Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 10861 - 10880 of total 26687 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
dirtbag

climber
Jul 25, 2013 - 09:53am PT
Right on Bruce.

That's why my usual response to willfully ignorant, Chief Running Mouth is the humping puking dogs. That's about all he deserves.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jul 25, 2013 - 10:07am PT
Ive REALLY been loving the coverage on wild fires and "experts" that are now writing new books on fires,, BECAUSE they wrote a book before on a single fire long ago.. Now they sling the CC poo telling of how fires now burn hotter ROFLMAO!

The 1800s would be shocked to hear this as those are the years of the very worst wild fires ever recorded. Then the early 1900s would also be terribly butt hurt to hear the millions upon millions of acres that burned dont rate today..1910 was a HELL of a fire year, just ask IDAHO. Which nearly burnt 100%!

So if you want SUPER FIRES,, youll have too look BACK even before the industrial revolution.

More NONSENSE by the CC crowd that ranks right up there with P bears and owls..

The ONLY reason fires burn like they due today is the build up of fuels in lands that receive no treatments. KNOTT the .09 of "warming".. Fuels do NOT get "drier" than zero. When 1 hour time lag fuels dry out they are dry and that happens in 80 degree weather as well as 105 degree weather.

Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Jul 25, 2013 - 10:10am PT
The 1800s would be shocked to hear this as those are the years of the very worst wild fires ever recorded. Then the early 1900s would also be terribly butt hurt to hear the millions upon millions of acres that burned dont rate today..1910 was a HELL of a fire year, just ask IDAHO. Which nearly burnt 100%!

So if you want SUPER FIRES,, youll have too look BACK even before the industrial revolution.

Damn but do you argue in circles, lol.

DMT
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 25, 2013 - 10:39am PT
Yeah. According to the way ED wants you to read it.


The thing is, The Chief, nobody has been able to refute "the way ED wants you to read it."

But please, go ahead and try to show us where Ed's analysis is wrong.

This is what Ed does, he shows us where you are wrong. Now see if you can do that with what Ed writes.

We'll be waiting ...
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Jul 25, 2013 - 10:43am PT
Bruce, don't waste your time with this guy. Not worth it.

True that, he's a serial east side masturbator. Best let the retarded progeny whither on the spanky blanky.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jul 25, 2013 - 12:04pm PT
Ed, i've got to hand it to you. You know, you would make one hell of a sci-fi writer, perhaps of the caliber of Arthur C. Clarke. This fiction you perpetuate here is outstanding, the way you take disparate information from multitudes of sources, analyze, twist and contort to weave into advancement of this CAGW narrative is monumental. Galactic cosmic rays is a small effect. I read the CLOUD article-it did attribute a pronounced cloud nuclei effect to GCR, it just didn't attribute the gathering or forming of this nucleation effect into clouds as a result. But is not a proliferation of cloud nuclei an aerosol capable of deflecting solar radiation from earths surface? Contrary to what you claim their has been significant study of this effect by Svensmark and Christiansen. Talk of GCR alone is a diversion, i mentioned a half dozen solar effects, GCR being just a small contributory. The biggest effect is variation in TSI over periods of decades and how that energy is stored in the oceans and distributed by oceanic currents and mixed in oscillations, then released into regions of the globe or absorbed into the deep oceans. Of equal or greater effect is the parts of the solar spectrum, magnetic flux, and variations of solar wind ignored by IRCC in favor of the bogus TSI index. Once again their is significant study going on this field also- Shapiro, Abdussmatov, Shaviv, Lu, Ushokin etc. etc. The truth is slowly coming out.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 25, 2013 - 12:28pm PT
No wonder you love that ignorant ditz from wasilla.

Rick, people like you are the problem.

Ignorant, arrogant loudmouths who think they know everything.

Stoopid fool.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Jul 25, 2013 - 12:35pm PT
It is believable that you Dick and your 3% are the only ones barking up the the" solar effects "tree.

And then you insist we are on our last leg.

You and yours are great Comedy.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jul 25, 2013 - 01:01pm PT
Dirtbag, i assume you are a natural born woman, but maybe i'm wrong, maybe you are a S.F. muni employee who took advantage of the "transformation" medical benefit required of their insurers. At any rate, i liked your doggie cartoon and i assumed you are the front dog- what do they call those- oh yeah bitch. Don't try to think dear, get new batteries for your vibrator and turn on your MSNBC for your marching orders.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 25, 2013 - 01:18pm PT
Maybe you should stfu about science and let the experts do their jobs.

You are both arrogant and ignorant. Again, you are the problem fooktard.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 25, 2013 - 01:19pm PT
And psst...hate to break it to you sport, but you're not that smart.
The Chief

climber
From the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jul 25, 2013 - 02:33pm PT
Dirtbag and her FriendThe Queen of shet food. More C02 emits outta her mouth than her ass.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Jul 25, 2013 - 02:55pm PT
More C02 emits outta her mouth than her ass

Unlike the idiotic science-blind ignoramuses here whose heads are shoulder deep.

(Methane, not CO2 is the predominant gas from the south end of the digestive tract...)
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Jul 25, 2013 - 03:06pm PT
The ole ,1 2 3.

Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jul 26, 2013 - 11:36am PT
One of my favorite Arctic scientists, Dr Jennifer Francis, gave a nice summary in testimony before the Senate last week. In her 5-minute account she wraps up the current state of greenhouse gas buildup, Arctic ice, sea level, why all this affects weather extremes, and the "climate misleaders" who feed pseudo-science talking points to the public.

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/07/22/the-top-5-things-that-keep-me-awake-at-night-jennifer-francis-testimony-july-18-2013/
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jul 26, 2013 - 12:33pm PT
Rick - I direct this following comment at you not Chuff as it it is you who continues to present yourself as a reasonable student and adherent of science - very much unlike the Chuff. As I pointed out to Meathead, everyone of you deniers - including yourself - has demonstrated a very poor grasp of both a technical understanding of the science and an ability to follow the scientific process. You in fact have admitted to exactly that.

Yet you persist in your certain belief without any variation despite getting schooled. This is not only irrational but ultimately immoral. an equivalent would be to be building a bridge or building and reject the opinion and work of engineers because you don't like what their conclusions imply or require, then assume that you have the ability to crunch the data yourself as the best way to achieve your desired outcome. As a builder you know full well that your general liability policy that you no doubt carry would never protect you from litigation in such a case. Your ass would be sued in under two seconds flat and for good reason. That is gross negligence of duty and a moral failing obvious to all.

Now we all know that those engineers - and in our case Ed Hartouni - may in fact be somehow wrong either through thier own derillection of duty or perhaps willful corruption. For all I know Ed is high on crack most of the time or is in fact a secret raving eco terrorist. Maybe if I was prone to paranoia I might even think that my intuition suggests this. But Intuitive guesses are useless unless corroberated by evidence. If you don't like what your engineers say you have no choice but to seek out another engineer but if you find yourself hearing the same thing with each successive engineer you would have to be a fool to persist in your certain belief that they the experts are wrong and you the inexpert are right.

So you may in the end find a engineer or two that will supply you with the opinion you want. Congratulations but if you are a person of ethics you will realize that your responsible duty continues in ensuring that in the face of a contradictory expert consensus your expert is both reputable and his work is credible and conclusive.

In such a case - and in the case of climate science - you and we are very much at the mercy of expert opinion and our only abilities to rate that opinion are our abilities of judging credentials, gaining a consensus opinion and ensuring that professional ethics are upheld. In the construction trades and most any other private enterprize ensuring professional ethical duty is a difficult process but in the field of scientific research outside of private enterprize, it is not.

By these standards your position is not only irrational but indicates an unacceptable moral motivation. There are so many valid reasons to trust the science consensus and so few to distrust it that no matter what your intuitions or prejudices tell you you would logically have to distrust yourself more than anyone else if you persist in your belief.

Such a self doubt is not a character flaw. It is humility. The ability to recognize your limitations as well as the capabilities of others. A lack of humility is a moral failing. To reject the institutional consensus without reasonable cause is a moral failing. Thats the beef I have with you in case there is any doubt.

I suggest your read this and see if you can recognize yourself .





The second source of moral corruption is the influence of those who repudiate the science of climate change. They portray themselves as "sceptics," but they are more accurately described as deniers. A sceptic is one who carefully filters received knowledge to see which propositions stand up to independent scrutiny. But one thing we immediately notice about the contributions of climate 'sceptics' is the absence of a quizzical, thoughtful approach. Among those who debate the science of climate change they are the ones who profess to be most certain, insisting vehemently on the falsity of the claims of climate scientists and convinced of the correctness of their own opinions.

True sceptics are, of course, to be found among climate scientists themselves. As a matter of cultural practice and professional rivalry, research scientists routinely subject the work of their peers to the most critical scrutiny. It is a mark of quiet professional pride to find mistakes in the work of one's fellow researchers. Denial, on the other hand, is a well-defined syndrome. In an analysis of denial in the medical arena, two public health experts have noted that in "debates" over smoking and HIV, for instance, denialism has some or all of five characteristic elements:

the identification of conspiracies;

the use of fake experts and front organizations;

cherry-picking data from the scientific literature to support one's case;

creating impossible expectations of what research can show; and,
deploying misrepresentation and logical fallacies.


Each of these is deployed by the climate science denial movement.

Now, Cardinal George Pell has become a prominent climate science denier. Last year, in a widely disseminated speech in London, Cardinal Pell reproduced a farrago of false claims about climate science, claims that he had transcribed from denialist websites or simply plucked out of the air. Anyone who studies the arguments of deniers soon discovers that, although the terrain of the debate appears to be science, in truth it is about deep cultural and political beliefs, and Cardinal Pell is no exception. He concedes that his entry into the climate science debate was motivated by his disdain for environmentalism, which he sees as anti-human, and reading his arguments it is immediately clear that he filters the science through ideological lenses.



The whole thing is here: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/08/29/3578983.htm
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jul 26, 2013 - 12:43pm PT
Chiloe have you heard of the CLAW hypothesis or Lindzens Iris effect. I know they are ancient history and the CAGW community of religious zealots think they have been thoroughly refuted. However=, in light of the spectacular model failures and fizzling of one hysterical prediction after another perhaps the community should dust off some old science that can explain the pause and decline. I can see a sliver of hope for your guys to achieve a graceful exit with the new solar effect studies combined with a combination of the type of hypothesis i listed above.

Dirtbag, after thinking about it i extend my apologies to you. I lost my temper because of your dogged sniping. Please excuse me.

Bruce you must have been writing simultaneous to me. I haven't done much more than glance at it but will look and respond after work this evening.
Dr. F.

Boulder climber
SoCal
Jul 26, 2013 - 12:48pm PT
However=, in light of the spectacular model failures and fizzling of one hysterical prediction after another
pure delusion
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jul 26, 2013 - 12:50pm PT
Does it feel righteous to you Rick?

when you completely fail at refuting the climate change scientific community's work?

when all you got left is sitting in a corner alone and insisting that two plus two equals five

"sticking to your guns" is a better way of going through life than having the intelligence to both recognize, admit, and then, horrors, change what you are so wrong on?

like your moronic vote for Caribou Barbie to be one heartbeat away from being Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces?

Oh, Wasilla

you and her, both towers of intellect, deserve each other
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jul 26, 2013 - 01:01pm PT
I know they are ancient history and the CAGW community of religious zealots think they have been thoroughly refuted.

Rick, you have no clue how much of what you "know" is pure fantasy.

perhaps the community should dust off some old science that can explain the pause and decline.

You haven't paid any attention at all, have you? For example to the video I just posted, or the squiggly line graph that Ron needed acid to stare at, just a page or so back.
Messages 10861 - 10880 of total 26687 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews