• 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 Legacy of Climategate -- Ten Years Later

I probably post more peer-reviewed research than any other poster in this subforum.
The default to accusations of lying is a marker for the absence of an argument.
If by "modern climate science" you mean AGW orthodoxy then you have it backwards. AGW orthodoxy is increasingly discredited by modern climate science.

I equally post peer reviewed research.


You are just blind to it
 
I probably post more peer-reviewed research than any other poster in this subforum.
The default to accusations of lying is a marker for the absence of an argument.
If by "modern climate science" you mean AGW orthodoxy then you have it backwards. AGW orthodoxy is increasingly discredited by modern climate science.

I'm not coming here to engage in another pointless debate about your delusional and uneducated view of modern climate science. I'm just making sure that yet another one of your 10,000 propaganda threads has a post or two showing extreme dissent while pointing out the lying nature of the OP and his cronies. If anyone wants to back search the multiple times I and others have defeated you, they are free to do so.

Your strategy in the presence of defeat is to simply create more threads. Quantity over quality, and the truth gets buried. And that's what you want.
 
I'm not coming here to engage in another pointless debate about your delusional and uneducated view of modern climate science. I'm just making sure that yet another one of your 10,000 propaganda threads has a post or two showing extreme dissent while pointing out the lying nature of the OP and his cronies. If anyone wants to back search the multiple times I and others have defeated you, they are free to do so.

Your strategy in the presence of defeat is to simply create more threads. Quantity over quality, and the truth gets buried. And that's what you want.

The author of the OP article is a woman, so "his" cronies don't exist. Just another instance where you are tripped up by the facts.

As for defeats, I don't recall any of your posts.

The truth is my ally.
 

Climate science has died. The effects will be big.

Reposted from the Fabius Maximus blog By Larry Kummer, Editor / 17 November 2019 Summary: Let’s hit “pause” in the climate wars and see how we got here, where we are going, and what we can learn from this mess. “I can’t use this result. It doesn’t support the narrative.“ Photo 99364552 © Standret –…
Continue reading →

[FONT=&quot]Summary: Let’s hit “pause” in the climate wars and see how we got here, where we are going, and what we can learn from this mess.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“I can’t use this result. It doesn’t support the narrative.“[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Photo 99364552 © Standret – Dreamstime.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]At the time I thought this statement was daft. Now I see that she was spot on, but not in the way she meant it. And with results that she did not intend.[/FONT]
“The time for debate has ended.”
Marcia McNutt (former director of the US Geological Survey, then editor-in-Chief of Science magazine, now President of the NAS) in “The beyond-two-degree inferno“, an editorial in Science, 3 July 2015.

[FONT=&quot]Science is a structured process of debate. No debate means no science, as we use the term. Since 2015, the debate about a public policy response to climate change has stopped in any meaningful form, because the activists who control it have abandoned science. Now the headlines describe reports by activists describing every form of extreme weather as resulting from rising CO2 – and making increasingly dire predictions of future weather. The former are largely bogus, for reasons described below. The latter are either based on the unlikely-or-impossible RCP8.5 scenario (see here and here) – or fantasies of ever more extreme scenarios. There is little or no effort to base these in hard science. They are presented to the public as certainties. The models making these predictions are presented as a modern form of haruspicy (oracles from the gods elicited by animal sacrifice). Contrary opinions are seldom given, except in a pre-debunked form. . . . [/FONT]

 
[FONT=&][/FONT]
Climate science has died. The effects will be big.

[FONT=&]Reposted from the Fabius Maximus blog By Larry Kummer, Editor / 17 November 2019 Summary: Let’s hit “pause” in the climate wars and see how we got here, where we are going, and what we can learn from this mess. “I can’t use this result. It doesn’t support the narrative.“ Photo 99364552 © Standret –…
Continue reading →

[/FONT]
[FONT="]Summary: Let’s hit “pause” in the climate wars and see how we got here, where we are going, and what we can learn from this mess.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]“I can’t use this result. It doesn’t support the narrative.“[/FONT]

[FONT="][URL="https://i2.wp.com/fabiusmaximus.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Climate-scientist-Dreamstime-99364552.jpg?ssl=1"]
Climate-scientist-Dreamstime-99364552.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]

[FONT="]Photo 99364552 © Standret – Dreamstime.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]At the time I thought this statement was daft. Now I see that she was spot on, but not in the way she meant it. And with results that she did not intend.[/FONT]

“The time for debate has ended.”
Marcia McNutt (former director of the US Geological Survey, then editor-in-Chief of Science magazine, now President of the NAS) in “The beyond-two-degree inferno“, an editorial in Science, 3 July 2015.

[FONT="]Science is a structured process of debate. No debate means no science, as we use the term. Since 2015, the debate about a public policy response to climate change has stopped in any meaningful form, because the activists who control it have abandoned science. Now the headlines describe reports by activists describing every form of extreme weather as resulting from rising CO2 – and making increasingly dire predictions of future weather. The former are largely bogus, for reasons described below. The latter are either based on the unlikely-or-impossible RCP8.5 scenario (see [URL="https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/07/13/coal-climate-apocalypse-87192/"]here[/URL] and here) – or fantasies of ever more extreme scenarios. There is little or no effort to base these in hard science. They are presented to the public as certainties. The models making these predictions are presented as a modern form of haruspicy (oracles from the gods elicited by animal sacrifice). Contrary opinions are seldom given, except in a pre-debunked form. . . . [/FONT]
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]

https://climate.nasa.gov
 
We have long known that Earth without an atmosphere would be much colder.
This was stated by Fourier as early as the 1820's.
1896, Arrhenius's mentions that Earths temperature was +15°C, the upper end
-18 °C, +15°C, range of the 33°C warmer than earth would be without an atmosphere.
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
In order to get an idea of how strongly of the Earth (or any other body
of the temperature +15°C.)
A century later in 1998, NASA again confirms the same findings,
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Greenhouse Gases: Refining the Role of Carbon Dioxide
Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C).
NOTE: both have the Earth at +15°C!
In 2019, the NASA Cosmos page updated Monday, November 18, 2019, 12:32:48 PM,
says,
NASA's Cosmos
Right now, the warming influence is literally a matter of life and death. It keeps the average surface temperature of the planet at 288 degrees kelvin (15 degrees Celsius or 59 degrees Fahrenheit). Without this greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature would be 255 degrees kelvin (-18 degrees Celsius or 0 degrees Fahrenheit); a temperature so low that all water on Earth would freeze, the oceans would turn into ice and life, as we know it, would not exist.
It we are truly seeing global warming, should not the calculation of Earth's temperature with and without an atmosphere have changed?
 
I used to subscribe to Scientific American. Some time in the '90s they hired on a new editorial
staff and it became a left-wing liberal rag. Same is true for National Geographic.

Facts have a liberal bias. Lol
 
[h=2]Climate Extremism in the Age of Disinformation[/h]November 18th, 2019Do the global warming wars ever change anyone’s mind?
I suppose there are a few people whose minds have been changed. As I recall, Judith Curry has said Climategate (now “celebrating” its 10 year anniversary) was her wake-up call that institutionalized climate science might not be all it claims to be. She is now a well-informed and unabashed skeptic of the modern tendency to blame every bad weather event on humans.

While I’m sure there are other examples, the unfortunate truth is that fewer and fewer people actually care about the truth.
The journalist who broke the Climategate story, James Delingpole, yesterday posted an article entitled The Bastards Have Got Away with It!, James concludes with,
“Climategate was the event when, just for a moment, it seemed we’d got the climate scamsters bang to rights, that the world’s biggest scientific (and economic) con trick had been exposed and that the Climate Industrial Complex would be dismantled before it could do any more damage to our freedom and our prosperity. But the truth, it would seem, is no match for big money, dirty politics and madness-of-crowds groupthink. We’ve lost this one, I think, my friends. And the fact that all those involved in this scam will one day burn in Hell is something, I’m afraid, which gives me all too little consolation.”
You see, it does not really matter whether a few bad actors (even if they are leaders of the climate movement) conspired to hide data and methods, and strong-arm scientific journal editors into not publishing papers that might stand in the way of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mission to pin climate change on humans, inflate its seriousness, and lay the groundwork for worldwide governmental efforts to reduce humanity’s access to affordable energy.

The folks were simply trying to Save the Earth™, and we all know that the ends justifies the means, right? So what if they cheated? Boys will be boys, you know. The science is sound, and besides, 97% of all scientists agree that… something. . . .
 
The author of the OP article is a woman, so "his" cronies don't exist. Just another instance where you are tripped up by the facts.

As for defeats, I don't recall any of your posts.

The truth is my ally.

Of course you don't recall my posts, why would you? Your denial of reality is so deep that you dismiss anyone or anything that challenges your view of reality. And you call yourself scientific.

Your lack of objectivity is really unfortunate, but it is what it is. I don't mind that you hold an anti-scientific view, just that you try to dress it up like you're some kind of professional work when you're not. You're part and parcel with the anti-intellectual movement that's going through the USA right now, and it's an insult to real scientists who have dedicate their lives to studying these matters in detail.
 
Of course you don't recall my posts, why would you? Your denial of reality is so deep that you dismiss anyone or anything that challenges your view of reality. And you call yourself scientific.

Your lack of objectivity is really unfortunate, but it is what it is. I don't mind that you hold an anti-scientific view, just that you try to dress it up like you're some kind of professional work when you're not. You're part and parcel with the anti-intellectual movement that's going through the USA right now, and it's an insult to real scientists who have dedicate their lives to studying these matters in detail.

What is your reality that you think Jack is denying?
 
You'd certainly think so from reading this! At what point did true Conservatism come to mean an unwavering belief in crazy conspiracy theories?
Which portions of the data are crazy conspiracy theories?
That the Earth is 33C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere?

Perhaps it is that the mean free path of a 15 um photon at the partial pressure of 400 ppm of CO2 is only a few cm,
and that nearly 100% of the 15 um photons would be absorbed, within 100 meters, even if CO2 was at 100 ppm?
Reference: 400ppm of CO2, is like a CO2 only vacuum chamber at .4 mbar (.3 Torr).

Maybe it is the idea that modeled projections of future warming, are themselves not facts?
 
Which portions of the data are crazy conspiracy theories?
That the Earth is 33C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere?

Perhaps it is that the mean free path of a 15 um photon at the partial pressure of 400 ppm of CO2 is only a few cm,
and that nearly 100% of the 15 um photons would be absorbed, within 100 meters, even if CO2 was at 100 ppm?
Reference: 400ppm of CO2, is like a CO2 only vacuum chamber at .4 mbar (.3 Torr).

Maybe it is the idea that modeled projections of future warming, are themselves not facts?

The conspiracy theory isn't your Mickey Mouse maths; it's the apparently genuinely held belief that the editorial staff of every printed science publication (Scientific American, National Geographic, etc.) and the executives of every national and international scientific body have been taken over by left-wing activists intent on inventing or exaggerating the effects of AGW.
 
The conspiracy theory isn't your Mickey Mouse maths; it's the apparently genuinely held belief that the editorial staff of every printed science publication (Scientific American, National Geographic, etc.) and the executives of every national and international scientific body have been taken over by left-wing activists intent on inventing or exaggerating the effects of AGW.
So, enlighten us with some of these facts, that are beyond reproach?
 
The conspiracy theory isn't your Mickey Mouse maths; it's the apparently genuinely held belief that the editorial staff of every printed science publication (Scientific American, National Geographic, etc.) and the executives of every national and international scientific body have been taken over by left-wing activists intent on inventing or exaggerating the effects of AGW.

It's a worldwide international conspiracy!!!!!
 
Of course you don't recall my posts, why would you? Your denial of reality is so deep that you dismiss anyone or anything that challenges your view of reality. And you call yourself scientific.

Your lack of objectivity is really unfortunate, but it is what it is. I don't mind that you hold an anti-scientific view, just that you try to dress it up like you're some kind of professional work when you're not. You're part and parcel with the anti-intellectual movement that's going through the USA right now, and it's an insult to real scientists who have dedicate their lives to studying these matters in detail.

My reality is one where I don't default to insults in response to disagreement. I also rely on data and research results to find my answers.
 
My reality is one where I don't default to insults in response to disagreement. I also rely on data and research results to find my answers.

Your data is cherry picked and flawed just like your arguments against climate change. You've been debunked so many times, all anybody has to do is a simple forum search for my posts or Deuce's (who is an actual climate scientist) to see how you have been previously dispatched.

But that doesn't matter because you'll just make 5 more propaganda threads. The people who debunk you have lives outside of the internet and it would be a full time job defeating you over and over in every thread, as easy as it would be.

Have at it. :2wave:
 
Your data is cherry picked and flawed just like your arguments against climate change. You've been debunked so many times, all anybody has to do is a simple forum search for my posts or Deuce's (who is an actual climate scientist) to see how you have been previously dispatched.

But that doesn't matter because you'll just make 5 more propaganda threads. The people who debunk you have lives outside of the internet and it would be a full time job defeating you over and over in every thread, as easy as it would be.

Have at it. :2wave:

As you wish. Your claims of debunking or "defeating" (whatever that means) have no basis in reality. I don't think I'm the delusional party to this exchange.
 
As you wish. Your claims of debunking or "defeating" (whatever that means) have no basis in reality. I don't think I'm the delusional party to this exchange.

Oh don't worry, you are. :shrug:
 
As usual, claimed without evidence. Sort of Trumpian, actually.

You don't respond to evidence and you deal in quackery.

Keep responding. I can keep this up all day.
 
You don't respond to evidence and you deal in quackery.

Keep responding. I can keep this up all day.

I'm certain you can, but your insults and baseless claims become tedious. If you ever decide you really want to discuss the topic, I'll be available.
 
Back
Top Bottom