Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Global Warming / Climate Change is Hoax pt 10

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby GHung » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 12:19:31

AdamB said; "The scientists are the ones who led to polarization in this regard..."

Sort of like saying; "The football players disrespected the flag", or any other silly statement painting with an all-encompassing brush. While some scientists forwarded theories of global cooling, that was a minority. And blaming everyone in any group for the failures of a subset of that group is simply childish.

Scientists increasingly predict warming, 1970s

In the early 1970s, evidence that aerosols were increasing worldwide encouraged Reid Bryson and some others to warn of the possibility of severe cooling. Meanwhile, the new evidence that the timing of ice ages was set by predictable orbital cycles suggested that the climate would gradually cool, over thousands of years. For the century ahead, however, a survey of the scientific literature from 1965 to 1979 found 7 articles predicting cooling and 44 predicting warming (many other articles on climate made no prediction); the warming articles were cited much more often in subsequent scientific literature.[33] Several scientific panels from this time period concluded that more research was needed to determine whether warming or cooling was likely, indicating that the trend in the scientific literature had not yet become a consensus.[34][35][36]

John Sawyer published the study Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse” Effect in 1972.[37] He summarized the knowledge of the science at the time, the anthropogenic attribution of the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas, distribution and exponential rise, findings which still hold today. Additionally he accurately predicted the rate of global warming for the period between 1972 and 2000.[38][39][40]

The increase of 25% CO2 expected by the end of the century therefore corresponds to an increase of 0.6°C in the world temperature – an amount somewhat greater than the climatic variation of recent centuries. – John Sawyer, 1972

The mainstream news media at the time exaggerated the warnings of the minority who expected imminent cooling. For example, in 1975, Newsweek magazine published a story that warned of "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change."[41] The article continued by stating that evidence of global cooling was so strong that meteorologists were having "a hard time keeping up with it."[41] On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued an update stating that it had been "spectacularly wrong about the near-term future".[42]......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... g.2C_1970s

Seems that some anti-climate science assholes used a few papers suggesting global cooling (and not the vast majority that suggested global warming) in the 70s to discredit ALL climate science, and YOU FELL FOR IT!

I stand by my statements above.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2468
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 13:08:50

Plantagenet wrote:
AdamB wrote:
The scientists are the ones who led to polarization in this regard...


Don't be silly. The scientists are simply reporting on real-world data and their interpretation of those scientific facts. Thats their job.


I'm not being silly, I'm just not talking about the current crop of scientists born into the intellectual world I am thinking of, started circa 1975 or so. . I've got no problem with facts, data, and conclusions drawn from them, a good example starting from just such a foundation that anyone can get a good chuckle over is peak oil. But within the hard sciences in general, I'm far more interested in proven results from those sciences related to a viable backcasting model from first principles.

Plantagenet wrote:Science is inherently not political. Both the right and left try to politicize science but science itself has no political bias.


Not TRY. Have. Sure it is the people that screw it up, look at what idiot peak oilers have attempted to do with "science" in pursuit of their Rapture event, like shorty right here on this very forum. Takes some science, cooks the books in an obvious way, and even gets some chuckleheads buying it. See how easy it can happen? And when the scientists decide they know better, them being smart and all, and decide to do the same? This recent urge for scientists to sue each other is just proof of the concept, for those walking in the path laid down from way back when.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 13:12:09

onlooker wrote:Well, I for one believe the scientists and science and not crackpot theories and canards put out by politized entities


Says a bona fide sucker for peak oil doom, even AFTER peak oil happened..

Image
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby Cog » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 13:14:23

Climate scientists, are in the majority, leftists. Whether it affects their science I will leave up to your imagination.
User avatar
Cog
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10873
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 13:21:40

Cog wrote:Climate scientists, are in the majority, leftists. Whether it affects their science I will leave up to your imagination.


That isn't my personal experience.

While colleges and universities are by and large dominated by leftists, the science departments are not.

And scientific instruments obviously have no political bias----for instance when measurements of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are made, those numbers are just the numbers. No politics are involved.

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21592
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby Cog » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 13:24:35

Unless the numbers are fudged or re-arranged to show something more doomy than the raw numbers would otherwise indicate. Don't tell me that doesn't happen.
User avatar
Cog
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10873
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 13:30:45

Cog wrote:Unless the numbers are fudged or re-arranged to show something more doomy than the raw numbers would otherwise indicate. Don't tell me that doesn't happen.


There do seem to have been some instances where numbers have been fudged and/or rearranged. And its not just in climate science---scientists working on all sorts of things have been caught fudging data.

On the bright side scientists have to "show their work" so the numbers are usually available to other scientists, who eventually catch the fudging.

Thats the nice thing about science. Even though scientists are fallible human beings, and a few are definitely dishonest or politically biased, much like other humans in other lines or work, the numbers themselves don't lie. A gravimeter on the ICESAT satellite measuring ice mass loss in Antarctica is just collecting data---the finding that the ice sheet is shrinking is just a snapshot of reality---no politics involved. An array of thermometers lowered into the ocean is just reading the temperature---the finding that the ocean is warming is just a fact.

Image

Cheers!
Last edited by Plantagenet on Mon 04 Dec 2017, 13:38:25, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21592
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby GHung » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 13:38:23

Cog wrote:Unless the numbers are fudged or re-arranged to show something more doomy than the raw numbers would otherwise indicate. Don't tell me that doesn't happen.


Since scientists reputations depend on their papers being peer reviewed, that would be pretty rare. The quickest way to lose their jobs is to falsify data. The same was true when I was a working engineer. Indeed, the only job I was ever fired from was when I refused to put my stamp on work I knew to be incomplete and that contained false and questionable data. They just made stuff up to complete the designs and get paid. It would have been my ass when that was discovered.

The vast majority of scientists will cover their career asses rather than make stuff up to support their theories. They've worked far too hard to get there, and they know their work will be checked out, especially if their conclusions are controversial. Are there exceptions? Sure. So let's just, as I said above, invalidate them all. That's the idiotic thing to do.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2468
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 13:56:50

Plant- "The fatal flaw in the argument that you and Lomborg are making is that the problems with global warming get worse and worse through time as more and more CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. By the time you go out 50-100 years from now we're going to be looking at sea level rise flooding parts of every coastal city in the world" Perfect response, amigo...mucho thanks. Your response perfectly captures the flaw in your thought process and that of so many others. The global population is doing little to save the lives of 50 million children under 5 yo even though it costs them almost nothing. But the same group will be willing to make huge sacrifices for billions who haven't been born yet? Sacrifices being made by billions the majority of whom won't be alive themselves to benefit from those sacrifices in "50 to 100 years"?t

Or put simply: how many of TPTB living in multi $million apartments in NYC will care more about parts of the city being flooded long after they are dead then they care about the 1.5 million kids under 5 that will die of easily preventable diarrhea in 2018? Really? Let me know when you get them signed up. LOL.

I don't mean to be so harsh but you make some rather indefensible assumptions IMHO. There is a long f*cking list of things that should be done that won't even be attempted.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11141
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby onlooker » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 14:06:19

Have to agree with Rock's assessment. Between nihilism and altruism is where most people are. It is called practicality
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9654
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 17:17:08

The fire storms that swept through Napa Valley and environs didn't discriminate between the rich and the poor.

All are vulnerable.

Eventually, most will realize this.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17652
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Nobody can answer this simple question about Global Warm

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 19:39:58

ROCKMAN wrote: how many of TPTB living in multi $million apartments in NYC will care more about parts of the city being flooded long after they are dead


Probably almost none.

ROCKMAN wrote: There is a long f*cking list of things that should be done that won't even be attempted.


Of course.

This is a long-standing problem in natural hazards mitigation. What kind of response should society make to relatively small hazards that occur frequently as opposed to much larger hazards that only occur rarely?

For the most part society ignores large but rare hazards. Thats why even an advanced society like Japan was caught flat-footed by the earthquake and tsunami. Its why volcanic eruptions continue to kill people even though volcanic process and hazards are fairly well understand. Things that only happen once every few hundred years are hard to prepare for, even when society knows what is coming.

Global Warming is even harder to prepare for then earthquakes and tsunamis and volcanic eruptions, because Global warming is really unprecedented. Nothing exactly like this has ever happened in the history of the earth, and we don't even know what is coming as global warming continues.

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21592
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Dubious "skpetic" research papers

Unread postby onlooker » Tue 14 Aug 2018, 12:08:24

"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9654
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Dubious "skpetic" research papers

Unread postby vox_mundi » Tue 14 Aug 2018, 13:59:50

This was settled over 5 years ago. Another attempt to confuse regional with global warming by a circle jerk of AGW denialists

Why the IPA's claim global warming is natural is 'junk science'

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

... evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific.

All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.


Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the globe. The National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions in 2006 found it plausible that current temperatures are hotter than during the Medieval Warm Period. Further evidence obtained since 2006 suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times (Figure 1). This was also confirmed by a major paper from 78 scientists representing 60 scientific institutions around the world in 2013.

Overall, conclusions are:

a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2,000 years, and

b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming.

Image


Also, Consider the Sources:

Jennifer Marohasy (born 1963) is an Australian biologist, columnist and blogger. She was a senior fellow at the free-market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs between 2004 and 2009 and director of the Australian Environment Foundation until 2008.She holds a PhD in biology from the University of Queensland. She is sceptical of anthropogenic global warming and co-authored a peer-reviewed paper in GeoResJ suggesting that most of the recent warming is attributable to natural variations.

The research was funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation. GeoResJ journal will be discontinued from January 2018 and is closed to new submissions.

The Australian Environment Foundation is a front group founded by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a conservative Melbourne-based think tank.

The director of the environment unit of the IPA, Jennifer Marohasy was the founding Chairwoman and is listed as a Director in the organisation's documents with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC). Mahorasy is also the listed registrant of the group's website, although the address and phone number for the website registration are identical to the address and phone number for the Victorian office of the logging industry front group, Timber Communities Australia.

---------------------------------

... In a column by Nahan in the Herald-Sun, he described the Australian Environment Foundation as "pro-biotechnology, pro-nuclear power, pro-modern farming, pro-economic growth, pro-business and pro-environment."

Institute of Public Affairs (IPA): when it comes to climate change, IPA executive director John Roskam summed it up in this way (reported in Fairfax Media):
''Of all the serious sceptics in Australia, we have helped and supported just about all of them in their work one way or another,'' he says, listing some prominent figures on the local circuit. ''Ian Plimer - we launched his book - Bob Carter, Jo Nova, William Kininmonth.'
'
Indeed, in a comment on an obscure page on journalist Graham Redfearn's website, Roskam gloated about the IPA's role sowing doubt about credible, evidence based science:
'…in May The Sydney Morning Herald said that ‘Roskam has done more to fuel doubt about climate change than almost anyone in Australia.’ It would have been great if you had mentioned it.'


Australian MP George Christensen Heading To Las Vegas For Heartland Institute Climate Denial Conference

AN Australian Federal MP is planning to join some of the world’s noisiest deniers of the science of climate change at a conference in Las Vegas in a few weeks time.

George Christensen, the National Party member for Dawson in the coal-friendly state of Queensland, will be hanging around the Mandelay Bay Resort with a rag-tag bunch of mostly long-retired academics and well paid think-tank associates for the Heartland Institute conference, starting on 7 July.

The Heartland Institute, funded over the years by fossil fuel corporations and conservative philanthropists, is itself one of America’s loudest climate science denial organisations. This will be the organisation’s ninth gathering of climate sceptics, denialists and fossil fuel apologists.

In Parliament in February, Christensen downplayed a spate of “so-called record heat waves” by saying other parts of the globe had experienced “record cold”. In fact, according to the US National Climate Data Center, January 2014 was the globe’s fourth hottest since records began in 1880 and was the “347th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average”.

So where does Christensen get his ideas about climate change from?

One revealing document is Christensen’s Parliamentary expenses report from 2012 listing 11 climate change and environmental policy books bought by his office.

Titles include The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled The World's Top Climate Scientists by Roy Spencer; The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is The Obsession With 'Climate Change' Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History by Christopher Booker and Killing The Earth To Save It: How Environmentalists Are Ruining The Planet, Destroying The Economy And Stealing Your Jobs by James Delingpole.

Six of the books were bought two months before Christensen was appointed by the then opposition to sit on a key committee to examine carbon price legislation.

Christensen’s office also bought 25 copies of Australian sceptic and mining entrepreneur Professor Ian Plimer’s book How To Get Expelled From School: A guide to climate change for pupils, parents and punters.

During the two-day Las Vegas conference, Christensen is scheduled to join Patrick Michaels, of the Cato Institute and the author of another of those books, to present some awards.

Christensen is also listed to sit down with fellow Australians for a panel session on the “global warming debate in Australia”.

Christensen will be joined by one of his own constituents, Dr Bob Carter, a “science policy advisor” for the Melbourne-based climate science denialist think tank the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA).

Another panel member joining Christensen is Jennifer Marohasy, a former senior fellow with the IPA.

Marohasy is currently a research fellow at Central Queensland University — a post funded by the “B. Macfie Family Foundation”.

Bryant Macfie is a Perth-based philanthropist and climate science sceptic. In 2009 the university accepted $195,000 from Macfie and in 2012 the CQU annual report said he had renewed his “significant support”.

In 2008, Macfie made a $350,000 gift to another university – the University of Queensland – that was facilitated by the IPA and criticised by some UQ academics.

When making the donation, Macfie claimed science had been damaged by “environmental activism” and wrote, “the crucifix has been replaced by the wind turbine”.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3919
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Dubious "skpetic" research papers

Unread postby jawagord » Fri 17 Aug 2018, 18:45:52

Clearly spelling isn't a requirement for the dubious doomer - SKEPTIC?

Peer review or "Pal" review is coming under attack from all directions. When something like 50% of peer review science research can't be replicated we should all be Skeptical!

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/doe ... than-good/

https://www.theguardian.com/higher-educ ... ific-truth
jawagord
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 09:49:17

Re: Dubious "skpetic" research papers

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 18 Aug 2018, 02:55:04

jawagord wrote:Clearly spelling isn't a requirement for the dubious doomer - SKEPTIC?

Peer review or "Pal" review is coming under attack from all directions. When something like 50% of peer review science research can't be replicated we should all be Skeptical!

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/doe ... than-good/

https://www.theguardian.com/higher-educ ... ific-truth

As always profit rules it seems even when it goes again the public good
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9654
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Previous

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests