Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 6861 - 6880 of total 20343 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
dirtbag

climber
Jul 27, 2013 - 01:11am PT
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^



monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jul 27, 2013 - 01:14am PT
Er, um Chief, temperatures in Greenland are not total global temperature average.

That's the 2nd time you've fooled yourself about Greenland temp representing global temp average, in addition to your 2nd SMB blunder. You are really on a roll tonight.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jul 27, 2013 - 01:27am PT
Follow the money Bruce. You'll find that vast sums of corporate cash and billionaire stash are paid to left wing CAGW advancing NGO's to gain their silence, compliance, or as investment in targeting their wrath at lesser competitors.We live in a fascist power structure with socialist utopianism b.s. being distributed to the compliant masses. It aint called big government and big business for nothing. Then look at the newly minted platoons of enviromental PHD's like some spewing on this thread. Is it any wonder this farce is being advanced.

Ed, he's a wily old school scientist. I printed off the three piles of carrots and sticks he posted tonight and added them to my 2 foot pile. Expect a beating if i highlight those sections of the papers supporting alternative processes. Can't quite figure out his game yet, but he's always entertaining.

dirtbag

climber
Jul 27, 2013 - 02:28am PT
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^



Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jul 27, 2013 - 10:30am PT
I choose to look at the BIG PICTURE. Not a close minded focus on something that is in a time scale that only goes back some 180 years and call it "history/record".

Puffed-up fakery. The paleoclimatologists who do those studies really are big-picture folks, in this context. And very interesting, too. They pretty much all know that recent rapid changes are highly unusual, looking back quite a long way.

But Chief does not choose to look at, much less read or understand, the big picture described by paleoclimatologists who produced those data. Instead, he chooses to look at, believe and repeat claims from pseudoscience bloggers. Who he counts on to feed him doctored or politically-spun graphs that suit his emotional beliefs.

Chief can't read graphs but for the benefit of those who can -- any time you're looking at time plots over periods of thousands to millions of years, be aware that the "present" end of the graph might not be what the blogger is claiming. For example, "present" in ice core chronologies is commonly defined as 1950, and the top year for most of them is much older than that. Alley's widely quoted Greenland ice sheet reconstruction, for example, ends during the Little Ice Age -- its most recent date is 1855 (i.e. 95 years before "present").

And yet bloggers all 'round the net will show graphs with Alley's Greenland data and label the right side "present," to make claims or just imply that it shows older temperatures were warmer. (Yep, Greenland was warmer a thousand years back than it was in the Little Ice Age. The defining characteristic of the Little Ice Age is that, especially around the northern Atlantic, it was cold.) Chief has examples of such graphs, and others using similar time-axis illusions, above. Reconstructions going back hundreds of thousands to millions of years are even more susceptible to variation in their end dates. It's usually well defined in the actual papers, written by scientists who produced the data, but then skipped over if not deliberately hidden by bloggers, to be gobbled up and reposted all over hell by their gullible readers.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Jul 27, 2013 - 11:21am PT
Admit it Chiloe you are the Grande Poobah of The Climatinati. Ed H is your Minister of Disinformation. You are fed the table scraps of Billionaires and (hehe) large corporations, for the sole purpose of.... hmmmm......

for the sole purpose of.....

(f*#k!)

What is the sole purpose of your conspiracy anyway???? :-D

DMT

ps. The purpose of your conspiracy is to rattle Conspiracy Theorists, hahahahahahaha!

Well it worked. They're unhinged.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jul 27, 2013 - 11:29am PT
Admit it Chiloe you are the Grande Poobah of The Climatinati. Ed H is your Minister of Disinformation.

Hah, personally I'm flattered to get lumped in with Ed, though if we're a conspiracy he forgot to send me the memo.

So I wonder, do Rick, Chief and Ron look at each other and think "Hey, we're on the Smart Bus!"?
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Jul 27, 2013 - 12:04pm PT
Follow the money Rick. You'll find that vast sums of corporate cash and billionaire stash are paid to conservative legislators to gain their silence, compliance, or as investment in targeting their wrath at lesser competitors.

There- fixed it for ya.
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Jul 27, 2013 - 01:58pm PT
"Hey, we're on the Smart Bus! That's why we have these helmuts and drool cups."
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Jul 27, 2013 - 02:16pm PT
Social Utopianism b s is quickly becoming the number one threat to America's security...We survived the communist threat and medical claims that cigarette smoking caused cancer..We're lucky to have posters on supertopo that see thru the subversive climate change science..RJ
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Jul 29, 2013 - 09:46am PT
That's why we have these helmuts and drool cups.

For someone who touts how smart you are, it's surprising how socially/emotionally immature you are. These people you use as an example to make fun of are far, far better people than you. They navigate life with severe cognitive impairments that aren't any fault of their own, giving 100% effort.

By resorting to your level of puerile taunting and outright vile insults, you not only show your lack of compassion, but you end up losing anyone who you might be starting to persuade. Frankly, it makes you look like an arrogant idiot.

The science-blind trolls in this debate certainly deserve derision for their unwillingness to venture beyond the Fox disinformation fog. But if you want to flaunt your supposed superiority, then show it by using 100% of your cognitive processing to come up with something creative. Or get back on the bus.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Jul 29, 2013 - 09:53am PT
Even Gandhi mocked the mob from time to time.

DMT
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Jul 29, 2013 - 10:12am PT
Pretty sure Ghandi didn't resort to the frequency and style of insults he does.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jul 29, 2013 - 01:18pm PT
I read the papers Ed posted over the weekend. The Hadgem2 earth system model was a journey into the belly of the beast inside some of these climate models. The intestinal contents are a little stinky in that a lot of them seem to be indeterminate, of origin, how they interact with other systems,their quantitative and qualitative values. It's good to see the priests are recognizing new processes but it seems they are just layering new junk on top of old junk. I don't think the new models will be any better at actually predicting climate of the future or for that matter even hindcasting very far out without artificial tweaks. It seems to me that these legions of "new scientists" should be forced out into the field for experimentation to actually nail down with accuracy the myriad of processes effecting climate. Their models should be taken away and replaced with cheaper blackboards and chalk until such time as they fully understand the empirical evidence. The other paper about the mystery of conditions on the earl earth was interesting. If you believed in the Gaia hypothesis you could make the determination that life held itself at bay in small niches awaiting maturation of the stellar cycle to the point that biological processes and products would have a positive effect under a brighter sun, then exploded when it's negative feedbacks would be beneficial to itself. Sorry about going off on a tangent but since the believers of CAGW seem to be practitioners of a negative religion i thought it appropriate to reintroduce it's positive foundation. OK go ahead and criticize. You'll say the foundation was actually 150 years ago. But i say it sat in the house of ill refute till being dusted off by the flower children (our generation for you oldsters) of the 70's. It was then twisted and perverted to what you see now for the benefit of the fascist state.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Jul 29, 2013 - 01:36pm PT
Well chief, don't think you're any better than them. We're all mired in the sty, covered in feces.

Please reread the first sentence of the last paragraph of my post in case you're unclear on where you stand in this gunfight.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 29, 2013 - 02:05pm PT
The burden of proof is on you and your side.


Quite wrong. There is no need for "proof."

The planet is warming, and the climate scientists have figured out why--and they're showing you the science behind their findings.

It's been said that you could be told the secret of the Universe. However, if you're not ready to understand what is said, then the secret will pass you by.

The Bozos on the denial bus prove this adage every time they post their pseudo science.

What is it now, The Chief--Step 1, 2 or 3?
dirtbag

climber
Jul 29, 2013 - 02:11pm PT
Boo fookin hoo, chief hypocrite.
raymond phule

climber
Jul 29, 2013 - 02:18pm PT

Like I said, the burden of proof to win over the masses of this planet is on you.

Yes, of course but the burden of proof to change our scientific understanding is on the skeptics.

That a lot of people base their opionen about climate change on fox news and blogs (or actually what they whant to believe) instead of the actual science is obviously not a valid argument against the science.

Why do you try to argue against the science when one of your main arguments seems to be that people are not going to change anything due to the science anyway?

Science and policy is two different things and policy can't determine the science.

Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Jul 29, 2013 - 02:21pm PT
I'm no scientist, but it seems that The Chief couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag if his life depended on it.

He keeps pushing the no climate change agenda no matter what facts he is presented with.

What's the definition of insanity?
raymond phule

climber
Jul 29, 2013 - 02:23pm PT

I aint the one claiming the world is gonna end due to warming all from the gas and C02 coming outta your ass/s.

Nope. No hypocrite here.

That is probably the most common reason for climate change skeptics. Their cognitiv dissonance make it much easier to live in the way they do if they think that it doesn't have any negative impact on the enviroment.
Messages 6861 - 6880 of total 20343 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews