The new official climate change thread

[Frankfooter]

Give us a break
You are the worst of all the left wing loonie zealots who can not and will not consider an alternative view to your beliefs
Your approach makes all intelligent people question your trustworthiness
You are the worst enemy of your cause, regardless of whether your hypothesis is right or wrong

BTW, you indicating others are not too smart is about as ironic as it gets
It does not take a massive IQ to spew propaganda without having a true understanding of the subject matter & that is the only thing you bring to the table

Larue, I read arguments made by others and respond with criticisms and sources. I provide legit sources for all the claims I make and do not rely on conspiracy theories or shoddy work.
When 97% of climatologists have come to the same conclusions studying different elements of the same issues its not because they are 'zealots' its because the science comes to those conclusions.

In contrast, you rely on dodgy work by non-climatologists, fuzzy youtube rants that masquerade as science and personal insults.

The science is sound, your claims not so much, you fit the findings of this study to a 't'.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/23/3752548/climate-denial-linked-to-politics/

 

[K Douglas]

Larue, I read arguments made by others and respond with criticisms and sources. I provide legit sources for all the claims I make and do not rely on conspiracy theories or shoddy work.
When 97% of climatologists have come to the same conclusions studying different elements of the same issues its not because they are 'zealots' its because the science comes to those conclusions.

In contrast, you rely on dodgy work by non-climatologists, fuzzy youtube rants that masquerade as science and personal insults.

The science is sound, your claims not so much, you fit the findings of this study to a 't'.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/23/3752548/climate-denial-linked-to-politics/

legit sources, that's hilarious desmogblog, skeptical science, the guardian, thinkprogress. can you get any more biased than that?

 

[K Douglas]

"But anyone who knows how to read a graph knows the numerical differences are statistically insignificant."

False. And given that you have been provided with data, that amounts to blatant lying. Either that or you just have no fucking clue what statistical significance actually is.

Hint: with a thirty year rolling average that is monotonically increasing you can prove mathematically that the result is going to be significant. But I can go do the calculation, and it's going to show an enormously significant relationship between time and temperature.

You really are totally innumerate.

Remember YOUR prediction, explicitly stated, was that there has been NO WARMING, not some, not less, not a slowdown. Your claim is "no warming".

Your claim is just flat fucking wrong, your theory that produced that prediction is therefore rejected. You are utterly refuted even by the graph in your own post which clearly shows warming and is taken from an article that says there was warming.

Earth's temperature WAS NOT stagnant in the 2000's, it was warming, less quickly than in the prior fifteen years, but nevertheless warming. Significantly, in the statistical sense. Moreover that slowdown is over.

You couldn't be more thoroughly refuted by the data.

http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-con...ersion6-msu234-global-anomaly-time-series.gif
Here's the 36 year trend according to the satellite record at UAH. The LT trend is at 0.114C of warming per decade. Expected given the rises we have seen in atmospheric co2 content. Note that was adjusted downwards from 0.14C from version 5. That suggest to me that we are now entering a potential cooling trend, all things being equal.
So in conclusion:
Moderate warming = yes
Catastrophic warming = not even close

 

[JohnLarue]

Larue, I read arguments made by others and respond with criticisms and sources. I provide legit sources for all the claims I make and do not rely on conspiracy theories or shoddy work.
When 97% of climatologists have come to the same conclusions studying different elements of the same issues its not because they are 'zealots' its because the science comes to those conclusions.

In contrast, you rely on dodgy work by non-climatologists, fuzzy youtube rants that masquerade as science and personal insults.

The science is sound, your claims not so much, you fit the findings of this study to a 't'.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/23/3752548/climate-denial-linked-to-politics/

Legitimate sources??You just toss out what ever propaganda you can get your hands on
you really do not have a clue about the science here, however you have an agenda

You are a joke and a scam artist who can not be trusted

 

[bver_hunter]

legit sources, that's hilarious desmogblog, skeptical science, the guardian, thinkprogress. can you get any more biased than that?

So which are the "unbiased" media in your opinion?

 

[K Douglas]

So which are the "unbiased" media in your opinion?

Truly non biased media doesn't exist anymore. As far as climate change is concerned I trust the following sources

http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp
http://www.populartechnology.net/
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=415
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
https://judithcurry.com/
http://www.co2science.org/

 

[Frankfooter]

legit sources, that's hilarious desmogblog, skeptical science, the guardian, thinkprogress. can you get any more biased than that?

NASA, NOAA, IPCC, AAAS.

Those are the sources, the sites you mentioned all refer to the work presented there.

 

[Frankfooter]

http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-con...ersion6-msu234-global-anomaly-time-series.gif
Here's the 36 year trend according to the satellite record at UAH. The LT trend is at 0.114C of warming per decade. Expected given the rises we have seen in atmospheric co2 content. Note that was adjusted downwards from 0.14C from version 5. That suggest to me that we are now entering a potential cooling trend, all things being equal.
So in conclusion:
Moderate warming = yes
Catastrophic warming = not even close

Excuse me, are you one of those deniers who lives in the clouds?
For us realists who live on this planet, we talk about surface temperature, not the temperature up in the stratosphere.

 

[Frankfooter]

Legitimate sources??You just toss out what ever propaganda you can get your hands on
you really do not have a clue about the science here, however you have an agenda

You are a joke and a scam artist who can not be trusted

Lets take a look at this post, a typical larue post.
Note:
a) contains no facts
b) contains no references to facts
c) contains multiple insults
d) confuses propaganda with legitimate science

So why, in your tiny mind, do you think your post is legit and mine aren't?
Why do you think you don't epitomize the type of person referred to in the scientific study I referred to?

 

[Frankfooter]

Truly non biased media doesn't exist anymore. As far as climate change is concerned I trust the following sources

http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp
http://www.populartechnology.net/
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=415
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
https://judithcurry.com/
http://www.co2science.org/

How do you rectify the fact that your first reference source completely contradicts the statements made on your other reference sites?
Why do you support Ball, Spencer and Curry when they haven't produced any research of their own that holds water and don't have a theory that explains for what we are experiencing?

 

[JohnLarue]

So why, in your tiny mind, do you think your post is legit and mine aren't?

Perhaps it is your history of being absolute and uncompromising on any issue
Perhaps it is because you prefer attacking a scientist's character rather than argue the facts (a piece of shit, low life maneuver)
Perhaps it be because it is obvious you cherry pick your links without regard for bias
Perhaps it because you are an obvious anti-Semite
Perhaps it is because you cant not really trust anyone who re-invents themselves on the internet and Groggy was a nutjob

Take your pick

 

[K Douglas]

Excuse me, are you one of those deniers who lives in the clouds?
For us realists who live on this planet, we talk about surface temperature, not the temperature up in the stratosphere.

Where do you think the GHG's are fella?

 

[K Douglas]

How do you rectify the fact that your first reference source completely contradicts the statements made on your other reference sites?
Why do you support Ball, Spencer and Curry when they haven't produced any research of their own that holds water and don't have a theory that explains for what we are experiencing?

No it doesn't. It spells out both sides of the debate. Did you even read it?
Spencer hasn't produced research?? You're off your rocker.
Ball is probably one of the most honest and insightful brokers in the climate debate.
Curry has a well respected blog and has shown great courage to speak the truth that the GCM's are a complete failure in projecting global temperature.
Only a closed minded twit like yourself can't see it.

 

[Frankfooter]

Perhaps it is your history of being absolute and uncompromising on any issue
Perhaps it is because you prefer attacking a scientist's character rather than argue the facts (a piece of shit, low life maneuver)
Perhaps it be because it is obvious you cherry pick your links without regard for bias
Perhaps it because you are an obvious anti-Semite
Perhaps it is because you cant not really trust anyone who re-invents themselves on the internet and Groggy was a nutjob

Take your pick

Typical Larue post.
a) contains no facts
b) contains no references to facts
c) contains multiple insults

Thanks for confirming my argument.
You really do fall in the camp of those extreme right wingers who hold on to denier beliefs regardless of all facts given to them, as described here:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/23/3752548/climate-denial-linked-to-politics/

For instance, why is it that 15 of the 16 warmest years have occurred since 2001?
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
(note the use of one study, with reference and one fact, also referenced).

 

[Frankfooter]

Where do you think the GHG's are fella?

Where do you live?
When you check the weather, do you check the stratosphere or the surface temperatures?

 

[Frankfooter]

No it doesn't. It spells out both sides of the debate. Did you even read it?
Spencer hasn't produced research?? You're off your rocker.
Ball is probably one of the most honest and insightful brokers in the climate debate.
Curry has a well respected blog and has shown great courage to speak the truth that the GCM's are a complete failure in projecting global temperature.
Only a closed minded twit like yourself can't see it.

Spencer - published one paper which was instantly debunked. After which the editor that published is piece said this:

“After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.

With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements…” [9]

Ball - total kook. Really kooky. Fan of Hitler and Bin Laden apparently. You really sticking with him as a source?

Curry - 'I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry.'

If you want to read the research, read the IPCC reports. They summarize the findings of climatologists all over the world.
That's where the science and the reports are.
http://www.ipcc.ch/

 

[fuji]

http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-con...ersion6-msu234-global-anomaly-time-series.gif
Here's the 36 year trend according to the satellite record at UAH. The LT trend is at 0.114C of warming per decade. Expected given the rises we have seen in atmospheric co2 content. Note that was adjusted downwards from 0.14C from version 5. That suggest to me that we are now entering a potential cooling trend, all things being equal.
So in conclusion:
Moderate warming = yes
Catastrophic warming = not even close

Your graph shows warming....

There are lots of reasons why the warming rates are lower in the atmosphere than at the surface. The earth has a heat capacity, the atmosphere does not. Also as you rise through the greenhouse gases, energy is being reflected back down. Above the greenhouse gases if anything you expect it to be cooler.

 

[Frankfooter]

Perhaps it is your history of being absolute and uncompromising on any issue

Take your pick

Why would I need to compromise on whether climate change is happening?

So johnnylarue, I have a question for you. You questing the science, but how about all the evidence across multiple fields, different reporting methods and all across the globe.
This Rolling Stone article is a good summary of some of the evidence we've seen that we are experiencing drastic and unprecedented in human history, changes.
Its a year old, so it misses things like the North Pole being above zero just after New Years this year for the first time ever, but its got quite a bit of info.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...e-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805?page=6

Now take those warning signs and put them in the context of your own statement:

If it is driven by man-kind then doing nothing would be the biggest sin man-kind ever committed

Then take a look at all those different warning signs, all of which are pretty much what was projected by climatologists and tell me what you think the odds are that this is not driven by human actions.

 

[Marcus1027]

In the case of Ontario's plan to fight climate change, I don't believe it for a nano second. All this is going to be is a veiled form of taxation, full stop!! Wynne won't come out and say she's raising taxes because that would be political suicide given her government's record at squandering tax dollars. So she cleverly disguised it as a "climate change policy" and being so who would have the balls to oppose it? She and her lap dog ministers would be all over anyone who speaks out against this with well polished and rehearsed script that it would play right into her hands. Hence Patrick Brown not going after this bone too hard. In any case, Canada accounts for less than 2% of global greenhouse gases, what does Wynne really think she's going to accomplish other than punish Ontario residents with more taxes and make an insignificant token gesture on the world stage. Even with the carbon market collapse in both Quebec and California, she's still running towards that cliff arm-in-arm with Glen Murray and that other wind bag Sousa like 3 idiots. In the end this just another giant tax grab that will benefit nobody other than friends of the liberal party of Ontario much like the green energy act.

 

[JohnLarue]

Typical Larue post.
a) contains no facts
b) contains no references to facts
c) contains multiple insults

Thanks for confirming my argument.
You really do fall in the camp of those extreme right wingers who hold on to denier beliefs regardless of all facts given to them, as described here:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/23/3752548/climate-denial-linked-to-politics/

For instance, why is it that 15 of the 16 warmest years have occurred since 2001?
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
(note the use of one study, with reference and one fact, also referenced).

Nice try Groggy, but the book on you has been written
Your forever stamped as untrustworthy, so why do you keep attempting to sell your snake oil ?