• 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!

Global Warming is Worse than we Thought

Constant evaision of a simple question.

How do you deal with your inability to answer it and still hold to your religion?

LOL.

Apparently ‘evasion’ is now defined by giving someone more information than they are capable of reading.
 
LOL.

Apparently ‘evasion’ is now defined by giving someone more information than they are capable of reading.

Yes, just like when the christians tell you to go and read the Texas papers or some such drivel.

You have to answer the question for all those people silently watching the thread and show that you can actually answer the question directly and straight forwardly. Or look like you have no clue.
 
Admitting mistakes in a ‘hostile environment’

Posted on November 19, 2018 by curryja | 1 comment
by Judith Curry
Reflections on Nic Lewis’ audit of the Resplandy et al. paper.
Continue reading

. . . Owing to the relative free ride that consensus supporting and the more alarming climate science papers typically seem to get in the review process, particularly for high profile journals having press embargoes, etc., critical scrutiny is increasingly coming from technically educated individuals outside of the field of professional climate science, most without any academic affiliation.
Of course, the godfather of extended peer review in the climate field is Steve McIntyre. It’s hard to imagine what the field of paleoclimatological reconstructions for the past two millennia would be had not McIntyre & McKitrick happened onto the scene. . . .
Here is the issue. There are some academic climate scientists that have expertise in statistics comparable to Nic Lewis. However, I will wager that exactly none of them would have the time or inclination to dig into the Resplandy paper in the way that Nic Lewis did. While many scientists may have reacted like I did, thinking the paper failed the sniff test, nothing would have been done about it, and people that liked the result would cite the paper (heck, they ‘found’ Trenberth’s missing heat). . . .
By quickly admitting mistakes and giving credit where due, Ralph Keeling has done something unusual and laudatory in the field of climate science. If all climate scientists behaved this way, there would be no ‘hostile environment.’
I find it to be a sad state of affairs when a scientist admitting mistakes gets more kudos than the scientist actually finding the mistakes. But given the state of climate science, I guess finding mistakes seems to be a more common story than a publishing scientist actually admitting to mistakes.
Given the importance of auditing climate research and independent climate scientists working outside of institutional frameworks, I wish there was some way to encourage more of this. In the absence of recognition and funding, I don’t have much to suggest. Other than providing a home for such analyses at Climate Etc.
My huge thanks to Nic Lewis for his efforts, the other guest posters at CE, and to all the denizens who enrich these analysis with their comments and discussion.

 
Yes, just like when the christians tell you to go and read the Texas papers or some such drivel.

You have to answer the question for all those people silently watching the thread and show that you can actually answer the question directly and straight forwardly. Or look like you have no clue.

There’s literally a cut and pasted list of stuff posted because of your whining! And you don’t address it because it needs to be explained to you instead.
 
Doesn't justify tens of thousands of copied and pasted utter crap posts from pseudoscience conspiracy blogs.

LOL...

Such a hypocrite.

You guys post from blogs, and places no better than blogs yourself.

Step up if you are going to complain, and quote papers. Not blogs or media.
 

I do not expect you to know any data. I expect you to understand what it is you are talking about. To be able to explain why there is going to be a problem in your own words and then to back this up with some sort of science that shows how it is going to happen and to what extent.

Should be easy.

That will be when Hell freezes over...
 
OK,so you don't understand the topic.Duly noted.

*chuckle*

I have detailed many things over the years. You are new and ignorant to my ability it be insightful, and accurate.

Show yourself worthy of me taking time for explanations, and I will. I already spend too much time in these forums.
 
To be honest LoP or some of te others are better at that sort of thing. There are lots of posts about it. Try Longview.

I stick to looking at what would actually happen if the warming as predicted actually happens. So far the worst is that Maple syrup production will move North a bit.

And I love real maple syrup. Screw that high fructose corn syrup artificial crap.

Dammit...

Now I may have to switch sides!
 
And I love real maple syrup. Screw that high fructose corn syrup artificial crap.

Dammit...

Now I may have to switch sides!

Don't worry, it turns out that technology has come to the rescue; new drying techniques have doubled the amount of syrup you get per unit extracted from the tree. Also the Canadians have hugely benefitted and are now the biggest producers rather than the New Englanders who have just had to grow loads more of other crops as the climate has got that bit warmer.
 
There’s literally a cut and pasted list of stuff posted because of your whining! And you don’t address it because it needs to be explained to you instead.

Isn't that the truth! The fact of the matter is that these Denialists are AFRAID of Science. They don't understand it, as is being demonstrated over and over by their inability to grasp the simplest concepts. So how can anybody expect them to read and comprehend a complex issue like climate change? A revelation of ignorance is all they have to offer.
 
Isn't that the truth! The fact of the matter is that these Denialists are AFRAID of Science. They don't understand it, as is being demonstrated over and over by their inability to grasp the simplest concepts. So how can anybody expect them to read and comprehend a complex issue like climate change? A revelation of ignorance is all they have to offer.

The "denialists" aren't the problem.

[h=2]Admitting mistakes in a ‘hostile environment’[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on November 19, 2018 by curryja | 38 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
Reflections on Nic Lewis’ audit of the Resplandy et al. paper.
Continue reading
 
The "denialists" aren't the problem.

[h=2]Admitting mistakes in a ‘hostile environment’[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Posted on[/FONT] [URL="https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/19/admitting-mistakes-in-a-hostile-environment/"]November 19, 2018[/URL] by curryja | 38 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
Reflections on Nic Lewis’ audit of the Resplandy et al. paper.
Continue reading

Did you get that "isotope" concept down yet? You submitted a post on Nuclear Energy, without understanding what an isotope is??? I will not take any of your posts seriously, until you demonstrate a semblance of some knowledge about science.
 
Did you get that "isotope" concept down yet? You submitted a post on Nuclear Energy, without understanding what an isotope is??? I will not take any of your posts seriously, until you demonstrate a semblance of some knowledge about science.

I'm not here to take a test administered by any other poster, and I'm indifferent to your reactions to my posts. Fact is that your #511 is looking the wrong way through the telescope.
 
I'm not here to take a test administered by any other poster, and I'm indifferent to your reactions to my posts. Fact is that your #511 is looking the wrong way through the telescope.

As was pointed out, how can you say that science is wrong, when you don't even understand elementary school science?
 
As was pointed out, how can you say that science is wrong, when you don't even understand elementary school science?

The fact that I decline to be tested by another poster says nothing about what I know and what I don't. And science is not wrong.
 
The fact that I decline to be tested by another poster says nothing about what I know and what I don't. And science is not wrong.

No, but you are wrong about science.
 
The claim now is that warming is worse. The claim then was that cooling was worse.:roll:

The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth

By Angus McFarlane, There was an overwhelming scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was heading into a period of significant cooling. The possibility of anthropogenic warming was relegated to a minority of the papers in the peer-reviewed literature.
[h=3]Introduction[/h][FONT=&quot]Whether or not there was a global cooling consensus in the 1970s is important in climate science because, if there were a cooling consensus (which subsequently proved to be wrong) then it would question the legitimacy of consensus in science. In particular, the validity of the 93% consensus on global warming alleged by Cook et al (2103) would be implausible. That is, if consensus climate scientists were wrong in the 1970s then they could be wrong now.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Purpose of Review[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is not the purpose of this review to question the rights or wrongs of the methodology of the 93% consensus. For-and-against arguments are presented in several peer-reviewed papers and non-peer-reviewed weblogs. The purpose of this review is to establish if there were a consensus in the 1970s and, if so, was this consensus cooling or warming?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In their 2008 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, Peterson, Connolley and Fleck (hereinafter PCF-08) state that, “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.”This conclusion intrigued me because, when I was growing up in the early 1970s, it was my perception that global cooling dominated the climate narrative. My interest was further piqued by allegations of “cover-up” and “skulduggery” in 2016 in NoTricksZoneand Breitbart.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Therefore, I present a review that examines the accuracy of the PCF-08 claim that 1970s global cooling consensus was a myth. This review concentrates on the results from the data in the peer-reviewed climate science literature published in the 1970s, i.e., using similar sources to those used by PCF-08. . . . [/FONT]



 
LOL...

Such a hypocrite.

You guys post from blogs, and places no better than blogs yourself.

Step up if you are going to complain, and quote papers. Not blogs or media.

Speaking of hypocrisy >>> You need check my posts before making false accusations and insults like that. I link to a lot of published papers. Very very rarely have I ever linked to a blog as a source. Meanwhile you often spout the sort of conspiracy/pseudoscience nonsense that is found on climate 'truther' blogs yet claim you only 'read' papers not blogs. Yeah sure. You don't even have full access to all the science Journals as any active scientist or academic does and seem to be unaware of the vast amount of literature on this topic or how to do a literature search.

Most of your posts these days seem to be more about how great you think you are, and how lame you think everyone else is.
 
The claim now is that warming is worse. The claim then was that cooling was worse.:roll:

The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth

[FONT=&]By Angus McFarlane, There was an overwhelming scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was heading into a period of significant cooling. The possibility of anthropogenic warming was relegated to a minority of the papers in the peer-reviewed literature.
[/FONT]
[h=3]Introduction[/h][FONT="]Whether or not there was a global cooling consensus in the 1970s is important in climate science because, if there were a cooling consensus (which subsequently proved to be wrong) then it would question the legitimacy of consensus in science. In particular, the validity of the 93% consensus on global warming alleged by [URL="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf"]Cook et al (2103)[/URL] would be implausible. That is, if consensus climate scientists were wrong in the 1970s then they could be wrong now.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Purpose of Review[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]It is not the purpose of this review to question the rights or wrongs of the methodology of the 93% consensus. For-and-against arguments are presented in several peer-reviewed papers and non-peer-reviewed weblogs. The purpose of this review is to establish if there were a consensus in the 1970s and, if so, was this consensus cooling or warming?[/FONT]

[FONT="]In their 2008 paper, [URL="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1"]The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus[/URL], Peterson, Connolley and Fleck (hereinafter PCF-08) state that, “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.”This conclusion intrigued me because, when I was growing up in the early 1970s, it was my perception that global cooling dominated the climate narrative. My interest was further piqued by allegations of “cover-up” and “skulduggery” in 2016 in NoTricksZoneand Breitbart.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Therefore, I present a review that examines the accuracy of the PCF-08 claim that 1970s global cooling consensus was a myth. This review concentrates on the results from the data in the peer-reviewed climate science literature published in the 1970s, i.e., using similar sources to those used by PCF-08. . . . [/FONT]


[FONT=&]
[/FONT]

Watts, the High Schooler:lamo But it gets even worse - Breitbart :lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Watts, the High Schooler:lamo But it gets even worse - Breitbart :lamo:lamo:lamo

Sheesh, Jack actually started a thread with this old recycled false claim.

I remember a thread a few years ago where someone posted a blog post (probably from WUWT) referring to the NoTrickZone climate truther whack-job blog about this same list of supposed papers that 'predicted cooling'. Upon actually reading the papers to check if the claim was true (something climate truthers rarely do), most of them didn't actually 'predict cooling' at at. Just the NoTricksZone truther blog up to it's usual dishonest tricks. And WUWT climate truther whack-job blog parroting the same "fückwittery" (thanks for the word Surface Detail) as usual.
 
Jack Hays; said:
The "denialists" aren't the problem.

[h=2]Admitting mistakes in a ‘hostile environment’[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Posted on[/FONT] [URL="https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/19/admitting-mistakes-in-a-hostile-environment/"]November 19, 2018[/URL] by curryja | 38 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
Reflections on Nic Lewis’ audit of the Resplandy et al. paper.
Continue reading

Jack has spammed the forum about this at least 70 times in the past week in many different threads. It's beyond obsessive.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/search.php?searchid=8387036&pp=
 
I have detailed many things over the years. You are new and ignorant to my ability it be insightful, and accurate.

Show yourself worthy of me taking time for explanations, and I will. I already spend too much time in these forums.

OH really? So you understand the topic? WONDERFUL

So tell me, what is an isotope? How does say C12 differ from C13? (This is a VERY BASIC grade school level question, dear)

My guess is that you have no clue. :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom