BREAKING: CBC producer quits, slams woke broadcaster for failing to cover issues important to Canadians

[poker]

wrong again

wrong again

your cold hard facts are melting



WTF ??

What part of courts / opinion do not decide science do you not understand ?
what part of not net warming for 30 years do you not understand ?





You have a chance to apologize for calling me a lair
Get this straight the science does not support the AGW

wrong again

wrong again

your cold hard facts are melting



WTF ??

What part of courts / opinion do not decide science do you not understand ?
what part of not net warming for 30 years do you not understand ?





You have a chance to apologize for calling me a lair
Get this straight the science does not support the AGW

I most certainly will not apologize. Your evidence did not address my argument… that Hurricane intensity has increased. Posting links with no sources…. Cause that’s not your MO.

Climate Change Indicators: Tropical Cyclone Activity | US EPA

This indicator examines the frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes and other tropical storms in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico.

www.epa.gov

Key Points

• Since 1878, about six to seven hurricanes have formed in the North Atlantic every year. Roughly two per year make landfall in the United States. The total number of hurricanes (particularly after being adjusted for improvements in observation methods) and the number reaching the United States do not indicate a clear overall trend since 1878 (see Figure 1).

• According to the total annual ACE Index, cyclone intensity has risen noticeably over the past 20 years, and eight of the 10 most active years since 1950 have occurred since the mid-1990s (see Figure 2). Relatively high levels of cyclone activity were also seen during the 1950s and 1960s.

•The PDI (see Figure 3) shows fluctuating cyclone intensity for most of the mid- to late 20th century, followed by a noticeable increase since 1995 (similar to the ACE Index). These trends are shown with associated variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical North Atlantic for comparison (see Figure 3).

• Despite the apparent increases in tropical cyclone activity in recent years, shown in Figures 2 and 3, changes in observation methods over time make it difficult to know whether tropical storm activity has actually shown an increase over time.3

 

[JohnLarue]

I most certainly will not apologize. Your evidence did not address my argument… that Hurricane intensity has increased. Posting links with no sources…. Cause that’s not your MO.

Climate Change Indicators: Tropical Cyclone Activity | US EPA

This indicator examines the frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes and other tropical storms in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico.

www.epa.gov

Key Points

• Since 1878, about six to seven hurricanes have formed in the North Atlantic every year. Roughly two per year make landfall in the United States. The total number of hurricanes (particularly after being adjusted for improvements in observation methods) and the number reaching the United States do not indicate a clear overall trend since 1878 (see Figure 1).

• According to the total annual ACE Index, cyclone intensity has risen noticeably over the past 20 years, and eight of the 10 most active years since 1950 have occurred since the mid-1990s (see Figure 2). Relatively high levels of cyclone activity were also seen during the 1950s and 1960s.

•The PDI (see Figure 3) shows fluctuating cyclone intensity for most of the mid- to late 20th century, followed by a noticeable increase since 1995 (similar to the ACE Index). These trends are shown with associated variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical North Atlantic for comparison (see Figure 3).

• Despite the apparent increases in tropical cyclone activity in recent years, shown in Figures 2 and 3, changes in observation methods over time make it difficult to know whether tropical storm activity has actually shown an increase over time.3

Roger Pielke Jr. on Twitter: "Absolutely amazing & somewhat sad Observations of hurricane activity apparently don't show the right trends So this new paper re-invents history by using modeled historical hurricane activity to find the right trends Predictably, gross misinformation follows https://t.co/CTEw7atb04" / Twitter

Modeled hurricane activity vs real activity


No, Hurricanes Are Not Bigger, Stronger and More Dangerous (forbes.com)

he first big problem with G19 is that it purports to say something about climatological trends in hurricanes, but it uses no actual climate data on hurricanes. That’s right, it instead uses data on economic losses from hurricanes to arrive at conclusions about climate trends. The economic data that it uses are based on research that I and colleagues have conducted over more than two decades, which makes me uniquely situated to tell you about the mistakes in G19.

You have been had........ sucker

 

[poker]

Roger Pielke Jr. on Twitter: "Absolutely amazing & somewhat sad Observations of hurricane activity apparently don't show the right trends So this new paper re-invents history by using modeled historical hurricane activity to find the right trends Predictably, gross misinformation follows https://t.co/CTEw7atb04" / Twitter

Modeled hurricane activity vs real activity

You have been had........ sucker

So…. It is your assertion that there have not been more catagory 4 & 5’s in the last 20 years than since the 50’s? And your evidence is some guys opinion From a tweet…. That only says they made some changes. He does not even state there are less severe storms now.

Remember when you dismissed my evidence when your Beers Law theory was completely dismantled in a science blog… And that climate scientists did in fact take it into consideration on the climate models despite you saying it was not looked at. And you refused to accept it because it was in a blog. And now you brought a tweet? Are you shitting me!!!

Now, I am just on this board for the shits, and the giggles. You sir, have provided a lot of those. You are by far and away the funniest guy on this board, and you don’t know why.

 

[poker]

Roger Pielke Jr. on Twitter: "Absolutely amazing & somewhat sad Observations of hurricane activity apparently don't show the right trends So this new paper re-invents history by using modeled historical hurricane activity to find the right trends Predictably, gross misinformation follows https://t.co/CTEw7atb04" / Twitter

Modeled hurricane activity vs real activity


No, Hurricanes Are Not Bigger, Stronger and More Dangerous (forbes.com)



You have been had........ sucker

“Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, thinks such reactions are not only wrong but "irresponsible." Pielke believes that temperatures are rising in response to human activity, but he also argues that the alarmism dominating the climate discussion is counterproductive.”

Even your source agrees with me.

 

[JohnLarue]

“Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, thinks such reactions are not only wrong but "irresponsible." Pielke believes that temperatures are rising in response to human activity, but he also argues that the alarmism dominating the climate discussion is counterproductive.”

Even your source agrees with me.

after he showed you that your climate distaste are computer generated

the alarmism dominating the climate discussion is counterproductive.

is the primary conclusion you should be drawing

opps looks like the CBC mislead you again

 

[Frankfooter]

“Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, thinks such reactions are not only wrong but "irresponsible." Pielke believes that temperatures are rising in response to human activity, but he also argues that the alarmism dominating the climate discussion is counterproductive.”

Even your source agrees with me.

larue posts a source that says climate change is real and humans are causing but then ignores his own source?
Hilarious.

 

[poker]

larue posts a source that says climate change is real and humans are causing but then ignores his own source?
Hilarious.

Yeah… fucking classic cherry pick move. Followed by side stepping when it gets pointed out to him.

I am arguing historical data. He counters with climate models.

It’s like arguing with Trump about election results. He is not capable of admitting when he clearly loses, and has a bunch of regulars cheering his nonsense on.

 

[JohnLarue]

So…. It is your assertion that there have not been more catagory 4 & 5’s in the last 20 years than since the 50’s? And your evidence is some guys opinion From a tweet…. That only says they made some changes. He does not even state there are less severe storms now.

wrong again

Remember when you dismissed my evidence when your Beers Law theory was completely dismantled in a science blog

…

No
I told you to integrate over the entire elevation of the atmosphere. Absorption is proportional to a 4h power of temperature and temperature declines rapidly as you move up elevation
It is not my fault you do not understand what you blogger wrote

Your blog did not invalidate the Beer Lambert Law, not even close.
There is a reason it is called a LAW

And that climate scientists did in fact take it into consideration on the climate models despite you saying it was not looked at. And you refused to accept it because it was in a blog. And now you brought a tweet? Are you shitting me!!!

Look, ..... absorption @15 micrometers is saturated , there is only so much energy transmitted from the earth at that wavelength
it has been proven many times

Now, I am just on this board for the shits, and the giggles. You sir, have provided a lot of those. You are by far and away the funniest guy on this board, and you don’t know why.

It is just astounding how people who do not understand the science will refuse to acknowledge what they do not understand, instead they rely on court transcripts and blogs

The AGW theory is a narrative and an evil one at that

The atmosphere is not warming up as per the satellite data despite a constant increase in minuscule Co2 concentration
0.21 C vs a twenty year average starting thirty years ago, and lower than 1998, 2016 and 2019
despite a 10% increase in Co2 since 1998
That is irrefutable

If the experimental data does not support your theory, your theory is wrong

 

[poker]

In a controlled environment. Atmospheric pressure is also a factor which is not controlled out in the wild.

 

[poker]

wrong again

…

No
I told you to integrate over the entire elevation of the atmosphere. Absorption is proportional to a 4h power of temperature and temperature declines rapidly as you move up elevation
It is not my fault you do not understand what you blogger wrote

Your blog did not invalidate the Beer Lambert Law, not even close.
There is a reason it is called a LAW




Look, ..... absorption @15 micrometers is saturated , there is only so much energy transmitted from the earth at that wavelength
it has been proven many times




It is just astounding how people who do not understand the science will refuse to acknowledge what they do not understand, instead they rely on court transcripts and blogs

The AGW theory is a narrative and an evil one at that

The atmosphere is not warming up as per the satellite data despite a constant increase in minuscule Co2 concentration
0.21 C vs a twenty year average starting thirty years ago, and lower than 1998, 2016 and 2019
despite a 10% increase in Co2 since 1998
That is irrefutable

If the experimental data does not support your theory, your theory is wrong

there is a law in physics that water evaporates at a certain rates, at certain temperatures. It accumulates (clouds). And at certain temperatures and saturation points it falls back to the earth as water again.

Yet, it’s not raining everywhere 24/7…. Despite those laws. Quite the opposite. Most places it is not raining.

 

[Frankfooter]

Yeah… fucking classic cherry pick move. Followed by side stepping when it gets pointed out to him.

I am arguing historical data. He counters with climate models.

It’s like arguing with Trump about election results. He is not capable of admitting when he clearly loses, and has a bunch of regulars cheering his nonsense on.

Totally, he'll bring in a climate model to make a false claim then in the next post argue all climate models are false.
Just like quoting a guy who says climate change is real as a source and claiming it backs up his claims.

 

[poker]

This Pielke guy is actually really interesting and smart. Thanks for sharing John!

Soaring Electricity And Coal Use Are Proving Once Again, Roger Pielke Jr’s ‘Iron Law Of Climate’

Ember's report shows that despite talk about the urgent need to reduce emissions, coal demand in China continues to grow, emissions from the electric sector continue to grow (up 5% over the first half of 2019), and soaring global electricity use continues to outstrip growth in renewables.

www.forbes.com

“Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado as well as a highly regarded author on the politics of climate change and sports governance, has since elaborated on the Iron Law. During an interview in Juice, he explained it thusly: “The Iron Law says we’re not going to reduce emissions by willingly getting poor. Rich people aren't going to want to get poorer, poor people aren't going to want to get poorer.” He continued, “If there is one thing that we can count on it is that policymakers will be rewarded by populations if they make people wealthier. We're doing everything we can to try to get richer as nations, as communities, as individuals. If we want to reduce emissions, we really have only one place to go and that's technology.”

 

[JohnLarue]

there is a law in physics that water evaporates at a certain rates, at certain temperatures. It accumulates (clouds). And at certain temperatures and saturation points it falls back to the earth as water again.

Yet, it’s not raining everywhere 24/7…. Despite those laws. Quite the opposite. Most places it is not raining.

too funny
The condensation of water is not just a function of temperature, it is also dependent upon concentration

there is a law in physics that water evaporates at a certain rates, at certain temperatures.

Name that law please

Hint:
The physical laws of nature are laws because they ALWAY hold true
One repeatable experimental failure of that law makes it invalid
That is how science works !

 

[JohnLarue]

This Pielke guy is actually really interesting and smart. Thanks for sharing John!

Soaring Electricity And Coal Use Are Proving Once Again, Roger Pielke Jr’s ‘Iron Law Of Climate’

Ember's report shows that despite talk about the urgent need to reduce emissions, coal demand in China continues to grow, emissions from the electric sector continue to grow (up 5% over the first half of 2019), and soaring global electricity use continues to outstrip growth in renewables.

www.forbes.com

“Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado as well as a highly regarded author on the politics of climate change and sports governance, has since elaborated on the Iron Law. During an interview in Juice, he explained it thusly: “The Iron Law says we’re not going to reduce emissions by willingly getting poor. Rich people aren't going to want to get poorer, poor people aren't going to want to get poorer.” He continued, “If there is one thing that we can count on it is that policymakers will be rewarded by populations if they make people wealthier. We're doing everything we can to try to get richer as nations, as communities, as individuals. If we want to reduce emissions, we really have only one place to go and that's technology.”

And exactly how does that support
a) the mis-information narrative of the CBC ?
b) Justin Trudeaus evil carbon taxes ?
c) the continued attack on Fossil Fuels ?
d) restricting pipelines, production and access to funds for Fossil Fuel development

If you want to devote yourself to coming up with an affordable reliable alternative energy source, go to town
such a source of energy would lift hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty

Current policies will only make more people poor
based on a false pseudo science

but you will get to virtue signal

 

[JohnLarue]

In a controlled environment. Atmospheric pressure is also a factor which is not controlled out in the wild.

odd you mentioned that

The atmospheres of both Venus (96%) and MARs is almost all Co2

Yet Venus is blistering hot , while mars is frigidly cold


The difference is atmospheric pressure , Venus has massive pressure at its surface while Mars has very little pressure
btw Venus is hotter than Mercury which is closer to the sun

And there is a temperature and pressure gradient as you descend down through the atmosphere of Venus , despite a constant 96% CO2
Thus pressure is a driver of temperature , while Co2 is not
PV=nRT

400 part per million is not going to determine temperature if 96% does not

any more scientific insights from you?

 

[JohnLarue]

In a controlled environment. Atmospheric pressure is also a factor which is not controlled out in the wild.

satellite data is real world observations

 

[poker]

And exactly how does that support
a) the mis-information narrative of the CBC ?
b) Justin Trudeaus evil carbon taxes ?
c) the continued attack on Fossil Fuels ?
d) restricting pipelines, production and access to funds for Fossil Fuel development

If you want to devote yourself to coming up with an affordable reliable alternative energy source, go to town
such a source of energy would lift hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty

Current policies will only make more people poor
based on a false pseudo science

but you will get to virtue signal

So…. Your source agrees with me the climate change is man made.

Your source also believes that given the choice between addressing climate change, or growing the economy, people with choose more money.

So far he is in line with everything I post… albeit, he articulates it better… yet I am the one virtues signalling. Sure.

 

[HungSowel]

odd you mentioned that

The atmospheres of both Venus (96%) and MARs is almost all Co2

Yet Venus is blistering hot , while mars is frigidly cold


The difference is atmospheric pressure , Venus has massive pressure at its surface while Mars has very little pressure
btw Venus is hotter than Mercury which is closer to the sun

And there is a temperature and pressure gradient as you descend down through the atmosphere of Venus , despite a constant 96% CO2
Thus pressure is a driver of temperature , while Co2 is not
PV=nRT

400 part per million is not going to determine temperature if 96% does not

any more scientific insights from you?

PV=nRT, that is an equivalence equation not a causation equation as it doe not have a time component.

If you say that pressure is the driver of temperature that is equivalent to say nRT/V is driving temperature, which is saying that temperature is driving temperature.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The climate change bedwetting does provide an excellent example of how the CBC interprets "news" from its own partisan agenda.

GUNTER: Here's some news about Alberta that the CBC likely won't report

I can’t wait to read the CBC’s headlines on the latest poll from Maru Public Opinion.

torontosun.com

In a Toronto Sun column the other day, columnist Lorne Gunter examined a December poll conducted for the CBC about how many Canadians would want to move to Alberta. The CBC reported that "only" half of Canadians say they would feel comfortable moving to Alberta.

Furthermore, the story attributed some people's reluctance to move to Alberta to climate change, noting that "only half of Canadians … think Albertans care enough about climate change."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/poll-canadians-living-in-alberta-climate-change-1.6272645

No other province was examined in the poll.

But after an outcry from Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and others, the pollsters (Maru) decided to ask about other provinces. As it turns out, Alberta scored just as well as Ontario and did much better than Quebec.

In fact, the results suggest Canadians are reluctant to consider moving to some provinces because of the cold weather in those provinces.

There is nothing in the polling of all provinces that suggests climate change is a motivating factor. Indeed, climate change angst is particularly strong in Quebec, the least attractive province in the country.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/poll-canadians-comfortable-living-1.6302361

The climate change attribution in the December story was simply the CBC inserting its own agenda into the results.

 

[rhuarc29]

The CBC hasn't moved in either direction.
Its you that's changed.

I don't think that's remotely accurate. I'd say the CBC was always left-leaning, but Canada has become ever more leftist and the CBC has moved with it. So relative to 20 years ago, both CBC and Canada in general have become more left-leaning, but as the CBC was left-leaning to begin with, now it's uber left-leaning.

Media in general, both left and right, has certainly lost journalistic integrity, so she's correct about that. And I applaud her for being willing to give up her position based on the outlet's failings.