• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [3:30 PM CDT] - in 25 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • 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!

99.9999% chance humans are causing global warming

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
That's a one in a million chance it might be something else. Let's see. That means the consensus being wrong is less likely than being struck by lightening underground while wearing rubber boots.

Happy Earth Day :)

Climate change is real and increasingly a part of our daily lives. New research and studies out in just the past six months highlight the latest facts about the human-caused shift to our global weather systems and its effects on our planet.

First among them, there's no longer any question that rising temperatures and increasingly chaotic weather are the work of humanity. There's a 99.9999% chance that humans are the cause of global warming, a February study reported. That means we've reached the "gold standard" for certainty, a statistical measure typically used in particle physics.

Earth Day 2019: Facts on climate change, global warming, rising seas
Click to expand...
 
I'm struggling to come up with a name for people who lay their future on the line for 1 in a 1,000,000 shots.

Ah, I know.

Lottery players.


AGW deniers are as dumb as those who play the lottery.
 
calamity said:
I'm struggling to come up with a name for people who lay their future on the line for 1 in a 1,000,000 shots.

Ah, I know.

Lottery players.


AGW deniers are as dumb as those who play the lottery.
Click to expand...

Here, we'll just use this picture for now on.

350.png
 
calamity said:
That's a one in a million chance it might be something else. Let's see. That means the consensus being wrong is less likely than being struck by lightening underground while wearing rubber boots.

Happy Earth Day :)
Click to expand...

LOL...

Just how many things have the zombies from "earth day" predicted anything right?
 
And who do you see as saying that humans do not cause any warming at all?

Find one here.
 
calamity said:
I'm struggling to come up with a name for people who lay their future on the line for 1 in a 1,000,000 shots.

Ah, I know.

Lottery players.


AGW deniers are as dumb as those who play the lottery.
Click to expand...

Do you have a name for people who don't know jack sh$t about climate science and get all their info form partisan sources?
 
calamity said:
That's a one in a million chance it might be something else. Let's see. That means the consensus being wrong is less likely than being struck by lightening underground while wearing rubber boots.

Happy Earth Day :)
Click to expand...

Do you understand that there just might be a difference between Human activity causing some or even most of the
observed warming, and the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC?
Added CO2 could be doing it's greenhouse effect and forcing a 1.1C increase for each doubling,
and nothing of consequence happens!
Without the amplified feedbacks, AGW can still be true, but simply not of concern.
Consider the case with minimal feedbacks?
If we actually succeed in doubling the CO2 level by roughly 2060,
it will force roughly 1.1 C of warming, but over a 180 year period,.061Cper decade.
The catastrophic predictions were based on between .2 and .25 C per decade.
 
KLATTU said:
Do you have a name for people who don't know jack sh$t about climate science and get all their info form partisan sources?
Click to expand...

Yes, Right Wingers.
 
People who rant that humans are the cause of "climate change" are science deniers and play to the emotions of paranoid people who can't handle change.
 
calamity said:
I'm struggling to come up with a name for people who lay their future on the line for 1 in a 1,000,000 shots.

Ah, I know.

Lottery players.


AGW deniers are as dumb as those who play the lottery.
Click to expand...

Lottery players only hurt themselves...
 
KLATTU said:
Wishful thinking.

I'm going to bet you fell for every single one of these.

18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around the first “Earth Day” in 1970 | Climate Depot

Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:
Click to expand...

A super geek I know, published Internationally, gave up science as a career because in her words nearly all fields of science function on "scientists" selling their reputations to anyone willing to buy whatever conclusion they want. There is massive amounts of government research money that ONLY pays those who claim they have proven that government must take total control over everything, everyone and every dollar or we all die. Government does NOT pay scientists who do not serve the goals of government and corporations do not pay scientists who do not serve the goals of the corporation.

