• 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!

The TRUTH about the Climate Change MYTH

flogger said:
Once these so called 'experts'can present empirical evidence or indeed any kind of compelling case why this modest warming phase is somehow different from the dozens of others since the last ice age I'll start believing them.

So far the silence on that front has been deafening.

Ice Cores

This is the agenda driven hijacking of a natural phenomenon to suit poltical ends nothing more
Click to expand...

Well, that's what happens when you close yourself off in the hermetically sealed right wing echo chamber. Silence from other sources would be deafening.... :roll:
 
JasperL said:
Well, that's what happens when you close yourself off in the hermetically sealed right wing echo chamber. Silence from other sources would be deafening.... :roll:
Click to expand...

Right or left has nothing to do with it

I'm a skeptic because of the science not in spite of it.
 
flogger said:
Umm .... The cartoonists graph still doesn't cut it however many times you use it. :roll:
Click to expand...

fe95f1465b65699fc7288a34993be082.jpg
 
Uh huh ..... and again for the umpteenth time

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.

Marcott 2013
 
flogger said:
Right or left has nothing to do with it

I'm a skeptic because of the science not in spite of it.
Click to expand...

If you have to ask for a "compelling case" why this warming is different, you've sealed yourself in some sort of hermetically sealed chamber. Maybe not right wing, but the chamber sure is not letting in any actual climate science. If you want compelling evidence, pick up any one of a few hundred published papers, the conclusions of literally every major scientific organization on planet earth, etc. It's fine to be "skeptical" about the extent of the warming and appropriate (if any) responses, but to deny that there is even a "compelling case" why human activity might be influencing the climate requires a determined effort to remain ignorant.
 
reason10 said:

WRONG.
NOAA?s Own Data Shows That Global Climate Has Cooled Over 10 Years
NOAA’s Own Data Shows That Global Climate Has Cooled Over 10 Years [/
Click to expand...


Adding in the last two years of global surface temperature data and other improvements in the quality of the observed record provide evidence that contradict the notion of a hiatus in recent global warming trends," said Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D., Director, NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. "Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century."

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming.
 
JasperL said:
If you have to ask for a "compelling case" why this warming is different, you've sealed yourself in some sort of hermetically sealed chamber. Maybe not right wing, but the chamber sure is not letting in any actual climate science. If you want compelling evidence, pick up any one of a few hundred published papers, the conclusions of literally every major scientific organization on planet earth, etc. It's fine to be "skeptical" about the extent of the warming and appropriate (if any) responses, but to deny that there is even a "compelling case" why human activity might be influencing the climate requires a determined effort to remain ignorant.
Click to expand...

Well once these experts outline why the paleoclimatic record must all be wrong since AGW was invented in the 80s I'll jump on the bandwagon. Until then they have a bit of explaining to do

Medieval Warm Period

CO2 Science
 
flogger said:
Uh huh ..... and again for the umpteenth time

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.

Marcott 2013
Click to expand...

Bitterly clinging to an irrelevant quote still, I see.
 
JasperL said:
Typical Vox click bait, IMO. It's sort of like the old saying, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

The article really doesn't suggest what might work better, except what's already being done, or at least is done in the fields I'm familiar with, which is pre-publication review outside the peer review process (such as the common practice at professional conferences where dozens of papers in progress are presented, critiqued, etc., and scholars traveling around to other schools presenting their papers in workshops - happens regularly at UT) and post publication reviews, which is what research/science is all about. Someone publishes a study, and others in that field build on it, in part by confirming the findings, or publish critiques of it or debunk it. If it's a significant finding, then later researchers use the approach and confirm the initial results, and/or extend it, and either that method/finding/etc. works or it doesn't.

Maybe it's useful for the general public to understand 'peer review' doesn't equal settled science, but not one person publishing papers in any field believes that. What it means is the papers go through a formal vetting, which can and does miss errors. Well, what process wouldn't?
Click to expand...

The the AGW tub thumpers need to stop acting like peer review equals settled science, or that the peer review system is infallible.
 
JasperL said:
So, a pediatrician spending his days treating ordinary sniffles, etc. and not doing any research at all into say, cancer, is who we should turn to for advice on the latest treatment protocols? Maybe you want an civil engineer building houses opining on the next generation of fighter jet? Hey, he's an engineer!!
Click to expand...

As already noted, many of the prominent AGW tub thumpers are significantly less qualified.
 
flogger said:
Well once these experts outline why the paleoclimatic record must all be wrong since AGW was invented in the 80s I'll jump on the bandwagon. Until then they have a bit of explaining to do

Medieval Warm Period

CO2 Science
Click to expand...

LOL, with every post you reveal you've not looked for that "explaining" you're so interested in. The hermetic seal is a good one, apparently.
 
JasperL said:
LOL, with every post you reveal you've not looked for that "explaining" you're so interested in. The hermetic seal is a good one, apparently.
Click to expand...

Oh dear another myopic disciple of the faith.

Keep chanting the mantra and I won't disturb you with any of that nasty science stuff again :roll:
 
Jack Hays said:
As already noted, many of the prominent AGW tub thumpers are significantly less qualified.
Click to expand...

I don't know who these "tub thumpers" are or whom they are allegedly "significantly" less qualified than. I guess you could pick a few commentators on the AGW side, and a few "skeptics" and use a cherry picked list to prove pretty much anything you want. What's clear is the scientists actively researching and publishing are overwhelmingly in your categorization "tub thumpers."

And the question was about one guy, who is simply not a climate scientist or other expert who has a demonstrated and current expertise in the field. He's entitled to his opinion, but I don't see why it should carry any more weight than yours, or Al Gore's, frankly. Saying "GREENPEACE FOUNDER" means literally nothing at all.
 
JasperL said:
I don't know who these "tub thumpers" are or whom they are allegedly "significantly" less qualified than. I guess you could pick a few commentators on the AGW side, and a few "skeptics" and use a cherry picked list to prove pretty much anything you want. What's clear is the scientists actively researching and publishing are overwhelmingly in your categorization "tub thumpers."

And the question was about one guy, who is simply not a climate scientist or other expert who has a demonstrated and current expertise in the field. He's entitled to his opinion, but I don't see why it should carry any more weight than yours, or Al Gore's, frankly. Saying "GREENPEACE FOUNDER" means literally nothing at all.
Click to expand...

In the absence of evidence, I see you prefer ad hominem.
 
flogger said:
Oh dear another myopic disciple of the faith.

Keep chanting the mantra and I won't disturb you with any of that nasty science stuff again :roll:
Click to expand...

The point is if you spent 2 minutes looking, you'd see all kinds of published explanations of the MWP, why it happened, why it's not comparable to now, etc. The scientists have examined the period extensively and answered your questions. I'd link to it but I know when I'm wasting my time.
 
JasperL said:
The point is if you spent 2 minutes looking, you'd see all kinds of published explanations of the MWP, why it happened, why it's not comparable to now, etc. The scientists have examined the period extensively and answered your questions. I'd link to it but I know when I'm wasting my time.
Click to expand...

They have actually done nothing of the sort, and the MWP was just one of dozens since the last ice age, many of which were significantly warmer than today
 
Jack Hays said:
In the absence of evidence, I see you prefer ad hominem.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, the OP is one big appeal to authority, and our little conversation started when you defended this non-authority as a supposed expert. You even said "Well said" at the mention of his irrelevant prior position as founder of Greenpeace. Now you're whining that I pointed out his non-credentials?

I'm not sure why anyone would give one damn what this guy has to say. Might as well invite Al Gore to the panel, or Barbra Streisand. They've done the same amount of climate research as Dr. Moore in the last couple of decades from what I can tell....
 
Threegoofs said:
It's quite clear. We actually measured temps in the 20th century. Why would you use proxy data there?
Click to expand...

We did. It worked like this:

- "But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless ..." (Page 17)

- "It's botch after botch after botch." (18)

- "The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour's edits to the program, when the network died ... no explanation from anyone, I hope it's not a return to last year's troubles ... This surely is the worst project I've ever attempted. Eeeek." (31)

- "Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite." (37)

- "... this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!" (45)

- "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!" (47)

- "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless." (57)

- "COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!" (71)

- "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah -- there is no 'supposed,' I can make it up. So I have : - )" (98)

- "You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..." (98)

- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ... In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad ..." (98-9)

- "OH F--- THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases." (241).

- "This whole project is SUCH A MESS ..." (266)

Heh. Who needs proxy data when you can just make up the "actual" measurements?
 
JasperL said:
Oh come on, the OP is one big appeal to authority, and our little conversation started when you defended this non-authority as a supposed expert. You even said "Well said" at the mention of his irrelevant prior position as founder of Greenpeace. Now you're whining that I pointed out his non-credentials?

I'm not sure why anyone would give one damn what this guy has to say. Might as well invite Al Gore to the panel, or Barbra Streisand. They've done the same amount of climate research as Dr. Moore in the last couple of decades from what I can tell....
Click to expand...

Looks authoritative enough to me. In keeping with his background, he brings an environmental focus to his AGW commentary.

[h=3]Patrick Moore (environmentalist) - Wikipedia, the free ...[/h]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)


Wikipedia


Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian scientist and former president of Greenpeace Canada. He has sharply and publicly differed with many policies of major ...Education‎: ‎PhD in Ecology (1974), B.Sc. ...
Nationality‎: ‎Canadian

Employer‎: ‎Ecosense Environmental Inc., ...
Occupation‎: ‎lobbyist, public speaker, en...
 
humbolt said:
We did. It worked like this:

- "But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless ..." (Page 17)

- "It's botch after botch after botch." (18)

- "The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour's edits to the program, when the network died ... no explanation from anyone, I hope it's not a return to last year's troubles ... This surely is the worst project I've ever attempted. Eeeek." (31)

- "Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite." (37)

- "... this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!" (45)

- "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!" (47)

- "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless." (57)

- "COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!" (71)

- "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah -- there is no 'supposed,' I can make it up. So I have : - )" (98)

- "You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..." (98)

- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ... In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad ..." (98-9)

- "OH F--- THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases." (241).

- "This whole project is SUCH A MESS ..." (266)

Heh. Who needs proxy data when you can just make up the "actual" measurements?
Click to expand...

Ah. It's a conspiracy.

That's always a convenient excuse when the facts don't go your way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom