Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 10881 - 10900 of total 29686 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Aug 27, 2013 - 05:10pm PT
Long ago i determined that the odds of CAGW effects posing a threat for the future well being of my descendants is near zero.
Please show us the calculation you used to determine this.
You know, the math.
Well in your case I guess it would be arithmetic.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 27, 2013 - 11:11pm PT
Ed, exactly what physcical observations and measurements that your "scientists that have done that" have that fit the CAGW hypothesis advanced with ever increasing hysterics since at least the early 1980's?This is considerably more than the two year forecast i tried to pry from you earlier, its 30 years. Seems to me that thirty years is in the realm of the climate change scale.The stated purpose of all the hysterics were for nothing my friend. The severity of the current climate change has been well within the range of Earth normal for the Holocene. Certainly the change was no more severe than the little ice age, the Medieval warm or Roman warm periods (which were quite good for us earthlings and the biosphere i might add), and no where near as severe or as rapid as the cooling of the Younger Dryas or the warming coming out of it. So, as the old saying goes- put up or shut up-where are the matching physical realities to the frightening forecasts?

They don't exist Ed. As it turns out the climate is much less sensitive to CO2 than the attempted "scare science" forecast. Maybe it's time to jump ship, hell your not the captain anyway.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:20am PT
FORTMENTAL/KMAN:

You two are just doomsday sorryass pissing whining liberal shetwads that expects the US Gov't to take over where your mother left off.

Nothing more.

WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE....


This is what I truly think about your sorryass whining AGW ideology.

FASTER FASTER FASTER.

dirtbag

climber
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:32am PT
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^



The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:44am PT
^^^^ And your DIRTBAG sorryass is probably on full disability due some kind of gender issue. You are still struggling with the thought of how to get you lazy ass laid without the dude power puking all over your stick laying ass. I suggest you stop eating them DING DONGS and at least twitch once or twice.^^^^^^^^^^^
dirtbag

climber
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:07am PT
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^



rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:18am PT
Not back in Ak. till Sept. 6. Working my ass off on two remodels here in northern NV. Rehabbing habitats for the masses of humanity, but i expect a profit for my efforts. Anyway there is nothing preventing your access to the physical proofs of all the shocking CAGW predictions. Many of the dates of doom have come and passed over this thirty year period without the natural world caring not a wit about all the make believe climate models. But what do i know? The heat is probably hiding in the nearly uniform three degree centigrade waters of the deep blue where the sun never shines.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:31am PT
That is the reality some of choose Burchey.

And that is what this entire OP is all about. Choosing the reality you want in your life/s.


Here is some more reality TRUTH about the AGW bullshet.
There are fewer than 1000 stations with records of 100 years and most of them are severely compromised by growth of urban areas. Equally important, is the decline in the number of stations they consider suitable, especially after 1990. This pattern also partly explains why the current readings are high (Figure 5). Temperature increases as the number of stations used are reduced.
http://drtimball.com/2013/climate-deception-how-the-hottest-temperature-game-is-played-to-offset-prediction-failures/
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 28, 2013 - 02:03am PT
Here's one of the Big one's EDH:

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

FAIL!
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 28, 2013 - 03:42am PT
^yes you can jus go to Vegas
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 28, 2013 - 09:59am PT
Your problem, Chief Bro-Kenbrane, is that you think reality is something you can choose.

Get your head outta that freak show Scientism Utopia Elitist Club ass, open up your mind, release yourself from that fantasia of a confined box life and you might just learn precisely how to do that.

Reality is exactly what you want it to be. To state anything different is complete lunacy.

But then science mandates that anyone that thinks or believes in this manner is a lunatic.

Sad and of course YOUR problem FRONTALOBOTAME.

Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 10:46am PT
During 2005 - 2007, I was funded by NASA to work as a visiting scientist on two projects studying climate change - MIRAGE (Mexico) and Intex-B (Hong Kong to NW USA). We flew NCAR's C-130 stuffed full of instruments and scientists that measured all kinds of atmospheric components - gases, particles, contaminants, you name it. These weren't really fun projects to participate in since the C-130 had lousy ventilation and no A/C - and fat old scientists stink more than normal people. But the big surprise for me was that few of those onboard were sold on the Al Gore view of global warming. In fact, I did not meet a single disciple out of the 153 scientists working MIRAGE and Intex-B.

I spent much of my spare time reading the literature related to the measurement side of climate change. These are the key points I walked away with from those years:

1) Some of the most meaningful data are those published of ocean surface temperature. The thing is, many military, research and commercial vessels have collected this data for over 150 years all around the world. Thus the data set is fairly complete. Over the last 70 years, the trend has been up and the main weather correlation has been regarding the *intensity* of tropical storms (not frequency). It appears that rising surface temps makes more mass available for evaporation - logical.

2) The global research community has far too little active weather stations to feed atmospheric computational models. Some estimate that we'd need one million times more sensors simultaneously live to begin correlating parameters such as CO2 to climate change.

3) Most leading researchers in the field are not convinced that fossil fuel combustion has led to warming of Earth's surface. See 2) above but also go look at the publications to see how far we have to go in understanding the global heat picture. For the moment, we have more suspicion than actual real experimental data.

In reading this thread, I see all the hate dumped on the Chief and also see how different his plots look compared to that of the GW believers. Holy sh#t, can there be bias in science? Of course. I do believe the review papers on ocean surface temperature measurements are valid and that we have seen over 1 degree (C) rise over the last century. I'm not convinced that greenhouse gases have yet been correlated to that change. However, I think they will eventually be shown to be a significant component in the big picture. But when the vast majority of the world's leading scientists are highly skeptical of Al Gore's position, that should make you step back and ask if that view has excessive bias - and I believe it does. The global heat budget estimates have too much uncertainty to predict that fossil fuel combustion is the dominant contributor to global temperature rise.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 28, 2013 - 10:50am PT
Most leading researchers in the field are not convinced that fossil fuel combustion has led to warming of Earth's surface.

^^^Complete Bullsh#t^^^

Who cares what Al Gore thinks?



Lets see, what could possibly be causing the warming?

photo not found
Missing photo ID#312885
Degaine

climber
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:13am PT
mad69dog wrote:
Al Gore's position,

Could you please state what you think Al Gore's position on climate change to be?
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 28, 2013 - 11:26am PT
Mad69Dog sez:

I see all the hate dumped on the Chief.


Proof positive that Mad69Dog can't see past his nose, and that he comes to the table biased. An unbiased viewer would quickly see that it is The Chief who initiates all the hate.

Try opposing one of The Chief's many views, Mad69Dog, and you will see what I mean. The angry man will begin to tear you down with his hatred, and you might not even be talking directly to him.

You worked with less than 200 researchers (153), and yet from this you claim "the vast majority of the world's leading scientists..." Your real-life observations seem to be riddled with bias. That doesn't do much to convince me of your scientific prowess.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:31am PT
MONO & KMAN!

You are really looking like some religious fanatical freaks that insists one must convert to their religion in order to see the light and be ... SAVED?

OR ELSE!!!!

WOW!


Your rhetoric is a complete de ja vu from this era...




Seriously.


KMAN:
The angry man will begin to tear you down with his hatred, and you might not even be talking directly to him.

WOW!

You just do not get it.


You all need to seriously regroup and rethink who and what you are doing. Really.

This dude can help do that...




And I think you most assuredly know where he stands on this AGW issue.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 28, 2013 - 11:45am PT
@ The Chief,
Bro, if I were a real friend of yours, I would take you aside and let you know that the way you address people turns them into your enemies.

The fact is, you would not have a single friend if you talked in person the way you do over the internet. I imagine that you might have a friend or two, and if indeed you do, you must be a very different person in real life because nobody who acts the way you do keeps friends for very long.

Of all the people with whom I've had personal interactions, either live or via written correspondence, there are very few who I consider to be 'enemies' of mine. Out of all people I've known, or have talked to, very few fall into the bucket into which I place you. And in that bucket are the people who I have zero desire to communicate with. It's a very lonely bucket, I'm not even sure there's more than one or two other people in there.

You might hold this as an honor. But believe me, it is just the opposite.
Degaine

climber
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:51am PT
k-man wrote:
Proof positive that Mad69Dog can't see past his nose, and that he comes to the table biased. An unbiased viewer would quickly see that it is The Chief who initiates all the hate.

Honestly, why do you care what The Chief thinks (of you or of an issue)? Why is it so important to you to convince him or bring him over to your point of view?

He has the minority opinion in this particular thread. Dude, let it go, you'll never ever get 100% of people to agree with you, whatever the issue.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:53am PT
KMAN!!!
The fact is, you would not have a single friend if you talked in person the way you do over the internet.

You truly are a conceited clueless isolated far tooo educated fool.

The more I read shet from the likes of you, folks like BURCHEY are looking more and more ... agreeable.

KMAN: Don't you have to go spend your hour kneeling and bowing to the bust of this dude you have in your Scientism shrine?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:59am PT
Mad dog - you sound really knowledgable and reasonable much like Rick Sumner, to the point where it is tempting to take your opinions at face value. Apparently you also have professional credibility on your side which is a massive advantage over mere rhetoric. you present as an authority.

if there is a single criticism I have of Rick it is his demonstrable and admitted inability to judge the science yet persisting with the pretence, which grants him liscence to believe the claims of the AGW deniers over the proponents. further to that, he generally avoids enquiry into his clearly right wing political leanings as explanation for his judgement on this choice. this is unfortunate as it obstructs a reasonable line of enquiry into why lay people chose one side or the other.

you claim the rather shocking statement that the majority of "scientists in the field" dispute that carbon emissions are the primary driver of GW. you must be aware that this runs contrary to all institutional and popular understanding. If you are right can you explain the gross disception that has been perpetuated for the past few decades? Rick Sumner claims that it is a vast global willfully organized communist plot. Surely you don,t believe this but what other explanation is there? You must be capable of expanding on this at length and in detail.

anyway, it is about time a denier / doubter with actual professional experience and credentials contributed something to the debate. hanks for piping up and we look forward to something more substantial than a Mad dog barking and an impostor posing.
Messages 10881 - 10900 of total 29686 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 Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews