• 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!

Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.[W:325]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Yes. That's the big problem. If you cite a fraudulent paper as evidence to back up your theory, then your paper is bunk too. And all the papers that cite your paper too. Etc, etc.

But you apparently can't get the concept that it's not fraudulent.

You can't even come up with a cogent argument to explain your position.
 
Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

You can't even come up with a cogent argument to explain your position.

And you can't come up with any empirical research papers validating yours, but then you 'don't care if you understand it'..... right ?
 
Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

But you apparently can't get the concept that it's not fraudulent.
I've considered that. And after carefully considering the evidence, I came to the conclusion that it is fraudulent.

You can't even come up with a cogent argument to explain your position.
Did you read the thread?
 
Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

I've considered that. And after carefully considering the evidence, I came to the conclusion that it is fraudulent.

Did you read the thread?

Yet the evidence you cite with climategate doesn't support your assertions.


Mann's paper, for example, used a single global proxy in 1998. The work has been independently confirmed multiple times, with totally different methods, including Marcotts paper from last year which used dozens of proxies....and it all shows similar results.

But you think an out of context line in a single email somehow invalidates all of that scientific work...just...because.

It's an argument. But it's a nonsensical one.

FYI - here's Marcotts result, along with an earlier series.

edura4y7.jpg
 
Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Yet the evidence you cite with climategate doesn't support your assertions.


Mann's paper, for example, used a single global proxy in 1998. The work has been independently confirmed multiple times, with totally different methods, including Marcotts paper from last year which used dozens of proxies....and it all shows similar results.

But you think an out of context line in a single email somehow invalidates all of that scientific work...just...because.

It's an argument. But it's a nonsensical one.

FYI - here's Marcotts result, along with an earlier series.

edura4y7.jpg

And here is what Marcott said about his own paper

"The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

Thats quite an admission ! So much for his scary looking graph then :lol:
 
Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Just over 100 ppm extra anthropogenic CO2 in Earth's atmosphere will be responsible for a catastrophe? Ö¿Ö

Well maybe. But maybe it is an extra 101 ppm that is required. Or maybe 99 ppm. Or maybe 1000 ppm. Actually nobody knows the exact number but that doesn't seem to be important. What is important is that it will be really bad if some magic number is exceeded, real bad. Or maybe not.
 
Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Quote Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post

OK, avoiding those nasty number things.....

What do you see as the problem beyond any sort of psudo-religious guilt trip gibberish then
I think I see the problem. You dont read muich.

Start here and get back to us in a few days.

Effects of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So YOU cannot answer me then.


What do you see as the problem with a bit of warming since you accept that sea level rise (of a foot) is not the big thing.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.


So YOU cannot answer me then.


What do you see as the problem with a bit of warming since you accept that sea level rise (of a foot) is not the big thing.

Again... Do some reading and get back to us, grasshopper.
 
Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Corrections are commonly made in science.
Is that why the IPCC dropped the Hokey Schstick?

Yet Mann's papers are still quite frequently cited in the scientific literature.
The Hokey Schstick, not so much any more.

The findings have been confirmed and expanded multiple times, and after this supposed scam, he was given an endowed chair at Penn State.
So why isn't the Hokey Schstick quoted any more?

It could be time to throw Mann under the bus, as catastrophists do when their stars fall from grace.
 
Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Well maybe. But maybe it is an extra 101 ppm that is required. Or maybe 99 ppm. Or maybe 1000 ppm. Actually nobody knows the exact number but that doesn't seem to be important. What is important is that it will be really bad if some magic number is exceeded, real bad. Or maybe not.
WOW!!!

Thanks for the best laugh I've had today!

You nailed the number perfectly. :2wave:
 
Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Is that why the IPCC dropped the Hokey Schstick?

The Hokey Schstick, not so much any more.

So why isn't the Hokey Schstick quoted any more?

.

1) they didn't

2) it's not only valid, but repeatedly proven

3) it's referenced all the time in scientific literature.

I think the grade school name calling tells us a lot about your intellectual and emotional capacity to comprehend this...
 
Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

And here is what Marcott said about his own paper

"The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

Thats quite an admission ! So much for his scary looking graph then :lol:

The paleotemperature stack is not robust but the instrumental record is.
 
Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Again... Do some reading and get back to us, grasshopper.

Look uninformed person I have read scientific papers. I have read the IPCC's report.

I am asking you what you think is the big threat and you utterly fail to answer but are very happy to attempt to insult me.

Tell us what the threat is or shut up.
 
Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

The paleotemperature stack is not robust but the instrumental record is.

Please Illustrate the instrumental record for the rest of the post glacial period so we might directly compare it with the pre 20th century proxies then ?

You might have a problem with that :cool:
 
Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.


Look uninformed person I have read scientific papers. I have read the IPCC's report.

I am asking you what you think is the big threat and you utterly fail to answer but are very happy to attempt to insult me.

Tell us what the threat is or shut up.

I just posted an entire list of them. A quite extensive one, too.

And if you read the IPCC report, you clearly would have spent time on this:
Chapter 7: Industry, Settlement and Society - AR4 WGII

Which clearly details issues. Maybe you cant click on links? Or maybe you just need me to cut and paste the executive summary? I can spoonfeed you, I guess.
-------------------------------------------------------

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Climate-change vulnerabilities of industry, settlement and society are mainly related to extreme weather events rather than to gradual climate change (very high confidence).
The significance of gradual climate change, e.g., increases in the mean temperature, lies mainly in changes in the intensity and frequency of extreme events, although gradual changes can also be associated with thresholds beyond which impacts become significant, such as in the capacities of infrastructures. [7.2, 7.4]
Aside from major extreme events and thresholds, climate change is seldom the main factor in considering stresses on the sustainability of industry, settlements and society (very high confidence).
The significance of climate change (positive or negative) lies in its interactions with other non-climate sources of change and stress, and its impacts should be considered in such a multi-cause context. [7.1.3, 7.2, 7.4]
Vulnerabilities to climate change depend considerably on specific geographic, sectoral and social contexts (very high confidence).
They are not reliably estimated by large-scale (aggregate) modelling and estimation. [7.2, 7.4]
Vulnerabilities of industry, infrastructures, settlements and society to climate change are generally greater in certain high-risk locations, particularly coastal and riverine areas, and areas whose economies are closely linked with climate-sensitive resources, such as agricultural and forest product industries, water demands and tourism; these vulnerabilities tend to be localised but are often large and growing (high confidence).
For example, rapid urbanisation in most low and middle income nations, often in relatively high-risk areas, is placing an increasing proportion of their economies and populations at risk. [7.3, 7.4, 7.5]
Where extreme weather events become more intense and/or more frequent with climate change, the economic and social costs of those events will increase (high confidence).
Experience indicates that costs of major events can range from several percent of annual regional gross domestic product (GDP) and income generation in very large regions with very large economies to more than 25% in smaller areas that are affected by the events. Climate-change impacts spread from directly impacted areas and sectors to other areas and sectors through extensive and complex linkages. [7.4, 7.5]
Poor communities can be especially vulnerable, in particular those concentrated in relatively high-risk areas (high confidence).
They tend to have more limited adaptive capacities, and are more dependent on climate-sensitive resources such as local water and food supplies. [7.2, 7.4, 5.4]
Industry, settlements and society are often capable of considerable adaptation, depending heavily on the competence and capacity of individuals, communities, enterprises and local governments, together with access to financial and other resources (very high confidence).
But that capacity has limits, especially when confronted by climate changes that are relatively extreme or persistent. [7.4.3, 7.6]
Although most adaptations reflect local circumstances, adaptation strategies for industry and settlement and, to a lesser degree, for society, can be supported by linkages with national and global systems that increase potentials and resources for action (very high confidence). [7.6.6]
 
Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Straight from the No-Shit-Sherlock files then. Notice the lack of much said and the lack of examples and numbers.

Poor communities can be especially vulnerable, in particular those concentrated in relatively high-risk areas (high confidence).

You don't say! Of course those poor people will need power to get out of poverty and mechanical diggers to sort out the sea defenses etc. If they can use the resources of nature they will sort it out. If they are prevented by corruption of the local ruling class or the corruption of the Green(communist really) Western guilt trip gravy train.

I think they will sort it out and get rich.
 
Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Straight from the No-Sh]t-Sherlock files then. Notice the lack of much said and the lack of examples and numbers.]


This is really worthless. I presented the executive summary. The examples and numbers (and references to peer reviewed papers) are in the link.

You obviously put as much effort looking into this as the effort you put in developing a rational thought process.

I think we are done here.
 
Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

What increase in extreme what are they predicting?

As far as I am aware the talk about that but have not actually predicted what is going to happen beyond "More extreme".

The president of the Royal Statistical Society (UK maths club for professors) says that there has been no measurable increase.

Can you say in your own words what you think the threat is and why?
 
Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

So this isn't factual?




Nope.

Its in there, and Mann's work is featured pretty prominently, although the multiple other reconstructions that have been done since then are in there too.

6.6 The Last 2,000 Years - AR4 WGI Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate

This is in the paleoclimate section.

figure-6-10.jpg


Now maybe you've discovered the difference between a scientific report and a Glenn Beck denier video. I'm guessing you're going with Glenn Beck though...
 
Back
Top Bottom