For her to have gotten published and even just obtaining necessary permissions to do her studies she said she had to outright lie, promising each necessary government organization that she would reach the conclusion it wanted - making a different promise to each agency or organization. Otherwise she wouldn't even have been allowed. Of her most significant study result? It had nothing to do with what she had promised, all that was just smoke-and-mirrors, merely to get permission. The government not only will not pay for any study that may reach a conclusion they don't want, the government will do all it can to block such studies.
 
joko104 said:
A super geek I know, published Internationally, gave up science as a career because in her words nearly all fields of science function on "scientists" selling their reputations to anyone willing to buy whatever conclusion they want. There is massive amounts of government research money that ONLY pays those who claim they have proven that government must take total control over everything, everyone and every dollar or we all die. Government does NOT pay scientists who do not serve the goals of government and corporations do not pay scientists who do not serve the goals of the corporation.

For her to have gotten published and even just obtaining necessary permissions to do her studies she said she had to outright lie, promising each necessary government organization that she would reach the conclusion it wanted - making a different promise to each agency or organization. Otherwise she wouldn't even have been allowed. Of her most significant study result? It had nothing to do with what she had promised, all that was just smoke-and-mirrors, merely to get permission. The government not only will not pay for any study that may reach a conclusion they don't want, the government will do all it can to block such studies.
Click to expand...

That what grant money does, buys results. And around 99.8% of the grant money in the clime sciences if to show AGW.
 
nooooooo. All wrong. The scientists are all just dispassionate observers who go where the data take them. Pay no attention to the Clinton Kane stickers on 97 % of their bumpers.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That what grant money does, buys results. And around 99.8% of the grant money in the clime sciences if to show AGW.
Click to expand...

"You get more of that which you subsidize."
 
KLATTU said:
nooooooo. All wrong. The scientists are all just dispassionate observers who go where the data take them. Pay no attention to the Clinton Kane stickers on 97 % of their bumpers.
Click to expand...

To paraphrase an old joke: "Anyone who doesn't think the Democrats have a political platform consisting entirely of bumper sticker slogans has never driven behind a Subaru." :lamo
 
KLATTU said:
nooooooo. All wrong. The scientists are all just dispassionate observers who go where the data take them. Pay no attention to the Clinton Kane stickers on 97 % of their bumpers.
Click to expand...

Well, sporting a Trump-Pence bumper tag would be advertising that shear stupidity is behind the wheel.
 
calamity said:
That's a one in a million chance it might be something else. Let's see. That means the consensus being wrong is less likely than being struck by lightening underground while wearing rubber boots.

Happy Earth Day :)
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]Climate News[/FONT]
[h=1]Earth Day: Not a Single Environmental Prediction of the Last 50 Years Has Come True[/h][FONT=&quot]Nicolas Loris, Bangor Daily News This Earth Day, it almost feels like we should be carving some turkey. Why? Because we have a lot to be thankful for since the first Earth Day event occurred 49 years ago. We should be thankful that the gloom-and-doom predictions made throughout the past several decades haven’t come true.…
[/FONT]
 
calamity said:
That's a one in a million chance it might be something else. Let's see. That means the consensus being wrong is less likely than being struck by lightening underground while wearing rubber boots.

Happy Earth Day :)
Click to expand...

There's no hubris like scientific hubris. Ben Santer (et al.) has made an extraordinary claim to have established a "gold standard" of certainty in identifying the AGW signal in our climate. Unfortunately for Santer, Ross McKitrick pretty thoroughly demolishes his claim. One is reminded of Nic Lewis's takedown of Resplandy et al. not so long ago. I suppose we should not be surprised by Santer's attempt to enshrine his claimed AGW signal. He was a central figure in the slippery process that initially elevated AGW in the IPCC in 1996. That episode is well recounted in Bernie Lewin's Searching for the Catastrophe Signal. Given his history, it is perhaps not surprising that Santer should prematurely claim validation for an AGW signal he prematurely identified.

Critique of the new Santer et al. (2019) paper

Posted on March 1, 2019 by curryja | 124 comments
by Ross McKitrick
Ben Santer et al. have a new paper out in Nature Climate Change arguing that with 40 years of satellite data available they can detect the anthropogenic influence in the mid-troposphere at a 5-sigma level of confidence. This, they point out, is the “gold standard” of proof in particle physics, even invoking for comparison the Higgs boson discovery in their Supplementary information.
Continue reading →
 
Jack Hays said:
There's no hubris like scientific hubris. Ben Santer (et al.) has made an extraordinary claim to have established a "gold standard" of certainty in identifying the AGW signal in our climate. Unfortunately for Santer, Ross McKitrick pretty thoroughly demolishes his claim. One is reminded of Nic Lewis's takedown of Resplandy et al. not so long ago. I suppose we should not be surprised by Santer's attempt to enshrine his claimed AGW signal. He was a central figure in the slippery process that initially elevated AGW in the IPCC in 1996. That episode is well recounted in Bernie Lewin's Searching for the Catastrophe Signal. Given his history, it is perhaps not surprising that Santer should prematurely claim validation for an AGW signal he prematurely identified.

Critique of the new Santer et al. (2019) paper

[FONT=&]Posted on March 1, 2019 by curryja | 124 comments[/FONT]
by Ross McKitrick
Ben Santer et al. have a new paper out in Nature Climate Change arguing that with 40 years of satellite data available they can detect the anthropogenic influence in the mid-troposphere at a 5-sigma level of confidence. This, they point out, is the “gold standard” of proof in particle physics, even invoking for comparison the Higgs boson discovery in their Supplementary information.
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

lol...yeah. Imagine that?

Someone who spent their life learning something tangible, besides Google searches for crackpot websites, having the gall to make confident, substantiated assertions in the field of their expertise. The ****ing horror of it. :roll:
 
calamity said:
lol...yeah. Imagine that?

Someone who spent their life learning something tangible, besides Google searches for crackpot websites, having the gall to make confident, substantiated assertions in the field of their expertise. The ****ing horror of it. :roll:
Click to expand...

CV, talks, bio, etc. - Ross McKitrick


CV, talks, bio, etc. - Ross McKitrick



Ross McKitrick is a Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph where he specializes in environment, energy and climate policy. He has published widely ...

SHORT BIO:
  • Ross McKitrick is a Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph where he specializes in environment, energy and climate policy. He has published widely on the economics of pollution, climate change and public policy. His book Economic Analysis of Environmental Policy was published by the University of Toronto Press in 2010. His background in applied statistics has also led him to collaborative work across a wide range of topics in the physical sciences including paleoclimate reconstruction, malaria transmission, surface temperature measurement and climate model evaluation. Professor McKitrick has made many invited academic presentations around the world, and has testified before the US Congress and committees of the Canadian House of Commons and Senate.
 
Jack Hays said:
CV, talks, bio, etc. - Ross McKitrick


CV, talks, bio, etc. - Ross McKitrick



Ross McKitrick is a Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph where he specializes in environment, energy and climate policy. He has published widely ...

SHORT BIO:
  • Ross McKitrick is a Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph where he specializes in environment, energy and climate policy. He has published widely on the economics of pollution, climate change and public policy. His book Economic Analysis of Environmental Policy was published by the University of Toronto Press in 2010. His background in applied statistics has also led him to collaborative work across a wide range of topics in the physical sciences including paleoclimate reconstruction, malaria transmission, surface temperature measurement and climate model evaluation. Professor McKitrick has made many invited academic presentations around the world, and has testified before the US Congress and committees of the Canadian House of Commons and Senate.
Click to expand...

:lol: Professor of Economics.

:2rofll:
 
KLATTU said:
nooooooo. All wrong. The scientists are all just dispassionate observers who go where the data take them. Pay no attention to the Clinton Kane stickers on 97 % of their bumpers.
Click to expand...

Oh, but in reality...

97% of those who have political bumper stickers. We shouldn't make the same mistake the alarmists do with small sample sizes.
 
Deniers gonna deny
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom