• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says[W:46]

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

longview said:
There is a fourth possibility.
Everything I am saying is within the enormous range of the IPCC's prediction,
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

There is nothing alarming about the low end of the IPCC predictions.
My calculations, show, we will likely have about 1.6 °C total increase,
if we could ever actually burn enough organic hydrocarbons to get to 560 ppm.
I don't think that will happen, because the cost curves will cross long before then.
When man made fuels become cheaper than organic sources, people will buy what is cheaper.
Click to expand...
Why limit yourself to CO2 increases being necessary for temperature to increase?
The IPCC is talking about Additional forced change, while it at very well be NO increase above this level is necessary for Temperature increase or sea level to continue to rise.


http://www.climatecentral.org/news/april-becomes-first-month-with-co2-levels-above-400-ppm-17367 said:
"....The first measurement in excess of 400 ppm was made on May 9, 2013. This year, the level rose above that mark a full two months earlier, and has remained above 400 ppm steadily since the beginning of April. While the milestone is largely a symbolic one, it does illustrate how far emissions have risen from their preindustrial levels of 280 ppm.

The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were This high consistently
was anywhere from 800,000 to 15 million years ago, various studies have estimated, and
the world was a very different places then, with Much Warmer temperatures and Extremely Higher Seas. [........]
Click to expand...
CO2 has been increasing at a Dramatic rate.
Even if it didn't increase Any further, Temps might well go up the amount you postulate (or higher) when the full effects take hold.
ie, the oceans stop acting as a sink for CO2, or reverse as they warm, and contribute to it instead of staying at 400 PPM and slowly warming.


co2_widget_brundtland_600_graph.gif
 
Last edited:
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

mbig said:
Why limit yourself to CO2 increases being necessary for temperature to increase?
The IPCC is talking about Additional forced change, while it at very well be NO increase above this level is necessary for Temperature increase or sea level to continue to rise.


CO2 has been increasing at a Dramatic rate.
Even if it didn't increase Any further, Temps might well go up the amount you postulate (or higher) when the full effects take hold.
ie, the oceans stop acting as a sink for CO2, or reverse as they warm, and contribute to it instead of staying at 400 PPM and slowly warming.


co2_widget_brundtland_600_graph.gif
Click to expand...

The problem is that this so called forcing has yet to be establish as to when it will take effect. their so called forcing that is suppose to happen compared to the observed data is so grossly wrong that it isn't funny.

if you look at the historical 1000 year climate charts this warming phase is not outside of a norm.
if anything this current warming trend has stalled and done so.

also if you look at either of the links that i posted it shows that the people that are doing these charts are adding bias into their calculations compared to the raw data.
which to me is dishonest.

there is simply not enough co2 in the air to warrant the type of destruction that they are calling for. current co2 concentration is .5% of our total atmosphere.

the biggest problem is that they have hijacked the term "climate change" so any natural occurance in weather is going to be blamed on climate change which is absolute non-sense.
these people have corrupted the scientific method and all the alarmists out continue to drink the koolaid instead of actually stopping and asking if this makes sense.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

BmanMcfly said:
Ya, I know, I read the link... It's opinion survey derived from published papers. It's useless in proving anything beyond making the case that the alarmists will publish anything that supports their cause.

If it was a meta analysis going into averages of multiple studies on the same topic, that's one thing, but this is scientifically useless.
Click to expand...

You may want to alert the editors of PNAS. They reject about 99% of submitted papers, so they'll be quite surprised when you let them know they let a useless one through.

BTW, which journal do you edit?
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

The COSMOS TV series is pretty much working in Climate Change on every episode now.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
No, your just seeking things to lack onto. And frankly, we see much if what they predicted.
Click to expand...

What the .... Are you serious?!?! I'm latching onto the hypothesis matching the data... AT BEST the models are around 10-15% accurate when compared to the observed results.

What measure do you give for the "successes"??


Threegoofs said:
You may want to alert the editors of PNAS. They reject about 99% of submitted papers, so they'll be quite surprised when you let them know they let a useless one through.

BTW, which journal do you edit?
Click to expand...

What journal do you edit?

So clueless though, this is sad. I, sure their approach was scientific enough to warrant publishing, that's not the issue... I feel like I'm insulting having to dumb it down for you this much.... There are billions put into co2 research each year, that flow of money is relative to the alarms that can be sounded so that politicians can use that to justify their actions to remedy a non-issue.

It's especially funny that this is the way they chose to correct for the previous fake claim that it was 97% of SCIENTISTS that accepted global warming, which it turned out was mostly opinions of non-scientists... So, now they changed the goalposts to say climate scientists.

You clearly forget the mass examples of corruption, lies, distortions, manipulations of data,outright lies, and more that these people have engaged in over the years. Then, after giving them about decades of time to get the models right, and it turns out the models exaggerated the warming by what would be about 2 degrees per century above the observed....
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Ya know saying that "97% of climate scientists agree that we're doomed" nonsense that's so in fashion these days?
Here's a piece that shows where it came from and tears it asunder at the same time.

Breaking: The

I especially like this part ...
"Among the one-third of papers that “endorse” the “consensus,” there is near unanimity. In other words, among people who agree with the consensus, nearly all of them agree with the consensus."
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
I have no doubt people will buy what is cheaper. But it helps to have motivation to make something cheaper.
Click to expand...
Profit has always been sufficient to motivate capitalist businesses, When it becomes cheaper
for the refineries to make their own feedstock, rather than pulling it from the ground,
they will do so.
External forcing through government taxation or regulation, could artificially inflate the price
of man made fuels, thereby delaying their adoption by the vast majority who go by price.

I also note your link draws a very different conclusion than you do. Often the interpretation of the numbers is what is important. With interpretation, why ignore those who know the most?
Click to expand...
No real interpretation, Some people in the alarmist camp seem to think this predicted additional
forcing/feedback will cause the amount of warming to be worse than observational data shows
is happening.
Note: they did not shrink the range but changed their statement to likely and not likely.
P.S. I am not ignoring the people who actually work in this field of Science,
I just think they should justify the higher ranges of their predictions, which are no longer valid,
but are still used for alarmist scare tactics.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

BmanMcfly said:
What the .... Are you serious?!?! I'm latching onto the hypothesis matching the data... AT BEST the models are around 10-15% accurate when compared to the observed results.
..
Click to expand...

I am serious. Actual scientist likely do more than either of us. And I've linked them for you.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

longview said:
Profit has always been sufficient to motivate capitalist businesses, When it becomes cheaper
for the refineries to make their own feedstock, rather than pulling it from the ground,
they will do so.
External forcing through government taxation or regulation, could artificially inflate the price
of man made fuels, thereby delaying their adoption by the vast majority who go by price.


No real interpretation, Some people in the alarmist camp seem to think this predicted additional
forcing/feedback will cause the amount of warming to be worse than observational data shows
is happening.
Note: they did not shrink the range but changed their statement to likely and not likely.
P.S. I am not ignoring the people who actually work in this field of Science,
I just think they should justify the higher ranges of their predictions, which are no longer valid,
but are still used for alarmist scare tactics.
Click to expand...

Profit has not always brought out the best. Cheaper at a high price has been more dominate. So, a new technology that might be expensive for a long while versus a cheap technology will almost always win the profit battle.

Scientists do have papers and publications detailing their work. Most of those are not free often hard to produce here. But doing a search you can find that they exist. Just can't copy and paste them for free.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

BmanMcfly said:
What journal do you edit?

So clueless though, this is sad. I, sure their approach was scientific enough to warrant publishing, that's not the issue... I feel like I'm insulting having to dumb it down for you this much.... There are billions put into co2 research each year, that flow of money is relative to the alarms that can be sounded so that politicians can use that to justify their actions to remedy a non-issue.

It's especially funny that this is the way they chose to correct for the previous fake claim that it was 97% of SCIENTISTS that accepted global warming, which it turned out was mostly opinions of non-scientists... So, now they changed the goalposts to say climate scientists.

You clearly forget the mass examples of corruption, lies, distortions, manipulations of data,outright lies, and more that these people have engaged in over the years. Then, after giving them about decades of time to get the models right, and it turns out the models exaggerated the warming by what would be about 2 degrees per century above the observed....
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah.

I show you a study in an eminently respectable journal, you say it's not science. Then I point out that it is, and you ping pong to a conspiracy theory, then make up something about 97%, and then rant about manipulation of data and lies.

I don't really understand how this massive conspiracy has mysteriously left a bunch of temperature data you believe disproved the models. If the conspiracy is as extensive as you say, and the data manipulation was done, dontcha think they would have manipulated and lied themselves into a position where you couldn't question the data?

It reminds me of the objection to the ACA. 'Its horrible government insurance, and besides that, the website is unusable!'
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Threegoofs said:
Blah blah blah.

I show you a study in an eminently respectable journal, you say it's not science. Then I point out that it is, and you ping pong to a conspiracy theory, then make up something about 97%, and then rant about manipulation of data and lies.

I don't really understand how this massive conspiracy has mysteriously left a bunch of temperature data you believe disproved the models. If the conspiracy is as extensive as you say, and the data manipulation was done, dontcha think they would have manipulated and lied themselves into a position where you couldn't question the data?

It reminds me of the objection to the ACA. 'Its horrible government insurance, and besides that, the website is unusable!'
Click to expand...

Ya, because the study is of the "no s$#*" variety. So, it's adding nothing to the equation, and was an attempt to maintain that claim of "consensus", that is another related fraud.

Well, no. The first things were the temperature stations, where even the change from white wash to white paint increased temperatures, then they had buildings built close, blowing exhaust, next to parking lots and other artificial heat sources... Now, with satellite data things have become more accurate, but they got caught eliminating cold areas more than warming areas while doing the averaging of the data...

There are limits to how much data can be tweaked while being able to scientifically justify it, they don't want to lose their tenure, but they are paid to prove a point at the same time... So, when they DO get caught it gets brushed off as a mistake that does not represent the whole.

I got a better question for you, if there was a subtle conspiracy, aside from people paying attention, who would come out and stop them? Peer - reviewers, who are supportive of the case? Those who are profiting from the situation?
 
So the study adds nothing, yet was published in a very selective journal. I can see why you're not an editor....

So the conspiracy is vast and deep, but they only manipulate and lie a little bit. And everybody is living high on the hog on the billions given out to climate researchers (who generally seem to be hiding all the money, because all the college professors I know are driving minivans and living in modest houses).
 
Threegoofs said:
So the study adds nothing, yet was published in a very selective journal. I can see why you're not an editor....

So the conspiracy is vast and deep, but they only manipulate and lie a little bit. And everybody is living high on the hog on the billions given out to climate researchers (who generally seem to be hiding all the money, because all the college professors I know are driving minivans and living in modest houses).
Click to expand...

Ok, then, tell me what you think that paper adds to the debate? Previous claims were 97% of SCIENTISTS, now it's 97% of CLIMATE scientists... Why the reduction?

Are the "professor" you know working for the un? Or are they just involved in some small time studies for some niche that they can tie to co2 so that the paper gets more publicity? I never said that every single Prius driving hippie is a "conspirator", I'm saying this is all JUST BUSINESS.

Look, they clearly think people are stupid, but if they come out and say that 2+2= 37, then people WILL call them on it... So, gotta be more clever.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Ok, then, tell me what you think that paper adds to the debate? Previous claims were 97% of SCIENTISTS, now it's 97% of CLIMATE scientists... Why the reduction?

Are the "professor" you know working for the un? Or are they just involved in some small time studies for some niche that they can tie to co2 so that the paper gets more publicity? I never said that every single Prius driving hippie is a "conspirator", I'm saying this is all JUST BUSINESS.

Look, they clearly think people are stupid, but if they come out and say that 2+2= 37, then people WILL call them on it... So, gotta be more clever.
Click to expand...

You didnt even read the damned thing, did you? And I didnt just give you an abstract - I looked up the entire paper! I go out of my way to spoonfeed and you really dont appreciate it.

The paper looked at climate researchers specifically (love the faux outrage about scientists vs climate scientists), and found not just that the vast majority agreed with the basic tenets of AGW as laid out by the IPCC, but the correlation with the most published and most cited scientists (generally meaning the most distinguished in the field) was massively correlated to how they felt about AGW. The p values in the paper were like 10 to the -6 and 10 to the -14!

They dont think you're stupid. They dont know you. Its you who is DEMONSTRATING that... well, you know.

The professors I know work in several universities, some do climate work, some dont, and no one is living a champagne and caviar lifestyle, unless they decide to quit academia and work for industry... like in Oil or Coal.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

ludin said:
The problem is that this so called forcing has yet to be establish as to when it will take effect. their so called forcing that is suppose to happen compared to the observed data is so grossly wrong that it isn't funny.
Click to expand...
Not really.
Warming may have a lag with CO2.
As I said, Oceans may act as sinks for decades until they saturate relative to their temperature.
Ocean-bound Carbon/Carbonic Acid is already a problem.
A decade/decades of Colder winters in temperate zones may even result from Melting Ice in polar locales, (Arctic/Greenland), instead of those winters being evidence of the contrary.


Ludin said:
if you look at the historical 1000 year climate charts this warming phase is not outside of a norm.
if anything this current warming trend has stalled and done so.
Click to expand...
It may very well be outside of the norm, it's hard to tell.
Some even think (and there's evidence) we were entering a Cooling trend around 1900, But AGW reversed this.
So we MAY be several degrees over 'Norm'... for what would have been the temp otherwise.
This cooling may be masking what we have done, and even be slowing it alot during what some have called a 15 year current 'pause'.


Ludin said:

there is simply not enough co2 in the air to warrant the type of destruction that they are calling for. current co2 concentration is .5% of our total atmosphere.
Click to expand...
Declaring your climatology degree?
I just posted material that showed the Last time we WERE at these CO2 Levels, it was Much warmer with Much Higher Sea Level.
You apparently feel free to just declare otherwise.


Ludin said:
the biggest problem is that they have hijacked the term "climate change" so any natural occurance in weather is going to be blamed on climate change which is absolute non-sense.
these people have corrupted the scientific method and all the alarmists out continue to drink the koolaid instead of actually stopping and asking if this makes sense.
Click to expand...
"hijacking" is in the eyes of the beholder.
If you're Right Wing in All your politics [on Koch] :^) one would have Less reason to consider your use of the term Objective.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
You didnt even read the damned thing, did you? And I didnt just give you an abstract - I looked up the entire paper! I go out of my way to spoonfeed and you really dont appreciate it.

The paper looked at climate researchers specifically (love the faux outrage about scientists vs climate scientists), and found not just that the vast majority agreed with the basic tenets of AGW as laid out by the IPCC, but the correlation with the most published and most cited scientists (generally meaning the most distinguished in the field) was massively correlated to how they felt about AGW. The p values in the paper were like 10 to the -6 and 10 to the -14!

They dont think you're stupid. They dont know you. Its you who is DEMONSTRATING that... well, you know.

The professors I know work in several universities, some do climate work, some dont, and no one is living a champagne and caviar lifestyle, unless they decide to quit academia and work for industry... like in Oil or Coal.
Click to expand...

Holy crap... you just don't get how the paper is irrelevant. .. not innaccurate.

THE ONLY THING THIS PAPER SAYS IS THAT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH CLIMATE SCIENTISTS!!!

That's like me writing a peer reviewed paper proving that 97% of catholic priests believe in Jesus. Then using that as proof that Jesus us real. It's asinine.
 
Threegoofs said:
So the study adds nothing, yet was published in a very selective journal. I can see why you're not an editor....

So the conspiracy is vast and deep, but they only manipulate and lie a little bit. And everybody is living high on the hog on the billions given out to climate researchers (who generally seem to be hiding all the money, because all the college professors I know are driving minivans and living in modest houses).
Click to expand...

The funny thing about this statement is that while the AGW propaganda has convinced Threegoofs that the paper adds nothing new, Threegoofs actually disagrees with everything in the paper that the reviewers claim is common knowledge.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

mbig said:
Not really.
Warming may have a lag with CO2.
As I said, Oceans may act as sinks for decades until they saturate relative to their temperature.
Ocean-bound Carbon/Carbonic Acid is already a problem.
A decade/decades of Colder winters in temperate zones may even result from Melting Ice in polar locales, (Arctic/Greenland), instead of those winters being evidence of the contrary.
Click to expand...

oceans are also the number 1 emitter of co2 emissions into the atmosphere. It make up 60% of the co2 released in a given year.
They are alreadying finding that the ocean has a lot more to do with climate and warm and cold cycles than what they thought.

It may very well be outside of the norm, it's hard to tell.
Some even think (and there's evidence) we were entering a Cooling trend around 1900, But AGW reversed this.
So we MAY be several degrees over 'Norm'... for what would have been the temp otherwise.
This cooling may be masking what we have done, and even be slowing it alot during what some have called a 15 year current 'pause'.
Click to expand...

we don't know because they keep manipulating the data. please see the article i posted that shows that someone has found out the these people have manipulated the data to the point to increase the curve point on purpose while lowering historical data to show a sharper curve.

Declaring your climatology degree?
I just posted material that showed the Last time we WERE at these CO2 Levels, it was Much warmer with Much Higher Sea Level.
You apparently feel free to just declare otherwise.
Click to expand...

I am saying that there is more to it than what these alarmist are telling us and that they are covering it up on purpose.
The fact that they have to doctor the raw data says it. they are manipulating the data otherwise there is no reason to change the data sets collected.

"hijacking" is in the eyes of the beholder.
If you're Right Wing in All your politics [on Koch] :^) one would have Less reason to consider your use of the term Objective.
Click to expand...

i don't even listen to the koch brothers. so why change it from global warming to climate change all of a sudden.

climate change happens all the time that is not under dispute global warming on the other hand is something that clearly is not as cut and dry as they would like it to be.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Holy crap... you just don't get how the paper is irrelevant. .. not innaccurate.

THE ONLY THING THIS PAPER SAYS IS THAT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH CLIMATE SCIENTISTS!!!

That's like me writing a peer reviewed paper proving that 97% of catholic priests believe in Jesus. Then using that as proof that Jesus us real. It's asinine.
Click to expand...

Actually, its more like writing a paper on covalent bonding and finding 97% of chemists agree covalent bonding happens in a specified manner. And Bman along with some fringe chemists disagree strongly.

I would tend to give the short shrift to Bman and his clueless chemists. But thats just what the 97% of us who dont buy into nutty conspiracies do.
 
jmotivator said:
The funny thing about this statement is that while the AGW propaganda has convinced Threegoofs that the paper adds nothing new, Threegoofs actually disagrees with everything in the paper that the reviewers claim is common knowledge.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, it wasnt me who said it adds nothing new. I also see you reference nothing that I disagree with in the paper. But then again,you seem to rarely know what you are talking about.
 
Threegoofs said:
Actually, its more like writing a paper on covalent bonding and finding 97% of chemists agree covalent bonding happens in a specified manner. And Bman along with some fringe chemists disagree strongly.

I would tend to give the short shrift to Bman and his clueless chemists. But thats just what the 97% of us who dont buy into nutty conspiracies do.
Click to expand...

Wow, most delusional statement of the day.

They looked at papers by climate scientists to determine a percentage of them that were convinced by the ipcc versus unconvinced... CLIMATE scientists.

God damn, trying to tell us the paper says something it does not say to make a point.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Wow, most delusional statement of the day.

They looked at papers by climate scientists to determine a percentage of them that were convinced by the ipcc versus unconvinced... CLIMATE scientists.

God damn, trying to tell us the paper says something it does not say to make a point.
Click to expand...


Right. So when you do a review and find 97% of oncologists recommend Chemo and radiation regimen #1 for glioblastoma multiformae, do you scoff it off because they are a bunch of cancer doctors and what do you EXPECT them to say about cancer?

Actually, now that I think about it.... you probably would.
 
Threegoofs said:
Right. So when you do a review and find 97% of oncologists recommend Chemo and radiation regimen #1 for glioblastoma multiformae, do you scoff it off because they are a bunch of cancer doctors and what do you EXPECT them to say about cancer?

Actually, now that I think about it.... you probably would.
Click to expand...

Yes, you WOULD expect most doctors to agree on treatments to specific ailments.

However, if the doctors had a track record of consistent failures, and patients dying left and right, then this "consensus" would mean much less than if the treatments were regularly successful. Regardless, it's just a framework for an appeal to authority, an appeal yo authority is only valid inasmuch as the authority is trustworthy.

Climate scientists gave a LENGTHY TRACK RECORD that belies them as bring a trustworthy authority, therefore, a consensus of criminals does nothing for the argument.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Yes, you WOULD expect most doctors to agree on treatments to specific ailments.

However, if the doctors had a track record of consistent failures, and patients dying left and right, then this "consensus" would mean much less than if the treatments were regularly successful. Regardless, it's just a framework for an appeal to authority, an appeal yo authority is only valid inasmuch as the authority is trustworthy.

Climate scientists gave a LENGTHY TRACK RECORD that belies them as bring a trustworthy authority, therefore, a consensus of criminals does nothing for the argument.
Click to expand...

It's an appeal to authorities who are...authorities.

And you're whining about their track record (which you constantly represent) is as valid as the snake oil guy saying that medicine is hiding health secrets.

It s getting embarrassing. You probably should stay in the CT section.
 
Threegoofs said:
It's an appeal to authorities who are...authorities.

And you're whining about their track record (which you constantly represent) is as valid as the snake oil guy saying that medicine is hiding health secrets.

It s getting embarrassing. You probably should stay in the CT section.
Click to expand...

You should be embarrassed... Your argument does not even make logical sense.

Why? Because there are 30 years worth of models and they are wrong more often than they are right... No matter how you slice it; total trend, actual temperatures, change in temperatures, etc...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom