Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 6821 - 6840 of total 28326 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
monolith

climber
SF bay area
May 24, 2013 - 11:44am PT
To qualify to get on that list, you just need a degree in any science or engineering field, world wide. You don't even have to be working in any science field or engineering field.

Imagine the list one could create for pro climate change with those same qualifications. Millions.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 24, 2013 - 11:44am PT
I recently talked with a 21 year old man. I asked him about Benghazi- he asked me where that was. I asked him what he thought about the IRS debacles. Said he had heard "something" about that on the radio...I asked him about the Syrian conflict, and , of course, he knew nothing. THEN i asked him about global warming.. He was ALL for "global warmer theories" - told me we have to do something QUICK before we all "boil".. His words not mine. I asked him what particularly concerned him about global warming theories, and he said it was because he had a girlfriend in college that had told him alllll about "global warming".. At that point i said COOOL,, and How about Green day-- love that band lol! "dont wanna be an American idiot"!
raymond phule

climber
May 24, 2013 - 11:50am PT

At least you are consistent with the, bullshet number propaganda. Most if not all of the "billion" people you refer to are way too busy trying to survive and make it through today. Most have absolutely no time nor idea of WTF you are whining about. GCC is not important to the masses, globally.

What I said was not specific about climate change but how to interpret noisy data. I am sure that several billion of people in the world could understand an explanation of how to not interpret noisy data.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 24, 2013 - 11:50am PT
Yes Ed, Shapiro and colleagues were quite frank in the shortcomings of the data and mode of reconstruction, even admitting the purpose of the paper was to model the real conditions of the last 400 years with the suns variability as the primary driver. You say circular reasoning was used, i agree, what we don't agree on is the extent of circular reasoning used by the CAGW crowd in the whole CAGW hypothesis. To anyone with half a brain it is obvious that they, the CAGW hystericals, started with a conclusion and reinforced, through vast sums of government,NGO,and private monies largely acquired through extortion, their false hypothesis with circular reasoning and selection bias, all disseminated to the public in breathless hysterics by the likes of Al Gore and papa James Hansen with the cooperation of a compliant press.

Listen to Trenberth in his more lucid moments of conscience-the CAGW models diverge from reality markedly, the reason being lack of understanding and the resulting arbitrary attachment of values to the multitudes of complex dynamic systems. If you can come down off that Lipizon stallion your riding you would clearly see this lack of CAGW reality.Something can not be made from nothing, unless of course it is in the virtual world.

You lost Ed, you just can't see yet what the majority of the public and scientific world sees. Their is a body of work, indisputable science built up over generations, that points to the obvious-the sun is overwhelmingly the primary driver of climate on this world and all worlds in this solar system. The link i gave you linked to a body of work-sort of a start to the alchoholics twelve step process. I'll find others.

The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
May 24, 2013 - 11:56am PT
not if the mean of the distribution of events is shifting, that is the point that Trenberth makes in the video.

If you plot the frequency of the "intensity" of storms, for instance, you get a distribution resembling a Gaussian distribution... on the high "intensity" side of that distribution you have unusual "events", but they are quite infrequent.

However, if the mean of the Gaussian is displaced towards the higher "intensity" side, the occurrence of unusual "events" increases, and some events that were so unlikely that they never occurred before the mean was displaced begin to be likely.

The distribution is still symmetric, but having been displaced, the likelihood of very low intensity events diminishes.

The climate is what sets the mean of the distribution, the weather is the width of the distribution...
...this is a very simple way of stating it, but it contains the essential point regarding how a small change in the climate "mean" can have a large change in the occurrence of extreme weather.


How convenient that protocol is based on a time frame that allows for such.
Expand that time frame, oh, 1 million years. Then what do you have. A completely different ball game for sure.
Randisi

Social climber
Dalian, Liaoning
May 24, 2013 - 11:56am PT
I'm almost convinced that Rick and the Chief are part of a Turing test.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 24, 2013 - 12:02pm PT
What NONE of the "models" take into account, is the OBVIOUS. The obvious improvements to energy use like fracturing. Nor do or CAN they take into considerations those improvements that WILL be made in the future. Much like the "mobile" phone that became the cell phone that became the miniature hand held computer that replaced what USED to be a room full of LARGE machinery of all manner.
Randisi

Social climber
Dalian, Liaoning
May 24, 2013 - 12:03pm PT
Oh yes, Ron too.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 24, 2013 - 12:04pm PT
we ARE the "A" Team. And "we love it when a plan comes together"!
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
May 24, 2013 - 12:04pm PT
I'm almost convinced that Rick and the Chief are part of a Turing test.


Actually, in my case, it is called thinking and playing outside of the GCC sandbox. But then to do so means one can not be a sheep and play with all the other kids in the sand box according to the rules. In order to be part of the tribe, one must conform to the Tribal Leaders doctrines. Just like any other religion. Not me nor those that I choose to play with. They too see all this GCC as just another modern day religious scam/fad that will eventually fade away.
FRUMY

Trad climber
SHERMAN OAKS,CA
May 24, 2013 - 12:07pm PT
The "a" team -- one pathetic "a" team.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 24, 2013 - 12:08pm PT
Thank you for your well reasoned reply explaining you and your loved ones living arrangements. You must forgive me for not anticipating such in constructing my analogies. However, even a six year old could probably get my drift.

But I understand. Questions of motivation and morality are for some people VERBOTTEN!!

Ja?

Unfortunately, in any hierarchy of leadership, it is an imperative. Even the Nazi's had thier morality... whats yours?
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
May 24, 2013 - 12:11pm PT
The "a" team -- one pathetic "a" team.]/i]

Modern day science philosophy. If one does not agree with the supposed consensus, ban them to Siberia. Got it.

KAY

Show me where in science & evolution, the concept of "morality" is involved.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 24, 2013 - 12:13pm PT
Chief,,Normal response in light of over whelming evidence that they just drank the coolaid.. Id be upset if i were them too.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 24, 2013 - 12:15pm PT
Here let me hold your hand and lead you.....

When you were in the Navy, what was the prevailing moral philosophy?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 24, 2013 - 12:19pm PT
KAY

Show me where in science & evolution, the concept of "morality" is involved.


PUD KNOCKER


Morality is involved as soon as more than one person is involved.




















































Unless you're a psychopath?
Lennox

climber
just southwest of the center of the universe
May 24, 2013 - 12:28pm PT
Ha, ha, ha--rotflmao!

thechief, you once again prove that what are to you facts, are actually only your guess/opinion about sh#t you know nothing about.

You attributed to Ed something that I said, and then proceeded to scold and lecture him about alcoholism.

Until climate change actually slaps you in the face and has serious consequences for you personally, and/or you are able to actually have a moment of clarity where you look at this issue honestly it will remain impossible for anyone to convince you of AGW--you have to want to learn and change.



Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 24, 2013 - 12:28pm PT
Look Ricky - May I call you Ricky? The Chief is a bit heavy..... I'm just doing you a favor. When a leader drops the ball in morality or cannot explain their morality to start with, even the lunk heads will start to put 2 and 2 together.

Look what happened to Rob Ford:


raymond phule

climber
May 24, 2013 - 12:36pm PT

How convenient that protocol is based on a time frame that allows for such.
Expand that time frame, oh, 1 million years. Then what do you have. A completely different ball game for sure.

So we have the chief making a claim about the last 15 years, Ed explains why his claim is wrong and the chief say that we should look at 1 million years instead??????????

Moving the goal posts just a little maybe?

Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 24, 2013 - 12:43pm PT
just an observation, since little or no replies to facts presented had been had, it seems a tactic here is to go after the messenger rather than the message. Dont supposed this has changed since time recorded.

Weve shown you about contruction of ocean corals, AND the MAIN facotrs involving coral growth, which is the SAME factor for growing ice in the antarctic currently... W-I-N-D..


Weve shown you constant flat lines of temps for well over a decade.

Weve shown you the THRIVING populations of wildlife ONCE CONSIDERED harbingers of global warming.


Weve shown you the graphs of reality vs theoretical..

Even FRACTURING has made the list of things proven to be quite the opposite of doomsday warmers.


Weve shown you the papers, peer reviewed, and the 32,000 scientists in agreement (consensus).


Weve shown you where studies such as IN THE OCEAN DEPTHS as an angle of GW is just a ploy that CANT be proven in those ocean depths. Wanna talk about GUESSING? But it DOES give some major wiggle room to creating a theory doesnt it?



Then theres that dem politician who was just two days ago yammering on about GW increasing tornadoes when in reality tornado occurrence has gone down. What desperation to jump on a tragedy such as Oklahoma and try ans spin POLITICAL support of their 'theories".


As ive said before,, the GW submarine has a screen door.. burble burble gurgle....
Messages 6821 - 6840 of total 28326 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