Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 7381 - 7400 of total 20343 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 24, 2013 - 12:39am PT
Of course Chief! But i continue to hope that some of these guys will have a moment of weakness and admit the truth.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 24, 2013 - 10:37am PT


Chef Dough Boy is great at cherry picking

So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this:

"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."

After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that what he meant was this:

"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"


http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 24, 2013 - 10:46am PT
Of course Chief! But i continue to hope that some of these guys will have a moment of weakness and admit the truth.


Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.

That The Chief has the ability to say that the pro-AWG crowd is ignoring peer-reviewed articles astonishes me, when he at the very same time completely ignores peer-reviewed science. In fact, he boasts about his ability to ignore science, claiming it's just sheep following the heard.

The Chief, rick, your posts only keep proving your ignorance and inability to actually lean anything. And you both seem proud of the fact that you are both closed to learning anything.

The Chief, did it ever occur to you that using the internet is following the sheep? So turn off you computer and prove to us that you indeed are not of the majority.

Jeez, what a fool.
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Aug 24, 2013 - 10:54am PT
I have a theory. Global Warming is caused by all the the energy that The Chief is wasting trying to convince anyone that the points he's making have any validity.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 24, 2013 - 11:25am PT
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 24, 2013 - 11:42am PT
Well K-Man, Mental Case and others why don't you guys do a simple comparison of the observed climate reality versus the many predictions od CAGW theory.

!. increased and more severe hurricane activity.

2. increased and more severe tornado's.

3. Permanent droughts in the southwest through some of the prairie states.

4. The Arctic ocean was supposed to be ice free by now according to many.

5. Greenlands ice sheets were meant to slide into the sea.

6. Antartica's warming was meant to be amplified.

7. Antartic ice shelfs and continental ice sheets were meant to have slid into the sea and broken up.

8. Snow was already meant to be a thing of the past in parts of Europe, the U.K., and parts of America.

9. Alaskas temps to were meant to have continued upwards unabated, all the permafrost melted and the methane hydrates released.

10. There was meant to be a hotspot in the tropic's upper troposphere.

11. Average global temperatures were meant to increase in close correlation to rising CO2 content.

And on and on and on. None of these things have come to fruition and in most cases exactly the opposite has happened. Any respectable science establishment would have abandoned such a theory long ago after repeated failure of the predictives. But, this isn't respectable science is it?

Well i see that the Master has "spoken" during my own little composition. Unfortunately most of what he had to say was in defense of the many failed predictives. Ed's answer for the overhyped problem continues to be a ruinous tax on the air we use and breath. This is complete b.s. and know body in their right mind mistakes it for anything but government seizure of liberties and wealth for the purpose of complete control of the populace. If global warming was a real problem we could much more easily nullify it by anthropogenic release of reflective aerosols than eliminate the source of atmospheric CO2 which is 97% natural and the result of natural temp increases.

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 24, 2013 - 11:44am PT
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

The bolded part is what Chef Cherry Picker left out.



Be careful out there Chef.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 24, 2013 - 11:54am PT
The contrarians are the ones making the poor predictions.

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 24, 2013 - 12:04pm PT
Take a good look around Ed. It is not that the predictives take time to evolve, or build up in fits and starts, it is instead the observed reality is going 180 degrees in the opposite direction. I suppose you believe they will make a complete 360 degree revolution and conform to the "science" at some unknown date an eon or two in the future, but we can't stop the world on suppositions. It is highly likely we are entering a period of global cooling and along with it erratic weather patterns which might last many decades into the immediate future. Their are many respectable scientists and exhaustive studies pointing in this direction. Why can't you accept such a possibility instead of having almost all your chips on CAGW?
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Aug 24, 2013 - 02:38pm PT
Any respectable science establishment would have abandoned such a theory long ago after repeated failure of the predictives. But, this isn't respectable science is it?

One thing's for sure, you have not the education, experience, or credentials to determine what good or bad science is anymore than I have the same qualifications to determine the structural integrity of a house you have built. Amateurs posing on the rig.
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Aug 24, 2013 - 10:10pm PT
We non-stupid people always underestimate the harmful potential of
all the truly educated stupid people who believe global warming can be
stopped by taking money out of my bank account and
putting it into theirs. (carbon credits etc)

Elcapinyoazz

Social climber
Joshua Tree
Aug 24, 2013 - 10:17pm PT
This photo that CAPNTHEASS posted,

Get yer facts straight, fuknut. I didn't post the fatboy pic. I posted the little man pic.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 24, 2013 - 11:15pm PT
Sorry guys, put a late one in on my remodel here in Nv. Not currently using any PL 400 Bruce, just Tite Bond II for my underlayment. Anyway it's good to see you've diverted your tactics away from the amateur psycho babble b.s.

Ed, i've posted, or made reference to, many papers in the past from the likes of Gray, Easterbrook,Latif,Tsonis and others claiming that oceanic turnover in regular oscillations are Earths primary climate change driver and many of these respected scientists say we are in for a cooling trend.

Scafetta, penn, livingston, Lu, Abdussmatov, Christiansen, Svensmark, Shaviv and other respected solar scientists claim that the Sun is the primary driver of climate change on Earth. Many of these same scientists and others are calling for a distinct cooling trend of anywhere from 30 to 250 years because of the solar minimum we are slipping into.

Here is a link to a paper that says orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycles) is the primary driver of climate change on Earth. I don't have to tell you the hundreds or thousands of scientists in agreement about this. Some say we are on a long term downward trend in temps to the next ice age.

http://www.omsj.org/reports/esper%2012.pdf

As far as picking the side that fits my politics, it is obvious that you a are not yourself without sin as you cast the first stone. By all accounts you are a highly respected scientist and are certainly capable of reading and digesting the various papers, but you are not a "climate scientist" and have not spent your career studying all the nuances.What i'm saying is you are not qualified to dismiss the papers by your fellow respected scientists listed above who have spent a considerable portion of their careers studying the science. With all due respect, sir.





monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 24, 2013 - 11:33pm PT
We were on a slow descent into the next ice age. Not any more.

photo not found
Missing photo ID#312885
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 25, 2013 - 12:52am PT

but the difference between you and me, rick, is that I can understand the science, you can only pick which scientist you'll believe in...

Hhmmmm!
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 25, 2013 - 01:44am PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#317634

That cracked me up ...
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 25, 2013 - 01:55am PT
One of the great things with this thread is that I now have a few people that I can hold up as examples of the lunatic fringe.
I wonder if Barry would think the same.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 25, 2013 - 12:09pm PT
Ed, was correct on one point and not quite on another. He acknowledged, in a fashion, that we both choose whom we tend to believe within the nuance of our particular political persusions. And with that acknowledgement is the implication that he rarely, if ever, takes the time to read and understand papers contrary to his persuasion. The second point he made about me not being able to interpret what i read is partially incorrect. Most papers, especially by those with good writing skills, take the time and effort to verbally describe their study, it's methodology , it's conclusions, it's implications. I can understand this. Any one who spends the time can likewise discern the meaning. What i'm lacking is the math skills to verify their process and proof it's outcome.

And Bruce; like i've said repeatedly in the past-i used to believe in AGW. I was far to busy to take the time to dive into the subject and the arctic where i lived was indeed warming in the late 80's through the nineties. That warming ceased and reversed course, the shrill cries of the alarmists became louder, more desperate, and their wild predictions failed one after another. At that point the prudent thing to do is a bit of investigation. I did, i read of the many contrary opinions by many, many scientists. I along with many millions of other citizens saw through the scam and the reasons behind it. If you would get your head out of your ass you could also,my freind.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Aug 25, 2013 - 01:37pm PT
i used to believe in AGW

This is the true core of the issue... for some, its simply a matter of faith. Faith first, then rationalization to follow.

He no longer believes.

His AGW angel has fallen.

DMT
command error

Trad climber
Colorado
Aug 25, 2013 - 01:42pm PT
The public understands that what climate scientists are arguing about is no
more important to them, or the world, than how many angels can dance on the
head of a pin.

Zip.

It may be mildly entertaining like ghost stories told around a campfire but
not to be taken seriously.


Messages 7381 - 7400 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