• 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!

Misogyny in Climate Science

Those who think man-made Climate Change is fiction are without a doubt deniers. They're anti-science and in the minority. A minority that will grow smaller and smaller once all of the excuses have been exhausted.
I do not think most people are "denying" man made climate change, but it is a question
of sensitivity. The IPCC claims in AR5 they could not arrive at a best estimate for ECS,
Yet the Scientist who wrote the Scientific basis of AR5,published an article that they indeed found a best estimate for ECS.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
Of course a best estimate of ECS of 2 C is not very alarming.
 
Those who think man-made Climate Change is fiction are without a doubt deniers. They're anti-science and in the minority. A minority that will grow smaller and smaller once all of the excuses have been exhausted.

Only a tiny and mad few think that Climate change is not happening.

A very small percent think that human activity does not result in some warming.

Agreeing that the IPCC's predicetions on temperature rise are OK does not stop me being called a denier by scientifically illiterate fools.
 
I do not think most people are "denying" man made climate change



Hahahahahahahaahahaha. I've been here for 10 years and have seen it all. I will say, though, that many of you have switched goalposts, so there has been some progress.
 
Only a tiny and mad few think that Climate change is not happening.


For over 10 years I have butted heads with many of those folks. Those who claiming we're headed for a cooling phase, those who claim the data is wrong, the pause and all sort of other bull****. I have seen it all here. And what is clear to me is some deniers have changed their spots.

A very small percent think that human activity does not result in some warming.

Because they can't deny it anymore. Of course it's the idiotic "part man" and "part natural" folks that are still in the dark giving both facets equal credence.

Agreeing that the IPCC's predicetions on temperature rise are OK does not stop me being called a denier by scientifically illiterate fools.

Scientist tweak. What you et al. fail to understand is they tweak based-on evidence and facts and not because they are corrupt.
 
For over 10 years I have butted heads with many of those folks. Those who claiming we're headed for a cooling phase, those who claim the data is wrong, the pause and all sort of other bull****. I have seen it all here. And what is clear to me is some deniers have changed their spots.



Because they can't deny it anymore. Of course it's the idiotic "part man" and "part natural" folks that are still in the dark giving both facets equal credence.



Scientist tweak. What you et al. fail to understand is they tweak based-on evidence and facts and not because they are corrupt.

1, That it has warmed does not mean that it will continue to warm. You need to present a strong argument to support the claim that it will continue to warm.

2, I was taught about the warming effect of cities in school 36 years ago. The degree of warming caused by human activity is very plainly still debatable. I do not engage with that discussion. There are those here who often present reports and papers discussing such things and show that the degree of warming due to humanity is very much still debatable within professional, accademic, science.

3, I ask questions. I am then called a denier of science by religious fools who understand no physics what so ever. I will ask you a simple question;

i, What is the worst single effect of a slightly warmer world? Keep it to a single factor so we can examine it properlty without going all over the place.

ii, Then, in your own words, explain the mechanism that causes this. That is the bit between the warming and the bad thing. Own words.

iii, Then cite some sort of supporting evidence or science to show this mechanism. Then we can look at it and see how bad it is.

iv, If you can show that this will cost any local council in the world that has traffic lights more than its' traffic light budget then I will accept that there may be something worth bothering with.

Nobody has managed this so far.
 
1, That it has warmed does not mean that it will continue to warm. You need to present a strong argument to support the claim that it will continue to warm.

2, I was taught about the warming effect of cities in school 36 years ago. The degree of warming caused by human activity is very plainly still debatable. I do not engage with that discussion. There are those here who often present reports and papers discussing such things and show that the degree of warming due to humanity is very much still debatable within professional, accademic, science.

3, I ask questions. I am then called a denier of science by religious fools who understand no physics what so ever. I will ask you a simple question;

i, What is the worst single effect of a slightly warmer world? Keep it to a single factor so we can examine it properlty without going all over the place.

ii, Then, in your own words, explain the mechanism that causes this. That is the bit between the warming and the bad thing. Own words.

iii, Then cite some sort of supporting evidence or science to show this mechanism. Then we can look at it and see how bad it is.

iv, If you can show that this will cost any local council in the world that has traffic lights more than its' traffic light budget then I will accept that there may be something worth bothering with.

Nobody has managed this so far.

i) The tropics and Middle East become practically uninhabitable in summer.

ii) Wet bulb temperature. The combination of heat and humidity makes it impossible to cool down. People die of hyperthermia.

iii) Regional Climate Change and National Responsibilities

iv) If an area is uninhabitable, it will have no people, no local council, no budget and no traffic lights.
 
1, That it has warmed does not mean that it will continue to warm. You need to present a strong argument to support the claim that it will continue to warm.

2, I was taught about the warming effect of cities in school 36 years ago. The degree of warming caused by human activity is very plainly still debatable. I do not engage with that discussion. There are those here who often present reports and papers discussing such things and show that the degree of warming due to humanity is very much still debatable within professional, accademic, science.

3, I ask questions. I am then called a denier of science by religious fools who understand no physics what so ever. I will ask you a simple question;

i, What is the worst single effect of a slightly warmer world? Keep it to a single factor so we can examine it properlty without going all over the place.

ii, Then, in your own words, explain the mechanism that causes this. That is the bit between the warming and the bad thing. Own words.

iii, Then cite some sort of supporting evidence or science to show this mechanism. Then we can look at it and see how bad it is.

iv, If you can show that this will cost any local council in the world that has traffic lights more than its' traffic light budget then I will accept that there may be something worth bothering with.

Nobody has managed this so far.

LOL.

It’s constantly done for you.

You dismiss it all.

That’s why you’re a denier.

See any thread on sea level rise, farm production, social upheaval, biological consequences, etc etc.

I assume you’ll be denying again in this thread, and then acting all
Cheesed in another that people call you a denier.
 
Hahahahahahahaahahaha. I've been here for 10 years and have seen it all. I will say, though, that many of you have switched goalposts, so there has been some progress.
We all learn as we go, (or at least we should).
I entered this debate because, of what I know about CO2 in lasers,
It is very difficult to add energy to CO2 optically, the best method is to excite nitrogen,
and have it vibration ally transfer it's energy to CO2.
CO2 alone also has some long decay states which means it would spend most of it's time
in a state where it could not absorb the 15 um photons it is suppose to.
The more I looked into the claims, the more I saw the predictions were a collection some science,
and considerable speculation.
The Science portion is pretty much limited to "CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and doubling it's level, will cause some warming."
The Science starts with how much Top of atmosphere energy imbalance would 2X CO2 cause?
That number was about 10 Wm-2 is 1896, By 1997 Hansen had it at 4 Wm-2,
IPCC AR5 had it at 3.71 Wm-2, and some recent reports place it at 3.44 Wm-2.
While the CERES satellite measures the FLUX, the number is an aggregate of all of the interactions and feedbacks
of energy in the atmosphere. For the increase in CO2 between 2001 and 2017,
the measurement would place the 2XCO2 number in the 2.5 Wm-2 range, but the data is very noisy.
Everything in AGW is descended from this energy imbalance number, If the assumptions used in the models
are in error, then all the follow on numbers are also in error.
Fruit of the poisonous assumption.
I am discussing weakness in the Science portion of AGW, the speculative portion of AGW
is that the warming caused from the added CO2 would be amplified through feedbacks to produce additional warming.
Since this is described as amplified feedback, it goes back to the science portion, what is being amplified?
If the input is considerable lower, then the output of the atmospheric amplifier will also be lower.
(The claim is that an input of 1.1 C would be amplified to between 1.5 and 4.5 C.)
 
i) The tropics and Middle East become practically uninhabitable in summer.

ii) Wet bulb temperature. The combination of heat and humidity makes it impossible to cool down. People die of hyperthermia.

iii) Regional Climate Change and National Responsibilities

iv) If an area is uninhabitable, it will have no people, no local council, no budget and no traffic lights.

OK, why does a warming of less than is experienced in the general normal range of variability of climate/weather cause such drastic problems given that the last time it was warmer than now was the holocene optimal, the best climate for humans?

Can you link to some actual science, peer reviewed paper or some such where the degree of warming required to achieve this is discussed?
 
OK, why does a warming of less than is experienced in the general normal range of variability of climate/weather cause such drastic problems given that the last time it was warmer than now was the holocene optimal, the best climate for humans?

Can you link to some actual science, peer reviewed paper or some such where the degree of warming required to achieve this is discussed?

I just gave you a link to a referenced summary of Hansen and Sato's paper. Here is the paper itself:

Regional climate change and national responsibilities

This is the paper's abstract:

"Global warming over the past several decades is now large enough that regional climate change is emerging above the noise of natural variability, especially in the summer at middle latitudes and year-round at low latitudes. Despite the small magnitude of warming relative to weather fluctuations, effects of the warming already have notable social and economic impacts. Global warming of 2°C relative to preindustrial would shift the ‘bell curve’ defining temperature anomalies a factor of three larger than observed changes since the middle of the 20th century, with highly deleterious consequences. There is striking incongruity between the global distribution of nations principally responsible for fossil fuel CO2 emissions, known to be the main cause of climate change, and the regions suffering the greatest consequences from the warming, a fact with substantial implications for global energy and climate policies."

Hansen and Sato describe in detail why a 2°C rise in global temperature would cause such problems. They show that summertime temperatures in the tropics will become especially prone to extremes, thus making it increasingly difficult to live there.
 
I just gave you a link to a referenced summary of Hansen and Sato's paper. Here is the paper itself:

Regional climate change and national responsibilities

This is the paper's abstract:

"Global warming over the past several decades is now large enough that regional climate change is emerging above the noise of natural variability, especially in the summer at middle latitudes and year-round at low latitudes. Despite the small magnitude of warming relative to weather fluctuations, effects of the warming already have notable social and economic impacts. Global warming of 2°C relative to preindustrial would shift the ‘bell curve’ defining temperature anomalies a factor of three larger than observed changes since the middle of the 20th century, with highly deleterious consequences. There is striking incongruity between the global distribution of nations principally responsible for fossil fuel CO2 emissions, known to be the main cause of climate change, and the regions suffering the greatest consequences from the warming, a fact with substantial implications for global energy and climate policies."

Hansen and Sato describe in detail why a 2°C rise in global temperature would cause such problems. They show that summertime temperatures in the tropics will become especially prone to extremes, thus making it increasingly difficult to live there.

Was this peer reviewed?

What exactly is the maximum temperature that humans can cope with, as a living there sort of thing?

Do you think that large parst of the world will reach such a temperature due to increased CO2 from humans? Really????

From another thread;


Originally Posted by Russell797 View Post
You can't be serious! It's not just the atmosphere. It's also the oceans and total global ice....In the past small changes in radiative forcing have created full blown ice ages followed by the warming out of them....In the deep past, global temperature has reached 10-15C warmer than today as well as the oceans being frozen over the nearly the equator....

To the contrary of your ridiculous assertion the climate has been very sensitive to perturbations..

Just a quicky;

When it was 10-15c warmer than now did all mamalian life die off in the warm zones?

I am told by Surface detail that humanity, the best heat losing mamal going, will not be able to cope at all in any hot place due to a 3.2c rise in temperature.

I am then told that I am a denier of science for questioning this idea. Ummmmmm.........

How did all those creatures manage in such temperatures?
 
Last edited:

Retraction request for Harvey et al. attack paper on Dr. Susan Crockford

Retraction request to Bioscience: FOIA emails document another harsh criticism of Amstrup’s 2007 polar bear model Essay by Dr. Susan Crockford (republished from her website https://polarbearscience.com )
Continue reading →

Essay by Dr. Susan Crockford (republished from her website https://polarbearscience.com )on Retraction request to Bioscience: FOIA emails document another harsh criticism of Amstrup’s 2007 polar bear model
Today I sent a letter to the editors of the journal Bioscience requesting retraction of the shoddy and malicious paper by Harvey et al. (Internet blogs, polar bears, and climate-change denial by proxy) published online last week.
The letter reveals information about the workings of the polar bear expert inner circle not known before now, so grab your popcorn. . . .

 
[h=1]Lying about Susan Crockford and others[/h]Posted on 06 Dec 17 by PAUL MATTHEWS Leave a comment
This post summarises some of the lies associated with the recent Harvey et al paper. There’s also a request for reader input! See bold italics below. 1. Harvey et al claim that Crockford hasn’t published anything on polar bears. I had a quick look at two of her papers. This 2007 paper mentions polar bears, … Continue r
 
Was this peer reviewed?

What exactly is the maximum temperature that humans can cope with, as a living there sort of thing?

Do you think that large parst of the world will reach such a temperature due to increased CO2 from humans? Really????

Of course it is peer-reviewed. Environmental Research Letters is an academic journal produced by IOP Publishing. All of their academic journals are peer-reviewed. I suggest you actually read the paper. Then, if there are parts that you disagree with, tell us why.
 
POLAR-BEAR-GATE

Posted on 06 Dec 17 by PAUL MATTHEWS 11 Comments

". . . .In her letter, Crockford discusses a set of emails from 2012 and 2014 between polar bear scientists. These were acquired via a FOIA request (submitted by someone else, and then passed on to her). The emails have been transcribed and the email addresses removed.
A key point in the emails is that they show another lie in the Harvey et al story. We’ve already established that the claim of a bunch of AGW denier blogs is a lie. But the emails show that the other side of the picture, of a happy family of scientists all in agreement, is also a lie. . . . "

 
Opinion
[h=1]The sad case of Dr. Sarah Myhre[/h]Lately, we’ve watched a gang of 14 authors (including Mike Mann and Stephan Lewandowsky) gang up on a single scientist (Dr. Susan Crockford) over her published and peer-reviewed view on polar bear research and the failure of models on sea ice loss to predict the decline of the polar bear. The bears just aren’t cooperating,…
 
[h=1]Who Wrote the World’s Worst Scientific Paper?[/h]Posted on 06 Dec 17 by GEOFF CHAMBERS 28 Comments
I want to have a go at analysing the World’s Worst Scientific Paper one of these days, but first there’s the question: Who among the fourteen listed authors actually wrote it? Obviously lead author Jeffrey A. Harvey must take responsibility. But who actually penned it? Harvey is a researcher in terrestrial ecology with expertise in … Contin
 
Opinion
[h=1]The sad case of Dr. Sarah Myhre[/h]Lately, we’ve watched a gang of 14 authors (including Mike Mann and Stephan Lewandowsky) gang up on a single scientist (Dr. Susan Crockford) over her published and peer-reviewed view on polar bear research and the failure of models on sea ice loss to predict the decline of the polar bear. The bears just aren’t cooperating,…

Hilarious.

Deniers are crying because their ‘polar bear expert’ has never published a peer review article on polar bears.

You sometimes gotta wonder who believes this stuff.
 
Hilarious.

Deniers are crying because their ‘polar bear expert’ has never published a peer review article on polar bears.

You sometimes gotta wonder who believes this stuff.

The point is that she has.
 
No. She wrote something that had a brief mention of polar bears though.

I guess that qualifies as an ‘expert’ for those who are desperate.

Crockford, S.J. 2004.“Animal Domestication and Vertebrate Speciation: A Paradigm for the Origin of Species” (filed at the National Library under “Zoology”).
Crockford, S. J. 2003. Thyroid hormone phenotypes and hominid evolution: a new paradigm implicates pulsatile thyroid hormone secretion in speciation and adaptation changes. International Journal of Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A 135(1):105-129. [peer reviewed journal, includes polar bear evolution discussion]
Crockford, S. and Frederick, G. 2007. Sea ice expansion in the Bering Sea during the Neoglacial: evidence from archaeozoology. The Holocene 17 (6):699-706. [peer reviewed journal, an Arctic sea ice paper]
Crockford, S. J. 2012. Directionality in polar bear hybridization. [Official comment with references to Hailer et al. 2012], Science 336:344-347.
Crockford, S. J. 2012. Directionality in polar bear hybridization. [Official comment with references to Edwards et al. 2011], Current Biology 21: 1251-1258.
Crockford, S. J. and Frederick, G. 2011. Neoglacial sea ice and life history flexibility in ringed and fur seals. pg. 65-91 In T. Braje and R. Torrey, eds. Human and Marine Ecosystems: Archaeology and Historical Ecology of Northeastern Pacific Seals, Sea Lions, and Sea Otters. U. California Press, LA. [a peer reviewed book chapter]
 
Crockford, S.J. 2004.“Animal Domestication and Vertebrate Speciation: A Paradigm for the Origin of Species” (filed at the National Library under “Zoology”).
Crockford, S. J. 2003. Thyroid hormone phenotypes and hominid evolution: a new paradigm implicates pulsatile thyroid hormone secretion in speciation and adaptation changes. International Journal of Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A 135(1):105-129. [peer reviewed journal, includes polar bear evolution discussion]
Crockford, S. and Frederick, G. 2007. Sea ice expansion in the Bering Sea during the Neoglacial: evidence from archaeozoology. The Holocene 17 (6):699-706. [peer reviewed journal, an Arctic sea ice paper]
Crockford, S. J. 2012. Directionality in polar bear hybridization. [Official comment with references to Hailer et al. 2012], Science 336:344-347.
Crockford, S. J. 2012. Directionality in polar bear hybridization. [Official comment with references to Edwards et al. 2011], Current Biology 21: 1251-1258.
Crockford, S. J. and Frederick, G. 2011. Neoglacial sea ice and life history flexibility in ringed and fur seals. pg. 65-91 In T. Braje and R. Torrey, eds. Human and Marine Ecosystems: Archaeology and Historical Ecology of Northeastern Pacific Seals, Sea Lions, and Sea Otters. U. California Press, LA. [a peer reviewed book chapter]

LOL.

Looks like one thing on polar bears...a comment!

The rest is about other stuff....and it looks like it tangentially mentions bears in the context of that other stuff....but a bibliography like that is laughable as a qualification for an academic polar bear expert.
 
Back
Top Bottom