Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 11881 - 11900 of total 26497 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 27, 2013 - 01:52am PT
Like I said Brewsky, you just wouldn't nor couldn't ever understand.


I now completely see why Werner tears you up regularly. And why you are on the MMGW sinking boat of completely denialism in the reality of it's non-existence.



You don't like me?

Too bad. BAWWAAAAAAAAAAAAA.


but empathy and understanding are the halmarks of civilization.

Since when and what civilization do you live in? Bumfk BC Utopia Canukland?

Go fish.


nite.
dirtbag

climber
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:04am PT
^^^^The above statements are from a scientifically and mathematically illiterate blowhard, too arrogant to know when to stfu and listen.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:14am PT
That leaves you guys against the world dosn't it?

Pretty much sums up every post he has made. Kinda sad.

My friend's dad was a Vietnam vet. He would have wild mood swings, severe paranoia, and go off about ridiculous conspiracy theories that involved precise details of his experiences with complete disregard for the rest of reality. He blew his brains out when we were 10. My friend heard the noise and was the first to see the mess.

No doubt our veterans should get better mental health treatment, especially when the symptoms are so blindingly obvious.
anita514

Gym climber
Great White North
Sep 27, 2013 - 06:48am PT
How dumb do you have to be to write this?
Serious question ..

IQ average ?
90?
80?
70?

probably the same as the Chef's height, about 52

reading, understanding and thinking are like kryptonite to the Chef.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Sep 27, 2013 - 07:41am PT
http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/press_release_ar5_wgi_en.pdf

AR5.

Chef,you are right ,I could never understand .
But,admonish,it might be your reason to distrust the government,but for the 95% of people that did not serve our country,we have no grievance as such.
That said,I am sorry for your loss and support veterans outreach.

Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Sep 27, 2013 - 09:14am PT
Talk about being MEAN

Well, I'd had a long day repairing our wounded warriors returning from the ME with all sorts of horrific impairments, so I was kinda drained. That and my kid was clamoring for attention.

But I really strive not to be mean per se; I don't think that usually adds to the discussion. (not to say I haven't provided my share of that)

But are you sure you were in the military? I would guess you would have some understanding that "sir" isn't always respectful.

I think the whole NAZI thing is just so played out and shows a real lack of historical knowledge. We've got such other great dictators to choose from: Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, or probably most appropriate for the point Dick was making- Romania's Ceaușescu.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 27, 2013 - 09:27am PT
This one sentence from the AR5 SPM sums it all up!


“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
pg.98


Some of the initial comments from over a 100 contrarian scientist & economists globally were pretty sharp and on point regarding this incredibly flawed United Nations bureaucratic piece of shet report.

The one below pretty much says it all...

"SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right."
R. McKitrick, PhD,
Professor of Economics and CME Chair in Sustainable Commerce
University of Guelph
Guelph ON Canada
N1G 2M5
(519) 824-4120 x52532


I will be posting more as the day progresses along with their PhD titles.




Skeptimistic
But are you sure you were in the military? I would guess you would have some understanding that "sir" isn't always respectful.

In your future dealings with any SNCO WW's, you can verify my following comment for credibilitiy...

Whenever I had any interactions with any zero in which I was thoroughly pissed at cus they had fkd up royally, I NEVER interjected the NOUN, "SIR". Then I let them know that all respect was totally lost for them, the individual wearing the the insignia I would salute in the most smartass manner after chewing their ass up and down then telling em get the fk off my flight deck. And YES, it was MY flight deck via the positional authority given to me as the FLT DK LCPO.

EDIT:



Just found this one....

I notice that IPCC 4 PR claimed 2,000 scientists contributed whereas IPCC 5 only claims 800. Is there any significance? Or are they now excluding railway engineers and Greenpeace lobbyists?


PS: You OK Riley???
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Sep 27, 2013 - 10:14am PT
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 27, 2013 - 10:26am PT
Hey MONO, is the above GRAPH based on SAT DATA???
crunch

Social climber
CO
Sep 27, 2013 - 10:38am PT
Good article in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?hp&_r=0

“It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

“Continuing rapid emissions now is kicking the climate can down the road, leaving climate change for our children and grandchildren,” said Christopher B. Field, an American scientist heading a subgroup of the intergovernmental panel that will issue a report next year on climate impacts. “But it is kicking a can that gets to be bigger, heavier and harder to move with each kick.”
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Sep 27, 2013 - 11:10am PT
o Need to Panic About Global Warming
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
Article
Video
Comments (2554)
MORE IN OPINION »
smaller
Larger
facebook
twitter
google plus
linked in
EmailPrint
Save
↓ More
Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Enlarge Image
Lindzen
Corbis
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Sep 27, 2013 - 11:14am PT
Yes,, GW advocates warn of economic, social, and all other manner of breakdowns over "climate".. As of a percentage of a degree of "warming in decades will just turn us all into flesh eating zombies right? Yes,, and in 200 yrs when/if the ocean rises an inch or two, the dock owners and those living near the sea will never figure out how to raise their docks right?

They want to WARN the WORLD that if we dont follow along certain demise is in our future because we are to dumb and will just fold up and die if climate changes. Climate has been changing since i was born and im still here.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 27, 2013 - 11:15am PT
Going well beyond its four previous analyses of the emissions problem, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change endorsed a “carbon budget” for humanity — an upper limit on the amount of the primary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, that can be emitted from industrial activities and forest destruction.

You all best start telling China that cus they are flat out telling you, the world and the UN IPCC to...







GOOD POST RON!!
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Sep 27, 2013 - 11:15am PT
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now


lol
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 27, 2013 - 11:21am PT
You did not answer my question MONO...

Is the above from SAT DATA???


Yes OR No.

MONO
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now


ODD. This is a direct quote from pg 65 in the final released AR5 SPM:

“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Sep 27, 2013 - 11:24am PT
The Chief demands responses, how precious.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Sep 27, 2013 - 11:24am PT
Allow me Chief,,, HELL NO !!! That is yet another fantasy model brought to you by the tax creators.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Sep 27, 2013 - 11:24am PT
LOL, our special group of deniers are claiming the oceans are not warming.

Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Sep 27, 2013 - 11:26am PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#322894


Now Mono,,, DONT look at the near countless squiggly lines, as they are BULLCHIPS.


The dots and such along the bottom are ACTUAL observations..
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 27, 2013 - 11:26am PT
MONO
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now


ODD. This is a direct quote from pg 65 in the final released AR5 SPM:

“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”
Messages 11881 - 11900 of total 26497 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