climate sufficiently to require drastic and painful political action today? In the end, thats what this is all about. Most scientists close enough to the topic say: possibly. Some say: definitely. Some say: highly unlikely. The con- sensus answer is that the warming could be anything from mildly beneficial to dan- gerously harmful: thats what the IPCC means when it quotes a range of plausible outcomes from 1.5 to 4 degrees of warming.
On the basis of this unsettled scientific question, politicians and most of the pres- sure groups that surround them are furiously insistent that any answer to the question other than definitely is vile heresy motivated by self-interest, and is so disgraceful as to require stamping out, prosecution as a crime against humanity, investigation un- der laws designed to catch racketeering by organized crime syndicates, or possibly the suspension of democracy. For yes, that is what has been repeatedly proposed by respected and senior figures in the climate debate.”-
Good stuff, alda. Thanks.
-
[link=http://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2015/11/climate-wars.pdf]http://www.thegwpf.com/co…15/11/climate-wars.pdf[/link]
“On the basis of this unsettled scientific question, politicians and most of the pres- sure groups that surround them are furiously insistent that any answer to the question other than definitely is vile heresy motivated by self-interest, and is so disgraceful as to require stamping out, prosecution as a crime against humanity, investigation un- der laws designed to catch racketeering by organized crime syndicates, or possibly the suspension of democracy. For yes, that is what has been repeatedly proposed by respected and senior figures in the climate debate.
James Hansen, former head of Nasas Goddard Institute and the man whose con- gressional testimony in 1988 kick-started the whole debate, said a few years back, of fossil fuel company executives: In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
As I am finishing this essay comes news that one of Frances leading television weather forecasters, Philippe Verdier, has published a book arguing that he thinks the problem of climate change is being exaggerated. As a result he was first taken off the air and then unceremoniously sacked. Imagine, for a moment, that he had published a book saying the opposite: that climate change is going to be worse than we think. He would have been feted, rather than fired. This is censorship, and the fact that it is happening less than a year after, and in the same city as, the Charlie Hebdo killings, when the world joined together to say Je suis Charlie and insist that free speech must be protected, is astonishing.” -
Quote from aldadoc
Here’s a nice essay on the matter:
[link=http://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2015/11/climate-wars.pdf]http://www.thegwpf.com/co…15/11/climate-wars.pdf[/link]
“At the heart of the debate about climate change is a simple scientific question: can a doubling of the concentration of a normally harmless, indeed moderately beneficial, gas, from 0.03% of the atmosphere to 0.06% of the atmosphere over the course of a century change the global climate sufficiently to require drastic and painful political action today? In the end, thats what this is all about. Most scientists close enough to the topic say: possibly. Some say: definitely. Some say: highly unlikely. The con- sensus answer is that the warming could be anything from mildly beneficial to dan- gerously harmful: thats what the IPCC means when it quotes a range of plausible outcomes from 1.5 to 4 degrees of warming.
On the basis of this unsettled scientific question, politicians and most of the pres- sure groups that surround them are furiously insistent that any answer to the question other than definitely is vile heresy motivated by self-interest, and is so disgraceful as to require stamping out, prosecution as a crime against humanity, investigation un- der laws designed to catch racketeering by organized crime syndicates, or possibly the suspension of democracy. For yes, that is what has been repeatedly proposed by respected and senior figures in the climate debate.”“Harmless & beneficial gas.”
At what concentrations, Alda? How about breathing 100% of that “harmless & beneficial gas,” Alda & see how you feel. Or the author of your link. Have you checked out Venus’s atmosphere? Cozy with that “harmless & beneficial” atmosphere of high concentration of CO2.
This is another “inquiring minds want to know” post.
BTW, Alda, see my post #354 where I already posted a Skeptical Science link about “A Bad Year For GWFP.”
Here’s the link without my re-porting the graphs that you can see either in the article or on my post 354.
[link=http://www.skepticalscience.com/2015-very-bad-year-for-gwpf.html]http://www.skepticalscien…bad-year-for-gwpf.html[/link]
-
-
The whole dam* thing gets tiring.
You BELIEVE in this with the fervor of a religious acolyte. I don’t BELIEVE, although I agree we shouldn’t go out of our way to pollute. And no, I do NOT ascribe to the fear-mongering over CO2. The data have been manipulated to the point that no one knows what the truth is, not you and not me.
But we get here every single time. I ask you what needs to be done, and you offer some suggestions. I tell you that I agree with some of them, but many require a regression of lifestyle that simply won’t fly here or in the rising industrial nations.
So then you get all upset all over again that some of us don’t BELIEVE, and we are right back where we started. Every single time. Yes, it gets tiring.
Figure out what positive measures can be taken that are palatable and we’ll talk. I will, however, NEVER be a BELIEVER.-
“Religious acolyte”
And [i]YOU[/i] are complaining about hyperbole and snark? That’s a bit rich, no? Only you can insult & be snarky but your skin is too thin to get it in return?
Sorry but your reactions to things are a lot more zealot religious than mine ever were. And at least I can present data for “my religion.” So far all you’ve given is more questions & the equivalent of cigar’s “NO!” But no explanations. Oh yeah, scientists are involved in a conspiracy. At best deluded in fraud.
Yes, that’s sounds like reality & non-religious zealotry.
Pass the Kool-Aid please. What’s good for the goose, Dalai. Practice what you preach.-
YOu don’t need to believe but explain why not? Other than science is lies.
And yes, things can change. Mistrad used to rant about not being able to reduce oil consumption & increasing the use of renewables to any degree, yet here we are.-
All you ever do is go apoplectic when people don’t BELIEVE. Very productive.
-
Quote from DoctorDalai
All you ever do is go apoplectic when people don’t BELIEVE. Very productive.
All I’m doing is asking WHY? All I ask is an answer without the hyperbole or sideways insults about religious zealotry, etc. So far you haven’t answered my question and I’ve asked more than 3x & you haven’t attempted an answer except to call me an intolerant religious zealot. Now there’s a friendly exchange of ideas, no?
What’s your argument? What’s your rationale for your dis-belief?
-
-
-
-
“I will, however, NEVER be a BELIEVER.”
What a strange thing to say after accusing someone of religious-like convictions. You’re not being asked to believe in something like the tooth fairy. CO2 level are rising (fact) and something will happen as they continue to rise. It may be good or bad (hypothesis). Global warming will or won’t happen, this will be the future observation that confirms or refutes the hypothesis. Your belief in it has about as much relevance as your belief in gravity.
The only relevant belief here is whether or not you BELIEVE we should do anything about it. Understanding that if you are WRONG, by the time reality has forced you to reverse your above-stated unshakable faith, you and the in-actions of like minded people may have doomed millions or billions to die of starvation. If you are RIGHT you get to say “Yay I was right! Eat that scientific community! I knew more than you!” (when in reality you just got lucky) and get to feel smart about all the money you saved.-
It must feel good to be fighting for the lives of billions. Narcissist much?
In your fervor to condemn the non-BELIEVERS, you fail quite miserably to recognize my willingness to work with you and yours.
-
“It must feel good to be fighting for the lives of billions. Narcissist much?”
Project much?
Am I fighting for such? Maybe. Time will tell. Or, is it really that are you gambling with such? Maybe. Do you feel you are educated in climate science sufficiently that you should be gambling with such?
Does that make you feel good?-
Over Caffeinated, if you and Frumious believe that the fate of billions is in your hands, and that I’m gambling with their lives, you need to do a little time on the shrink’s couch.
Why don’t I BELIEVE? In large part, I’m disgusted by the behavior of those who DO. Listen to those who would prosecute and imprison those who don’t BELIEVE. Heck, listen to yourselves!!! And you are BELIEVING data that has been compromised and altered. You will never agree that this is the case, but there is enough evidence to that effect out there.
This is a huge money-making scam for those who shepherd the BELIEVERS and it represents a pretty blatant attempt to control.
I think you BELIEVERS have been conned, with your good intentions hijacked by false prophets/profiteers. No amount of data will convince you of this, and no amount of data will convince me otherwise. But do keep trying.-
So Dalai, in other words it is not so much the facts of the case you disagree with, it is the concept as a “liberal” idea because it is largely supposedly supported by liberals. It is personalities you disagree with, not the facts. It is these personalities’ politics, not so much the facts. As a side justification you claim they are getting rich off of this hoax (while I would counter that there’s much more money in those hills of accepting money from the denier’s camp instead of the pro-warming, that’s where the money is).
-
Just when I think I cannot be surprised, you guys manage to surprise me yet again.
So…[i]I’m[/i] willful and negligently gambling with lives of others. [i]I’m[/i] invested in a [i][b]morally[/b][/i] incompatible position. And [b][u][i]I’m[/i][/u][/b] the zealot because I won’t believe in your climate stuff?
You boys are clearly so immersed in the RELIGION of climate change that you cannot abide anyone who disagrees. This is a crusade on the part of the TRUE BELIEVERS such as yourselves, and your own words demonstrate that to a painful degree.
What I disagree with is what the FACTS really are, because the whole thing has been perverted. The science is lost in the mad religious fervor such as demonstrated here. This is scam perpetrated on the unfortunate, delusional TRUE BELIEVERS by those who would take us all for a ride, and send progress back to the dark ages based on unproven theories and backward models, all the while polluting the planet thousands of times more than all of here could accomplish in 100 lifetimes.
I have said repeatedly that I don’t believe in gratuitous pollution, and occasionally we can touch on solutions that might possibly be acceptable to the population at large. But then when I don’t get my bowels in a total uproar to reach your level of BELIEF, we get here.
And to think I was going to buy a Tesla to impress you guys. Harrumph.-
You are not answering the question, you are diverting.
Your complaint of an accusation of being morally destitute is a gimmick to avoid the conversation & points by inserting invented diversions, including the religious crap; if anyone demonstrates zealotry it’s been you.
What are the facts you agree of disagree with?
1.There is NO warming.
2.Warming exists but it is NOT anthropogenic in any way, shape or form.
. a. The climate changes all the time & tens of thousands of years ago the Earth was warmer – and colder – all through “natural” forces (which are unknown).
3.Scientists are lying today, selling a liberal hoax for their own profit (What exactly is their profit? Are those scientists who are “selling” warming becoming fabulously rich?)
4. This is a liberal conspiracy utilizing government against corporations.5.You hate liberals like VP Al Gore and President Barack Obama because they are foisting the hoax on America against fossil fuel corporations (& in the case of Gore, making $$$), which is the primary emotion for opposition to considering anthropogenic warming.
6. Liberals are looking for some impossible anti-Corporate Utopia, “forcing” people by government decree to do things against their wishes for no reason other than control. Such as ban trucks and SUVs, ban (tungsten) lightbulbs, fossil fuels in general.
7. This Utopia would kill the economy because you can’t suddenly ban oil & adopt pie-in-the-sky.
Did I list your beliefs accurately?-
Mostly. #1 and #2 are too nebulous because the data have been manipulated to the point that we really don’t know the truth. That being said, it is quite accepted that the Earth goes through climate cycles. Can Mankind bring about an Ice-Age or stop one from happening, or the similar case with supposed warming? I have serious doubts about that, and even more profound doubts as to whether we [i]should [/i]intervene even if we can. Playing G-d can be dangerous.
I am most amused by your calling [b][i]me [/i][/b]a zealot. What was Noah’s favorite pithy, trite little phrase?[i] Pot, meet kettle..[/i] -
You forgot: There is no warming and we can do nothing about the lack of warming because China and India are bigger polluters who are more to blame for the warming which does not exist
-
3.Scientists are lying today, selling a liberal hoax for their own profit (What exactly is their profit? Are those scientists who are “selling” warming becoming fabulously rich?)
scientists of all sorts, not just climate, often create hype just to keep the grants and funding rolling in.
Because, “more research in this area” needs to be done. No matter the subject. That’s always the conclusion. -
Quote from Thor
You forgot: There is no warming and we can do nothing about the lack of warming because China and India are bigger polluters who are more to blame for the warming which does not exist
I don’t understand what is so hard for you guys to understand. You are doctors, I presume so you have some facility with the English language. Let me break it down for those of you who can’t understand basic english and ideas:
1. Dalai and I believe there is no good evidence for warming and certainly not anthropogenic warming.
*** READ THIS 5 TIMES SLOWLY IF YOU HAVE TO ***
2. If there is good evidence (which hasn’t been shown), that is, if it’s real that AGW is a true entity, practically from our position it doesn’t matter because we can’t control enough of the polluters by YOUR OWN admission. What’s so hard to understand about that?
It’s like saying “I’m putting a -10000 money line wager on team X”. It’s silly, because you don’t have enough money to risk ($10k to win a measly $100) to make it worthwhile. Win or lose … you essentially lose because you risked a ton of money on something that has no benefit in the end. You risk all this money (the economy) to gain … nothing.
That’s why we know the real gain is political power and control over our lives. Parsimony. Occam’s razor. It’s far more likely that humans are being deluded for personal gain (politicians and academics who have a real, tangible interest in this) than we can measure a system with literally BILLIONS of inputs.
Just think for a second guys. Please. Think. It’s not that hard. -
So there is no warming?
cigar? xrayer? Dalai?
Simple question. should be a simple answer, yes or no. -
It’s far more likely that humans are being deluded for personal gain
-Fair enough…which side is doing the deluding??? -
There is a mountain of data to support skepticism on the matter of anthropogenic global warming. Most of it sources back to $$$’s, political power and egos.
Why has the temperature data been “re-calculated” 16 times?
Why did the “scientists” at East Anglia feel the need to falsify data?
Why is it that professor Jagadish Shukla, who has been personally bilking government funded climate grants at the tune of $1.5M/yr feel the need to write a letter to Obama requesting a criminal gag order against climate skeptics?
Why is the “unexpected” growth of Antarctic Ice ignored?
Why should I believe any more predictions from the guy who predicted that the Arctic passage would be melted by now and the polar bears would all die off?
Why would I side with those who would fire a weatherman simply for writing a book that outs the inner scandals of the climatista community and dares to put into question the basic premises of AGW?
Why should I believe the proponents of the “hockey stick”? or the famously manipulated tree-ring data?
Why should I believe anything that Obama says?
The climate alarmists have $31 Billion at their disposal and have managed to brainwash an entire generation. The realists have only the data and the public scorn. The data contradicts all of the models. I choose to stand with the data and not with the climate McCarthyites. -
dalai, you believe in these cabals and conspiracies, not me. I’m not a big conspiracy buff. You not answering simple questions would indicate that facts are not the issue. Your raising conspiracies and cabals would indicate that agreement or disagreement of facts is not the issue. It is about ideology and personalities. So what’s to discuss?
-
There really isn’t anything to discuss. You BELIEVE hook line and sinker. I don’t. Alda has nicely outlined WHY I don’t BELIEVE. The facts are indeed the issue, as the facts are in question and the science is far from settled. But you BELIEVE and therefore anyone who doesn’t BELIEVE is is a heretic, a believer in cabals and conspiracies. Even when there is ample evidence that the “facts” you BELIEVE were falsified.
I would probably have better luck trying to dissuade the Pope of Christ’s divinity than putting a chink in the armor of your BELIEF.
Well, since over-Caffeinated declares its all my fault that Billions will die, all you BELIEVERS need to do something about it. Go to all your BELIEVER friends and tell them you can save the world from my destructive lack of BELIEF by donating $1 Billion to the Doctor Dalai Retirement fund. That’s about how much your High Priest Algore has bilked you out of with this fraud. Give me $1BILLION and I’ll be glad to profess BELIEF from the highest mountains and the lowest valleys. (Although I still won’t BELIEVE…) -
Ohh the “Gish Gallop” (read [link=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gish+Gallop)]http://www.urbandictionar….php?term=Gish+Gallop)[/link]
[i]There is a mountain of data to support skepticism on the matter of anthropogenic global warming. Most of it sources back to $$$’s, political power and egos.[/i]
–No, there is a mountain of data the skeptics mine to generate “Gish Gallop” question walls.
[i]Why has the temperature data been “re-calculated” 16 times? [/i]
–You do science right? As our data, and understanding, improves we revise until we get it perfect. Protecting the future is only probability and can never be perfect as anyone who watches the weather channel knows.
[i]Why did the “scientists” at East Anglia feel the need to falsify data? [/i]
–This is a technique commonly employed by family members of mine to discredit republicans. they go out and find some example of a politician doing something whack and ask me to “explain” this as if it discredits the entire republican party. It’s probably got some cute name like “cherry picking data”.[i]Why is it that professor Jagadish Shukla, who has been personally bilking government funded climate grants at the tune of $1.5M/yr feel the need to write a letter to Obama requesting a criminal gag order against climate skeptics? [/i]
–Apparently having “whack beliefs” is not a disqualification for being a doctor, scientist or running for president as Ben Carson has aptly proved.
[i]Why is the “unexpected” growth of Antarctic Ice ignored? [/i]
–It is not, I can Google that for you and find SEVERAL web sites such as NASA discussing this exact phenomenon and why it does not discredit global warming hypothesis. You are just ignoring that it is not being ignored.
[i]Why should I believe any more predictions from the guy who predicted that the Arctic passage would be melted by now and the polar bears would all die off? [/i]
–Well Doctor, you don’t like you first opinion, get a second one, or third.
[i]Why would I side with those who would fire a weatherman simply for writing a book that outs the inner scandals of the climatista community and dares to put into question the basic premises of AGW?[/i]
–Ahh the old Kim Davis persecution complex. This apparently NEVER happens right? People NEVER get fired for posting garbage on web sites or Facebook that is embarrassing to their employer? You are not new to the web. Public figures also often have clauses in their contract prohibiting expressing public views that bring undo attention or embarrassment to their employer. I don’t know that this was the case this time.
[i]Why should I believe the proponents of the “hockey stick”? or the famously manipulated tree-ring data? [/i]
–See the “get a second opinion” comment above.
[i]Why should I believe anything that Obama says? [/i]
–Your question answers itself. Why should you? You don’t. And that has more to do with your political beliefs than anything related to science.
[i]The climate alarmists have $31 Billion at their disposal and have managed to brainwash an entire generation. The realists have only the data and the public scorn. The data contradicts all of the models. I choose to stand with the data and not with the climate McCarthyites. [/i]
–And I suppose the oil industry money funding counts for nothing? You really need to read up more on the Koch brothers, they have spent years and billion funding special interest groups, think tanks, you name it to spread their views on things be it politics, the environment or finance. They are not alone. Unless you claim to be a knowledgeable climate scientist, as no one on the forum is, you are not standing with data, you are standing with someone else’s interpretation of it, and they may be bat sh– crazy. Which as we established above, being bat sh– crazy is no disqualification for anything including claiming to be a knowledgeable doctor/scientist/politician and publishing books and web sites affirming your bat sh– crazy beliefs. -
[blockquote] Named for the debate tactic created by creationist shill Duane Gish, a Gish Gallop involves spewing so much bullshit in such a short span on that your opponent cant address let alone counter all of it. To make matters worse a Gish Gallop will often have one or more ‘talking points’ that has a tiny core of truth to it, making the person rebutting it spend even more time debunking it in order to explain that, yes, it’s not totally false but the Galloper is distorting/misusing/misstating the actual situation. A true Gish Gallop generally has two traits.
1) The factual and logical content of the Gish Gallop is pure bullshit and anybody knowledgeable and informed on the subject would recognize it as such almost instantly. That is, the Gish Gallop is designed to appeal to and deceive precisely those sorts of people who are most in need of honest factual education.
2) The points are all ones that the Galloper either knows, or damn well should know, are totally bullshit. With the slimier users of the Gish Gallop, like Gish himself, its a near certainty that the points are chosen not just because the Galloper knows that they’re bullshit, but because the Galloper is deliberately trying to shovel as much bullshit into as small a space as possible in order to overwhelm his opponent with sheer volume and bamboozle any audience members with a facade of scholarly acumen and factual knowledge.
[/blockquote]
That steaming manure pile of BELIEVER knee-jerk hand-waving “answers” to legitimate non-BELIEVER questions you just dumped fits the definition of the Gish Gallop far better than the questions you pretend to address.
But you [font=”times new roman,times”][size=”7″][u][i][b]BELIEVE[/b][/i][/u][/size][/font] and so nothing else matters.
When do I get my $1 Billion so I don’t kill billions of people? You said yourself I was responsible, so help me out here. -
.
-
Apology accepted, over-caffeinated. Of course it was your fellow BELIEVER Frumious who decided to bring my late brother into the discussion. Sadly, your kind apology is voided by the statements that follows it. I think [i]your[/i] unquestioning, lock-step BELIEF is irrational and YOU are every bit as emotional if not 50 times more than I on this topic. I never accused you of wishing death upon billions, for example.
For whomever else reads this drivel…Here you have several really excellent examples of how otherwise intelligent people have been engulfed in the cult of BELIEF. You cannot argue with them, you cannot reason with them, you cannot compromise with them. You must BELIEVE or you are a murderer of Billions. So says OverCaffeinated.
Somehow I seem to find these madmen all over the place. The closest thing I’ve had to the surreal conversation you see above is with a bunch of Neo-Nazis on another site. They are absolutely, positively convinced that Jews are responsible for any and all of the world’s problems and they too will tolerate no middle ground. You either agree with their demented paranoid ideation, or you are the enemy.
Read Hoffer’s “[link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer]True BELIEVER[/link]” to understand how the BELIEVERS think. You’ll find it enlightening.
Also have a look at this very rational discussion: [link=http://web.uvic.ca/~kooten/Commentary/NameCalling.pdf]http://web.uvic.ca/~koote…entary/NameCalling.pdf[/link].
And this one: [link=http://web.uvic.ca/~kooten/Commentary/ClimateConfusion.pdf:]http://web.uvic.ca/~koote…/ClimateConfusion.pdf:[/link]
[blockquote] I was influenced to write the book because of attacks on my person and subsequent discussions with Ross McKitrick, on whose UBC PhD committee I served.[b] I have now encountered a significant number of scientists and others who have been personally attacked and even threatened with violence for their contrary views on climate change, and even more scientists who have contrary views but keep such views to themselves. Indeed, I would even dare to say that there are likely as many on my own university campus who are skeptical about the human origins of supposed global warming as there are those who support the so-called consensus[/b] and my university is noted for its climate scientists and pro-anthropogenic origins of global warming.
In preparation for my course, I read much of what McKitrick had written, read books and material on climate modeling, read the papers supporting the hockey stick, constructed my own paleoclimatic temperature series, read many, many other papers, and so on. I talked to statisticians, mathematicians and physicists (I also have a BSc in Physics), and came away with the feeling that the IPCC story was not the only one out there. Closer research led me to question certain shibboleths, and it was when I got closer to the truth that I began to encounter opposition.[/blockquote]
What kind of “scientists” and “rational” people behave this way? None. But BELIEVERS do. Enjoy your delusions.
-
Oh, by the way, China lied to you BELIEVERS:
[link=http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/110415-779190-china-undercounts-coal-use-and-co2-emissions.htm?ven=rss]http://news.investors.com…-emissions.htm?ven=rss[/link]
[blockquote] On the eve of the Paris summit, we learn that China has been fudging its carbon emission data for years. That this is a surprise to anyone shows how blind climate change advocates are to reality these days.
China apparently has been burning 17% more coal annually than it has claimed over the past 15 years. And as a result, it’s been emitting a billion tons more CO2 a year than it had admitted. The New York Times points out that this difference alone is equal to what Germany’s entire [link=http://news.investors.com/economy.aspx]economy[/link] produces each year from burning fossil fuels.
In other words, if Germany shut down its entire economy, it wouldn’t compensate for China’s “error.”Problem is, the pledges made would still result in a [link=http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/092815-773048-climate-change-pledges-made-so-far-wont-stop-global-warming.htm]global temperature increase of 6.3 degrees,[/link] or nearly twice what climate scientists say would be cataclysmic, according to Climate Interactive, the source of carbon data used by the U.S. and other countries.
Indeed, the inconvenient fact that no one pushing for CO2 reductions will admit publicly is that the only way to prevent “disastrous warming” is for the entire world to go [link=http://news.investors.com/100314-720010-climate-change-fight-may-be-futile-waste-of-money.htm]entirely carbon-free in just six decades[/link], and then start removing CO2 from the atmosphere after that with [link=http://news.investors.com/technology.aspx]technology[/link] that doesn’t yet exist.
The reason is that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries. So simply reducing emissions, or holding them steady, won’t do, because it will still lead to an increase in CO2 levels. That’s science, folks.
But does anyone in their right mind believe that eliminating fossil fuels entirely in a generation is even a remote possibility?
[/blockquote]
-
One last parting shot…Look at the Denier WITCH-HUNT sponsored by our very own President of the United States!
[link=https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/#/]https://www.barackobama.c…mate-change-deniers/#/[/link]
THIS is the thought-police at work. This is not the way America functions, at least not until the current crowd took control.
Goebbels would be proud. BELIEVE it. -
Quote from DoctorDalai
Apology accepted, over-caffeinated. Of course it was your fellow BELIEVER Frumious who decided to bring my late brother into the discussion.
You are not the only person in the world who has lost a close relative because they did not trust doctors, doctor’s motives or doctor’s morals and ethics, dalai, so get over it. My mother died 25 years ago of cancer, who underplayed her symptoms until it was too late, until she metastasized, who did not go to a doctor because she did not trust them. So I reserve the right to talk about how irrational beliefs can kill people.
Your insistence on disbelief and your stated reasons are irrational & not based on any facts & that is your religion. It follows a pattern. It doesn’t matter what the facts are, it is a “liberal” idea, therefore it cannot be supported. It has to be a hoax because that is your belief system regardless of any understood or misunderstood facts.
-
What will deniers do with evidence that oil companies conspired in a hoax to deny global warming and fossil fuels as a primary cause?
[link=http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20151020-editorial-exxons-missed-opportunity-to-address-climate-change.ece]http://www.dallasnews.com…ess-climate-change.ece[/link]James F. Black, a senior Exxon scientist, warned the company in 1977 that the continued burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline could lead to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Trapped heat could boost global temperatures by 4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit even higher at the poles. Black and other Exxon scientists warned of dire agricultural effects, skewed rainfall patterns and growing desertification amazing prescience considering todays rising seas, increasingly violent and costly storms, severe droughts and heavy flooding.
“In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.”
James F. Black, a senior Exxon scientist, warned the company in 1977 that the continued burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline could lead to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Trapped heat could boost global temperatures by 4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit even higher at the poles. Black and other Exxon scientists warned of dire agricultural effects, skewed rainfall patterns and growing desertification amazing prescience considering todays rising seas, increasingly violent and costly storms, severe droughts and heavy flooding.
A year later, he put a fine point to his conclusions when he wrote, “Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
That was a decade before Congress heard James Hansen – as Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies – testified about man-made climate change.
in the late 1980s, Exxon made an about-face. The company fired most of its climate scientists and started doing everything it could to cast doubt on the scientific consensus about the causes and dangers of man-made climate change. Exxon helped to organize the “Global Climate Coalition,” which fights to block any efforts to address global climate change. And the company worked with groups like the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to get fossil-fuel-friendly climate deniers into every level of government.
In 1997, Exxon chairman and CEO Lee Raymond argued against the Kyoto Protocol, using the logic that we don’t really know what’s going to happen with the climate, so why bother? That pattern of denial and deception has continued to this day.
-
My condolences on your mother’s passing. Somewhat different situation, but sad nonetheless. Still, using my brother’s foolishness in this manner was rather uncalled for, don’t you think? Heck, even your fellow BELIEVER over-caffeinated said that out loud. But I guess all’s fair when you BELIEVE. You’ve made a lot of things quite clear with that move.
So you have a problem with those who manipulate data and perpetrate a hoax, do you? Just wondered.
Nice that you choose to ignore the SCIENTISTS who don’t BELIEVE, and there are a lot of them. They are not as vocal as those who do BELIEVE, or pretend to do so, and who can blame them when the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES has a website to turn in disBELIEVERS? Are you really comfortable with that? Turning in your neighbor is one of those police-state tactics conservatives warned you liberals about…but I guess you feel safe in your BELIEF. They won’t come after YOU. Yet.
But I’m the irrational one here. You BELIEVERS are the only folks who BELIEVE that. -
“What will deniers do with evidence that oil companies conspired in a hoax to deny global warming and fossil fuels as a primary cause?”
Nothing I would guess. That’s because they are not “deniers”, they are at best “doubters” in the conclusions. And being a doubter requires nothing other than the statement “I don’t believe your conclusions” which of course gets a rise out of us believers, which may explain a motive for some of them. See to be a “denier” of a scientific theory you actually have to have an legitimate alternate scientific theory in mind that invalidates the first theory, or at least you really should if you are claiming to be “scientific” about it. They don’t have that. Even if you look at the literature of actual “deniers” they are all over the map, i.e. they have no coherent scientific theory that even they can agree upon.
I went back and re-read 4 years of posts to see if one was offered, and it wasn’t. Just statements of doubtful factoids “Explain why the Antarctic ice sheet is this big?” but nothing resembling a coherent alternate theory. They are just playing on the probability curves that exist in all predictive theories. And even their reasons for playing on the “chance that nothing bad happens” part of the curve has nothing to do with science, just emotion really. -
I don’t need an alternative theory to decide for myself that the BELIEVER’s theory (well, fact etched in stone for them) is wrong.
Alternate theory of WHAT? Something to explain temperature rises that are nothing but fiction, manufactured to keep the BELIEVERS BELIEVING? I’ve got better things to do. I am, after all, responsible for the 7 BILLION people on this planet. You said so yourself. -
There you have it Frumi. You asked many pages ago for the sound basis of their doubt and you never got an answer and that is why. They don’t have one. They don’t have an alternate theory to explain why CO2 emissions will not be any problem or affect climate in mind other than “it ain’t so!”? This is the entire basis of their charge against an entire branch of science, an entire political party, and many individuals around the world of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud not to mention many other potentially criminal acts they and others have insinuated scientists and politicians are guilty of? I’m not even going to act surprised at this point.
Yet somehow we are being hard on them?
-
There is no evidence that warming is not real, simply the melting glaciers prove that lie. There is even aceptance by Alda and others that temperatures have warmed. But all of their basket eggs are that warming has leveled off which by itself shows acceptance of warming.
DUH.
Even EXXON knew that warming was happening and (largely) caused by burning of fossil fuels as far back as the 1970’s.
“Follow the money.” -
A crack in the wall? 11 Republicans sign on to environmental stewardship, including on climate and renewables.
[link=http://gibson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398414]http://gibson.house.gov/n…aspx?DocumentID=398414[/link]
[ul][*]Expanding study of our environment, weather, and climate through a combination of private, peer-reviewed studies as well as appropriate, non-partisan oversight of government studies and publicly-funded studies;[*]Modernizing our antiquated energy transmission and transportation through improving electric grid reliability and efficiency, expanding the use of microgrids, and expanding infrastructure investment;[*]Bringing our energy sector into the next generation, including expanding our use of hydropower; increasing the potential of our wind power industry; pursuing and improving biomass energy use; promoting programs like SunShot that have already seen progress and have incredible future potential in making more efficient the harnessing of solar power; and pursuing safe and properly-regulated natural gas production and use with the goal of creating a bridge to the long term goal of energy independence with renewable energy resources; and[*]Promoting investments in some of the most promising technologies, including advanced manufacturing and prototyping, nanotechnology coatings and composites, advanced energy storage and battery technology, and waste-heat-to-power systems. [/ul]
[link=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/123240/theyre-not-scientists]http://www.newrepublic.co…/theyre-not-scientists[/link]
But allow me to suggest a preposterously optimistic alternative possibility. Even as Washington Republicans continue working to undermine the CPP, we might simultaneously see a surprising number of red states quietly cooperate with the EPA in implementing the plan, thereby helping to reassure the rest of the world that we [i]are[/i] taking our obligations seriously. And meanwhiletrust me, this is not as crazy as it soundsthe seemingly unbreachable wall of Republican hostility to climate science may continue to erode. The party could grow more and more open to joining the debate over how to solve a problem many Republicans recently dismissed as an airy liberal fantasy or an elaborate scientific hoax.
Whats particularly dispiriting about this state of affairs is that the environment used to be a bipartisan cause. The 1970 Clean Air Act, which is now providing the [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/us/without-passing-a-single-law-obama-crafts-bold-enviornmental-policy.html]legal foundation for Obamas CPP[/link], passed by overwhelming [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/06/02/support-for-the-clean-air-act-has-changed-a-lot-since-1970/]bipartisan majorities[/link], as did the crucial 1990 amendments expanding that law to deal with acid rain and other challenges.
And yet, little by little, though it may be as imperceptible as the moment-to-moment melting of a polar icecap, you can see signs of a thaw in the GOPs climate intransigence. The most significant sign: While Republican candidates and members of Congress continue to rail against the CPP, other GOP officials are already beginning to [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/us/politics/numerous-states-prepare-lawsuits-against-obamas-climate-policy.html]cooperate with it behind the scenes[/link]. And that cooperation could ultimately prove more important, and a stronger portent of whats to come, than the bluster in Washington.
Inglis, the former representative who now evangelizes to fellow Republicans about climate science, sees signs that its coming. In the depths of the Great Recession, Republicans said they didnt believe in climate change, Inglis told me. Then, in the 2014 cycle, they said, Im not a scientist, an agnostic position. Now were somewhere in the next phase. I see a trend line toward a solutions-based conversation. Were changing the question from, Do you believe in climate change? to Can free enterprise solve climate change? A candidate in front of a conservative audience can answer that in the affirmative.
Then again, never understimate the irrational Republican voter. Today’s candidate lineup shows that as a fact.
-
As has been noted, 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded with 2015 well on its way to surpass.
Here’s a graph showing the ever increasing global temperatures through the years, right through 1998.
[link=http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2014-hottest-year-on-record/]http://www.bloomberg.com/…ottest-year-on-record/[/link] -
Geez, you boys were up all night trying to convince lil’ ol’ me? You should probably get some rest.
You BELIEVERS don’t understand how deluded you sound. Every little snarky thing you post about how the “deniers” and their rigid belief system sounds far more applicable to you BELIEVERS.
I tend to me more of a skeptic, if you really care about the nuances. Thus, I am quite willing to say that we shouldn’t gratuitously pollute. But the evidence on CO2 ain’t there. The climate fluctuations are just as easily if not more easily explained by sunspot activity per other equally qualified scientists. Not all agree that we’ve had any warming in the last decade anyway, and those who do have manipulated the numbers. By the way, I wouldn’t rely on anything from Nanny Bloomberg as particularly factual.
This is the pattern you follow. You are acting like a flock of adolescent girls attempting to save the whales. You latch on to some narrative, spoon-fed to you by the media, and it becomes the ABSOLUTE TRUTH, religious gospel to the level that you are asked by our own president to report those who don’t BELIEVE. You BELIEVE in the imminent climate disaster, you BELIEVE that white cops are all out to kill black people, you BELIEVE Israel is a racist apartheid state, and the “palestinians” are poor downtrodden innocents, you BELIEVE rich people stole from the poor and need to give it back, and so on [i]ad nauseum.[/i]
And let no one contradict your BELIEFS.
Answer one thing…are you comfortable with the President of the United States compelling you to report people who don’t BELIEVE? Just answer that one little question…. -
You have been denial for years. I am not wasting time trying to get you to change your mind, I want to know how you know warming is a lie, other than it being just a liberal conspiracy & you hate Al Gore.
First question, what is our motive for creating and maintaining such a massive conspiracy of lies? How do you know that it is a conspiracy of lies? If not directly involved in the conspiracy the rest of us are merely deluded. Because? Only Deniers know the truth. Because? -
We have indeed been doing this exact thing since forever; here’s my early post from 5/11:
[blockquote] RE: Climate Denial 05/16/11 09:25PM
In reply to Frumious
[/blockquote]
[blockquote]
I remain a skeptic. Most if not all of the dire predictions have not come to pass, but that doesn’t defer anyone.There are three classes that promote the global warming climate chaos change gospel:
1. The TRUE BELIEVERS. We see them here on this thread. They are sincere in their belief, and as rabid as one would expect of someone who has been convinced that the destruction of the world is imminent but preventable if one follows and spreads the WORD.
2. The “academics/scientists”. Yes, the majority seem to favor GWCCC. Grants, tenure, recognition, power, money, etc, clearly favor those on one side of this issue, and most aren’t going to buck the system that feeds them. The majority of academicians are also Liberal to the point of Socialism (see #3).
3. Liberal/Leftist politicians. GWCCC is a philosophy that demands the dismantling of capitalism. Deny it all you want, but this is the ultimate goal, to be achieved via draconian laws and class warfare. (“You don’t need that SUV,” says Mr. Obama.) Power is to be concentrated in the hands of the Leftist High Priests of Gaia like the greedy and hypocritical Al Gore, who personally pollute more than most small nations.
Why do we keep going here? You are never, ever going to convince me and the majority of skeptics of the anthropomorphic nature of GWCCC. And I won’t convince you otherwise. I’ll keep driving my SUV and you keep driving your Priapuses (I DO hope you practice what you preach…). Empty gestures like driving Priapuses, using poisonous fluorescent bulbs, having minimal-flush toilets that have to be flushed 10 times to do the job, and so on make the BELIEVERS feel better about what wonderful world-saviors they are, but really have no effect on the future of the planet.
Skeptic out.
[/blockquote]
Answer my question first. Are you OK with your government asking you to turn in those who don’t BELIEVE? -
You mean like calling up the FBI that you want a Hummer or Suburban? You mean like your children calling Obama’s FBI on you, just like the Nazis?
As for being a skeptic, a misuse of language, you cannot be a skeptic if you KNOW warming is all a lying conspiracy with no truth to it at all. It’s like being a little bit pregnant. You can’t be.
& in all your haranguing, you’re “evidence” is that it’s all from liberals, nothing factual. So like cigar, facts just get in the way.
I think we’re done. Thanks. -
[link]https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers[/link]
FIND DENIERS and “call them out”? REALLY?
But on to other things. You KNOW everything spoon fed to you by your masters is TRUTH, so how is that different?
As a skeptic, I’m saying nothing is [i]proven[/i], and I vote against destroying capitalism and creating a huge shift of wealth to third-world countries and thieves like Algore over the paranoia of a bunch of adolescent girls.
Get over it. You will not convince me. If you wish to live your life convoluted in agony over the impending destruction of the world, go ahead. Enjoy.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Again I think you are projecting Dalai. Here is how I see it. You, umm doubters, have serious intellectual investment in a morally incompatible position… IF you are wrong. See, if you are right, you will have saved some money. If you are WRONG, you have willfully and negligently gambled with the lives of others. You will have quite literally committed a sin against humanity. Therefore, you cannot be wrong. You said it yourself, you will never believe. A man of science would not say that, a zealot would. Somewhere along the line those in the doubter camp have become cognitively disconnected. So you MUST be right, there is no other option at this point for you.
-
Quote from xrayer31
3.Scientists are lying today, selling a liberal hoax for their own profit (What exactly is their profit? Are those scientists who are “selling” warming becoming fabulously rich?)
scientists of all sorts, not just climate, often create hype just to keep the grants and funding rolling in.
Because, “more research in this area” needs to be done. No matter the subject. That’s always the conclusion.
Do you have examples? I mean to condemn scientists in general seems a very broad brush. What evidence? What examples?
My memory is that in the 1980’s and to the present it was politicians & corporations who stated we needed more study. Like the tobacco industry.
Or do you mean that like the scientists who upheld the tobacco industry’s argument that tobacco was not proven to cause cancer or was even dangerous to your health were guns for hire, working for the almighty dollar. Except that while true, some were wiling to say anything so long as they were paid, the vast majority did say tobacco was dangerous. Are you saying the majority of scientists who are saying warming exists and is anthropogenic are all paid shills & lying for the money?-
Your examples prove that scientists are corruptible. There is simply too much money to be made on BOTH sides of this argument.
I keep saying again and again and AGAIN that we need to find measures to combat [i]pollution[/i], and I differentiate that from global warming. But you will not rest until I BELIEVE as you do, and that is not imminent.-
No, no no! They’re all corrupt is not an answer.
Does warming exist? Pollution, OK, but is CO2 and CH pollution? Alda just posted that CO2 was harmless, benevolent & beneficial. Yes….but.-
No Cigar its not 1 and 2, it should be 1 or 2. Heres how I read you guys. You convince yourselves it’s 1 (there is insufficient evidence) and use 2 (we cannot fix it anyway) to make yourselves feel morally correct in possibly being very wrong about #1.
And please neither of you are climate scientists so you wouldnt know “good evidence” if it slapped you in the face. The science fraud and political power grabs are just concepts you can wrap you brains around “Well since scientists are frauds I really cannot be blamed for guessing wrong.” And you are guessing my friends.
-
Quote from over-caffeinated
No Cigar its not 1 and 2, it should be 1 or 2. Heres how I read you guys. You convince yourselves it’s 1 (there is insufficient evidence) and use 2 (we cannot fix it anyway) to make yourselves feel morally correct in possibly being very wrong about #1.
And please neither of you are climate scientists so you wouldnt know “good evidence” if it slapped you in the face. The science fraud and political power grabs are just concepts you can wrap you brains around “Well since scientists are frauds I really cannot be blamed for guessing wrong.” And you are guessing my friends.
There has been a lot of research done on how cognitive bias plays into climate change denialism.
The psychologist Daniel Kahneman was awarded the Nobel prize for his work cognitive biases and he has commented extensively into how those biases are in play with climate change deniers.
[url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329820-200-understand-faulty-thinking-to-tackle-climate-change/]
Understand faulty thinking to tackle climate change: [/h1] The amorphous nature of climate change creates the ideal conditions for human denial and cognitive bias to come to the fore[/url]
-
Wonderful. But that can be applied both ways. Whose cognitive bias wins?
No one has accepted my approach of finding some middle ground where progress can be made. You people won’t rest until we BELIEVE. Nothing less will do. Any thinking that doesn’t agree with yours on this issue is “faulty.” Of course, [i]your [/i]BELIEF couldn’t possibly be faulty, misguided, or otherwise wrong, now could it?
So hedge your bets. Buy a Tesla AND ocean-front property in Tennessee.-
Quote from DoctorDalai
Wonderful. But that can be applied both ways. Whose cognitive bias wins?
No one has accepted my approach of finding some middle ground where progress can be made. You people won’t rest until we BELIEVE. Nothing less will do. Any thinking that doesn’t agree with yours on this issue is “faulty.” Of course, [i]your [/i]BELIEF couldn’t possibly be faulty, misguided, or otherwise wrong, now could it?
So what’s your “middle ground?” I don’t recall you ever proposing any middle ground on any topic.
-
-
-
Quote from over-caffeinated
No Cigar its not 1 and 2, it should be 1 or 2. Heres how I read you guys. You convince yourselves it’s 1 (there is insufficient evidence) and use 2 (we cannot fix it anyway) to make yourselves feel morally correct in possibly being very wrong about #1.
And please neither of you are climate scientists so you wouldnt know “good evidence” if it slapped you in the face. The science fraud and political power grabs are just concepts you can wrap you brains around “Well since scientists are frauds I really cannot be blamed for guessing wrong.” And you are guessing my friends.
Moral has nothing to do with it. You guys want the change in policy, decrease in freedom and economic realities.
[b]The climate scientists don’t use the data[/b]. They ignore the most reliable (Satellite) data. They make predictions and models NOT based on the data. I don’t get what is so hard to understand about that. It’s a fact.
The people with the “models” are doing far worse than guessing, they are committing scientific fraud.
How many times do we have to say it? You can’t counter it. Why? Because it’s a fact. They ignore the most reliable data. I repeat. How many times until you treat that subject must it be stated?-
Cigar. I cannot interpret satellite data and relate it to climate change any more than you can so STOP acting like you have a clue what you are talking about. This is the part that I find so ludicrous about the anti-movement, they all assume that because they can wrap their grossly inexperienced minds around a single data point that somehow they have unlocked the secret code that numerous experts who spend their ENTIRE LIVES studying have somehow missed.
You and Dalai are like those poor patients we see every couple weeks in cancer conference. Who went to every legitimate specialist in town and that all said the exact same thing: surgery and radiation is needed to have any chance at curing thier cancer. Yet they went to some pseudointellectual web sites and suddenly they are experts in cancer and sure enough find some local “expert” herbologist who tells them all about how doctors are in league with big pharma to overtreat cancer and all the data is cooked and all they need is some herbal supplements and vitamins. Then the patient comes back two years later with end stage cancer and we all shake our heads how anyone could have been so unfortunately misguided. Next patient.
You stick with your herbologists sir if it pleases you. Don’t expect me to buy it or not call dangerous foolishness and pseudoscience exactly what it is.-
You BELIEVE and there is no dissent allowed. Fine. Unlike your unfortunately-chosen example, we don’t have an accurate diagnosis, and we certainly don’t have a proper cure. But you BELIEVE and that’s all that matters.
Frumious chooses to ignore the multiple times I’ve called for a middle ground on this very issue. Not surprising. Once I’ve declared that I don’t BELIEVE they stop reading. No matter. But once more with gusto…It is necessary to find measures that will be tolerated. We’ve come a long way already in that regard. Catalytic converters, lead-free gasoline, scrubbers, etc. We pollute far less than we did. But you BELIEVERS now have your white undergarments in a wad over CO2. Heck, SadRad once said we should quit eating meat so we have fewer cows breathing out CO2 and otherwise producing CH3. NOT HAPPENING. Can you get people to drive more efficient cars? Sure. Can you get them to quit driving cars? NOT A CHANCE.
The middle ground is to be reasonable in your expectations of how the public will respond to your overstated alarm. It is the BELIEVERS who have latched onto a few points of (manipulated) data and declared an absolute emergency with no real idea of just what the emergency is and how to deal with it.-
If you are right, and truly believe it. There is no reason for “middle ground”. Middle ground is another psychological trick so that if you do turn out to be wrong you can always say to yourself “Well I was willing to go half way but they were being unreasonable.” Nothing more.
-
Not that the truth matters to BELIEVERS, but the science is FAR from settled. That figure of “97% agreement” you hear about? It’s BS…
[link=http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2]http://www.populartechnol…cientists.html#Update2[/link]
Paper after paper was misconstrued to fit the agenda of Cook’s paper ([link=http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=2C188B1E3B5666F9FD0D9717F7C09951.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org)]http://iopscience.iop.org…opscience.cld.iop.org)[/link]
You are being LIED to. This is unproven science, and data is being manipulated to capture the hearts and minds of the BELIEVERS.
But you BELIEVERS really don’t want to hear that. It goes against the malignant narcissism inherent in the Liberal mind. Look at Caffeinated’s comments. I haven’t heard that much self-inflation in quite a while.
The sad fact is, our meager individual efforts are simply spitting in the wind. We can all buy Pripuses and it won’t retard whatever warming will or won’t happen. But the constant verbal adoration makes the BELIEVERS FEEL like they’re doing something, and to them, that’s all that counts.-
“The sad fact is, our meager individual efforts are simply spitting in the wind.”
THANK YOU for stating the painfully obvious. Which is why the “liberal” mind is calling to “group action” to do something about it now rather than waiting. And no it isn’t settled which is why the “conservative” claim that we “don’t need to do anything” is so dangerous. It is a gamble, just to save some money, you need to check your priorities sir.
And if I am wrong and nothing happens we all wind up with a cleaner environment and some money spent. OMG, how horrible! Whereas if YOU are wrong we all get to suffer for your decision. Do not pretend that your decision is not going to have certain consequences we all get to share.-
I’m going out right now and buying the biggest Suburban they have on the lot just so I can pump the particulates and the CO2 in your direction.
Notice I did say I was willing to find ways to pollute less, but no…either one BELIEVES 100% or fugetaboudit.
You really don’t grasp just how ludicrous you sound, do you, [i]Sir[/i]? This is like discussing saving the whales with a bunch of 13 year old girls. You are in an absolute panic and it detracts from any sort of sense you might make otherwise. -
Notice how they make more asinine statments like accusing me of saying “I’m smarter.” I never said that, I have no idea what false analogy with herbal crap you are making. But I can tell you that I know what science is, and what it isn’t. That doesn’t make me smart, it just makes me honest and disciplined, which AGW people are not. Beyond that, like Dalai says, they are not happy with anything other than 100% devotion to the cause.
We should be calling them something like Frumi al-Akbar at this point, they are so obnoxious. -
I still return to the example of your brother, Dalai, the one who knew that all doctors lied & were untrustworthy. An irrational idea. Your whole argument as is cigar’s is irrational devoid of facts, only that you both know scientists lie, as your bother knew that doctors lie.
Irrationality is dangerous. -
Quote from Frumious
I still return to the example of your brother, Dalai, the one who knew that all doctors lied & were untrustworthy. An irrational idea. Your whole argument as is cigar’s is irrational devoid of facts, only that you both know scientists lie, as your bother knew that doctors lie.
Irrationality is dangerous.
The level of irrationality demonstrated by you BELIEVERS just hit a new high. Or low.
I would suggest you be ashamed of using the rather painful episode of my brother’s death to further your BELIEVER agenda, but I don’t think shame is part of your makeup. But thanks for the reminder that what is posted here is committed to the memory of those who might want to use one’s words for their own purposes. I won’t answer in kind.
Let’s get a few things straight for those who are not BELIEVERS. They won’t listen anyway, but others might.
My brother was convinced that the cancer growing quite visibly on his tongue could be cured by herbs and other claptrap methods. He was convinced that physicians were all part of a cabal to hide natural cures, so they could profit from conventional treatments. He of course didn’t grasp that the natural practitioners were making money from his “treatments” as well. Had he sought conventional treatment early on, he would be alive today.
The BELIEVERS will declare this a parallel to the climate fiasco, but there are significant differences if you care to think about it. The cancer was visible physically, nodal spread was easily depicted on CT and PET scans. There was no equivocation, no dithering, no hesitation. There [i]was[/i] a cancer present. We could define it, we could delineate it. And there were treatments available with proven success records. Excise the tumor, irradiate the region, administer chemotherapy. In the [i]experience[/i] of the physicians of one of the finest cancer centers in the world, where my brother was finally treated, these procedures would cure the lesion or at least limit the cancer’s growth. The goal of these physicians is clear: to cure cancer. A very few rogue docs have been known to bilk the system and treat patients with unnecessary things, but that is quite rare, and we all know that. The path to a cure was clear, but my brother chose not to accept it and his irrationality is obvious.
The climate thing is not so cut and dried. We have no lesion we can point at. We don’t have a scan delineating a climate “tumor”. About the only REAL finding is a temperature graph that has been manipulated to the hilt. Thus, we don’t KNOW the truth. We don’t know where the cancer is, or if there even IS a cancer. But based on incomplete, altered, and in some cases outright false data, the BELIEVERS (and those who manipulate them) want us to perform the equivalent of brain surgery, or an amputation. But we have no evidence, guarantees, or anything beyond promises with crossed fingers that these draconian measures will cure the disease we can’t even confirm exists. Hardly an accurate analogy. But when you BELIEVERS appoint yourselves the PROTECTORS OF THE PLANET, and accuse those who aren’t in total agreement of wanting billions to die, I guess no argument, no insult, no perversion is too great or too low.
I think you realize that I am as rational as anyone else, and I would hope my IQ is around the average of the other posters on this board. As a physician, I do consider myself a scientist of sorts. In other words, I am not stupid, or irrational, but I cannot reach the same level of BELIEF in Climate whatever manifested by the BELIEVERS. I don’t need you to agree with me as much as you need me to agree with YOU 100%, and that won’t happen.
It does distress me to see other intelligent people like yourselves so immersed in this mindset. There is no compromise, and only straw-man arguments, misquotes, and other intellectual dishonesty and manipulation. I have said repeatedly that we should not gratuitously pollute, that we need to work on REASONABLE approaches for our stewardship of the planet, but that isn’t good enough. Why can’t we stop there and discuss what IS reasonable? Because this has become a religion, a cause, a crusade, to you BELIEVERS. Fixing anything is secondary to the BELIEF. -
Ah, a cabal. Just like the environment scientists who conspire to tell us the hoax about global warming.
IQ as you should know has nothing to do with rational or irrational beliefs. Non sequitur.
But to dismiss scientists declaring them to be in some conspiratorial cabal is irrational, regardless of your IQ. I’m sure your bother had a higher than average IQ & yet he believed there was a physician cabal.
-
You really don’t get how far you’ve sunk, do you? Others do.
-
-
So I will take you up on your 97% article. Saying it’s not 97% implies that its something other than 97%, possibly considerably less. Even then, that does not equal 3+% think global warming ISN’T happening, they may feel it’s inconclusive at this time.
Of course that was based upon a 2010 article. What’s the number now? For, against, unsure?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from DoctorDalai
Your examples prove that scientists are corruptible. There is simply too much money to be made on BOTH sides of this argument.
I keep saying again and again and AGAIN that we need to find measures to combat [i]pollution[/i], and I differentiate that from global warming. But you will not rest until I BELIEVE as you do, and that is not imminent.
Most everyone is corruptible but the question is are most corrupt. Your story of your brother is a perfect example, he did not trust doctors; they are all corrupt, except maybe perhaps his brother? Even you thought his idea was a bit flaky.
That some scientists might not be ethical is hardly an epiphany. That some doctors are actually corrupt is not exactly an epiphany. All or most scientists and doctors are corrupt and unethical, that’s a stretch. Truth is that is a bizarre fantasy by those who believe it.
So we are talking about how you justify a bizarre fantasy broad brush declaration about the ethics of scientists and doctors. Can’t be done.
-
-
-
I’m not practicing anything. You support things that are by definition, pseudo-science. You are the ones that bear the burden, and you are the ones that want to do things.
I’m content to use my brain and not get fooled.-
“I’m content to use my brain and not get fooled.”
Ahh yes there it is. The “I’m smarter than everyone else” statement, the very core of pseudoscience. You can probably find that one-line zinger in almost every testimonial to herbal cures ever sold.
-
