The new official climate change thread

[K Douglas]

Where it should be, in the political forum. To start another great presentation by Dr Bob Carter RIP

Fuji feel free to critique Dr Carter's arguments unlike on the last thread where you just simply claimed he's wrong. Franky - please don't post endless non referenced charts and graphs which regurgitate the same information.

 

[onthebottom]

Climate change is something most want to talk about and none want to act on.

 

[fuji]

Where it should be, in the political forum. To start another great presentation by Dr Bob Carter RIP

Fuji feel free to critique Dr Carter's arguments unlike on the last thread where you just simply claimed he's wrong. Franky - please don't post endless non referenced charts and graphs which regurgitate the same information.

In your video he predicts cooling, but since then (your video from a few years ago) we have seen warming . How is he not wrong? He was also speaking before the study in Nature proved global warming experimentally through direct observation.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Climate change is something most want to talk about and none want to act on.

Trust me, when it comes to exploiting nonsense about "saving the planet" in order to raise taxes (a.k.a. cap and trade fees), Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is quite happy to act on it.

 

[Frankfooter]

Where it should be, in the political forum. To start another great presentation by Dr Bob Carter RIP

Fuji feel free to critique Dr Carter's arguments unlike on the last thread where you just simply claimed he's wrong. Franky - please don't post endless non referenced charts and graphs which regurgitate the same information.

3 year old video from a dead paleontologist who was on a stipend from the Heartland Institute and who never published any research on the climate?
Shouldn't you just be pushing Tim Ball conspiracy theory videos?

Ok, and first off, did you really have to start another climate change thread?
Are you really that bored of talking about sex?

But if you must, you must also put all of your posts, and the rest of you deniers, in context.
There is a study that shows that if you put out the same charts but rename it as an economic chart or something else, deniers will say the evidence is incontrovertible, but as soon as you label it as the climate then you say there is no proof.

Climate change doubters really aren’t going to like this study

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...really-really-arent-going-to-like-this-study/

In other words, you guys are just deniers, and even in the face of evidence that you'd accept on any other subject, you will still deny it if its about the climate.

Have a nice night.
And go rent the services of a lovely lady, will you.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Franky believes that if Michael Mann worked in another discipline, we would all accept Mann's claim that he was the "recipient" of a Nobel Prize.

According to Franky, the Nobel Institute would have taken a different position on that matter, as well.

 

[JohnLarue]

In other words, you guys are just deniers, and even in the face of evidence that you'd accept on any other subject, you will still deny it if its about the climate.

In other words you are just an uncompromising zealot who lacks the ability to even contemplate there may be an opposing view which should be considered
While we all certainly owe it to future generations to ensure we are not cooking the planet, the economic realities of the demands by environmental zealots are horrendous and likely unachievable

 

[Frankfooter]

Franky believes that if Michael Mann worked in another discipline, we would all accept Mann's claim that he was the "recipient" of a Nobel Prize.

According to Franky, the Nobel Institute would have taken a different position on that matter, as well.

Read the study.

Scientists were remarkably consistent, they came out with similar results regardless of what the subject matter of the data was labelled, only the deniers changed how they interpreted the data based on whether it was on climate or not.

Denier won't accept results if its on climate change that they would accept on most other matters.

 

[Frankfooter]

In other words you are just an uncompromising zealot who lacks the ability to even contemplate there may be an opposing view which should be considered
While we all certainly owe it to future generations to ensure we are not cooking the planet, the economic realities of the demands by environmental zealots are horrendous and likely unachievable

Bullshit.

I've repeatedly listened to your claims, read the posts and 'studies' you bring to the table and debated the points in them.
That's the total opposite of people like you who target all of legit science (NASA, IPCCC, AAAS) as 'zealots'.

And for someone who claims to understands economics, you sure don't understand the true costs of climate change.
On this issue, you are incredibly naive.

 

[onthebottom]

Everyone who hasn't SUBSTANTIALLY changed their lifestyle is a denier, some just have a complete lack of self awareness.

 

[JohnLarue]

Bullshit.

I do not think so

I've repeatedly listened to your claims, read the posts and 'studies' you bring to the table and debated the points in them.

Then you have me mistaken for someone else. I have not posted any links to environmental studies
Another inaccuracy to add to your ever growing list there Groggy.

That's the total opposite of people like you who target all of legit science (NASA, IPCCC, AAAS) as 'zealots'.

A scientist starts with a hypothesis and then collects the experimental data to attempt to prove or disprove that hypothesis.
A zealot starts with a preconceived conclusion and searches for studies which support that conclusion.
A zealot dismissed out of hand any opposing studies generally with ill-informed ass nine comments such as

3 year old video from a dead paleontologist who was on a stipend from the Heartland Institute and who never published any research on the climate?

Dr. Carter pointed out some issues with the interpretation of the data
It would be prudent to ensure this data is being interpreted correctly before applying policies which are economically devastating and technologically unachievable

despite being dead I suspect still understands the science of climate change better than you do

And for someone who claims to understands economics, you sure don't understand the true costs of climate change.
On this issue, you are incredibly naive.

If we cook the planet then all economic value goes to zero
That is not naïve

However these questions remain
Q1. Is the planets climate change a result of man-made influences or the natural cycle of a planet with an eccentric orbit round a big flaming ball of gas (that would be the sun)?
Q2. How do the loonies propose to replace a growing 100 MM barrels of oil computation per day? Renewables might one day (far into the future) replace 10-15%

By taxing it more ?

 

[K Douglas]

3 year old video from a dead paleontologist who was on a stipend from the Heartland Institute and who never published any research on the climate?
Shouldn't you just be pushing Tim Ball conspiracy theory videos?

Ok, and first off, did you really have to start another climate change thread?
Are you really that bored of talking about sex?

But if you must, you must also put all of your posts, and the rest of you deniers, in context.
There is a study that shows that if you put out the same charts but rename it as an economic chart or something else, deniers will say the evidence is incontrovertible, but as soon as you label it as the climate then you say there is no proof.

In other words, you guys are just deniers, and even in the face of evidence that you'd accept on any other subject, you will still deny it if its about the climate.

Have a nice night.
And go rent the services of a lovely lady, will you.

Wait a minute aren't you the guy who literally has 95% of his post count on all the various global warming threads in the lounge? Too fucking funny.
I created a new one here in the politics lounge because I'm sure people got sick of numerous threads in the general discussion. Plus it's not a scientific issue anymore it's all about politics. Liberals like yourself have perpetuated that by refusing to debate the science. Because you know you'd lose.
As far as Dr Bob Carter is concerned he was a genuine scientist. You can try and discredit him all you want but the track record speaks for itself. He had extensive climate training and published many articles on the subject. He was the lead author of the last NIPCC report.

 

[K Douglas]

In your video he predicts cooling, but since then (your video from a few years ago) we have seen warming . How is he not wrong? He was also speaking before the study in Nature proved global warming experimentally through direct observation.

We haven't seen any warming in the 21st century fuji. With the exception of 2015 which was due to El Nino. Dr Carter was right and there are scores of other scientists who are predicting a 30 year cooling trend. One climate data point.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Denier won't accept results if its on climate change that they would accept on most other matters.

Really?

Last year, you flipped out when I compared the NOAA's adjustments to sea surface temperatures with "Enron-style accounting."

It makes no difference to me whether such shenanigans are done by climate researchers or accountants. It all looks bad to me.

 

[onthebottom]

Enough said:

http://i.imgur.com/kIyBV18.gif

 

[Frankfooter]

A scientist starts with a hypothesis and then collects the experimental data to attempt to prove or disprove that hypothesis.
A zealot starts with a preconceived conclusion and searches for studies which support that conclusion.
A zealot dismissed out of hand any opposing studies generally with ill-informed ass nine comments such as


Dr. Carter pointed out some issues with the interpretation of the data

Dr Carter's findings weren't solid enough to be published, they were only suitable for a video for those zealots who have already made up their minds.
As noted, he has no published work on the subject to judge, and as you noted you need a scientist to provide a hypothesis and evidence, not just a youtube video.

He fails your own test.
You fail as you fit your own definition of zealot.

 

[Frankfooter]

Really?

Last year, you flipped out when I compared the NOAA's adjustments to sea surface temperatures with "Enron-style accounting."

Last year you accused NOAA of 'fraud' and then backed down and claimed it was just a 'metaphor'.
Still denying, aren't you?

Since you brought it up.

Sorry, but Enron-style accounting doesn't qualify as an actual temperature increase.
..
The adjusted bet is 0.86 degrees Celsius. Take it or leave it.

You have until the end of Sunday to decide whether or not you are taking the adjusted bet.

 

[Frankfooter]

We haven't seen any warming in the 21st century fuji.

Do you think this chart shows a flat, horizontal line from 2000 on?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ppt8Cg0zf...global+mean+surface+temperature+to+2015Lz.png

 

[Moviefan-2]

Last year you accused NOAA of 'fraud' and then backed down and claimed it was just a 'metaphor'.

It's amazing how many things you can get wrong in just one sentence.

To begin with, I said the "Enron-style accounting" description was a metaphor (and I never used the defensive word "just").

As for my statements about the NOAA's calculations being a crock, your "backed down" nonsense is a total fairy tale. I haven't retracted a single word of it. I stand by what I said.

As for your original premise -- that such accounting would look fine to me when it's done by anyone other than climate researchers -- the quote you provided from last year confirms that's not true.

 

[Frankfooter]

It's amazing how many things you can get wrong in just one sentence.

To begin with, I said the "Enron-style accounting" description was a metaphor (and I never used the defensive word "just").
.

This should be fun.
Explain to the sane people here why accusing NOAA of 'Enron-style accounting' or fraud is a 'metaphor'.