Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 7521 - 7540 of total 28428 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
May 31, 2013 - 09:46am PT
The Chief...I majored in delusional mind tactic and seduction techniques and you will probably spend the day fishing by a secluded back country stream arguing with the brookies....
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 31, 2013 - 10:02am PT
You guys misunderstand the Chief at your own peril.


Well if you understand him then perhaps you can explain him because he does an appallingly piss poor job of it himself as is evident by his latest post. He worst than most deniers assumes some sort of unexplainable mystical expertise that transcends anything that science can offer. Then to put the icing on the cake, he claims that one should never act based on a forecast that contains any element of uncertainty, and of this he is certain. Then he has the gall to obsess on the hypocrisy of smoking an occasional cigarette?

Rick, you are being extremely disingenuous to ascribe any degree of credibility to this man. There is a boat load of evidence that you misunderstand the Chief AT YOUR PERIL, not ours.

Much in the way that you misunderstand science at your peril
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 31, 2013 - 10:37am PT
It is all manipulation of data

hey Rick,

that is a pretty strong claim that the data is manipulated

and you state it as if is a fact and not just because it proves your agenda wrong

so prove it Rick, prove the data is manipulated, let's see your work .....

no bullsh!t trying to back out of your claim, prove your sh#t, prove it is manipulated


and WHEN you cannot, then you are a liar and ought to apologize to everyone here
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 10:57am PT
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html





http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55088




http://www.infowars.com/?p=6009\






http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/07/18/new-study-shows-that-50-of-warming-claimed-by-ipcc-is-fake/




There Norton,, i could post about fifty more links if youd like.


Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 31, 2013 - 11:02am PT
Shirley you jest Ron.

Canada free press? Infowars?


I understand that we are now entering a period of global cooling


Global cooling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Global cooling (disambiguation).


Mean temperature anomalies during the period 1965 to 1975 with respect to the average temperatures from 1937 to 1946. This dataset was not available at the time.


ImageSource:SkepticalScience
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.[1]
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 11:06am PT
In 1977 YES INDEED it was "global COOLING" that was attempting to suck dollars into a fake industry. And as i said,, 50 (minumum) more links pointing out the various inconsistencies and falsified numbers.. EVEN Congress was going to run probes into it in 2010..
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 31, 2013 - 11:08am PT
bullsh!t, Ron

you did not reference what Rick was referring to

what is with you anyway?

You have said that you agree that the earth IS warming and that humans are likely responsible for weakening the ozone layer, too what degree cannot be said with certainty.

Now you appear to change your own mind and join the rank of those who say the opposite

make up your mind Ron, you can't have it both ways
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 11:11am PT
Havent changed my stance a bit Norton.

There are MAJOR not minor inconsistencies that go on Unexplained. The Flat line of temps for the lat 1.5 decades, and the fact that the ICE in the arctic has melted under FAR LESS CO2 being two glaring items.


edit: yeah doc another lefty insult good for you..Just keep attacking the messenger and HOPEFULLY no one sees the message right..
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 11:17am PT
scroll backwards doc,, ive provided MORE THAN enough proof of this..

TEMPOS have been flatlined for 1.5 decades..

Ice in the arctic has melted under FAR LESS CO2 concentrations as PROVEN by ice core sampling. EVERYONE HERE knows this. it is fakt.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 11:21am PT
BUWWAHAaHAHAHAHAHAaaaa....


Heres some more FALSE flags waved by the GW crowd..



p-o-l-a-r b-e-a-r-s.....

p-en-n-g-u-i-n-s


s-p-o-t-t-e-d o-w-l



Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 31, 2013 - 11:24am PT
In 1977 YES INDEED it was "global COOLING" that was attempting to suck dollars into a fake industry.

Yes indeedy and how much traction did it gain beyond some elements in the popular press? OK now compare that to the past few decades of climate science and how much traction has the theory of AGW gained? And you have the unmitigated gall to compare the legitimacy of our current understanding to something that rates as barely a hiccup in the science of the 70,s?


What are you, retarded?


Oh look, here's something about your credible scientist Fred Singer:


1975 National Academy of Sciences report [edit]

There also was a study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences about issues that needed more research.[30] This heightened interest in the fact that climate can change. The 1975 NAS report titled "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action" did not make predictions, stating in fact that "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate." Its "program for action" consisted simply of a call for further research, because "it is only through the use of adequately calibrated numerical models that we can hope to acquire the information necessary for a quantitative assessment of the climatic impacts."

The report further stated:
The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know.

The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), claims that "the NAS "experts" exhibited ... hysterical fears" in the 1975 report.[31]


So I look up The Science & Environmental Policy Project and look who we find:


Science & Environmental Policy Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) is a research and advocacy group financed by private contributions based in Arlington, Virginia in the United States. It was founded in 1990 by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer.[1] SEPP disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change and ozone depletion. SEPP also questioned the science used to establish the dangers of secondhand smoke, arguing the risks are overstated.[2][dead link]



You are a rube. A sucker. Congratulations.

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 31, 2013 - 11:26am PT
It is all, both pro and con papers, cherry picking of data, then skillful handling (manipulation) of said data. Hell, look at the papers, most of them list their methods. If after picking and handling the data sets the results of the equations went in a much different direction ,refuting their own ideas, then the originator of the excercise would feel much less urge to publish.This is my answer to both Norton and Dr. F.

You know, this merry go round is getting boring without some new material to cover. It is prone in times like this to degenerate into stupid fits of pointing and name calling. Somebody please dig up something new worth arguing about.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 11:30am PT
well Bruce,, im thinking that can be said of many. Now, WHEN they can explain why ice shelfs melted under FAR LESS CO2 and when the can explain flat line temps not matching their models, and when they actually get some real data on the fauna and STOP LYING about it all, perhaps ill start to swing the other way.. Ever wonder WHY the P Bear issues turned out to be rather FALSE!?? Its called "insufficient data" by scientists but that certainly DIDNT stop them from extrapolating "danger" for the bears now did it. They were listed as endangered over a GUESS as to what the future will be like.. UNPRECEDENTED in the listings of endangered species. Also as false as false gets. The very reason Canada said NYET to it..
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 31, 2013 - 11:39am PT
You know, this merry go round is getting boring without some new material to cover.


Excuse me Rickets, but there is indeed some material which we have yet to adequately cover:



1) If you were to be presented with solid evidence that AGW was a fact, would you change your mind? A simple yes or no answer is acceptable for now.

2) Can you explain how we differentiate between Intuition and prejudice? Is this relevant to the role of intuition in judgement?

3) Why exactly is there a strong trend within some organized religions to oppose AGW theory?





Now no one can dispute that the above forbidden questions are relevant issues and factors in the ongoing AGW debate. Or perhaps you can explain how they are not relevant?

There are other unmentionables but lets just cover these for now

Unless you are too chicken?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 11:44am PT
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.





http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 31, 2013 - 11:49am PT
Ron Anderson = Sarah Palin
monolith

climber
SF bay area
May 31, 2013 - 11:52am PT


Are you sure global warming has flat lined, Anderson?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 11:55am PT
better look at the evidence doc,, everything ive said is 100% fakkt.


But youll say "those are meaningless" .. UhHUH...



When in truth ,, this is all you have left is stabs at character..Now you ALSO say you wont click on any links i provide,, so WHAT exactly am i supposed to post? Again, you remind me of an ex GIRL friend who argued in that same pattern..She could be standing in quick sand and tell me its pavement too.


edit: Mono, YES im sure.. How many "links" would you like?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 31, 2013 - 11:57am PT
Is there anyone out there (besides Ron Anderson) who can address the "new " material at our disposal?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 11:58am PT
I have done so ALREADY.. And SInce you wont read a link why bother right?


But google it yurself,, type in "temperatures flatlined for over a decade"

then tell me im wrong.
Messages 7521 - 7540 of total 28428 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