President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist

[Moviefan-2]

Or is it because like other conspiracy theorists, your response to facts is to change the topic.

Fact is, scientists see AGW as the dominant factor for climate change by a 6.6:1 ratio.

LMFAO!

You think that asking you to actually read and try to understand the survey constitutes trying "to change the topic"?? What happened to your claim that these two-thirds of climate scientists "actually look at the evidence"? :thumb:

Fact is:

-- Nearly half of the respondents in that survey gave incorrect answers to the question about current temperatures.

-- More than 70 per cent of respondents were wrong in their assessments of how current temperatures compare with the predictions.

The inconvenient truth is:

-- The survey findings show that most of the climate researchers who believe in AGW know next to nothing about the actual data.

That's why scientific conclusions should be based on evidence rather than straw votes.

 

[bishop]

Holy fuck your claims are getting pretty ridiculous.

Please Counter my entire post and do not cherry pick a minor sentence. That statement you quoted has to be put into context by the contents of my post.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Please Counter my entire post and do not cherry pick a minor sentence. That statement you quoted has to be put into context by the contents of my post.

Consider yourself lucky.

Usually, he picks one sentence and rewrites it to give it an entirely different meaning.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Climate science is science in the same vein as creation science is science.

What has climate science learned so far? A good hypothesis has explanatory powers, what explanatory powers does AWG have? Does it explain why we entered an ice age? Does it explain the medieval warming period?

In science a theory explains the past and also makes predictions about new events, real science uses is 6 sigma as a standard not f*cking 66% of wannabe scientists believe this sh*t to be true.

The parallels between religion and climate science is striking. Both use a carrot and stick approach to convince the heart and not the mind. If you believe in god then you are promised these grand rewards, if you do not believe in god then you are damned to some horrible afterlife. If you believe in AWG then there is some fantasy land where all the ills of the world is solved by carbon taxes and solar/wind power, if you do not believe in AWG then you are damned to some catastrophic events; famines, plagues, being cooked alive, etc...

Religion is not precise and there is no need for self reflection to reconcile obvious divergences. In climate science everything is imprecise, it is always the next AR9999999 model that is correct, nobody feels the need to explain why AR1 to AR 999999998 was such a complete cluster fuck. 5 years from now when AR6 comes out, basket and frank will still be here praising the new AR model as the truth, while conveniently forgetting how much confidence they had in AR4 or AR5 which turned out to be garbage. That is a religion to me, not science.

How many BS claims had climate scientists made that turned out to have zero merit? According to those stupid predictions by now; we would not know what snow looks like, polar bears would be extinct, that mutherfucking island country named poaloa (however you spell it) should be totally under water, etc.... That sh*t is meant to scare you into believing just like how religion uses fear to control the population.

How many BS claims has religion made about the future? Jesus is coming back any day now and the dead will walk the earth as zombies, the 4 horsemen are comming to rape your arse any day now, etc....

Creation science is pure bullshit, yes.

Climate science is a misnomer.

Surely there are other, traditional scientific disciplines that comprise what is generally known as 'climate science'?

 

[GPIDEAL]

I watched several HBO documentaries (the VICE) series that went to Greenland and Antarctica and measured the amount of glacial melt and compared it to the rate decades ago, not only has sea level increased 8cm already but the melt rate is speeding up due to rising water temperatures. So it just baffles me when people say global warming isn't happening. Why not talk to the people who are actually studying these glacial areas? Once sea level rises a few meters you can be the people live on the coast lines won't be laughing. So much of Bangladesh is below sea level and the ocean is wiping out villages and forcing people to flee to cities that are on higher ground. They know global warming has affected them already.

The physical evidence is very persuasive, yes.

Deniers used to say that it has nothing to do with humanity's influences. Now they claim that there is no global warming (or significant evidence of any trend).

 

[Moviefan-2]

Now they claim that there is no global warming (or significant evidence of any trend).

Actually, all of the surface and satellite data confirm there has been no statistically significant warming in the 21st century. I'm happy to post the numbers for you again if you need confirmation.

By the way, it's not just "deniers" who say there has been no warming. The IPCC, the Met Office, NASA and many others have reported a "flattening" (NASA's term) of the Earth's temperature.

 

[basketcase]

LMFAO!

You think that asking you to actually read and try to understand the survey constitutes trying "to change the topic"?? ....

For pages and pages you tried arguing that the scientific community doesn't support the conclusion that AGW is the dominant factor. Now you yourself provided evidence that proved that contention wrong and you want to switch tact.

 

[basketcase]

Please Counter my entire post and do not cherry pick a minor sentence. That statement you quoted has to be put into context by the contents of my post.

The fact that you believe that climate science is at the same level as creationism speaks volumes.

Science - evidence based conclusions that change when new evidence is discovered.
Religion - faith based beliefs that stay essentially rigid.

The only similarity is the way you and movie like to ignore evidence.

 

[PornAddict]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deNbnxaJYOU
NASA Scientists Invalidate the Global Warming Hypothesis

Excellent case made see 34 minute into the video by Nasa scientists
An impressive presentation, based on logic...and genuine science, not rants and raves of the pseudo-science buffs.

 

[TESLAMotors]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deNbnxaJYOU
NASA Scientists Invalidate the Global Warming Hypothesis

Excellent case made see 34 minute into the video by Nasa scientists
An impressive presentation, based on logic...and genuine science, not rants and raves of the pseudo-science buffs.

One of the commenters brought up an interesting point, at 6:50 in the video, "The comparative photos at 6:50 give no indication of whether the tide was in or out!"
Excellent observation.

One more commenter:
"Not scientists. Not a single one with relevant expertise in climate science. Waving irrelevant credentials for the drooling idiots who watch denialist videos.
And the bozo at the start mentions Benghazi !!! Pure conspiracy nut idiocy.
If you really think rocket engineers, astronauts, weathermen and plant breeders have any meaningful contribution to make to climate science then you have no understanding of how real science works.
It shows the desperation of the Heartland institute that they have to drag in people with no relevant background and nothing that's ever been published in a relevant discipline.
This is not science - it's PR aimed at gullible fools."


The second speaker Tom Wysmuller, good article about him here speaking on "climate". LOL
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/climate-denier-cpac-trust-me-im-astronaut

It really is funny in a way, having people speak to a bunch of Cons for fapping material.



Okay, okay, ONE more, this one's great. Makes the video above laughable with their so called experts.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/NASA-climate-denialist-letter.html

The Signatories

Obviously this letter first gained attention because the signatories are former NASA employees.
They are being touted as "top astronauts, scientists, and engineers" and "NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience."
Okay, but in what fields does their expertise lie?

Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science).
Amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers.
You can review the signatories for yourself here.

 

[bishop]

The fact that you believe that climate science is at the same level as creationism speaks volumes.

Science - evidence based conclusions that change when new evidence is discovered.
Religion - faith based beliefs that stay essentially rigid.

The only similarity is the way you and movie like to ignore evidence.

You are correct, science is evidence based. However your notion of science is based on popularity and appeals to authority.

My standard for science as I have always stated consistently before and have never wavered from is 6 sigma, it is the same standard that is used across all scientific disciplines except climate science. So to be consistent, the same standards should be used across all sciences, I contend that climate science use the same 6 sigma standard, the alternative is for the rest of scientific disciplines to use the standards set by climate science which is based on popularity and fear mongering.

I did not say climate science is the same or the same level as creation science. I am saying that neither is a science. A horse and a bike is not a car, that does not in any way imply that I view the horse and the bike as the same or on the same level.

 

[basketcase]

You are correct, science is evidence based. However your notion of science is based on popularity and appeals to authority....

Sorry you are the one who brought up 'popularity' just like you are the one who tried to compare science with religion. I on the other had was relying on the opinions of experts who support AGW over movie's 'natural' theory by an almost 7:1 ratio. When 7 out of 8 scientists say something within their field of expertise, I tend to listen.

 

[K Douglas]

I watched several HBO documentaries (the VICE) series that went to Greenland and Antarctica and measured the amount of glacial melt and compared it to the rate decades ago, not only has sea level increased 8cm already but the melt rate is speeding up due to rising water temperatures. So it just baffles me when people say global warming isn't happening. Why not talk to the people who are actually studying these glacial areas? Once sea level rises a few meters you can be the people live on the coast lines won't be laughing. So much of Bangladesh is below sea level and the ocean is wiping out villages and forcing people to flee to cities that are on higher ground. They know global warming has affected them already.

Hi Charlotte, welcome to the debate. You are right but that melting has been going on since the mid 1800s. Sea levels are not projected to rise meters they have been minimally increasing. There has been no global warming since 1997 according to satellite records.

 

[Moviefan-2]

For pages and pages you tried arguing that the scientific community doesn't support the conclusion that AGW is the dominant factor. Now you yourself provided evidence that proved that contention wrong and you want to switch tact.

Here's what I said to Bishop:

Consider yourself lucky.

Usually, he picks one sentence and rewrites it to give it an entirely different meaning.

The quote at the top of this post proves my point.

What I actually said is the observed data don't support the conclusion that man-made emissions are the dominant factor, as the data show the Earth's temperature has been stagnant in the 21st century. I also said there is no evidence that the warming that did occur over a 20-year period in the late 20th century was anthropogenic.

As far as the opinions of the climate researchers go, I said the claim that there is a "97% consensus" is B.S. Surveys such as the Netherlands survey confirm that I am right.

Contrary to what the quote at the top of this post says, I never disputed that 66 per cent of the climate researchers who responded in the Netherlands survey supported the AGW hypothesis and that the hypothesis wasn't supported by 34 per cent of respondents (that's actually a 2-1 ratio, for those who care). I provided all of the numbers and quoted that figure on Sunday before Basketcase was even aware of it (https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5329320&viewfull=1#post5329320).

Furthermore, I have previously quoted it in my debates with Frankfooter/Groggy about the false claims of a "consensus." For example, see this post from May 31: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5260644&viewfull=1#post5260644

It was Basketcase who claimed that the majority support in the Netherlands survey is "very compelling" because -- according to Basketcase -- those are scientists "who actually look at the evidence."

The results confirm that's not the case.

-- Nearly half of the respondents in that survey gave incorrect answers to the question about current temperatures.

-- More than 70 per cent of respondents were wrong in their assessments of how current temperatures compared with the predictions.

As Ross McKitrick noted in this National Post column, who cares what the ill-informed believe?: http://business.financialpost.com/f...ensus-among-the-misinformed-is-not-worth-much

You test a hypothesis by measuring how the predictions compare with the observed data. The observed data show the predictions about anthropogenic global warming have been spectacularly wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

For pages and pages you tried arguing that the scientific community doesn't support the conclusion that AGW is the dominant factor....

I should add that this is yet another in Basketcase's endless series of lies.

Here is what I actually said about the "scientific community":

As for your claim that the "scientific community" supports AGW, there is no reason to believe that.

Consider the IPCC's headline-grabbing prediction in 2007 that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. That fairy-tale claim made international headlines and the IPCC spent more than two years defending it.

According to you, the "scientific community" would speak out if the IPCC and its followers were saying things that were as obviously preposterous as the Himalayan glaciers prediction. But as we all know, that didn't happen. For the most part, it was only climate skeptics who said anything at all, even though any person who knows anything about science knew it was total B.S.

The reality is the "scientific community" has mostly been quiet on AGW. Indeed, not a single scientist on the planet -- climate researcher or otherwise -- provided an amicus brief in support of Michael Mann in his lawsuits against Mark Steyn.

The silence of the "scientific community" doesn't prove that scientists don't believe in it. But the assertion that the "scientific community" supports AGW is completely baseless.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5330812&viewfull=1#post5330812

It's regrettable that we have to spend so much time correcting Basketcase's lies and misrepresentations of other people's comments. Constantly having to respond to Basketcase's falsehoods sure doesn't meet my definition of "debating the science."

 

[Moviefan-2]

Sorry you are the one who brought up 'popularity' just like you are the one who tried to compare science with religion. I on the other had was relying on the opinions of experts....

So there you have it.

Apparently, straw votes have nothing to do with "popularity." :frusty:

 

[basketcase]

So there you have it.

Apparently, straw votes have nothing to do with "popularity." :frusty:

And the experts disagree with your claim - though your arguments change so often it's hard to tell.

You spent a long time arguing that CO2 was not a significant factor for climate change and rather it has been due to 'natural' causes. Seems the experts disagree with you by a margin of 7:1.
You spent a long time arguing that scientists are intentionally misleading people which is pure conspiracy trash.
Now you've changed your argument to there being no warming in the past decade. If the current trend holds, I will agree that it has been slower than the previous couple decades but it still shows an increasing trend. 37% say it's higher, 9-18% agree with you that it's the same (depending on why "approximately zero" is a separate category), and 23% say 10 years is too short. Still seems a pretty noticeable difference.

 

[Frankfooter]

What I actually said is the observed data don't support the conclusion that man-made emissions are the dominant factor, as the data show the Earth's temperature has been stagnant in the 21st century. I also said there is no evidence that the warming that did occur over a 20-year period in the late 20th century was anthropogenic.

Back to this spectacularly wrong statement?
How could any honest person say this chart shows no temperature increase since 2000?

As far as the opinions of the climate researchers go, I said the claim that there is a "97% consensus" is B.S. Surveys such as the Netherlands survey confirm that I am right.

No, you blatantly lied about this study, in which the author of the study reported that it confirmed the consensus claim.
You lied about this.



The evidence you provided found:

We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/...rts-poll-of-meteorologists-on-climate-change/

and

The results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.

http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming

You lied about both of those studies.

 

[Moviefan-2]

37% say it's higher, 9-18% agree with you that it's the same (depending on why "approximately zero" is a separate category), and 23% say 10 years is too short. Still seems a pretty noticeable difference.

OMG!!!

Are you serious? You think the temperature of the planet is determined by straw votes?? :Eek:

So, if someone believes in his heart that the planet is warmer -- that means it's warmer??? Screw what the actual observed data say?

This is more frakking retarded than your claim that the temperature increased by 0.18 degrees Celsius from 2010 to 2014.

The Earth's temperature isn't decided by holding a vote or conducting a prayer session. You use actual measurements to determine the Earth's temperature.

And the actual measurements -- both the surface temperature readings and the satellite data -- confirm the Earth's temperature has been stagnant in the 21st century and that the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

It's no wonder that everyone thinks you believe in AGW solely as a matter of religious faith. In post 800, you confirmed they're right.

 

[Frankfooter]

OMG!!!
..
And the actual measurements -- both the surface temperature readings and the satellite data -- confirm the Earth's temperature has been stagnant in the 21st century and that the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

Why do you keep posting this blatant lie?
Here's the data since 2000:

2015 0.81°C
2014 0.70°C
2013 0.67°C
2012 0.69°C
2011 0.63°C
2010 0.73°C
2009 0.64°C
2008 0.58°C
2007 0.53°C
2006 0.63°C
2005 0.66°C
2004 0.48°C
2003 0.54°C
2002 0.62°C
2001 0.56°C
2000 0.40ºC

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Since 2000 the global temp has gone up 0.41ºC in only 15 years.
Those are the actual measurements.

You really need to get your facts straight.