Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 12401 - 12420 of total 28284 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 16, 2013 - 06:42pm PT
Brewsky
is not to discover the truth...

Truth? According to whom? The consensus?
WBraun

climber
Sep 16, 2013 - 06:46pm PT
Bottom line ......

Bruce is just plain stupid ......
Elcapinyoazz

Social climber
Joshua Tree
Sep 16, 2013 - 06:48pm PT
Bruce is quite insightful and writes well. Werner, on the other hand, poses with his guru act, which had grown a little THIN, brah.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 16, 2013 - 06:51pm PT
Good question. Generally I don't. I stopped reading much of Chuffs rantings and graphs long ago on two counts:

1) He dosn't know the science, can't judge the science and admittedly despises science

2) he is an obnoxious blowhard and troll.


Nevertheless, he dominated the thread to such a degree that even through disciplined avoidance you really can't avoid him. Also, sniping at his idiocy is just too humanly irresistible sometimes.

So I try to concentrate on the other debaters, like Rick or Ron who actually contribute and not troll. Also, the technical contributions of the various pro's are really insightful. If chuff could just huff on a bong every now and then, sit back and let it slide a bit even his bombast could find its little niche of comedy or something.

My only complaint generally - other than chuff - is the abject inability of the deniers to examine their own motives, which I think is all too apparent and generally unsavory..... but then that probably explains it.

So with little left to learn - other than what the pro's can contribute - maybe I'm done. Too bad, its an interesting and evolving subject.
WBraun

climber
Sep 16, 2013 - 06:54pm PT
his entire purpose here is not to discover the truth, it is to win

If you believe that and engage someone knowing that is the truth then you have just proved you are just plain stupid.

Even Norton knows that too ....
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 16, 2013 - 06:59pm PT
well let me put it this way .... that is what I believe, and to that extent I am merely a mental speculator.


Which is more than you can say being only a mental spectator
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 16, 2013 - 07:01pm PT
CAPntheASS:

Soros, the founder of hedge fund Soros Fund Management LLC, announced the investment in Copenhagen


Speaking with a forked tongue. That is why he is a Billionare and CEO of one of Euros largest trading and hedge fund firms.

Hmmmm...

Soros: “I think this is a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The US needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights. I would use the revenues from these auctions to launch a new, environmentally friendly energy policy. That would be yet another federal program that could help us to overcome the current stagnation.

SPIEGEL: Your proposal would be dismissed on Wall Street as “big government.” Republicans might call it European-style “socialism.”

Soros: That is exactly what we need now. I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful — but also very harmful to our society.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/spiegel-interview-with-george-soros-the-economy-fell-off-the-cliff-a-592268.html

CAPNASS
Bruce is quite insightful and writes well...

As he walks away wiping his lower lip and chin with a wash cloth.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Sep 16, 2013 - 07:03pm PT
Werner ,what in this world is not stupid to you?

WBraun

climber
Sep 16, 2013 - 07:05pm PT
You're talking to a mirror of yourself Bruce.

I don't give a sh!t about this thread.

All you guys can be simultaneously right and wrong at any time and circumstance unknowingly.

Keep at it until you die and you'll all come back in your next lives doing the same sh!t over again .....

The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 16, 2013 - 07:10pm PT
FRONTALOBOTOME:
which reveal the effects of abrupt climate change-driven famine and causal linkage with the Sea People invasions in Cyprus and Syria.

Must of been all them chariots they were using back then that caused that "abrupt climate change" huh Frontalobotome??

BTW: What DID cause that "abrupt climate change"???
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 16, 2013 - 07:11pm PT
If you didn't give a sh#t about this thread, you wouldn't be constantly lurking in the back ground .... spectating.

FM, your last comment is mentioned in a book A Short History of Progress by this guy:






fixed..... chuff, regardless of the cause, the point is that sudden climate change can be catasrophic in this case in an isolated region. AGW is not a regional phenomena it is global and the potential demonstrated before regionally may occur in a much broader scale with consequently greater problems of adaptability for a much bigger population.
WBraun

climber
Sep 16, 2013 - 07:20pm PT
Bruce

I been outside working all day and came in and just looked at the last page here just for the hell of it.

It's just plain entertainment for me.

The real truth .....

I've always considered climate change "Man Made" ......

Oh shocking isn't it ......!

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 16, 2013 - 07:30pm PT
yes I am surprised. Please elaborate!
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 16, 2013 - 07:39pm PT
Brewsky:
Chief, regardless of the cause, the point is that sudden climate change can be catasrophic in this case in an isolated region

So you admit it occurs and has done before. WITHOUT the help of MAN. Interesting. Totally moots any further verbiage that contains "EVER" or "RECORD".

Fact is, totally moots this entire thread and MMGW. Cus bottomline, it happens. Has, is and will again in the future.

There aint shet you or I or any human for that matter can do anything about it. Just as them folks way back when could not do anything about it.



Oh. It's not a matter of winning or last man standing. It is something far deeper that appears most here are totally clueless about and will never learn in any Organized Institution of Education.

It is a matter of principal.


BTW WESCHRIST, by the looks of the Jeremy A thread, you have far more folks that despise your meanspirited egocentered ass than I ever could here on ST. Fact.

TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Sep 16, 2013 - 07:46pm PT
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2013/09/16/if-all-you-see-892/
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Sep 16, 2013 - 07:48pm PT
Well since you do not believe in records.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/13/2617361/biblical-rainfall-colorado/

So you admit it occurs and has done before. WITHOUT the help of MAN. Interesting. Totally moots any further verbiage that contains "EVER" or "RECORD".

Thanks for supporting science again.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 16, 2013 - 07:50pm PT
It is a matter of principal.

Explain the principle
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 16, 2013 - 07:55pm PT
See below Brewsky:

This just in and the AR5 will be the straw that broke the MMGW escapades back.

The British Met Office has issued ‘erroneous statements and misrepresentations’ about the pause in global warming – and its climate computer model is fundamentally flawed, says a new analysis by a leading independent researcher.

Nic Lewis, a climate scientist and accredited ‘expert reviewer’ for the IPCC, also points out that Met Office’s flagship climate model suggests the world will warm by twice as much in response to CO2 as some other leading institutes, such as Nasa’s climate centre in America.

The Met Office model’s current value for the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ (ECS) – how much hotter the world will get each time CO2 doubles – is 4.6C. This is above the IPCC’s own ‘likely’ range and the 95 per cent certainty’ level established by recent peer-reviewed research.

Lewis’s paper is scathing about the ‘future warming’ document issued by the Met Office in July, which purported to explain why the current 16-year global warming ‘pause’ is unimportant, and does not mean the ECS is lower than previously thought.

Lewis says the document made misleading claims about other scientists’ work – for example, misrepresenting important details of a study by a team that included Lewis and 14 other IPCC experts. The team’s paper, published in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience in May, said the best estimate of the ECS was 2C or less – well under half the Met Office estimate.

He also gives evidence that another key Met Office model is inherently skewed. The result is that it will always produce high values for CO2-induced warming, no matter how its control knobs are tweaked, because its computation of the cooling effect of smoke and dust pollution – what scientists call ‘aerosol forcing’ – is simply incompatible with the real world.

This has serious implications, because the Met Office’s HadCM3 model is used to determine the Government’s climate projections, which influence policy.

Mr Lewis concludes that the Met Office modelling is ‘fundamentally unsatisfactory, because it effectively rules out from the start the possibility that both aerosol forcing and climate sensitivity are modest’. Yet this, he writes, ‘is the combination that recent observations support’.

The Met Office said it would examine the paper and respond in due course.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html



And this....

A REFLECTION OF EVIDENCE FROM NEW STUDIES'... THE IPCC CHANGES ITS STORY

Power house: The IPCC'S Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland

Power house: The IPCC'S Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland

What they say: ‘The rate of warming since 1951 [has been] 0.12C per decade.’

What this means: In their last hugely influential report in 2007, the IPCC claimed the world was warming at 0.2C per decade. Here they admit there has been a massive cut in the speed of global warming – although it’s buried in a section on the recent warming ‘pause’. The true figure, it now turns out, is not only just over half what they thought – it’s below their lowest previous estimate.

What they say: ‘Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.’

What this means: As recently as October 2012, in an earlier draft of this report, the IPCC was adamant that the world is warmer than at any time for at least 1,300 years. Their new inclusion of the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ – long before the Industrial Revolution and its associated fossil fuel burning – is a concession that its earlier statement is highly questionable.

What they say: ‘Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 – 15 years.’

What this means: The ‘models’ are computer forecasts, which the IPCC admits failed to ‘see... a reduction in the warming trend’. In fact, there has been no statistically significant warming at all for almost 17 years – as first reported by this newspaper last October, when the Met Office tried to deny this ‘pause’ existed.In its 2012 draft, the IPCC didn’t mention it either. Now it not only accepts it is real, it admits that its climate models totally failed to predict it.

What they say: ‘There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.’

What this means: The IPCC knows the pause is real, but has no idea what is causing it. It could be natural climate variability, the sun, volcanoes – and crucially, that the computers have been allowed to give too much weight to the effect carbon dioxide emissions (greenhouse gases) have on temperature change.

What they say: ‘Climate models now include more cloud and aerosol processes, but there remains low confidence in the representation and quantification of these processes in models.’

What this means: Its models don’t accurately forecast the impact of fundamental aspects of the atmosphere – clouds, smoke and dust.

What they say: ‘Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations... There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.’

What this means: The models said Antarctic ice would decrease. It’s actually increased, and the IPCC doesn’t know why.

What they say: ‘ECS is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C... The lower limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the [2007 report], reflecting the evidence from new studies.’

What this means: ECS – ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ – is an estimate of how much the world will warm every time carbon dioxide levels double. A high value means we’re heading for disaster. Many recent studies say that previous IPCC claims, derived from the computer models, have been way too high. It looks as if they’re starting to take notice, and so are scaling down their estimate for the first time.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html



You all will of course deny, discredit and do all you can to disprove any of the above is true. That everything that the IPCC and the giant CONSENSUS has said and done is fact and without flaw.


It is all coming down.


WELBER:
Well since you do not believe in records.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/13/2617361/biblical-rainfall-colorado/

We can now assume you believe what is written in the bible, correct. Got it.


Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 16, 2013 - 08:03pm PT
Excellent Chuff. I hope it is true. Rather than take the Daily Mail as gospel however I will await judgement by science.


Now then.... what is this principle you speak of and how can it determine science?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 16, 2013 - 08:05pm PT
Brewsky
I will await judgement by science...

I see. Kind a like the MOB doing it's own house cleaning. Got it.

Now then.... what is this principle you speak of and how can it determine science?

Nope. The supposed Consensus undermining/discrediting any one Scientist that goes against the status quo. Basically, "Banning" them due to their unwillingness to join the CONSENSUS in this particular issue. Doing everything it can to discredit and ruin their professional careers. All to keep them quiet and as far away from the public as possible.
Messages 12401 - 12420 of total 28284 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